Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog
Craig Thomson says he will sue anyone claiming that he paid money for sex – his lawyer stating:
Our client has never used other people’s money or his own money to pay people for sex with him. Anyone who says the opposite will be sued.
Now HSU Members are doing precisely that.
So unless Thomson was lying about suing or it was a hollow threat he must follow up and sue, and watch his legal bills mount.
It is largely because civilization enables us constantly to profit from knowledge which we individually do not possess and because each individual’s use of his particular knowledge may serve to assist others unknown to him in achieving their ends that men as members of civilized society can pursue their individual ends so much more successfully than they could alone.
—
Note the words “for sex with him”. They do not exclude the possibility that the hookers had sex with others. Of course, there is still the issue of whether paying for mates was a proper use of the card, but he might succeed in a defamation claim against a person who alleges that he had sex. But he would probably need to lead evidence about who used the services. This saga will be much more amusing if this is his theory.
rafiki
19 Oct 12 at 6:01 pm
They better be careful, I hear Craig was merely desperate to talk technical fly fishing and he had to pay for the conversation. Just a lonely boy wanting to talk hatches and the world heaps vile slander on his good name. Keep morale high, Craig.
Alfonso
19 Oct 12 at 6:19 pm
Like Thomson, I am not experienced in these matters but isn’t that statement the reverse of the hooker/client arrangement? Aren’t ‘people’ paid for sex with them? Or maybe he is just making clear that he isn’t a gigolo.
Biota
19 Oct 12 at 6:26 pm
Nope, he says he paid for others, so he could get their support in Union politics.
Quite possibly true, in which case he is only a corrupt fraud, not an adulterer
Much better, from his wife’s POV, I guess. He’s going down, the only question is how far.
Cato the Elder
19 Oct 12 at 6:35 pm
Note the wording carefully. “Sex with him”. So it may be he paid for the “services” but who used the service? All along I have thought who was he entertaining? Who is he protecting? Big names? Labor identities? Court would be very, very interesting. Dare he sue or be sued?
Disillusioned
19 Oct 12 at 6:43 pm
Also include the mysterious person living in the NSW central coast who was telephoned at night from various locations in Melbourne by someone who used the HSU credit card details for services. More a case of Thomson being the payer of services used by the bruvvers when in town on union business, even when at home with the missus in the central coast.
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 6:44 pm
How likely is it that:
(a) a person with no qualms about using HSU funds for private purposes and
(b) happy to use said funds to procure services from prostitutes for his friends
would not use the services from the prostitutes for himself?
The former two require the lack of morals. Establishing those two points proves that Thomson is immoral and criminal.
Samuel J
19 Oct 12 at 6:45 pm
Didn’t Thomson initially say this was all a set up to foil his political career? Some verbal threat made to him 10 or 15 years ago, he alleged.
Gab
19 Oct 12 at 6:45 pm
If Thomo used union money to pay for whores for his mates, who cares whether he actually did the deed himself. No one. We think badly of him because he used their union for prostitution.
Truly the lawyer class must live in an alternate universe if there is any chance whatsoever that Thomo could win defamation.
jupes
19 Oct 12 at 6:55 pm
Will thomson sue the HSU members then? his lawyer sounds really aggressive.
candy
19 Oct 12 at 6:55 pm
union funds
jupes
19 Oct 12 at 6:57 pm
Samuel
Just because he’s corrupt and willing to pay for prostitutes for others doesn’t necessarily mean he used them himself. It doesn’t matter whether he did or not (except to his wife) as he’s corrupt either way.
Cato the Elder
19 Oct 12 at 6:58 pm
How generous of him to provide this to others, all the while leaving a trail that leads back to him so that their identity is hidden. After all there are those licence scans bearing his image and credit card vouchers bearing his signature.
Biota
19 Oct 12 at 7:01 pm
So if someone else used the services of the sex workers as a gift from thomson, who was it and why is he protecting them at the expense of his career, reputation, and even marriage suffering.
candy
19 Oct 12 at 7:07 pm
When a newspaper retracts an entire article because the words “trust fund” were mistakenly used instead of “slush fund” you know the defamation lawyers regard themselves as Masters of the Universe and we are their cowering subjects.
