Thommo’s self-promoting lawyer: believe him or not

There are some pretty rude nicknames used for Thommo’s self-promoting lawyer but I will refrain from using them.  It is interesting to ponder whether he is acting pro bono, given all the free publicity he is being granted, even though it is not clear that some of things that he is saying may not be in the interests of his client.  The ABC, in particular, can’t seem to get enough of their new ‘talent’.

Do you believe him or the police in respect of the request for Thomson to go to Melbourne just before Christmas?

But on the issue of the cameras being there at the time of his arrest, get over it.  This is just standard practice these days and at least Thomson was being arrested.  This lawyer clearly has a short memory.  The cameras were rolling when Thommo’s former best friend Michael Williamson was arrested.

And then there are other instances of regulatory authorities tipping off the media.

  • The cameras were rolling when Eddie Groves was charged on the advice of ASIC even though he was then found not guilty.
  • The cameras were rolling when the ACCC ordered a raid of the Caltex offices on the suspicion that there was collusion in petrol pricing, a charge that was then dismissed.

And while it may seem excessive to have the number of police officers in attendance, the real  issue is the reaction if something went wrong – say he tried to make a run for it out the back door.

I particularly love Thommo’s star of stage and screen lawyer suggesting that other persons were responsible for inappropriate expenditures.  What – all 150? Really?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to Thommo’s self-promoting lawyer: believe him or not

  1. Lew

    McArdle’s background is in Industrial Law ,why Thomson would employ someone who doesn’t normally practice in Criminal Law is unclear unless the fees are being paid by one of McArdle’s Union clients.

  2. Rabz

    Thommo’s star of stage and screen lawyer suggesting that other persons were responsible for inappropriate expenditures.

    Hang on – isn’t that the entirety of shagger’s defence? That is, someone else (e.g. an evil twin) dunnit?

  3. Bill

    Yes, who is paying Thommo’s legals? Surely not the ALP any more. He’s also defending civil case from the HSU, (trying to get their money back).

    It will basically clean him out if someone else isn’t paying and the cases run on and on…

  4. stackja

    If Thommo goes to prison there will be plenty of cctv.

  5. Mk50 of Brisbane

    maybe Shagger mistook ‘pro bono’ for ‘pro boning’??

  6. Justin

    I also wonder who is paying for Thomo’s legal bills. High profile pro bono work is typically done for a sympathetic good cause. Hard to see how Thomo fits into that category. Last time round it was the ALP who paid his legal bills although you could just as easily argue it was the HSU that got ripped off twice. Once when he stole from the union. The second when HSU donations to the Labor Party went straight into Thomo’s pocket to pay his legal bills. You have to feel for those low paid HSU members who get robbed and then have to stump up the cash to defend the crook!!

  7. Pedro

    I noticed Thommo fronted the Mags Ct by himself to get bail, so if anybody is covering his fees they’re not doing it lavishly.

    From his website:

    “Chris McArdle is one of approximately forty lawyers in New South Wales accredited by the Law Society of New South Wales as a specialist in Employment and Industrial Law. Chris has been in legal practice since 1988 and prior to that, served as a Commissioner of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. Chris acts for corporate and individual clients with a philosophy of preventing problems and increasing corporate efficiency. Chris has achieved a number of breakthroughs in the anti-discrimination, unfair contracts and Australian Workplace Agreements Jurisdictions.”

  8. Judith Sloan

    The word is that the membership of the HSU has completely collapsed although the records they provide to the Fair Work Commission are so out of date you wouldn’t know.

    The regulation of trade unions is a complete joke.

  9. candy

    I wonder why he chose to let the arrest take place from his office like that, in front of everyone, so absolutely shameful, when the police had offered him alternative.
    Perhaps he believed it would never get to this stage.

  10. Gab

    Thomson is not the cause of union elite rorting members’ funds. He was just one of them that got caught.

  11. Splatacrobat

    Did they collect a DNA sample while they were strip searching him?

    There is probably some poor forensic officer having to compare pubic hair samples combed out of the brothels carpet as we speak.

  12. MDMConnell

    Candy, because faux righteous indignation and victimisation about “an innocent man being persecuted” is all he and his lawyer have left.

  13. ilibcc

    Given the charges it is an irony that the lawyer is protesting the manner of removal of his client’s clothing.

  14. Splatacrobat

    I wonder why he chose to let the arrest take place from his office like that, in front of everyone, so absolutely shameful, when the police had offered him alternative.

    It could have been worse. They could have waited till he stepped outside Parliament house.

