Hugh Weiss February 18, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Fair & balanced reporting on 7:30 Report tonight Bob. Fair & Balanced in the manner of Murdoch’s Fox News.
They mentioned testimony from an escort based on reports in the MSM, yet we know from the court reporting carried in IA there was not such witness or evidence in court the day Murdoch’s papers carried reports that report.
And what a hide that Cathy Jackson has, to appear when she has told one story on TV & in the press & a completely opposite story when compelled to testify under oath. It is now widely known she is shacked up with Michael Lawler, the deputy Commisioner FWA who led the FWA investigation & prosecution of Thompson. One of the key charges Thomson has been convicted over is around $10,000 worth of cash withdrawals on HSU cards. Yet documentary evidence has been tabled showing Cathy Jackson has withdrawn CASH in excess $100,000 a year for a number of years, paid all her children’s childcare & invoiced the HSU regularly via various associated entities for services there is no evidence were ever delivered.
As far as I’m concerned, Craig Thomson has had his day in court & been found guilty on some charges. But the injustice in this is the some of the biggest offenders within the HSU are his key accusers. Jackson’s relationship with Michael Lawler should have immediately ruled him out of leading the investigation & prosecution of Thomson, particularly since she was chief accuser.
The Liberal Party & Cathy Jackson may live to regret calling a Royal Commission into unions corruption. I suspect all the evidence against her will be presented & she may well become one of the biggest targets.
Glow Worm at 9:17 pm
Hugh, is all this likely to come out at the appeal? I haven’t been following the minutiae of the trial, but if there are lapses in the performances of the defense lawyer, it would seem to be a major problem.
Guybrus at 7:31 pm
If union officials are framing people for serious fraud to avoid “increased transparency” as Craig said, that’s pretty disgusting. Perhaps a royal commission into unions is needed to expose these crimes?
Bob Ellis at 7:58 pm
Yeah, as much as a royal commission into the Salvation Army is needed to clarify pederasty.
Favour that, do you? You’re a Liberal spy and I hate you.
Guybrush at 9:05 pm
I’m not sure I understand. Are you advocating a royal commission into unions, disputing the royal commission’s findings regarding the Salvation Army, or just saying it would have been better not to have uncovered the crime?
Guybrush February 19, 2014 at 12:51 am
P.S. It looks as if the HSU has agreed with your estimate of the total misused amount at a bit over ten thousand dollars. Quite a bit.
Clearly the Liberals are behind this. Royal commission needed to examine the HSU’s links to the Liberal party!
Bob Ellis at 7:42 am
No, I’m saying the law deals with crime, and punishes, now and then, people like Hartcher, Obeid, Mirabella and Thomson. A Royal Commission does not punish anybody much and is there principally to smear adjacent organisations and give lawyers millions of dollars and governments useful headlines.
Sara February at 7:31 pm
It’s not the numbers, it’s the principle.
Bob Ellis at 8:01 pm
What principle is that? That heterosexual enjoyment is indefensible?
What are you talking about?
It’s the numbers, and the money, that could easily be paid back, like Abbott paid it back.
Sara February 18 at 8:10 pm
I’m apolitical on this one. I don’t care from which side of politics you’re on but if you get caught using money that you’re not entitled to use, even for a 10c bag of lollies, then you need to be held accountable.
For you to hold up that dickhead Abbott as a standard by which to measure one’s sense of right and wrong, then we’re in a lot more trouble than just poor Craig.
custard at 9:43 pm
Thanks for the endorsement on the need for a RC Sara.
Many others on these pages don’t see the need.
In regards to the AWB, no.
Could it be the Libs do RC’s better than your mob?
Sara at 9:00 pm
Look below to custard’s ridiculous post and then ask me ‘what principle is that?’
Bob Ellis February 19, 2014 at 7:48 am
Well, a Royal Commission into Howard’s part in fabricating the WMD War that killed or exiled six million innocents would gratify me. How about you?
Doug Quixote at 7:47 pm
Certainly it appears morally indefensible.
I think however that the magistrate got it wrong, and an appeal will overturn the convictions.
Sin does not equal crime, at least not since the Middle Ages.
custard at 8:53 pm
So does that make the turning back the boats policy morally indefensible but not a crime ……
So its alright too, just like Craig.
Will Julia be found guilty too?
Or is it just the side you barrack for?
Sara at 8:58 pm
Did you call for an RC into the AWB affair custard?
Or is it just the side you barrack for?
