(Miscellaneous debris)

[The Sleeping Giant]

Apology accepted.

[The Sleeping Giant]

NSW police to investigate Craig Thomson's alleged misuse of union credit card it has been reported. Good to see. Finally the matter is in the hands of the correct people.

[bulldogproud2]

*

[bulldogproud2]

I'm just wondering if I can find a job where I can have a night out with some prostitutes instead of receiving owed entitlements. Sounds like a good gig.

Work for any of the large mining corporations. I have a friend who gets paid to 'entertain' clients from overseas on a regular basis through taking them to strip clubs, hiring prostitutes etc.
Other than that, get a job with a Wall Street financier. As seen in the documentary 'Inside Job' this sort of 'expense' goes on their credit cards on a very regular basis.

[The Sleeping Giant]

I'm sure it does, but I'm not sure what situation working for a union would warrant "prostitute entertainment".

[bulldogproud2]

The same as working for a Wall Street financier or a mining company. In all cases, it is wrong! However, we have to accept that it does happen and, dare I say that it could well be an 'expense' in businesses which other politicians have either worked for or run.

[scoob]

Allegations are building - not sure how much longer he can last - If he is exposed as lying about the use of the credit card, which his phone records seem to show - can the government stand by him and maintain their full confidence in him? Also where does this leave the independents - are they going to continue to back the government with Thomson still sitting in parliment. Interesting times...

http://www.news.com.au/national/police- ... 6120383578

[bulldogproud2]

One of the worst things about this whole issue is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. They have one of their own Senators (Senator Fisher) about to sit a trial for what most would consider a worse offence, assault, as it is a crime against a person, not against property. Yet not once did they even suggest that she stand down from her Committee positions. Quite fairly, the Labor Party put no pressure on her to resign either, believing in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Ms Fisher eventually saw the hypocrisy in the situation and did stand down yesterday, but it was not the Liberal Party who asked her to, it was her own call.

[Psyber]

One of the worst things about this whole issue is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. They have one of their own Senators (Senator Fisher) about to sit a trial for what most would consider a worse offence, assault, as it is a crime against a person, not against property. Yet not once did they even suggest that she stand down from her Committee positions. Quite fairly, the Labor Party put no pressure on her to resign either, believing in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Ms Fisher eventually saw the hypocrisy in the situation and did stand down yesterday, but it was not the Liberal Party who asked her to, it was her own call.

She does have a potential defence and may be ruled as not responsible, or suffering diminished responsibility, for her actions at the time.
It appears she has a bipolar disorder and was in the process of a change of medication.
Being "high" due to a biochemical irregularity can result in impulsive, out of character, behaviour.
It appears the ALP guy doesn't have any such condition and it is a question of straight, knowing, criminality.

I agree though that it is sensible that both stand down while the matters are resolved.

[Sojourner]

Some interesting questions raised in todays Advertiser, anyone want to have a go at answering them?

1, But why hasn't the union complained to police about the misappropriation of its members' money? That's a question to put to its president, Michael Williamson, who was also Labor's national president last year. But the union refuses to answer.

2, Then there are questions for the NSW Labor Party. Why did it this year give Mr Thomson between $90,000 and $150,000 of its own members' money? Is it because Labor does not want Mr Thomson to go bankrupt from having dropped the expensive defamation action he launched against the newspaper that first reported these allegations?

3, Could that huge gift from Labor also be an inducement for Mr Thomson to not dob in anyone else?

[The Sleeping Giant]

Very good questions sojourner. Don't think you will get an answer though.

Last night at a BBQ we were talking about "people under pressure". All agreed that Thomson would be under immense pressure.

Was also interesting listening to business owning Liberal voters attitudes towards employees. They were 100% in agreement the most important thing in their business was happy employees.

[mighty_tiger_79]

and happy employees should get paid a reasonable amount

[bulldogproud2]

Very good questions sojourner. Don't think you will get an answer though.

Last night at a BBQ we were talking about "people under pressure". All agreed that Thomson would be under immense pressure.

