Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 15:50:14 GMT 10
Is there time for a Dobell by-election before 14 September?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 31, 2013 15:56:57 GMT 10
David c'mon don't be lazy. Do the research: Section 44 of the Constitution covers that one. And the answer to your agenda-laden question, today, is that the guy is perfectly entitled to hold his seat until a court finds him guilty and imposes a jail sentence of at least a year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 15:59:12 GMT 10
But can he function in Parliament with this hanging over him?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 31, 2013 16:32:10 GMT 10
That's a political question, not a legal question.
Let's put it this way, david: suppose for argument's sake that during the next couple of weeks a situation develops where the Gillard Government is engulfed in scandal that's so bad that the Independents start to question their commitment to support the Government. Abbott decides to put this to the test and moves a no confidence motion. Now just suppose that the vote is line ball in the House and it all hangs on Craig Thompson's vote. And just suppose that Thompson declares he's going to vote FOR the no confidence motion.
Now remember: in this scenario it all hangs on Thompson's vote!
Would Abbott accept Thompson's vote in those circumstances? My bloody oath he would!
The rest is posturing and bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 16:40:47 GMT 10
Actually, it's a personal question.
How can Thomson show his face in Parliament after having been arrested, and looking at serious jail time? He's only human.
The electors of Dobell may be without representation for seven months.
PS My question was not agenda-laden or one of your beloved dog-whistles. This is a serious issue and it will be discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by geopol on Jan 31, 2013 16:57:06 GMT 10
David, Thomson protests his innocence and so does his lawyer. If he believes so strongly thet he is not guilty( I believe he has been framed!) why then should he resign before the courts have gone through the accepted procedures?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 17:35:01 GMT 10
A political motivated witch hunt ......no mention of Mal Brough of late and his court found dirty deeds of destroying peoples career's by inuendo and mud slinging.
Innocent until proven is a right not a privelege.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 31, 2013 18:09:36 GMT 10
Good. Let the due process of law decide if he is guilty or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Jan 31, 2013 20:46:34 GMT 10
David c'mon don't be lazy. Do the research: Section 44 of the Constitution covers that one. And the answer to your agenda-laden question, today, is that the guy is perfectly entitled to hold his seat until a court finds him guilty and imposes a jail sentence of at least a year. trial by message board!!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 8:58:17 GMT 10
Good for you! The left try their usual tactics of intimidation, ridicule, etc to prevent any serious debate on the topic if it doesn't suit their agenda. Especially if they're taking a bit of a hammering which they have of late ... it hasn't been a good week for the left, lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 9:58:38 GMT 10
Thanks, Stella.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 1, 2013 10:25:15 GMT 10
Good for you! The left try their usual tactics of intimidation, ridicule, etc to prevent any serious debate on the topic if it doesn't suit their agenda. Especially if they're taking a bit of a hammering which they have of late ... it hasn't been a good week for the left, lol. You won't get an argument from me that this has turned out to be a shit of a week for the left, Stellar. There's no point denying the bleeding obvious. The Abbott Liberals remain a policy-free zone and all attempts by Gillard Labor to flush them out and expose their utter poverty in actual policy keep on getting mugged by events. From the Labor point of view Gillard Labor has all these runs on the board in terms of legislative architecture but they can't construct a positive political narrative because Tony Abbott has succeeded brilliantly in linking the personal "character" albatros around Gillard's neck with the broader and bigger "spiv" albatros around the collective neck of the NSW Branch of the ALP. Nothing shows that up in sharper relief than the two Press Club appearances of the last couple of days. So there's no denying the bleeding obvious Stellar: Labor is in deep doo doo. It looks bad and Labor will probably lose in NSW alone. So why are you and david playing the victim? Especially when you don't have to? I mean, do you really believe I was trying to intimidate david? He asked what came across as a legal question so I pointed him in the direction of Section 44 and suggested that perhaps there was an agenda behind his question. And of course there is an agenda! Labor's opponents would love for Thomson to be forced out of the Parliament and for there to be a by-election in Dobell. That's what was behind the question. But so what! David is entitled to his flights of wishful thinking. The fact is that in all likelihood, under Section 44, Thomson will remain the Member for Dobell right up to September 14 with all the rights and privileges of a Member of the Australian Parliament. That's the law. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 13:49:29 GMT 10
Pim, you have serious history as a bully and a thug, with your endless accusations of agendas and dog-whistles. There is one of you in every work-place, building-site, common room and message-board.