Doug Quixote at 9:36 pm
I don’t see the link between the two, custard. It is called a non sequitur.
Dan at 8:18 pm
So according to you Bob, if i interviewed someone for a job, and he suggested that he thought it was OK to take $10,000 out of the takings and spend it on heterosexual enjoyment, I should just go with it, and blame Tony Abbott when I’m ripped off?
Bob Ellis at 7:52 am
No, you would tell him what your view was, and ask him if he would obey your conditions, and then hire him or not, depending on his known abilities.
If he were Andrew Peacock, for instance, in spite of his affair with Shirley McLaine, you might hire him for his experience, intelligence or persuasive charm.
custard at 8:49 pm
Thomson was found guilty. $6000 on prostitutes alone.
Bob, seriously, how could you defend it?
Will you defend Williamson over his multi-million dollar fraud of the same union?
The RC into unions gets its green light here………
Jay Buoy at 9:26 pm
the dum dums need to realise that once unleashed a royal commission has a life of its own.. from Billy Longley to the Goanna.. ask Travers Duncan..
Umberto Ledfooti at 9:30 pm
As I wrote on Wixxy’s blog:
In my humble opinion, the difficulty for the defense was allowing certain facts to be admitted unchallenged, as this left the door wide open for the prosecution to draw inferences from those facts. For example:
ADMITTED FACT: His credit card statement shows a bill for an escort service.
INTERFERENCE #1: The credit card was in his possession at the time the escort service was charged to the card.
INTERFERENCE #2: He used the credit card to pay for an escort service.
Craig Thomson has claimed that he was set up. If that is so, it must have been the mother of all setups – but it’s not impossible that he was set up.
There is also the fact that Jeff Jackson, Cathy Jackson’s ex-husband, used an HSU credit card to pay at least one of the same escort companies allegedly used by Craig Thomson.
Isn’t that odd…
Until there is proof of who used the cards – and any omission to deny using them is NOT proof – a lot of reasonable doubt must hang over this matter.
Criminal law, people – proof talks; balance of probabilities walks
Doug Quixote at 9:39 pm
The defence hung its case upon the fairly reasonable peg that what he was alleged to have done may have been morally reprehensible, but not a crime.
And it will be borne out on appeal, IMHO.
Jay Buoy at 10:03 pm
I can’t see how his legal team arrived at the idea of not challenging the use of the card for whores on the basis that it was within the scope of his ambit.. if he didn’t
Umberto Ledfooti at 10:16 pm
Well, sort of. Actually, it was the peg of authorisation to use the cards, etc, upon which the defense hung its case.
If he had the authority to use the cards, then no fraud nor theft took place; thus the defense’s ‘no case to answer’ stance.
Agreed; it’s very appeal-able.
Doug Quixote February 19 at 6:12 am
Different ways of saying the same thing. Rather a dangerous tack at the magisterial level, but a good thing on appeal. (“Appellable”, surely?)
Mal Kukura at 4:44 am
Sixty years ago the American fascist New Right attempted to intimidate all New Deal progressives by a long series of show trials.
These Australian puppets controlled from New York and Connecticut recycle most of the political strategies used by the neo-conservative dominated Republican Party.
They had McCarthyism.
We have Abbottitis. Expect more show trials like this one and by the way guilt cannot be persuasively argued until all appeals have been concluded – but that is only if you value the principle of the rule of law.
The Tabbott led LNP has already demonstrated a flargrant disregard for the rule of law and have already embarked on an insane attack on two hundred years of constitutional democracy.
The Thomson show trial is but one small element of amuch larger assault of Australian civil society.
Under such conditions one must remain skeptical about a single magistrate’s weak opinions.
JOHN GRAHAM’S TAKE
Mal Kukura at 4:46 am
Gee Knows what I mean
Agent99 February 19, 2014 at 7:05 am
Thrice married Craig Thomson is only 49. He has degrees in commerce and law, suggesting he is smart and hardworking. He has three children and a deal of infamy to live down. He now faces prison, up to five years, after being found guilty of fraud and theft from the union.
Yes, he has suffered a lot while others who do far worse are never brought to account. Such is life. Never fair.
A pariah in the Parliament at the end, it must have been an agony for a once proud son of the Labour Movement to feel its cold shoulder. Albo was man enough to drink with him. I hope there are others.
But Craig has been both the author of his own downfall and a weapon in the hands of the Tories.
He’s now the poster boy for union sleaziness and has besmirched the good names of many honest union officials. He would feel that burden keenly, I believe.
I wish him all the best.