Was also interesting listening to business owning Liberal voters attitudes towards employees. They were 100% in agreement the most important thing in their business was happy employees.

Well, then, they may have to start rewarding employees better to keep them happy. Announcements like QANTAS increasing their profit levels by 123% over the past 12 months but terminating a lot of employees to make even further profits is not the way to keep happy employees.
Unfortunately, the percentage of business revenue which is being distributed to employees is falling year by year and the percentage going to shareholders increasing. The gap between the rich and poor is rising continually, creating a less egalitarian society. Unfortunately the way to survive in Australia nowadays is not to work so much yourself but to have others work for you and sit back and receive the profit which their sweat and toil has created.

[bulldogproud2]

One of the worst things about this whole issue is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. They have one of their own Senators (Senator Fisher) about to sit a trial for what most would consider a worse offence, assault, as it is a crime against a person, not against property. Yet not once did they even suggest that she stand down from her Committee positions. Quite fairly, the Labor Party put no pressure on her to resign either, believing in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Ms Fisher eventually saw the hypocrisy in the situation and did stand down yesterday, but it was not the Liberal Party who asked her to, it was her own call.

She does have a potential defence and may be ruled as not responsible, or suffering diminished responsibility, for her actions at the time.
It appears she has a bipolar disorder and was in the process of a change of medication.
Being "high" due to a biochemical irregularity can result in impulsive, out of character, behaviour.
It appears the ALP guy doesn't have any such condition and it is a question of straight, knowing, criminality.

I agree though that it is sensible that both stand down while the matters are resolved.

Are you judging him as criminal without him even getting a trial? I think the best way is to let it proceed through the legal system before jumping to conclusions and hanging a man before he obtains his legal rights. Let justice prevail.

[Psyber]

One of the worst things about this whole issue is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. They have one of their own Senators (Senator Fisher) about to sit a trial for what most would consider a worse offence, assault, as it is a crime against a person, not against property. Yet not once did they even suggest that she stand down from her Committee positions. Quite fairly, the Labor Party put no pressure on her to resign either, believing in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Ms Fisher eventually saw the hypocrisy in the situation and did stand down yesterday, but it was not the Liberal Party who asked her to, it was her own call.

She does have a potential defence and may be ruled as not responsible, or suffering diminished responsibility, for her actions at the time.
It appears she has a bipolar disorder and was in the process of a change of medication.
Being "high" due to a biochemical irregularity can result in impulsive, out of character, behaviour.
It appears the ALP guy doesn't have any such condition and it is a question of straight, knowing, criminality.

I agree though that it is sensible that both stand down while the matters are resolved.

Are you judging him as criminal without him even getting a trial? I think the best way is to let it proceed through the legal system before jumping to conclusions and hanging a man before he obtains his legal rights. Let justice prevail.

No I wasn't saying that, just that they are not directly comparable matters!
I'm saying that the issue in his case is simply whether or not he committed a straight criminal act.
In the other case there is the issue also of possible diminished responsibility on the grounds of transient mental illness.

[dedja]

Some interesting questions raised in todays Advertiser, anyone want to have a go at answering them?

1, But why hasn't the union complained to police about the misappropriation of its members' money? That's a question to put to its president, Michael Williamson, who was also Labor's national president last year. But the union refuses to answer.

2, Then there are questions for the NSW Labor Party. Why did it this year give Mr Thomson between $90,000 and $150,000 of its own members' money? Is it because Labor does not want Mr Thomson to go bankrupt from having dropped the expensive defamation action he launched against the newspaper that first reported these allegations?

3, Could that huge gift from Labor also be an inducement for Mr Thomson to not dob in anyone else?

Sure, they have now ...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/police-to ... 6120413463

That said, it's not george Brandis' place to interfere here ... rodent

The government is now teetering on the brink if any of this sticks.

