Australian Politics Forum - Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #30 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:19pm

mozzaok wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:05pm:

mozzaok wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Quote:

Your explanation is idioitc but the best claim of all is that you read the entire 1100 pages of the report. You didnt and no protestations will convince me otherwise. If you had, there is no way you woudl be defending this scumbag in the brainless manner in which you are.

EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe.

Sounds like you are living there with him.

-Longy, or if you prefer, the appropriately humourous sobriquet that Aussie has been using, "Mr Lie Long Time" lol

With someone with your track record on this forum Longy, getting caught out lying, so often, and for so long, and ALWAYS whilst championing a stance intended to portray the Liberal Party in a more favourable light, it seems pretty rich that you have the gall to be throwing the accusations about the credibility of others, so recklessly.
Your track record is so bad, if you told someone it was fine and sunny, they would grab an umbrella before going out.
In the early days I thought you may have been just a bit delusional in your pro Liberal fervour, but when you continued to repeat things that had already been proven false, because doing so was in your mind, supporting the party line, I drew the conclusion that you chose to lie deliberately.
Not many people do that.
It really is not a good look.

List the lies. go on. AS a moderator - which is in itself a joke - you should be held to a higher standard. But of course.,.. I forget... the standard is now 'presumption of innocence' and nothing more.

SO in the grand tradition of aussie the wannbe lawyer I demand that you show my 'lies' and list substantive proof. And keep in mind that 'error' is not 'lie' and 'lie' requires you to prove (remember that presumption of innocence again) that it was a lie said in full knowledge of the truth.

Do you have the character to support your allegation or will you just fade away as you so often do?

I DARE YOU TO DO SO. SHOW US YOUR CHARACTER

I may go with, "I read it in the Australian", or "anyone with more than half a brain knows that", or any of the myriad reasons you have used to declare your certain knowledge of Thomson's guilt.

As for your prove it challenge, how about this?
I will promise to tell you next time you tell a deliberate, provable lie.
I figure that won't be too long, and will probably be quicker than having to troll though old posts to provide you with evidence you alone would deny anyway.

You're on. and remember the standard that you employ. Remember that you cant use media reports because you have accepted Aussie's standard of evidence. and you cant use FWA reports or any other official findings into anything because assuei (and you) reject them as well. remember now that you ahev the PRESUMPTION of innocence wheich means for you to prove I lied you have to have proof not simply admissable to a court but haveing been proven so before a judge.

Your standard, not mine.

Ok, I will give you the benefit of logic that you deny everyone else. If you want to say I lied then you PROVE it by the usual standards of proof - 'resonableness'.

And it would still be good to get an explanation on a possible code of conduct and how it will evolve when the ALP accepts nothing less than criminal conviction.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #31 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:21pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

When will you realise that if you take away his "innocent until proven guilty" you take away everyones presumption of innocence? We cant set that precedent.

SOB

That's under a criminal investigation

In circumstances like this - the findings of the legislated body finds you guilty then you are guilty. It's up to you to prove your innocence

The ATO is a prime example of this

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #32 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:21pm

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:18pm:

You want your lies listed Mr. Lie Liong Time. Okay, there are many but I'll just use those in just this Post of yours:

Quote:

oh really? Care to list the 'lies' Ive supposedly supported? At least I am not claiming to be a lawyer like aussie.

Well, not really a lie, but a deliberate distortion of fact. There is no doubt you have never claimed to be a lawyer. I am.....retired.

Quote:

And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof?

Another lie. There is not even one legally enforceable findings against Thomson.

Quote:

When he said he didnt go to the brothel but the NSW police say he did, you say there is still no proof?

Another unsupported defamatory allegation, and lie.

Quote:

What exactly is your standard for proof that requires parliament to act? criminal conviction?

Simple. See the the Constitution.

By the standard that YOU employ I demand that you prove you are a lawyer. otherwise you are a liar by your own admission. I require to see your licent to practrice along with insurance certificate plus your drivers licence and your 'admission to the bar'. Obviously your law degree will be required as well. Im sure you understand that I cant take anythign less than this by your own standards.

nothing else will suffice. Otherwise you are a liar.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #33 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:23pm

Quote:

And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof?

Another lie. There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson.

are you really that stupid? obviuusly yes. the FWA has found 181 LEGALLY ENFORCABLE breaches of the law. and they intend to take it thru teh courts and have in fact already done so against some other HSU people you really should look up some while you type your drivel.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #34 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:24pm

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:18pm:

You want your lies listed Mr. Lie Liong Time. Okay, there are many but I'll just use those in just this Post of yours:

Quote:

oh really? Care to list the 'lies' Ive supposedly supported? At least I am not claiming to be a lawyer like aussie.

Well, not really a lie, but a deliberate distortion of fact. There is no doubt you have never claimed to be a lawyer. I am.....retired.

Quote:

And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof?

Another lie. There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson.

Quote:

When he said he didnt go to the brothel but the NSW police say he did, you say there is still no proof?

Another unsupported defamatory allegation, and lie.

Quote:

What exactly is your standard for proof that requires parliament to act? criminal conviction?

Simple. See the the Constitution.

never heard of a CENSURE motion you moron?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #35 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:28pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

Quote:

And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof?