  15. John Comnenus

    It’s a bit late for Thommo to be worrying about who stripped off and who prodded who with a latex covered appendage. If only he worried about that a few years ago.

  16. Rabz

    You have to feel for those low paid HSU members who get robbed and then have to stump up the cash to defend the crook!!

    Quite so. Interestingly, Shagger wasn’t impecunious enough to be unable to afford quite significant renovations to his home on the central coast around the same time.

    A salutary example of getting one’s priorities correct.

  17. Reminds me of a Roger Garrison Econblog podcast where he warns that lawyer’s arguments need not be internally consistant.

    1. “My client did not borrow your lawnmower”
    2. “It was already broken when you loaned it to him.”
    3. “He returned the lawnmower in working condition.”

    or something like that…

  18. Thommo’s star of stage and screen lawyer suggesting that other persons were responsible for inappropriate expenditures.

    “A Big Boy Did It And Ran Away”?

  19. Lloyd

    McArdle’s resume courtesy of Pedro reads like that of a serial meddler which explains his odd defence of CT.

    As for Thomson, he doesn’t know when to hold and when to fold. Look at his past craptastic defamation actions. Would the departure of such a maladroit individual be a loss of any consequence to the Parliament or indeed Labor?

  20. WhaleHunt Fun

    “Would the departure of such a maladroit individual be a loss of any consequence to the Parliament or indeed Labor?”

    er … he is better than most of what Labor has.

    If everything was true, he would still not have slept with Emerson.
    So that puts him streets ahead.

  21. WhaleHunt Fun

    ? or has he ? If he has, please do not tell me. The image, urgh! it just won’t shift. nooooooooooo

  22. Mk50 of Brisbane

    Whale – RUM!!

    Stat!

  23. WhaleHunt Fun

    “warns that lawyer’s arguments need not be internally consistent”

    Its McA’s internal plumbing that is not consistent.
    He’s got his waste coming out his mouth pipe.

  24. Splatacrobat

    The next brilliant defence will be that because of the extensive media coverage his client will not be able to get a fair trial.

  25. twostix

    Look at his past craptastic defamation actions.

    It was only and purely due to his defamation action against the SMH that this arrest has happened. It was through the discovery phase that the SMH was able to obtain the concrete proof of what it was alleging in its original story.

    Under Gillards desired media “regulator” the story would have been squashed early on Thompson never would have been arrested and the SMH would have been perversely forced to print an apology to him for the original story that he sued over.

    And so we see the real reason for the ALP’s wish for such a regime.

  26. Lloyd

    Yep. He’s dumber than dogshit and Gillard and Roxon are, well, the words mean and tricky come to mind.

  27. Up The Workers!

    Why is it that I keep getting the strong impression that McArdle has been getting all his media coaching from Tony Mundine?

    How to win friends and influence people?

    I don’t think so!

  28. .

    To lead with the chin as well…

  29. Will

    Reminds me of a Roger Garrison Econblog podcast where he warns that lawyer’s arguments need not be internally consistant.

    1. “My client did not borrow your lawnmower”
    2. “It was already broken when you loaned it to him.”
    3. “He returned the lawnmower in working condition.”

    or something like that…

    My law lecturer told me about that strategy of legal argument. Funnily enough, it never seemed to work when I used it.

  30. Craig Mc

    A defendant’s guilt is directly proportional to his defence team’s hyperbole and idiotic claims. Just look at the crap David Hicks’ people came out with.

  31. Grey

    I particularly love Thommo’s star of stage and screen lawyer suggesting that other persons were responsible for inappropriate expenditures. What – all 150? Really?

    I suspect he will concede the ice cream – de minimis non curat lex.

    Craig Thomson has two problems.
    1 He is more damaging to the Labor party if he is innocent than he is guilty.
    2. He is clearly idiot. Particularly since he has never recognised his first problem and continually obtained legal representation either directly or indirectly supplied by NSW Labor or affiliated to the union movement. While that is understandable inasmuch he saw the union movement as his friends, they ceased to be his friends the moment the Jacksons turned their squinting little eyes on him.

    If he dumped his legal representation the moment he became aware that dropping the libel action against Fairfax was very much not in his best interest and got some local lawyer who belonged to the Wyong branch of the Liberal Party, he would have beaten these charges months ago.

  32. Craig Mc

    Yep. He’s dumber than dogshit and Gillard and Roxon are, well, the words mean and tricky come to mind.

    Richard Nixon would have resigned from embarrassment a year ago if he was in this government.

