Craig Thompson found guilty

[Trippy]

I reckon he'll be sentenced to about 18 months, and he won't even serve a full year in gaol.

Here's a case of a bookkeeper who defrauded his employer of $130,000 (or 4 times the amount Thompson stole) and he effectively got a $2000 fine.

Thompson will get a harsher sentence because he went to trial and has shown no remorse, but I doubt he'll serve 12 months.

Thompson stole more than just a few thousand...$6000 on prostitutes, $70,000 on meals and travel and $100,000 on cash advances. Then have a look at the $200,000.00 or so he used to bankroll his run at parliament! The only thing that makes all of this palatable is the fact it was Union money and not taxpayer money

 

[dan c]

Thompson stole more than just a few thousand...$6000 on prostitutes, $70,000 on meals and travel and $100,000 on cash advances. Then have a look at the $200,000.00 or so he used to bankroll his run at parliament! The only thing that makes all of this palatable is the fact it was Union money and not taxpayer money

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from Trippy, but the amounts quoted in various papers add up to around $28,000 total.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...f-defrauding-hsu/story-e6frg6nf-1226830337709

Mr Thomson, who pleaded not guilty to 145 dishonesty charges over the alleged misuse of $28,449 between 2002 and 2008, has persistently denied any wrongdoing.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-for-prostitutes/story-fni0fee2-1226830179882

 

[weg]

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from Trippy, but the amounts quoted in various papers add up to around $28,000 total.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...f-defrauding-hsu/story-e6frg6nf-1226830337709

Mr Thomson, who pleaded not guilty to 145 dishonesty charges over the alleged misuse of $28,449 between 2002 and 2008, has persistently denied any wrongdoing.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...-for-prostitutes/story-fni0fee2-1226830179882

I have read the numbers to be close to Tippy's on numerous occasions.

The first to come up is this...

Craig Thomson gets final reckoning

Pia Akerman |
The Australian|
February 19, 201412:00AM

In a long-awaited address to parliament after the release of the Fair Work Australia report that found Thomson used union funds to spend about $6000 on prostitutes, $70,000 on meals and travel, and $100,000 on cash advances, the MP repeated his claim and named his enemies, saying HSU official Marco Bolano had said ?he would seek to ruin any political career that I sought and would set me up with a bunch of hookers?.

Not mentioned is what he took to fund his election campaign. The figure i read for this was 170K IF i remember correctly.

 

[Deltaberry]

He just happens to be unlucky and caught. Do we expect much different from many union high ranking officials?

 

[dan c]

I have read the numbers to be close to Tippy's on numerous occasions.

The first to come up is this...

Not mentioned is what he took to fund his election campaign. The figure i read for this was 170K IF i remember correctly.

Looks like those numbers are from the Fair Work Australia report, and the lower numbers are from the court judgement.

My point was he con only be sentenced on what he has been found guilty of, so the higher numbers are meaningless when the sentence is handed down.

 

[The Fence]

Looks like those numbers are from the Fair Work Australia report, and the lower numbers are from the court judgement.

My point was he con only be sentenced on what he has been found guilty of, so the higher numbers are meaningless when the sentence is handed down.

That he stole not so much is meaningfull?

Just askin...

 

[dan c]

That he stole not so much is meaningfull?

Just askin...

That's not what I said.

But it is meaningful to the court. Steal more, you get a harsher sentence generally.

When trying to ascertain what sentence he will receive, it's what he was convicted of stealing that counts, not the amounts in the Fair Work report.

 

[Ideo]

That he stole not so much is meaningfull?

Just askin...

Well, in terms of the court and sentencing, yeah.

Shooting one person is bad. Shooting 20 people is badderer (yeah, I made up a word. So what?).

 

[nomadic]

He just happens to be unlucky and caught. Do we expect much different from many union high ranking officials?

I think you can say that about all politicians, not only union officials.

 

[The Fence]

That's not what I said.

Didnt say you did. I was just asking.

But it is meaningful to the court. Steal more, you get a harsher sentence generally.

Of course.

When trying to ascertain what sentence he will receive, it's what he was convicted of stealing that counts, not the amounts in the Fair Work report.

He's guilty of stealing from the public purse. The court will deal with the details, meanwhile the public will have it's opinion and it wont employ court like terms when it comes to persecution.


Re shooting one person and shooting 20 persons.
You love to shoot me dont you Ideo.

Methinks you should relax a little and stop focussing on me for awhile, you must have better things to do than keyboard stab me all day?

Although it's nice to be loved. LOL!

 

[Trippy]

Looks like those numbers are from the Fair Work Australia report, and the lower numbers are from the court judgement.