Another lie. There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson.

are you really that stupid? obviuusly yes. the FWA has found 181 LEGALLY ENFORCABLE breaches of the law. and they intend to take it thru teh courts and have in fact already done so against some other HSU people you really should look up some while you type your drivel.

Even Thomson admitted there are 9 separate investigations and proceedings

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #36 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:31pm

Maqqa wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

Quote:

And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof?

Another lie. There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson.

are you really that stupid? obviuusly yes. the FWA has found 181 LEGALLY ENFORCABLE breaches of the law. and they intend to take it thru teh courts and have in fact already done so against some other HSU people you really should look up some while you type your drivel.

Even Thomson admitted there are 9 separate investigations and proceedings

That's inadmissable to the minds of aussie and mozza. and be careful or mozza will call you a liar for saying so. after all what is your proof of this claim? can you prove this without reference to anything you've read heard or seen?

yep. thats the brave new world of ALP justice. No wonder so many end up in jail.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #37 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:35pm

PoliticalReality wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

angeleyes wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

It is not unreasonable to assume that CT's SIM card could have been cloned prior to him receiving the phone for his use as National Secretary

Best you do some research on sim cloning.

If you've got the SIM card it's easy - you just take a copy of the card

"GSM SIM cards are actually copied by removing the SIM card and placing a device between the handset and the SIM card and allowing it to operate for a few days and extracting the KI, or secret code"

there is of course a little more to that than just a SIM card.. first of all they would have to know when he was going to be in the hotel room..they whoever made the call would have to be in the same vicinity to be on the same radio wave or whatever its called..not an easy thing to do unless you work for the phone company I would think..and as its all Union admin that are after him it doesnt add up either..

also how do you know he only paid $6k.. for escorts... that was on the creditcard... god only knows what he spent when he left his credit card behind.

and then there is the fact he signed for EVERYTHING.. how does he explain that???????

you know if someone was out to get me.. I would be very very careful what i signed for..be it cheques or giving someone permission to pay my credit card expenses..

it doesnt stack up.

god I am not the sharpest knife in the draw but I can see through this without any trouble..

AND WHAT ABOUT THE AMERICAN EXPRESS CARD.??

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39640 Gender:	Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense Reply #38 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:36pm Quote: Even Thomson admitted there are 9 separate investigations and proceedings.... No he did not. Another lie. Two words too many.....you liars cannot seem to help yourself.
Back to top	IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense Reply #39 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:36pm Crikey..how many threads are there on this topic?
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

cods Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 88048	Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense Reply #40 - May 24^th, 2012 at 6:38pm YOU KNOW FOR A BLOKE WHO WAS PROBABLY EARNING ABOUT $200KS A YEAR.. PLUS EXPENSES.. oops..plus a car phone.careditcard. plus plus plus.. he then steals $500.000 and on top of that he has an American Express card.. then he cant pay his lawyers.. what a lifestyle this guy was leading.
Back to top	IP Logged

angeleyes

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 615

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #41 - May 24^th, 2012 at 7:04pm

If you've got the SIM card it's easy - you just take a copy of the card

"GSM SIM cards are actually copied by removing the SIM card and placing a device between the handset and the SIM card and allowing it to operate for a few days and extracting the KI, or secret code"

You think so?

http://www.imserba.com/forum/sim-card-cloning-basics-all-you-wanted-know-t139291...

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28130
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #42 - May 24^th, 2012 at 8:28pm

longweekend58 wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

Quote:

And why dont you answer the question as how a Code of Conduct for MPs is supposed to operate if now 'presumption of innocence' is supposed to be the order of the day? In a situation where the FWA has already made 181 legallyt enforceable findings against him you say there is no proof?

Another lie. There is not even one legally enforceable finding against Thomson.

are you really that stupid? obviuusly yes. the FWA has found 181 LEGALLY ENFORCABLE breaches of the law. and they intend to take it thru teh courts and have in fact already done so against some other HSU people you really should look up some while you type your drivel.

Breaches that will soon be tested in the Federal Court.

Back to top

IP Logged

The Valley Boy

Ex Member

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #43 - May 24^th, 2012 at 8:39pm

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 5:43pm:

Quote:

EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe.

Around the traps, I meet some odd characters, none less so than 'Mellie' who will just make up whatever she needs to suit her position. She posts links, which, when you check, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This delusional Mr. Liar Long Time is another Mellie. Give me DRaH anytime.

So, Mr. Lie Long Time, may I ask that you produce links which support those claims?

Cheesy

I ask Mr Lie Long Time to join my forum months ago to be a mod and 5 minutes later mellie join the forum.

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28130
Gender: male

Re: Why Craig Thomson's explanation makes sense
Reply #44 - May 24^th, 2012 at 8:40pm

Quote:

Aussie wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 5:43pm:

Quote:

EVERY SINGLE claim Thomson has made has so far been shonw to be false. Even his own party is saying that he is lying or living in a parallel universe.

Around the traps, I meet some odd characters, none less so than 'Mellie' who will just make up whatever she needs to suit her position. She posts links, which, when you check, have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This delusional Mr. Liar Long Time is another Mellie. Give me DRaH anytime.

So, Mr. Lie Long Time, may I ask that you produce links which support those claims?

Cheesy

I ask Mr Lie Long Time to join my forum months ago to be a mod and 5 minutes later mellie join the forum.

I'll do it - what's the link?

Back to top

IP Logged