  33. Anthony

    A certain type of barrister (has what’s his name been admitted?) is a natural performer – put them in a situation like this and they’ll milk it. Avoid them like the plague. But on the TV cameras I think he has a point, and mere precedence is not an argument in favour, Judith. Giving the media the charges before the accused sees them is not a practice we should condone and I can’t see how filming an arrest for the TV news is in the public interest or benefit – that is served adequately by simply reporting that Thomson has been arrested. The police, if it is down to them, are exercising poor judgment by engaging in these practices.

  34. Helen Armstrong

    NSW authorities deny strip-search of Craig Thomson was intended intimidation

    Barry O’Farrell

    “I think Mr Thomson and his lawyer need to calm down a bit – after all, the allegations surrounding Craig Thomson are that he was all too ready to take his clothes off in front of strangers in exchange for money.”

  35. Tapdog

    because faux righteous indignation and victimisation about “an innocent man being persecuted” is all he and his lawyer have left.

    AKA the Lance Armstrong defence.

  36. H B Bear

    Thommo’s lawyers grip on reality seems about as tenuous as the man himself.

  37. Peter OBrien

    Anyone else notice that McArdle frequently refers to his client as ‘this fellow’. It’s the sort of description that’s usually reserved for someone you hold in contempt and sounds strange when applied to a client that you supposedly admire. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever heard him refer to Thomson as ‘Craig’ or ‘Mr Thomson’.

  38. ar

    McCardle for the prosecution…

  39. Lew

    Maybe he doesn’t want the job and hopes his odd performance will get him sacked.

  40. brc

    The police, if it is down to them, are exercising poor judgment by engaging in these practices

    I disagree. If he was offered the chance to come in himself, and ignored it, then a full public humiliation is in order. That way, when future politicians are invited to come down to the station, they might be more inclined to do so, lawyer in tow. Otherwise the cops are just a dog that barks but doesn’t bite. I would imagine the phone calls go something like ‘come in by yourself or we will come and get you, and it won’t be pretty’

    Thomson and his inept lawyer probably thought they could go the lance Armstrong defense to win some hearts and minds. Worked for lance for a week or two.

  41. Helen Armstrong

    Thommo and his lawyer tried the ‘call their bluff’ line. And it backfired.

  42. Pickles

    These blokes are full of gob until the cash runs out, usually after the committal. By which time he will have been on TV a number of times.

  43. John Comnenus

    Is McArdle related to McTernan?

  44. Dan

    Rule 1: if your legal representation wears mismatched clothes like a drop kick semi retired venture capitalist, get another lawyer.

  45. Grandma

    I see elsewhere that the lawyer says the offences are “trivial”. I wonder if HSU members think so too.

  46. John Comnenus

    McFartle and McTurdman just need colourful tights and capes before they start their task of saving Labor.

  47. Luke

    I thought we had rules in Australia that prevented us from putting forward a blatantly unfounded accusation that someoneelse was responsible for the crimes of our clients. Common law, but now reflected in the solicitor/barrister rules. No?

    If so, then perhaphs a complaint to the rlevant commission/society/association would help our learned friend to get back to par.

  48. ar

    I see elsewhere that the lawyer says the offences are “trivial”.

    Trivial fraud. Tell it to the judge…

  49. Grey

    I thought we had rules in Australia that prevented us from putting forward a blatantly unfounded accusation that someoneelse was responsible for the crimes of our clients.

    No

    Common law

    No

    , but now reflected in the solicitor/barrister rules. No?

    At last correct: No.

    There is a defamation law, but that is not enforced by police. It is still legal to say X is a lying, cheating, whoring bastard, you may be required to make good any damage to his reputation. Hence it is not illegal to say it, but if you damage a reputation you are obliged to make restitution. It is only illegal if a court as issued an order preventing you making such claims.

  50. C.L.

    “I think Mr Thomson and his lawyer need to calm down a bit – after all, the allegations surrounding Craig Thomson are that he was all too ready to take his clothes off in front of strangers in exchange for money.”

    O’Farrell is here being an imbecile – and confirming that he is a natural police state leftist. He is essentially arguing that innocent people at law may licitly be punished by functionaries of the state on a just desserts basis. This is the scumbag who wants to jail more Andrew Bolts and Alan Joneses.

  51. C.L.

    If he was offered the chance to come in himself, and ignored it, then a full public humiliation is in order.

    To come in? What, he’s a fucking bushranger now?