Frankly I wouldn’t mind the pedantry if I could have confidence that the legal profession as a whole are sticklers for the finer details of the English language and facts but sadly bitter experience has taught me otherwise.
As for Thomson, do your worst son, you’re a crook.
Lloyd
19 Oct 12 at 7:08 pm
I thought he was suicidal.
C.L.
19 Oct 12 at 7:13 pm
Ah, knee capping of bruvvers who don’t toe the line is a time honoured practice for a long, long time. It’s a human trait, not specifically one restricted to the trade unions, but common in all associations based on violence and greed. So CT might have found prudence in this area would ensure a more quiet life than had he expressed “reservations” about the practice.
It’s a jungle out there peoples, and you do what it takes to survive, especially when your nemesis lacks a moral compass.
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 7:27 pm
Would be interesting to know if any politicians were involved in Craig’s alleged brothel bonanza.
Gab
19 Oct 12 at 7:29 pm
So has anyone (who isn’t a hooker) seen or met shagger’s evil twin?
Or will the latter just pop up at the court case?
ThousandsHundreds of HSU members sigh in relief, in unison.Rabz
19 Oct 12 at 7:29 pm
His lawyer is a cock. Shagger needs a new lawyer. Shagger needs Stevieliar QC, where the most ridiculous inference available is the TRUTH.
Tiny Dancer
19 Oct 12 at 7:31 pm
“Would be interesting to know if any politicians were involved in Craig’s alleged brothel bonanza.”
seems to me it could only be someone well known that he is protecting. why would he protect some low level union dude.
candy
19 Oct 12 at 7:38 pm
Samuel – the whole “evil twin” hypothesis is based on the fact that he is physically at teh houses of ill repute on many an occasion.
“Would not use the services”, indeed…
Rabz
19 Oct 12 at 7:39 pm
Some of the coments here remind me of the attitudes the French mob had during the Jacobin time, as portrayed by the movie “The Scarlet Pimpernel”. Apart from the usual suspects, I had not thought Catallaxians went into that “group” behaviour.
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 7:41 pm
So you agree it was his evil twin?
Rabz
19 Oct 12 at 7:43 pm
Rabz,
CT’s signatures mean nought – he simply fronted up afterwards to pay for the “services” his bruvvers wished.
It’s called picking up the bill.
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 7:45 pm
Rabz,
No, explained in my previous comment
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 7:45 pm
Many have wondered whether the people he paid for have any relationship with the people who paid his legal fees.
Token
19 Oct 12 at 7:46 pm
In addition to my comments here, how about asking the Grollo’s in Melbourne about PR concerning CFMEU or others……
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 7:48 pm
Louis, do you mean activities like in this story involving a “colourful racing identity”?
Token
19 Oct 12 at 7:50 pm
Louis,
Da bruvvers (or da eebil twin) didn’t just have his credit card, they had his license.
The license was provided as proof of ID on numerous occasions.
Why are you running interference for the scumbag?
Rabz
19 Oct 12 at 7:53 pm
OK – so let me get this straight.
Shagger has repeatedly stated it wasn’t him.
Someone is setting him up.
He’ll spill da beans on who it is. Oh that’s right, he won’t.
This whole saga has been dragging on, how long again?
The cover up you’re implying is preposterous. Otherwise, we are really are living in a third world country, brought on since ruff’s ascendancy in 2007.
Rabz
19 Oct 12 at 8:00 pm
Token,
The price we pay for a regulated economy is the frequent occurrence of corruption of it’s policing agents by entreprenueurs wishing to establish a business in order to make that business. A regulated economy is simply one restricted in its activities according to some authorial litany observed by its followers.
Corruption means paying a government employee to turn a blind eye to an otherwise unlawful activity. Most of the time this “payment” is to allow the supervisor to funds to fulfil his personal needs of desire, aka greed by those who prefer a more feudal state of social cooperation.
All entrepreneurs attempt to supply a need identified by them by the people the live among. Corruption occurs when the state regulates against that “need”.
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 8:02 pm
Rabz,
I’m not excusing CT for anything, but pointed out that manipulating expenses is normal for a socialist system.
Your reference to third world countries is apt – I’ve been in them and can confirm that.
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 8:06 pm
Rabz
Who set CT up ?
Strawman argument.