[bulldogproud2]

One of the worst things about this whole issue is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. They have one of their own Senators (Senator Fisher) about to sit a trial for what most would consider a worse offence, assault, as it is a crime against a person, not against property. Yet not once did they even suggest that she stand down from her Committee positions. Quite fairly, the Labor Party put no pressure on her to resign either, believing in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Ms Fisher eventually saw the hypocrisy in the situation and did stand down yesterday, but it was not the Liberal Party who asked her to, it was her own call.

She does have a potential defence and may be ruled as not responsible, or suffering diminished responsibility, for her actions at the time.
It appears she has a bipolar disorder and was in the process of a change of medication.
Being "high" due to a biochemical irregularity can result in impulsive, out of character, behaviour.
It appears the ALP guy doesn't have any such condition and it is a question of straight, knowing, criminality.

I agree though that it is sensible that both stand down while the matters are resolved.

Are you judging him as criminal without him even getting a trial? I think the best way is to let it proceed through the legal system before jumping to conclusions and hanging a man before he obtains his legal rights. Let justice prevail.

No I wasn't saying that, just that they are not directly comparable matters!
I'm saying that the issue in his case is simply whether or not he committed a straight criminal act.
In the other case there is the issue also of possible diminished responsibility on the grounds of transient mental illness.

Actually, how do you know there are no mitigating factors or other reasons in his case? We need to be consistent and apply the same criteria in each case. None of us truly have any full idea of what happened yet, do we?

[The Sleeping Giant]

Very good questions sojourner. Don't think you will get an answer though.

Last night at a BBQ we were talking about "people under pressure". All agreed that Thomson would be under immense pressure.

Was also interesting listening to business owning Liberal voters attitudes towards employees. They were 100% in agreement the most important thing in their business was happy employees.

Well, then, they may have to start rewarding employees better to keep them happy. Announcements like QANTAS increasing their profit levels by 123% over the past 12 months but terminating a lot of employees to make even further profits is not the way to keep happy employees.
Unfortunately, the percentage of business revenue which is being distributed to employees is falling year by year and the percentage going to shareholders increasing. The gap between the rich and poor is rising continually, creating a less egalitarian society. Unfortunately the way to survive in Australia nowadays is not to work so much yourself but to have others work for you and sit back and receive the profit which their sweat and toil has created.

I wasn't having dinner with the CEO of qantas.

I'm not a fan of the big companies like bhp, woolworths etc.

[Sojourner]

Some interesting questions raised in todays Advertiser, anyone want to have a go at answering them?

1, But why hasn't the union complained to police about the misappropriation of its members' money? That's a question to put to its president, Michael Williamson, who was also Labor's national president last year. But the union refuses to answer.

2, Then there are questions for the NSW Labor Party. Why did it this year give Mr Thomson between $90,000 and $150,000 of its own members' money? Is it because Labor does not want Mr Thomson to go bankrupt from having dropped the expensive defamation action he launched against the newspaper that first reported these allegations?

3, Could that huge gift from Labor also be an inducement for Mr Thomson to not dob in anyone else?

Sure, they have now ...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/police-to ... 6120413463

That said, it's not george Brandis' place to interfere here ... rodent

The government is now teetering on the brink if any of this sticks.

Interesting,

What I learned today is that he only has to be charged with the crime and found guilty, he does not actually have to be given a 12 month sentence, just being charged with any crime that carries a 12 month or more sentence is enough to get him kicked out of office, even if he gets off with being cautioned or a suspended sentence or so on.

Still on the other hand he has every right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and now he has the opportunity to be completely exonerated of it. If he is innocent of all charges it will be a dead rubber as soon as the findings of the investigation are made public.

[Psyber]

Actually, how do you know there are no mitigating factors or other reasons in his case? We need to be consistent and apply the same criteria in each case. None of us truly have any full idea of what happened yet, do we?

I'd assumed that if there were mitigating factors they would have got a mention by now to tone down the pursuit.
The other persons health issues did come up quickly and were confirmed as being a factor to be examined.
And I did say "It appears..." to indicate it was not certain knowledge.

The person I was replying to had been much more absolute in declaring the cases to be the same and directly comparably.
I was pointing out only the element of doubt about that.