    BRC, this is a shockingly wongheaded attitude. We have the right to silence; the idea that we should voluntarily give ourselves up and speak to police when there is no arrest warrant – under pain of possible police revenge down the track – is Stalinism pure and simple. Obviously, I have no brief or inclination to defend Thomson but I will defend to the death his right to silence and his right to freedom – in the absence of any warrants ordering the curtailment of the latter.

  52. Ubique

    At least in jail the sex is free.

  53. John Comnenus

    Might be free, but its probably not much fun playing mummies and daddies with big bubba on the top bunk

  54. .

    Yes C.L., but he wouldn’t presumably have been extradited if he co-operated, he’s innocent after all…

  55. candy

    Barry O’Farrell as just making some sort of dumb awkward joke.

  56. Lew

    Who gives a rats arse if he came in himself or not except his mouthpiece who claimed that he wasn’t given the opportunity to do so.That claim was unequivocally contradicted by Det.Supt.Dyson so the stupid prick was arrested and,again according to his mouthpiece,was subjected to the humilation of being arrested.Well fuck me,who would have thought! It seems that the only way the stupid prick and his mouthpiece would have been happy is if the coppers just pissed off and never came near him again.Personally the next time he’s due to appear in Court I hope they not only arrest him but also cuff him.

  57. Infidel Tiger

    CL, it is admirable that you will stand up for the rights and freedoms of even the most vile members of society.

    I think you should probably take an extended holiday when the Fisk Doctrine is introduced.

  58. ugh

    “We have the right to silence; the idea that we should voluntarily give ourselves up and speak to police when there is no arrest warrant – under pain of possible police revenge down the track – is Stalinism pure and simple”

    FFS CL executing a valid arrest warrant when a person is at their place of work is standard operating procedure NOT Stalinism.

    Thompson was given the opportunity to surrender himself, he could have arranged it to avoid publicity – a privilege that I’ve never heard a non-MP being given.

    Thompson should thank his lucky stars police offered him the chance to do things discreetly, rather than complain about the circumstances of his arrest when he refused that option.

  59. Anthony

    “If he was offered the chance to come in himself, and ignored it, then a full public humiliation is in order.”
    When did we revert to medieval standards of justice, brc? Why not just bring back public stocks? The job of the police is not to “publicly humiliate” people, but to enforce the law, which in this case simply meant to execute a warrant by arrest. There was no purpose in the media being there (other than, as you suggest, public humiliation) and no reason for the police – again I add: if it was down to them – to tip them off, let alone to distribute “media packages” to them before the arrest was even made, as is being reported. As unsavoury as the Thomson affair is, there are greater principles at stake in how the authorities conduct themselves in prosecuting it – principles which protect us all.

  60. Splatacrobat

    Lets just hope Shagger has not been speaking to the Equadorian Embassy.

  61. Lew

    The “humiliation” occurred only according to the stupid prick’s mouthpiece.If you saw the TV footage could you point out exactly where you saw any evidence to support the mouthpiece’s claim.If you see some conspiracy as a result of the media presence would you have been happier if he’d been arrested at home in the early hours of the morning with no media present or would that have bought forward bleatings about a “Police State”?

  62. Huckleberry Chunkwot

    Might be free, but its probably not much fun playing mummies and daddies with big bubba on the top bunk

    I can just imagine Shaggers first night in the big house going something like this:
    Shagger: Hi, I’m Craig. What’s your name?
    Bubba: Call me Bubba.
    Bubba: We are going to play a game of mummies and daddies OK. Do you want to be the mummy or the daddy?
    Shagger (thinking quick on his feet): I’ll be the daddy!
    Bubba: Well get over here and suck mummies cock!

  63. Pedro

    The rozzers simply pointed out that people who don’t surrender shouldn’t be surprised and upset about being arrested. Nobody suggested that magna carta rights shoudl be abolished! As for O’Farrell, the joke was lame but how can anyone complain that Thommo was treated the same as other people following arrest.

  64. .

    I’m ashamed to say I saw the same joke on “Son of the Beach”.

  65. Let’s not forget that, in addition to his barely believable claims that he’s a victim of a cunning conspiracy—led by amazingly careful burglars who, after stealing his ID and credit cards, pay for prostitutes therewith, and then replace the cards and ID in his wallet—, Thommo has been expostulating all along that he welcomes any opportunity to assist authorities; but his egregiously perverse method of assisting inquiries so far, of course, is to refuse to provide answers or evidence to all investigators.

  66. C.L.

    …to refuse to provide answers or evidence to all investigators.

    Which is his right.

    The notion that exercising this right means he can licitly be targeted down the track for special treatment (by way of police vendetta – qua BRC) is abhorrent.

