Craig Thomson found guilty on fraud charges over union funds used for prostitutes
6 replies, posted
[quote]
The former union official accused of setting Craig Thomson up “with a bunch of hookers” says he feels vindicated after the disgraced former MP was today found guilty of using members’ funds to pay for sex.
Thomson accused Marco Balano, former deputy general secretary of Health Services Union East, of setting him up after threatening to destroy his career before allegations of misusing his union credit cards surfaced.
A defiant Thomson publicly denied the allegations as untrue for several years before his arrest by police at his parliamentary office in January last year. He even made an impassioned plea to parliament in 2012 during which he claimed Mr Bolano “threatened to set me up with hookers”.
He also claimed to have several witnesses who signed statements of complaint in 2005 claiming they had witnessed Mr Bolano threatening to try and set Mr Thomson up with prostitutes.
Mr Bolano said he believed Thomson had an “overwhelming sense of entitlement”.
“I actually believe in his mind, even though he knows he breached the law, he doesn’t believe he did anything wrong,” he said.
“But these offences took place immediately after he took office (in 2003).
“It was the culture within the union.”
Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg today found Thomson was guilty of six charges of using HSU credit cards to pay for sex, as well as other charges including theft.
“Mr Thomson owes an apology to the thousands of honest union members he defrauded, in addition to the Parliament and public, whom he also misled,” Employment Minister Eric Abetz said.
The Senator believes the Opposition Leader should follow on behalf of the Labor Party, “for its role in promoting and protecting Craig Thomson for so many years”.
“Until he does so, Australians can have no confidence that the party has learned any lessons from the Thomson saga.”
[/quote]
[url]http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/craig-thomson-found-guilty-on-fraud-charges-over-union-funds-used-for-prostitutes/story-fni0fee2-1226830179882[/url]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/craig-thomson-verdict/5266468[/url]
sorry added wrong abc link, fixed.
There's been some real issues surfacing about unions lately, good to see that at least Thomson got called out on his bullshit.
[QUOTE=Tasm;43955811]Sources:
[url]http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/craig-thomson-found-guilty-on-fraud-charges-over-union-funds-used-for-prostitutes/story-fni0fee2-1226830179882[/url]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-20/union-financial-records-missing-during-thomson27s-tenure2c-co/5208508[/url]
There's been some real issues surfacing about unions lately, good to see that at least Thomson got called out on his bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Well we already knew that he couldn't legally defend himself as not having paid for them, he never argued that, he just argued he had the authority to do so.
This ruling does not say he did it. His plea did.
[editline]18th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE]Mr Thomson’s defence barrister, Greg James, QC, said Mr Thomson did not deny making the transactions but argued about his authority to do so.[/QUOTE]
That's from your own article you can't disagree :v:
[QUOTE=gerbe1;43955826]Well we already knew that he couldn't legally defend himself as not having paid for them, he never argued that, he just argued he had the authority to do so.
This ruling does not say he did it. His plea did.
[editline]18th February 2014[/editline]
That's from your own article you can't disagree :v:[/QUOTE]
Craig Thomson blatantly denied using his union credit card to pay for prostitutes in the past though, he changed his stance after indefensible evidence surfaced.
[QUOTE=Tasm;43956039]Craig Thomson blatantly denied using his union credit card to pay for prostitutes in the past though, after indefensible evidence surfaced.[/QUOTE]
I don't dispute that. I'm just saying be careful where you lay your causality, the ruling was correlated with confirmation of his guilt but it did not cause it.
Just as I find it absurd either party can say they aren't at fault for the man being such an important member of parliament.
He spent the money on smokes and hookers, he was living the life of a fucking rockstar
[QUOTE=gerbe1;43956086]
Just as I find it absurd either party can say they aren't at fault for the man being such an important member of parliament.[/QUOTE]
The union is more to blame than the parties, it just happens that labor deals very close with the union, hence him being allowed such an important role in the labor party. Allowing Thomson to remain in the party so long after these transactions were made confounds me, as someone would have been turning a blind eye for a long time.
[QUOTE=Tasm;43956188]The union is more to blame than the parties, it just happens that labor deals very close with the union, hence him being allowed such an important role in the labor party. Allowing Thomson to remain in the party so long after these transactions were made confounds me, as someone would have been turning a blind eye for a long time.[/QUOTE]
Why is the union to blame?
[editline]18th February 2014[/editline]
He wasn't allowed his role because of his union affiliation, he was a member of the liberal party to begin with, he got his role because he shored up the vote on the labor side.
He wasn't even a member of the labor party! He didn't have a role [I]in[/I] the party :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.