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 8:08 pm
Maybe CT did not use the services of the hookers. As time goes by and Labor continues to defend him, and given the confidence of his “I’ll sue” threat, I suspect that that this is the case. There must also be a strong possibility that ‘big enough’ Labor and union figures used the hookers.
The interesting question is whether and how CT might be compelled to reveal who these people are. If the FWA Federal Court case ends up being only about breach of union rules, this issue might not arise. We don’t know what the police charges will be. One can expect that the Labor movement will spend money, call in and promise favours, cajole and threaten to prevent this issue from arising. Maybe they will succeed, which would be a shame, for there would be much amusement to be had from witnessing names being named.
rafiki
19 Oct 12 at 8:09 pm
Louis finds the meaning of obscuration in the dictionary and applies it as a defense of Shagger. You should be on his legal team dickhead. I’m sure you could get him off all charges with that explanation.
Spatacrobat
19 Oct 12 at 8:13 pm
Spata’
I haven’t used the word “obscuration”, that’s your interpretion of my comments.
Wrong.
Much to learn, the youngone has.
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 8:18 pm
If you are trying to build a block of units in Sydney, nearly every activity is an “unlawful” activity unless you do everything the right way.
Greasing the wheels is what so many find themselves doing in a desperate attempt to avoid going broke.
When you have insiders making money like this, the incentives to use any persuasion for people with no ethics is understandable:
Remember Williamson & Shagger were operating under the wonderful Bob Carr’s Labor government (later Iemma, etc).
As I said, there are people who would pay well if Shagger stays silent.
Token
19 Oct 12 at 8:18 pm
As a casual observer of life, its really the old money/paper trail. Got a shock myself one day in the bank having a chat about finances and there up on the screen (mind you lead a totally boring life,not exciting as our Craig), was my life in transactions everywhere. Its like big brother. So, along with the driver’s licence, hard to keep denying in the face of the hard evidence from the bank alone. A friend of mine who worked for a year for a certain (late) High Court Judge, no name mentioned. His advice, just keep denying.
delfino
19 Oct 12 at 8:21 pm
Rabz: I understand the points you make above, and they do put in doubt the theory I am running. In particular, why would CT leave a trail of credit card numbers and his driver’s licence? Could be that he was stupid, or that he was building up the favour he would be owed in return. Why did he run false stories? Maybe to buy time, to suit Labor and put them in his debt.
On the evidence so far, as I have grasped it, it’s an open question. And as a judge once said: “Every lawyer knows of cases that looked open-and-shut but which in the end were not”.
rafiki
19 Oct 12 at 8:22 pm
Settle down, Rabz.
kae
19 Oct 12 at 8:22 pm
Or when they will finish their ‘investigation’.
Fair dinkum, these clowns will take longer than FWA the rate they are going. They have the evidence. They should charge the bastard. It’s not rocket science. One man should be able to conclude the investigation in one week.
jupes
19 Oct 12 at 8:24 pm
shagger has claimed in Parliament that he was set up.
If he was, why not clear his name?
Oh yes, da circularity…
This needs to stop. As I’ve already stated, a Royal Commission into the HSU must be announced by Yabbott on the first day of the new gliberal gubberment.
As a taxpayer and a voter, I demand an explanation of this insulting, obfuscatory, parasitic criminal bullshit.
Enough, FFS.
Rabz
19 Oct 12 at 8:25 pm
He’s stalling, he’s been told the fix is in to count out the clock so the statute of limitations applies on the crimes.
He’s left the Labor Party to keep damage to them to a minimum and somehow having all his bills paid.
Token
19 Oct 12 at 8:29 pm
I thought Comrade DudsDown was having a n-n-nervous b-b-breakdown a couple of weeks ago and it was going to be too soon to say bad words about him until after the end of – oh – 2013-ish?
Mick Gold Coast QLD
19 Oct 12 at 8:34 pm
Not being disparaging about those who managed to get themselves elected to the national parliament, but those who do and survive, have not to worry about their living expenses in retirement.
We the mugs, have to fund them, their living expenses.
Louis Hissink
19 Oct 12 at 8:36 pm
Tokes, he was in da laybore pardee when all this ‘misogyny’ took place.