    FFS CL executing a valid arrest warrant when a person is at their place of work is standard operating procedure NOT Stalinism.

    I didn’t say being arrested is Stalinism. Try again.

    On that issue, though, five officers were dispatched for the arrest. I guess that would be because of Thomson’s fearsome reputation for fisticuffs and violence.

  67. Helen Armstrong

    CL I believe he was offered the opportunity to be arrested in Vic, if he presented himself there. He declined. So Vic Police together with the NSW squad who are also investigating him had to go through the extra expense for taxpayers of extradition arrest.

    Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we are over the top in some of the things we have said and assumptions we have made. Perhaps even after 150 separate charges he will be found innocent. There is a chance of that, or no conviction recorded or mis-trial where he might walk away. Then there is also a civil case where the HSU are pursuing him for the money he (they allege) wrongly used. I guess he would still be eligible to sit in Parliament if a civil case found he was required to repay monies. There is no conviction of 12 months or more.

    I think Barry was having a go at the Lawyer, as much of anything, and standing up for his Police Force, which the lawyer has smeared all day.

    Having said that, when I think of how long this has gone on in AWU and the Health Services Union, and that they so very nearly got away with treating those who cleaned the hospitals as convenient fools easily parted with their hard earned, I want these days and every day until conviction, and days for ever after seared into the very eyeballs of lefty apologistas who said, nothing to see here, move along.

  68. Which is his right.

    Well, of course he has a right to remain silent. His silence, however, is antithetical to his constant refrain that he wishes to help the authorities.

    The notion that exercising this right means he can licitly be targeted […] for special treatment […] is abhorrent.

    Well, I can’t see where I have ever condoned “special treatment”, at any time, for him or anyone else.

  69. Leigh Lowe

    That Olympic standard fuckwit Peter Fitzsimons was on Sky last night saying he admired Thommo’s “stoicism”.
    Jesus H Christ!
    The correct term is “bare-faced lying and denial” you hanky-headed muppet!
    But remember that it was only a few months ago when Fewfacts journalists were lining up to praise Thommo’s “courageous defence of his position” in Parliament.
    Why?
    Mainly because he threw them the bone they most like to chew on …… that it is all Tony Abbott’s fault.

  70. C.L.

    CL I believe he was offered the opportunity to be arrested in Vic, if he presented himself there.

    I’m calling bullshit.

    ‘Hi Craig. Yeah, mate, look we wondered if you’d pop in to be arrested. What? No, we haven’t got a warrant we’re willing to execute. We just want you to come in and admit everything.’

    Yeah, no. Bullshit.

    Well, I can’t see where I have ever condoned “special treatment”, at any time, for him or anyone else.

  71. C.L.

    Well, I can’t see where I have ever condoned “special treatment”, at any time, for him or anyone else.

    I was addressing BRC’s remark. To wit:

    If he was offered the chance to come in himself, and ignored it, then a full public humiliation is in order.

    It is not the role of police to punish people for not speaking to them.

    Which people don’t have to do.

    And which we’ve fought wars to ensure they don’t have to do.

  72. brc

    I’m always happy to stir a debate.

    ‘publicly humiliated’ was probably a rhetorical step too far on my part. But then so is suggesting that police with a valid warrant for arrest collecting someone of intense public interest is Stalinist. Remember his buddy Williamson tried to do a runner with a box full of documents, so I’m not surprised they did it this way.

    I don’t think the police were out of line here. It’s not like they bashed down his door and dragged him out of his house in front of his kids in handcuffs.

    You might have a right to silence but you don’t have a right to tell the police to Foxtrot Oscar when they’re ready to lay charges.

    This guy could have avoided all of this months, years ago by co-operating with an investigation and coming clean. He could have arranged it through a lawyer and kept it off the front pages. He’s the one he chose to grandstand in the media and parliament and turn the sorry charade into a public spectacle.

    His rights have not been trampled in one bit in my book.

  73. Helen Armstrong

    I’m calling bullshit.

    Well that is what the Policemen said, you can call them liars if you want, but then to be fair, you must also call Thommo a liar in protesting his innocence.

  74. Rococo Liberal

    It’s clear that CL has got a man crush on the NSW Premier, hence our Qld friend’s constant OTT sniping against a fellow Irish-Australian:)

  75. Rob

    I will defend to the death his right to silence and his right to freedom

    No you wouldn’t.

  76. Splatacrobat

    Latest news is Shagger doesn’t think he can attend court next Tuesday because Standing Orders say that no member shall be compelled to attend a court within five days of a parliamentary sitting.