You will not decide what subjects are fit for discussion, and which are not.[/color]
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 1, 2013 15:25:29 GMT 10
Oh my goodness so david is trying to channel John Howard with "we will decide what subjects are discussed and the manner in which they are discussed". Are you trying to wrap yourself up in some sort of righteous mantle of Righteousness and Commitment to the Truth, david? Against the Bad Guys and Evildoers who never cease to spread Falsehoods and Calumnies through their practices which stink of Mendacity and Deceit? What are you in this scenario? Saint David taking on the wicked Goliaths of NTB? You flatter me, david ... kinda! Am I really that threatening that you label me a "bully"? So let me get this straight: 1) You prefer the Liberals to Labor. Nothing wrong with that and you're perfectly entitled to do so - and not because I say so. Believe me, I'm not trying to be gratuitous here. I happen to prefer Labor to the Liberals, so consequently we'll often end up disagreeing. Nothing wrong with that. So far, so good. 2) You agree with the Abbott line that Gillard has a character problem. Again, that's your point of view and you're entitled to hold it. Now while I agree that Abbott has been brilliantly successful in promoting this narrative, I personally don't agree with the Abbott line and indeed oppose it. I have my own criticisms of Gillard and I've expressed them on this board. But I'll defend Gillard against what I see as cheap shots and dishonest propaganda. So yes we strongly disagree and we'll say so. Still so far, so good. I don't have a problem thus far - do you? 3) You regard as a no brainer that Peter Slipper and Craig Thomson are utterly damnable, disreputable and worthless reprobates with zero redeeming features whom Gillard - another utterly damnable and worthless reprobate and a moral vacuum (in your view) - is using for her own nefarious purposes. You see, david, that's where I disagree very strongly with you and it's where our disagreement becomes very sharp. While I certainly don't regard Julia Gillard as a paragon of virtue, neither do I regard her as a devil woman, and nor do I believe that Tony Abbot is acting out of motives that are Pure and Wholesome and Good and Moral. I believe that when he accuses Gillard of mendacity and moral turpitude it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I think of the two political leaders Gillard and Abbott as two weevils and that the choice the Australian people are being asked to make is "which of the two is the lesser weevil?" So when you wax moral and indignant and righteous about the Gillards, the Slippers and the Thomsons of this world, the sound of the plop plop plop of bullshit becomes deafening. So I say so. Now what is my offence on this thread? I've pointed out, robustly it's true but without making any personal remarks about you or with no gratuitous insults or reflections on your character, why Craig Thomson is perfectly entitled to all the entitlements and privileges that go with his status as a Member of the Australian Parliament, that speculations about his seat falling vacant in the near future are wild and unwarranted, and that his position is guaranteed by Section 44. He maintains that he is innocent and that he will contest all charges. You mightn't agree that he's innocent and that's fine. But here's the no brainer. And this is the real no brainer. The no brainer that arises from the principle that while we're all entitled to our opinions we're not entitled to our own facts: he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until a court finds otherwise. And for pointing that out I'm accused of being a "bully"? Gosh! Wait until Salem discovers your post. She will salivate and generate at least 20 posts all written in bold and in capitals which will be all about Yours Truly the Great Big Bully (I'm getting into practice with capitals for when Salem comes in screaming like a banshee) and we can forget about the thread topic. Nice one!  |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 1, 2013 18:34:28 GMT 10
Pim, you have serious history as a bully and a thug, with your endless accusations of agendas and dog-whistles. There is one of you in every work-place, building-site, common room and message-board. You will not decide what subjects are fit for discussion, and which are not. [/color][/quote] Mirror, meet kettle and pot. What a load of hogwash. This guy often attacks the left and decides what is right or wrong. I doubt even stellar or skippy have been more hypocritical than that piece of garbage written in blue. Only an attention seeker with no substance would see the need to write in a different colour to everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 1, 2013 18:36:57 GMT 10
Btw, Pim dispatched your comments to the boundary with much more grace than I could ever muster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 1, 2013 22:24:42 GMT 10
re#6 Geo I agree.