My point was he con only be sentenced on what he has been found guilty of, so the higher numbers are meaningless when the sentence is handed down.

Yes he was convicted on the theft at the lower amounts (30k or so) via credit card etc.... I believe the Union will now seek financial retribution via a civil trial for the other balances. Just a show really as he has presumably spent it all and will wind up broke before they get a cent out of the grub. Regardless of what he has been recently convicted of, he stole the full amounts close to 500K. Makes a bit of a mockery of the system that the best they could do was get a conviction on the 30k IMO. Keep in mind the Fair Work report found him guilty... he stole all the money as quoted, I'm not sure why he wasn't charged with the full amounts and the Union now need to go to civil trial to get it back?

I wonder if Labour will now take him to task over the legal fees they paid for him..another couple of hundred tho if I remember correctly... again Union money so no real loss

 

[Ideo]

He's guilty of stealing from the public purse. The court will deal with the details, meanwhile the public will have it's opinion and it wont employ court like terms when it comes to persecution.


Re shooting one person and shooting 20 persons.
You love to shoot me dont you Ideo.

Methinks you should relax a little and stop focussing on me for awhile, you must have better things to do than keyboard stab me all day?

Although it's nice to be loved. LOL!

It was an example.

But, the following examples are also available if it calms you down.

Stealing one car is bad. Stealing 20 cars is worse.

Robbing one bank is bad. Robbing 20 banks is worse.

Defrauding a company of $10,000 is bad. Defrauding a company of $100,000 is worse.

Dealing in $1,000 of illegal drugs is bad. Dealing in $100,000 of illegal drugs is worse.

All just examples of crimes where the severity of the sentence is affected by the severity/amount/number of the crime. I do not wish to see you car stolen, your bank robbed, your company defrauded or anything like that.

 

[weg]

There was speculation a few weeks ago that the HSU would deem some purchases to have been allowed as 'acceptable expenses' - to reduce the number of charges.

The issue there was how far the union was willing to take this. Depending on what and how much they claimed had the potential to make the union appear to be admitting to widespread squandering of members funds on dodgy expenses.

It now sounds like those less dodgy expenses were dropped even if the left leaning FWA originally deemed them unacceptable.

Like with any case, people will judge all aspects of a case regardless of the courts findings because often a persons actions (where we have the evidence) indicate the persons personality and moral standing.

In Thomsons case you have the damning lies he told the parliament (tried to frame a whistle blower) and the public, the nature of his purchases whilst being married, the disregard for his members, the abuse of the position, his sense of entitlement, etc.

It goes further and implicates the unions and it's culture, highlights protection (?coverup, legal payment preventing him from going bankrupt) within the Labor party and raises some serious Q's about FWA.

Just read a Miranda Devines article, and she give a figure of 250K for Thomson election campaign.

 

[dan c]

Like with any case, people will judge all aspects of a case regardless of the courts findings because often a persons actions (where we have the evidence) indicate the persons personality and moral standing.

.

I think that's spot on. He will have his court mandated sentence, but he also has his verdict from the court of public opinion. And the public by and large see him as an adulterer, thief and liar.

 

[Scott No Mates]

And the public by and large see him as an adulterer, thief and liar.

...and the union movement see him as a star

 

[geoffw]

...and the union movement see him as a star

Saw. Past tense.

 

[willair]

Does any know if the person in question is or will get or is entitled to a full Government Parliament Pension ,im unsure how the 8 year timeframe works,..

​

 

[soccer]

Yes he was convicted on the theft at the lower amounts (30k or so) via credit card etc.... I believe the Union will now seek financial retribution via a civil trial for the other balances. Just a show really as he has presumably spent it all and will wind up broke before they get a cent out of the grub. Regardless of what he has been recently convicted of, he stole the full amounts close to 500K. Makes a bit of a mockery of the system that the best they could do was get a conviction on the 30k IMO. Keep in mind the Fair Work report found him guilty... he stole all the money as quoted, I'm not sure why he wasn't charged with the full amounts and the Union now need to go to civil trial to get it back?

I wonder if Labour will now take him to task over the legal fees they paid for him..another couple of hundred tho if I remember correctly... again Union money so no real loss

That "union money" was taken from the wages of individual Australians who paid union fees in the hope that the unions would help negotiate better working conditions and wages for them. So thousands of people contributed funds for Craig Thompson to steal. I don't see how you can consider the loss to be less significant than the theft of taxpayer money. He has committed an offence against thousands of people, and unfortunately the maximum sentence does not reflect the magnitude of the crime.

 

[willair]

http://legacy.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=954983

I bet this gentleman will have a better understanding of the perception of random events when the door slams in the slammer,who"s next..

 

[Dazz]

Williamson appears to be Thomson on steroids.