Thomson

Craig Thomson at his filing hearing;

“What was disappointing about today was it became clear that not only was last Thursday wrongly done by the police, but after 18 months in relation to investigating this matter they still don’t even have witnesses that they’re able to produce for us in terms of some of these issues that are here,” he said after the brief 15-minute hearing..

What utter rot.

The hearing is designed to set dates for further hearings and set bail if applicable. It is not the trial proper where witnesses are called. If Craig thinks the police don’t have any witnesess then great – when they come up with a conga line of them he will be further shattered, and beside, giving a person like Thomson a list that he can use for witness tampering doesn’t sound smart to me.

Oh, and the police weren’t wrong, he had the choice to go to Victoria and talk to police but he refused, thus leaving the police no option but to force the matter by arrest and bail.

Is his lawyer qualified or his he just trying to muddy the waters?

Antony Green, the election analyst of ABC fame has a piece in the Drum arguing that Thomson should step down. The ABC luvvies are screaming but Anthony has a point. How can Thomson represent his electorate when obviously, all of his efforts will be targeted to trying to stay out of Pentridge. FWA, a child of the ALP and unions has found against Thomson and clearly lists his offences. Whether or not he is found guilty in a court of law is a later issue. Legal matters whilst in process define his offences as allegations and not yet proven thus he is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. In the eyes of the FWA however he has already been found guilty of offences against the union itself. The FWA is cited as the abiding authority to union executives when it suits them so why isn’t it relevant now?

Whatever the outcome of the court case, based on the FWA investigation he is now considered by most Australians to be a man of dubious ethical standards who has used stolen funds to pay for nefarious activities not to the benefit of the union members. If he thinks it is OK to defraud poor old union members then what are his standards in dealing with public monies.

Interestingly, all of this would have been considered by Gillard leaving no interpretation other than she thinks there is nothing wrong with his behaviour.

My first thoughts are that Thomson should just cop his punishment and disappear into the dustbin of tainted ALP MPs, providing its not already overflowing.

However, if it can be arranged for this matter to get mention, say every month up to September, then it might well end up doing some good for the country in that punters will be reminded that we are being governed by people who support the rorting of funds of the poorer side of the socio-economic divide.

H/T Michael Smith

One Response to Thomson

  1. HRT says:

    “There is small risk a general will be regarded with contempt by those he leads, if, whatever he may have to preach, he shows himself best able to perform.”
    I don’t think Xenephon of Athens had “leaders” like Thomson, Slipper, Roxon, Swan, Garrett, Conroy, Obeid or Gillard in mind when he made that statement about 2400 years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Facebook
  • Twitter