  77. Aliice

    Believe Thommos lawyer (NOT)

  78. Aliice

    Fucking Thommo is a lying bastard. Faster that rip off jerk =goes to jail or gets bankrupted the happier I will be..

    For Gods sake – the man ripped off hospital cleaners who earn jack.

    Fuck him. Jail time is what that jerk deserves and to pay every cent of his profligate prostitute lifestyle back.

    The jerk.

  79. Leigh Lowe

    You need to sprinkle your comment with the odd “allegedly” Aliice …. but the sentiment is valid.
    Time for some governance standards over Unions.

  80. Leigh Lowe

    I have a problem with pre-trial commentary, but not in the orthodox way.
    If I ring a talk-back program and say “Thommo is guilty as sin”, they will hit the dump button in milli-seconds.
    Why then can McDoodle say that “Thommo is innocent”?
    Both statements have the potential to prejudice potential jurors.
    Sure, his lawyer can say his client has “the presumption of innocence” but he should not be allowed to make the bald assertion of outright innocence.

  81. C.L.

    Alice, are you trying to get Sinclair sued?

  82. C.L.

    It’s clear that CL has got a man crush on the NSW Premier…

    Yes, my description of him above as a scumbag gave the game away.

    Why then can McDoodle say that “Thommo is innocent”?

    Because, at law, he is.

  83. As Tacitus said, “Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet.”
    I for one will defend to a slight degree of inconvenience—but, I expect, little more—the right of anyone to speak (or not speak) as he or she lists.

  84. Tintarella di Luna

    maybe Shagger mistook ‘pro bono’ for ‘pro boning’??

    Such an easy mistake to make Mk especially these days what with Trish Crossin boned by a kneebone just last week. ‘Tis all the rage I tellz ya.

  85. Aliice

    Leigh Lowe

    I dont have to sprinkle allegedly in anywhere.Thommo is the sort WE DONT WANT in politics. I pay for this jerk and so do you.
    Him and his union mates built themselves a bice insider clube to rip of health union dues payers of not hundreds of dollars, but hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    What were they doing for these low pay union workers? Stealing in large amounts from their membership low pay pockets.

    Fuck them (the bastards). Jail them and bankrupt the and humiliate them as well – each and everyone one and their families who took kickbacks – each and everyone involved. Only then will I have faith we have decent civil controls in place.

  86. Aliice

    No I am not tryomg to get Sinclair sued over this. Not at all.
    This is ridiculous. We have complete scum in parliament stealing hundreds of thossands of dollars from union members and I cant speak in case Sinc gets sued?
    Sinc has done nothing and the guys who I speak of are low life thieves. They can sue me for saying it not Sinc. Nothing to do with Sinc. Its to do with really poor controls against theft in government.
    This is bullshit.

  87. Tintarella di Luna

    It was only and purely due to his defamation action against the SMH that this arrest has happened.

    ‘Gzackly twostix.And I have always wondered is there a sworn affidaivt by Thomson sitting somewhere in a solicitor’s file? Just by virtue of the swearing of it is enough surely? Unfortunately Thomson used the the Labor playbook, but picked a wrong ‘un, instead of some poor chump he took on Fairfax at a time when they had some money to retain very good lawyers with big shovels.

    Now his his tool of a lawyer trying to play the same game– threatening Barry O’Farrell with a defamation suit , there are rules about using these kind of threats against a sitting Premier particularly since Thomson hasn’t been found guilty or acquitted yet. Mr Big-mouth McArdle needs to tread carefully and stop eating Rocky Road.

  88. Aliice

    Leigh you say

    That Olympic standard fuckwit Peter Fitzsimons was on Sky last night saying he admired Thommo’s “stoicism”.

    That aint stoicism. Its keeping his mouth shut because he knows if he opens it his lies will indict him.
    Thats paid lawyers advice (shut your trap) not stoiciusm at all.

  89. Up The Workers!

    Next time you’re caught between a rock and a hard place and desperately need good legal representation, there’s just one name to remember: “Mundine, McTernan & McArdle”.

    Just spend 5 minutes contemplating that, and you’ll happily plead guilty and be glad to have saved yourself all that time, money and embarrassment.

  90. Aliice

    t know whay Thommos isnt peristing with this crap. He should just plead guilty, They are going to get him in the end and the NSW has already paid too much of the legal defence for this scumbag and now he runs out of taxpayer funding.
    Can taxpayers line up as creditors and put him in admin now?
    Pissed off about it (but it seems in the labor party its an almost every day event doesnt it?)
    I dont like rabid workchoices and “productivity bashing of workers” either but I dont want lying thieving scum in government either.
    I tell ya Im voting Katter in. I dont care what anyone says.