Rabz
19 Oct 12 at 8:36 pm
I thought he was close to topping himself Mick
Tal
19 Oct 12 at 8:38 pm
Yes I know, what I’m saying is that he was “asked” to step away from the party for the next few months to take the heat off the government.
Token
19 Oct 12 at 8:49 pm
Tal – he sure recovered and caught the “moving forwards” fairly smartly, eh, swaggering about sprouting “C’mon, I’ll have yers all, ya mongrels!”
He sounds like a support card hopeful at one of Jamie Meyer’s fight nights up here at the Southport RSL.
It’s never real bright to make a threat ‘cos, if you don’t follow through, you end up being seen and treated as a prize goose. Or, in DudsDown’s case, a prize goose squared.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
19 Oct 12 at 8:50 pm
Tokes – he’s taken da “heat off the gubberment” by one tenth of two poofteenths of nothing.
The shambles blunders on, unimpeded, heading for the inevitable implosion…
Rabz
19 Oct 12 at 8:57 pm
He’s a national treasure Mick,along side Phil Adams and Leuing,charming people all of them
Tal
19 Oct 12 at 8:58 pm
LOL, Rabz, I still stand by the fact that Shagger is acting like he’s Henry in Goodfella’s. He’ll get rewarded if he doesn’t squeel.
Token
19 Oct 12 at 9:05 pm
But you don’t have an extra hour of sun.
kae
19 Oct 12 at 10:37 pm
Bugger, wrong fred.
kae
19 Oct 12 at 10:38 pm
Occams Razor folks.
face ache
19 Oct 12 at 10:53 pm
So Shagger didn’t pay anyone to have sex with him.
Fair enough.
He bought roots for other people, then.
A suspicious person might wonder who’s behind the generous financial support he’s received.
And if they may be “other people”.
lotocoti
20 Oct 12 at 7:15 am
Thomson has a wife around half his age.
Finding out he perhaps frequented sex workers regularly on other people’s money would not engender admiration of your man.
candy
20 Oct 12 at 8:15 am
Craig the Rooter is delusional on so many levels.
He thinks he can convince the public that he is innocent …. did anyone see him on Sky the other night?…. “they accused me of 200 counts but they have only laid 37 charges”. Well, no probs Craig.
He thinks he can convince the ALP to pre-select him. His performance waving Matthias Corman’s letter around the other week was classic ‘Primary kid trying to impress the big kids’.
Above all, he still thinks he can convince Mrs Thommo Mk 2 that he is not a grub.
Leigh Lowe
20 Oct 12 at 8:23 am
I think there is no doubt Craig was the hooker bagman for others.
That doesn’t preclude that he sampled the goodies himself, of course.
Someone pointed out that one of the more expensive root-fests coincided with the last day of a NSW State ALP conference.
I suspect that is what is pissing Craig off – others have participated in the root-a-thon and Craig is taking the fall,
In fact, some of those he funded could now be lining up to condemn him.
When he is broke and mowing lawns for a living I suspect News Limited might give him $10k for a tell-all account …… could be interesting.
Leigh Lowe
20 Oct 12 at 8:32 am
The facts :
1. Thompson paid money to brothels.
2. It has been determined that Thompson was present at the several of the brothels when the payments were made. (only one instance is actually necessary).
3. Thompson paid a $200,000 settlement to Fairfax, and $100,000 legal fees, in order stop Fairfax defending against the suit of defamation Thompson brought against them.
Brothels are a single product business – there’s nothing else to buy except sex.
All Thompson’s lawyer has said is that no one can prove Thompson had sex with a prostitute, and unless one or two come forward to testify (this would be bad for business as discretion is an important element of the service), then this act is unprovable, irrespective of the circumstantial evidence.
The contrary charge coming from the HSU members at present simply states that Thompson paid for prostitutes, and therefore Thompson won’t take action. They also called him a liar, but I hardly think Thompson could defend against that. The dropped action against Fairfax argues very powerfully that Thompson did in fact pay for prostitutes, and that his initial charge of defamation was a lie, and this is all a matter of legal record.
Nothing will come of this froth and bubble, unless some lawyer comes forward to lay civil charges against Thompson on behalf of the HSU workers. None have done so for three years. They are unlikely to do so now.
Keith
20 Oct 12 at 9:11 am