Of course he was framed. Some clever dick broke into his home AND
stole his phone (to make calls on to the knock shop) AND
stole his credit card(s) (to pay the girls with) AND
stole his drivers licence (so the guilty party could provide photo ID when he was paying with the credit cards) AND
then returned the above items.
All without poor Mr Thomson & his wife knowing anything about it.
Not once mind you, but what is it 149 times.
Yes he was definitely set up .
Of course there is only one person that sneeky, that much of a mongrel, that smart who would gain from such deeds.
Your right...
Tony A
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 1, 2013 22:40:26 GMT 10
Yes, Stockton, let's forget all about innocent till proven guilty, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Feb 1, 2013 23:29:19 GMT 10
re#20 If you actually read Geo's comment in #6 above, he said Thomson was 'framed' not me.
That was a value judgement by Geo. I just happened to point out a couple of issues to be addressed by Thomson's defense in the fullness of time.
I didn't race to judge Thomson as you suggest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2013 6:48:17 GMT 10
If Thomsons lawyers can prove that his digital signature was pinched as they have stated, then Thomson is not the criminal but a victim of crime and the charges against him was a set up...it still would not matter as his political career has been cleverly assassinated.
Now Abbott who is known for creating slush funds too assassinate his opponents then it would be no surprise if behind the machinations of this stunt was Abbott and his cronies just as Slippper was assassinated.
And that would not matter to the RW who disparagingly denigrates the left at any opportunity, that Thomson is innocent it will be ha hah we got him regardless.
Such is the mindset of the RW, no concessions no quarter, no presumption of innocence.
Another example of this is if you don't agree with tarring muslims with the one brush then you support muslim fundamentalist and it's nasty cultural practices, clearly the RW mind under Abbott's leadership is not programmed for anything but hate..and a dangerous future if such minds are in control..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2013 6:58:17 GMT 10
You will not decide what subjects are fit for discussion, and which are not. [/color][/quote] What arrogant claptrap, who the fuark are you to dictate to others what get posted here, you Pratt? |
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Feb 2, 2013 10:39:20 GMT 10
Craig Gotti I-mean-Thompson, eventually in handcuffs where the thieving whoring union hack belongs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 7:55:41 GMT 10
We are?
Oh yes, you were trying to but you cannot always pull it off ... the way I read it, David was speculating. I'm sure we're allowed to speculate without being drawn over the coals and accused of having "agendas."
Look, I realise that maybe we don't take this whole scenario as seriously as you do. I mean, to me, this is just a little message board in cyberspace, read by no more than 20 - 30 individuals so we have little or no influence on public opinion. So why make a big deal over nothing??
Your interests are obviously politically inclined whilst mine and I think David's are probably more geared towards social issues. We can see serious social problems in Australian society which you and the other lefties seemingly ignore - and that would be because these social problems involve your beloved muslim community who apparently can do no wrong. Therefore anything we write on those issues becomes a "muslim-bashing" thread. It's not just you ... all the lefties do it and it's becoming very tedious.
Your only response is to play the man and not the ball. We have come to expect it and usually ignore it but occasionally as David and I have done, we will call you on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Feb 3, 2013 8:00:00 GMT 10
You will not decide what subjects are fit for discussion, and which are not. [/color][/quote] What arrogant claptrap, who the fuark are you to dictate to others what get posted here, you Pratt?[/quote] "Pratt"? two Ts and a capital P? you mean like, Pratt and Whitney? Or did you merely mean,. well, just prat ? |
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Feb 3, 2013 8:01:40 GMT 10
Yes, Stockton, let's forget all about innocent till proven guilty, eh? you mean like Zimmerman, in Florida? |
|