  91. sdfc

    McArdle is simply doing his job by the sounds of it. What’s the problem?

  92. jumpnmcar

    Yes, he is ” presumed innocent ” of the 149 VicPol charges, but is he innocent of the Fair Work findings.
    How many ” fraudulent acts ” are replicated in both inquiries ?

  93. Aliice

    presumed innocent ? By who? fools and lawyers?

  94. Cold-Hands

    Latest news is Shagger doesn’t think he can attend court next Tuesday because Standing Orders say that no member shall be compelled to attend a court within five days of a parliamentary sitting.

    The Shagger is just talking out of his nether fundament. While what he says is true for civil matters, in criminal matters, Parliamentarians have no such privilege.

    Members may not be required to attend courts or tribunals as witnesses or be arrested or detained in civil matters on sitting days and for five days before and after sitting days. Such immunities also apply when a Member is a member of a committee that is meeting. People required to attend as witnesses before committees may not be required to appear as witnesses before a court or tribunal or be arrested or detained for a civil matter on days they are required to give evidence to the committee. Members and some parliamentary staff are also exempt from jury service. These immunities are justified on the ground that the first duty of Members, and others involved, is to Parliament and that this overrides other obligations. The immunity from civil arrest and detention does not exempt Members from the action of the law—Members still must fulfill their legal obligations at a time when the Parliament is not meeting, and no immunity applies at all in criminal matters.

  95. Aliice

    Where is my presumed innocence? I am a taxpayer?
    Where are my rights whilst scum like this play lawyer ping ping at great expense to taxpayers and um pardon me he gets charged with using union funds to pay for a $3 dollar icecream??
    Who is being fooled but the bloody taxpayer again.
    yes, the taxpayers should form a group (the right’s answer to get up).
    Because its taxpayers who are getting snowed badly, conned, lied to and its become a game of lawyers and they all cost taxpayers money unnecessarily.

    I dont see why I should have paid a cent to Thommos defence but the taxpayers already have paid a lot.

    Thats just not right. Who is going to pay us all back if he loses? Does Gillard have any plans to recompense the taxpayer? Not that I have heard and its just not good enough.

  96. jumpnmcar

    Aliice,
    I would not live in Australia if ” allegations ” got me punished.
    We are not an anarchy.
    If we were you would have been lynched all ready.
    I don’t want that.

  97. Just A View

    I find the expertise about criminal matters from Mr McArdle’s CV enlightening. Thanks Pedro from much earlier today.

    For all the poor Alice’s out there (8:02pm) tax in Australia has always worked on a reverse onus of proof. That is, the ATO say you owe $x. If you disagree you must prove them wrong. For some strange reason the political parties have never worked out how bad this policy is and reversed it. Sir Humphrey really is in control.

  98. Mike of Marion

    Absolutely laughable is this McArdle.

    CRAIG Thomson’s lawyer has given NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell 24 hours to apologise or face legal action for a “completely unacceptable” comment about the federal MP.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/labor-must-refuse-thomson-vote-opposition/story-e6frf7kf-1226566403463

  99. stanny

    CL what are you on Thomson is the Lance Armstrong of Australian politics but I guess you would let Lance ride again in this years Tour de France after all he hasn’t actually been convicted of anything.
    Every low life anywhere always keeps up the mantra of “I haven’t done anything wrong” but Thomson is a demonstrable liar he lied about his settlement of the defamation case with Fairfax,the handwriting thing clearing him, about the police no longer investigating him its a long long list even if you cannot see Fair Work had adverse findings against him.
    Get real.

  100. Aliice

    Jumpncar
    for too many the law and the punishment just doesnt come fast enough. There is a big distance in time between lynching and stopping this sort of theft legally faster and it isnt happening (the latter).
    It becomes a joke when it drags on so long and they know its a joke and then they get away with it.
    No I dont wwant to lynch Thommo but when it drags on this long there is something wrong with the system also. I just want to see him jailed or money paid back in full or him bankrupted and in jail a bit faster.
    (plus taxpayers had to pay bucketloads already for this idiot).

  101. sdfc

    Alice, are you blogging in bed?

  102. candy

    Alice,I understand your crankiness about it, he’s taken the union dues of the poorest workers to live the high life – probably paid for dinners to woo his newest wife and jewellry,travel, you name it.

    It seems he thinks it’s justified, because he represents the workers. It’s a weird culture.

