Man Arrested!

[Schu]

I don't think that three months imprisoned is long enough. I think he should have been made to serve the entire sentence that was handed to him: 12 months.

The ongoing nature of his fraud, the lack of remorse or contrition and the fact that he is still propagating his ludicrous "set up" story, makes this far more than just minor corporate crime. His actions caused harm to people, even if only indirectly. His chances of rehabilitation are also minimal. Not that any amount of punishment will likely make him change his ways, but at least if he's kept out of society for as long as possible that takes away some time in which he can cause people problems.

I lost all respect for Gillard when the she endorsed the ALP paying his legal fees so he wouldn't go bankrupt and she could retain the numbers in Parliament. Legal fees are an individual responsibility and, moreover, it showed no respect for the rank and file members who make up the ALP's foundation. What he was accused of - and given that many of those within the ALP knew full well that the accusations were the truth - was defrauding people on whom the ALP relied and whose Union support was not what it should be as a result of his actions. The party should never have justified that by continuing to support him.

I also hope that the people he defamed in this process sue him.

[IQS.RLOW]

Wow...a voice of reason from Schu!

Forgive my surprise. It's not often we see new comers (or some old timers for that matter) on political forums voice an intelligent and logical post calling for what Thomson deserves. There was many a time here where leftists trotted out excuse after excuse for Thomson and some of them still do ...they're much quieter nowadays but they would still rather see a criminal "one of theirs" walk than see justice done.

Hope you stick around Schu.

[Schu]

Thankyou for the warm and welcoming comments, IQS.RLOW and Lucas.

I must admit that I'm equally surprised to hear that people have provided excuses for Thomson. This, in my view, isn't a matter of left or right or anything in between. He behaved like a scumbag from go to woe, exploiting members that he was supposed to represent (and some of the lowest paid people in the country), using Union money to get himself elected, slandering those who blew the whistle on him, and taking the piss out of parliament with his "I'm the victim in all this" speech. Did people actually buy into his rubbish?

I agree with you, Lucas, that people in positions of responsibility, particularly in government where they are meant to represent the people, should be given harsher sentences. They SHOULD be held to a higher standard. Democratic representation is not about personal power but about serving the public; to abuse that is an insult to democracy and the whole population.

It is part of a broader problem as well, which is that Unions have become nothing more than organisations designed to further the power and financial aims of a few, so far removed from the purpose for which they originally existed. I suspect that the Unions Royal Commission will expose a lot; Craig Thomson wasn't the only one with his hand in the cookie-jar (and other parts of his anatomy in other people's).

[IQS.RLOW]

I must admit that I'm equally surprised to hear that people have provided excuses for Thomson

I struggled to believe it myself,but we had posters like Aussie here defending him to the nth degree. I. Sure they must have been reading the blogs that have been set up to look like some kind of new reporting website like "Independent Australia" that fed their confirmation bias. That particular website was a shocker for excusing Thomsom and nearly every excuse you could read on forums from posters, the stink seemed to emanate from this website.

I'm sure it was funded by Labor or some shonky with tentacles connected to them and designed to create smoke screens and doubt around Thomson. They were the website that started the "it's not his name on the ID" and "the signature is forged"

They were as transparent as hell, yet some here and at Ozpol seemed to take them as a reputable news source for some reason.

[IQS.RLOW]

When you feel like having a laugh at some posters, like Aussie and Monk (George of the whatever he is calling himself over at Ozpol)

Have a read through the bucket of excuses these guys gave in the early days of Thomson being caught out in their desperation to have it go away.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... ig+Thomson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In hindsight, it is quite hysterical to read it now, although I would bet they are still fantasising over the appeal, even though normal people can see he is guilty as hell.

[Schu]

But a simple look at what Thomson was suggesting made it obvious it was a pile of bunk.

For his version of events to be true, a person had to access his hotel rooms several times; on each occasion they had to time it perfectly for when he was out; he had to have left his wallet in the room; they had to call an escort agency or sex-worker and have the sex-worker turn up, ignore on every occasion that the ID was incorrect and stay for the time; Thomson had to remain out for that period without his wallet; and nobody in any hotel noticed anything wrong nor was any bill queried by Thomson when he checked out.

One person couldn't possibly have accomplished that and it would be almost impossible for a group of people to do it, especially considering the intervening act of Thomson leaving his wallet. It's as far-fetched as a Hollywood movie (and even they probably wouldn't go that far). Plus the man he claimed set him up was about as close to the ideal of a community-minded honest family man as one could imagine.

It just flies in the face of common sense. Yes, Lucas, he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed with the scenario he came up with. There were plenty of others that would have been more plausible. The set-up scenario has holes through which one could drive a truck.

But it just goes to show that if you tell a lie there are always some people who will believe it and if you sling mud at someone (in this case Marco Bolano) some of it will stick.

I can't say I have much respect for his wife, either. Much of the money he made was put into property in her name so it couldn't be touched and she's happily enjoyed the benefits of his behaviour and never once offered to foot the bill for the legal fees. If it was me, I would have left him (not because he slept with sex-workers, but because he was defrauding people) and sold the house to pay his legal fees. I don't know how she can look at herself in the mirror.

I'll have a look at the thread link.

[IQS.RLOW]

I wouldn't be surprised if his extracurricular activities at the union fee payers expense is how he met his wife, hence her ability to discard his infidelity without kicking his arse to the kerb.

[Schu]

And what about when he claimed that Fairfax had settled with him in his defamation action when really he'd been caught out and had to drop the case? That was a bonehead move if ever there was one: blatantly and provably lying about a matter with a media organisation.

I had a look at the thread. What I don't understand is this: when someone makes an accusation people jump up and down about it possibly not being true, but when someone says they are innocent we take them at face value.

Did we not learn anything from Lance Armstrong?!

For me it wouldn't be so much about the infidelity - it'd be about the fact that the guy is a scumbag and I had benefitted from that. I'd be mortified and horrified and feel guilty by association. And when he made up rubbish about Channel 7 media spying on his wife in the shower during his parliamentary speech with those crocodile tears trying to play the victim, if I was his wife the charges would have been the least of his problems.

[IQS.RLOW]

And when he made up rubbish about Channel 7 media spying on his wife in the shower during his parliamentary speech with those crocodile tears trying to play the victim

I think that is what pissed most people off. That he used his wife and wove her into his lies to start his quivering lip and sobbing. It still irks me to this day because I remember watching it and that's when he started to do his fake little break down and then had the gal, to start pointing his finger at Abbott and the news gallery.

The fact that the news gallery didnt go him even harder after than or even since tells me that there is an inherent bias in the Canberra news reporting gallery.

[IQS.RLOW]

As I said, she was probably on the 'payroll' for a hay roll way before she became his wife.