Mad Dash

Yes, and we all had an opinion on her too. So are you saying the public treated her differently, or the courts acted inappropriately?

On the remote chance Thomson may be found not guilty too (but I doubt it :p).

That's a possibility. I know Fisher had the best legal representation that money could buy to represent her in the Magistrates Court.
Perhaps Thomson will never actually be officially charged by police in the first place.
 
MJF case was a small time first offence, and the result was pretty standard - top solicitor or not. People get let off for much worse every day.

FJF charges were only 2 (or thereabouts) while Thomsons are potentially MANY.

Some of his will very likely be dropped too.

The significant differences between these 2 are not what you've highlighted. They are:

1 is a Senator and 1 am MP

1 can bring down the government if he falls (or goes bankrupt :rolleyes:) the other can't.

And it's these differences that have turned Thomsons case into the monster it's become.
 
1 can bring down the government if he falls (or goes bankrupt :rolleyes:) the other can't.

I thought that if he was charged by the time it got to court the next election would be upon us anyway.
Like the case of the SA senator on child pornography charges who still serves. It's been over a year.
"As the charges are considered a sexual crime, South Australian law prohibits publication of his name in connection with the charges until he either enters a plea, is committed for trial or gives his permission for mention of the charges"
 
I thought that if he was charged by the time it got to court the next election would be upon us anyway.
Like the case of the SA senator on child pornography charges who still serves. It's been over a year.
"As the charges are considered a sexual crime, South Australian law prohibits publication of his name in connection with the charges until he either enters a plea, is committed for trial or gives his permission for mention of the charges"

The expectation by all governments is someone like Thomson step down, or their party leader makes them do so.

Those charged with sex crimes are under special conditions - that's just the law with those particular crimes.

I don't believe the SA pollie is still serving - hasn't for a long time.
 
The expectation by all governments is someone like Thomson step down, or their party leader makes them do so.

Those charged with sex crimes are under special conditions - that's just the law with those particular crimes.

I don't believe the SA pollie is still serving - hasn't for a long time.

No he resigned from the Executive Committee and Ministerial position which would have been expected of him but he is still serving.
I believe the custom in Australia is innocent before proven guilty and people usually respect that convention.
Listed here amongst the other members of the Legislative Council.
http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Members/LegislativeCouncil/Pages/List%20of%20Members.aspx
 
i....dont ..... even know where to start..... :confused:

I just re-read your post, and I agree with your explanation. It relates to the behaviour. Yet in your original post, you used the phrase 'borderline criminal' to describe the person.

One can not BE a borderline criminal, but one can exhibit behaviour that is 'borderline criminal'.
 
There are other Liberal MPs and Senators that are currently facing investigation.

There have been no calls from the peanut gallery for them to step down.

I don't doubt it at all...you'd be dead right.

They are the kings of closing ranks and lookin' after their buddies.

I lost any respect for Politicians as a world wide group about 30 years ago, and they haven't disappointed me since.

The thing with the media attention is all relevant to the WOW factor, I've observed; the more juicy the stories, the more attention there is likely to be.

If Craig had've been running up dollars on his card for a few sneaky greenfees at the local Country Club it prolly would have been a few days in the news and that's it...move on to the next dodgy story.

Mind you; the timing was all wrong anyway; Juliar had to keep him on regardless in order to keep power I'm told.

The longer it went, the more farcical it all seemed, and then more stuff started to be alleged.
 
Last edited:
No he resigned from the Executive Committee and Ministerial position which would have been expected of him but he is still serving.
I believe the custom in Australia is innocent before proven guilty and people usually respect that convention.
Listed here amongst the other members of the Legislative Council.
http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Members/LegislativeCouncil/Pages/List%20of%20Members.aspx

What I meant was suspended of all duties but remains a member of the parliament.
 
I thought Tony Windsor said it best:



FWA is not a judicial body. It cannot determine guilt. Thompson maintains his innocence. Until proven guilty in a court of law FWA's allegations are just that - allegations.

It doesn't matter whether I think he is guilty or not, or whether you think he is guilty or not or whether everybody thinks he is guilty or not. There is a constitutional requirement to separate the powers of the Parliament from the powers of the judiciary. There are extremely good reasons for that requirement. Maintaining that separation and the integrity of the process is far, far, far more important to our nation and its future than anything to do with the Member for Dobell.

Be careful what you wish for because the freedom of every individual in our society to a fair trial is at stake here. You can't just choose freedom when it suits you... you also have to fight for it even when it looks ugly and stinks, as in this case.

Kudos! What a shame I have to spread it around before I can actually give you some more :).
This is what it's really about. It matters not a jot what any of us think. Acting speaker Anna Burke had it right when she warned Abbott and his merry men that what they were actually doing with their disgraceful behaviour was removing democracy from the people of Dobell.
regardless of what any of us might suspect or think or intuit or *anything* else, this man remains their elected representative and has the right to vote in parliament - until this situation is otherwise resolved. Undermining or removing or in anyway hindering that undermines our very democracy and process.
I think many of us have lost sight of that, given the shambles that is this government and the rabble that is the opposition - and the embarrassing all-time low both sides have brought discourse in this country to.
Whole families are are being slaughtered in some parts of the world in an effort to have a fraction of the freedom we enjoy. Think Syria, the democratic republic of Congo, south Sudan ... And this, this is the best we can do?
They should all be ashamed.

(excuse punctuation - it's an iWhatsit effort)
 

Any pretend outage at Plibersek for her hypocrisy?

I see no issue with some members buying mining shares. They know they will soon be in government with sensible hands on the wheel.

Otherwise we would have to draw the equally nonsensical conclusion that if Labor members aren't buying mining stocks, they have concerns about the negative effects of the tax.
 
We could draw that "nonsensical" conclusion only if they were selling mining stock, not if they were doing nothing. As they are.

And as Turnbull says, they are buying "knowing" they will be in power next year is a complete lie. That's rubbish, how do they 'know' theyll be in power. Its 18 months away.


Any pretend outage at Plibersek for her hypocrisy?

I see no issue with some members buying mining shares. They know they will soon be in government with sensible hands on the wheel.

Otherwise we would have to draw the equally nonsensical conclusion that if Labor members aren't buying mining stocks, they have concerns about the negative effects of the tax.
 
We could draw that "nonsensical" conclusion only if they were selling mining stock, not if they were doing nothing. As they are.

who knows what they are doing? I wonder if the coalition will be trolling through the register looking to see if that has in fact happened.
 
I wonder how funny people would find it if we had posters made up depicting Plibersek as an ugly misandrist.

The hypocrisy of Plibersek is astounding and two fold. She is one of the chief mouthpieces espousing the rubbish that Abbott is lowering the tone, yet she condones this rubbish. Additionally the ridiculous slight could be equally applied to her boss.
 
Of course they would be. They would be looking for something to divert from their blatant hypocrisy.

who knows what they are doing? I wonder if the coalition will be trolling through the register looking to see if that has in fact happened.
 
Back
Top