  103. jumpnmcar

    Alice
    If unions were treated as a corporation, justice would be swift.
    The union party has shielded this chap for its own benefit , after they no longed need him he’ll join Gordon Nuttall.

  104. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    “… no reason for the police – again I add: if it was down to them – to tip them off, let alone to distribute “media packages” to them before the arrest was even made”

    I would have thought that met perfectly well the fundamental human right (add whatever you like here) Jemimah Khan™ for the “public interest or benefit” to be served.

    The sanctity of the law and lawyers throwing up the defences, any convenient defences, to protect it reminds me of George Bernard Shaw’s “the professions are a conspiracy against the laity (the masses)”. I say he had in mind the most unionised closed shop, ever – the solicitors, barristers and judges.

    They’ll worship corrupt fellows such as Lionel Murphy, tolerate flights of fancy in Michael Kirby’s judgments (the smartest man in the room, I say, his intellect was extraordinary) and leave O’Shane in place for decades when she was demonstrably unworthy, yet they intone us in grave terms on the central importance of maintaining purity.

    I recall a judge in Sydney who was eons behind in delivering judgments (consequently costing parties lots of money), falling asleep on the job and so on – it took years – years – to give him the shove. Joint sitting of both houses, all that “you’re so special – a deity” stuff, instead of a simple “You are incompetent, leave now.”

    These cops are on a hiding to nothing – all the investigative work must be done and presented to perfection because it will be placed before some Rob Hulls appointed camp follower in Victoria, whose job it is to protect the Pardy by assisting the defence to mock, humiliate and dismember it.

    Yet you are astonished the police were not “simply reporting that Thomson has been arrested” and were “exercising poor judgment”.

    Best left to the lawyers eh? Do it quietly, we’ll then deal with it because we are trained to know what’s best, the law is old and wise and the most able to decide what is and is not in the public interest, including “no bill”.

  105. Leigh Lowe

    It was only and purely due to his defamation action against the SMH that this arrest has happened.

    Correct!
    What a dickhead!
    If memory serves he made an indignant phone call to talk-back radio to protest his innocence, which triggered the whole thing again.
    Was it Kate McClymont who wrote the original articles in SMH?
    She is one of the few in FauxFacts worth feeding.

  106. ADAM DAVIDSON

    McGargle, or whatever his name is, said that Thomson only bought an ice cream.The coppers say the initial
    charge was for $330 for “personal services”. Perhaps McGargle can tell me “what was the ice cream for?”

  107. Winnedge

    There is some talk about Thomson’s failing financial status and the sum of a million dollars has been mentioned.

    My question is this; If he is forced into bankruptcy, either by himself or a creditor, will his parliamentary pension, such that it is, be exempted?

    And of course a bankrupt is not allowed to be a sitting Member. Is anyone out there owed money by Thomson? It would be a quicker way of removing him from the House surely?

  108. C.L.

    Every low life anywhere always keeps up the mantra of “I haven’t done anything wrong” but Thomson is a demonstrable liar he lied about his settlement of the defamation case with Fairfax,the handwriting thing clearing him, about the police no longer investigating him its a long long list even if you cannot see Fair Work had adverse findings against him.
    Get real.

    This is indistinguishable from Nicola Roxon’s view of justice – guilty until proven innocent.

    I’m always surprised by people’s tendency to embrace totalitarian impulses – you know, just this once – for somebody they don’t like. See also the treatment afforded Andrew Bolt.

    I’m no defender of Thomson. (Duh). I’m saying the idea that police invited him to come in and tell all before being arrested – and that having not done so means he deserves punishment – is bullshit.

  109. Rob

    CL-
    What exactly is the problem?
    Seriously?
    He is charged with criminal offenses so was arrested. I don’t like the media being tipped off but they were in a public place. Do you feel that his dignity as a parliamentarian has been insulted? Well I don’t believe there is any dignity left there. I used to work with these hospital cleaners. Those are people who worked hard in difficult conditions, handling bodily fluids, transporting corpses, washing up vomit, day and night. They deserved respect. Parliamentarians in this country have earned none and deserve none. I might just add, if one of those cleaners so much as stole a bracelet in a ward the police would have turned up at their place of work and marched them off in a couple of hours, not after a couple of YEARS.

    Seriously, get a grip

  110. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    I’ve got to agree with Rob, C.L.

    Why would you give the grub any quarter after what he has done to people he purported to represent, who deserve better?

    I’d be personally untroubled by the mongrel copping a bit of telephone book to the scone memory jogger or, better still, a welcoming Grafton bash.

Comments are closed.