With Craig Thomson’s appeal against his conviction set to begin in Melbourne County Court on Monday, I thought it may be time for another quick chat with the man himself, and Thomson was good enough to grant us an exclusive interview.
There has been a lot of confusion in the public over some of the aspects of the case that I thought may be best cleared up by Thomson in his own words.
Things such as the much confused difference between admissions and undisputed facts which has been heavily misreported in the mainstream and right-wing media, and the total dollar figure of the charges against him which has varied often wildly in reports.
For this appeal there is to be no new evidence presented so I was also keen to hear Craig’s opinion on what he thinks will be different about the outcome, and the notion shared by many that he is just delaying the inevitable or buying time at a very expensive rate.
Along the way Craig opened up about his own mental health, as well as special treatment for whistleblowers and the virtual impossibility of a fair trial.
Anyway… Have a look and I hope it clears up some of the confusion and gives an insight into Thomson’s mind as he rolls the dice and hopes for a better outcome this time.
Save Wixxy from his own budget crisis by donating here
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
For All Your Video Production Needs
Follow @madwixxy
I’ve been a trade unionist all my life. A delegate at 19 to a relieving union official in arguably the strongest Union of it’s time.
If Craig Thomson is seeking some sort of moral relief from stealing rank & file dues & spending it on himself, he only deepens the cut.
It seems to be all about him & how he’s suffered. Sorry. He’s a selfish crook.
Well said Rivka. Same rules for all, it doesn’t matter whether it is a postage stamp, $24,000.00 or millions. Corruption is corruption.
Kathy Jackson’s alleged behaviour is evil, Thomson’s alleged behaviour is more than a little bit bad. In no way is it acceptable or justify ripping off other people’s money.
rikda on November 23, 2014
You are not capable of being a delegate and those who voted you such must have been relations of yours.
I bet you never even listened to the whole interview as only Wixxy and IA have given Craigs side of this debacle.
If you had followed this case you would know that the Magistrate about turned his earlier finding.
Cheers Wixxy
Massive interview Wixxy and Craig and this is deserving of an “Australian Story”.
It`s a pity the Fascists control the ABC
Rikda, if you were to re-read Craig’s speech to parliament in April 2012 and compare what he said in it with the irrefutable concrete evidence of Kathy Jackson’s actions as provided by Peter Wicks, you would see that all he said is proving to be true.
Contrast 1.
Craig who, despite the dreadful toll it would take, couldn’t bring himself to take the quick way out and say he had done something he hadn’t AND who turned up for every hearing.
Another person who can’t bring herself to tell the truth even in the face of years of mounting documentary evidence AND who postpones and then fails to turn up to answer the hard questions.
Contrast 2.
Peter Wicks and the MSM
While Craig struggles with ill health and to rebuild his life, the Coalition and MSM will breeze on as though nothing happened.
Well No time it`ll be great when Labor bring in retrospective legislation rescinding the Minchin protocol and “all” the fraudulent politicians get fined and or jailed after their convictions.
Can`t wait for your type justice-BRING it ON
rikda
I would be really interested to know whether you read ALL of Wixxy’s articles on Craig and Kathy Jackson before coming to that conclusion.
I agree with the sentiment that it makes no difference regarding dollar figures, however I think what his expenditure was is important.
Given the vast majority of his expenditure was spouse travel and for travel related expenses, I think it is a vastly different scenario to that of Jackson.
Thomson’s gain from this expenditure was that he got to spend time with his wife while away on union business on a few occassions, something that in a role which involves a lot of travel and time away from home a union would fight for others on. He did not get a flash car a multimillion dollar house, or an overseas holiday, he got the occassional company of his family at a work function. Even more important is the court acknowledged he was in the position to approve that expenditure, although remarkably decided under a legal option only used in Victoria that a “reasonable person” would not consider that someone who travels frequently should be allowed to have their wife accompany them to a work function on the odd occasion.
Some may consider this unreasonable and the crime of the century, but not me. Certainly not when that money was offered to be repaid long ago if there was any doubt about it being legitimate spending.
As for the other matters, if proven I will completely agree with you, but it’s a big if…
I believe Craig, have been following and reading the evidence, and was really surprised with the initial outcome. I think the magistrate got it wrong. Good luck this round Craig. Hoping for a better outcome and justice this time for you.
People may not realise that throughout the past five and a half years of enduring the persecution of her husband, Craig’s wife has been not only fully supportive at all times, but a wonderful source of intellectual and moral strength to him.
hey big head, in the course of my employment I have attended a course run by ICAC and have a certificate in Prevention of corruption. This guidance ICAC provides, to assist public sector agencies resisting corruption and managing risk, is hardly big bikkies, I know.
However, the analogy that I used is the one that was stressed many times in that course.: Even if it is a postage stamp, if it is not yours, and you help yourself to it for purposes that are not approved (i.e, your own benefit), it constitutes a corrupt act.
This is already enshrined in Australian law.
If you are a supporter of equal (yet, proportionate) justice, you’ll be able to celebrate when it is correctly meted out.
It’s not a case of last man standing or winner takes it all. There are no winners here. Jackson’s actions deserve scrutiny, as do Thomson’s.
In answer to Rikda and no time on, , I say this, the mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open.
Well jolly on you and as I stated BRING it ON because Thomson has had his scrutiny and the appeal is heard tomorrow.
Hie MSM jury has done their worst and their bit is over.
Jacksons ordeal is now beginning and we on social media will dish out to her what MSM has done to Thomson because you see many os us believe Thomson to be innocent and Jackson et al are the crooks and fraudsters.
OH yes ICAC has worked out so wel,l for Abbotts “BOAST” “ICAC This is Labor” haha with 11 Liberal scalps to date.
Well, I’m undecided and impartial, I do not suffer from confirmation bias.
Yes BRING IT ON, it’s called justice.
It is not for you or me to decide.
Oh, P.S: The Minchin protocol would only apply if it was parliamentary funds being misappropriated. ICAC only applies to public monies. The water is muddied because the funds that are in question were union money, belonging to a collective group.
The lax governance in relation to union funds is worthy of a royal commission and remediation to prevent any further misappropriation or grievances. No witches required.
I’m not an Abbott supporter.
11 corrupt Libs brought to justice, great!!
I’m not a greens supporter either.
… and I think that the 9 Labor scalps
previously scrutinised by NSW ICAC are equally as terrific!
(Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald, Joe Tripod , Tony Kelly, Angela D’Amore, Karyn Paluzzano, David Campbell and Brian Langton
oop I left off Eric Roosendaal!
Well Tony Kelly like Arthur Sinidinos have no charges to face anf the DPP has made no recommendations as to such
Macca and Eddie are to face their day and it was you who brought up ICAC into this conversation and by the way i talk to Eddis Obeid on Twitter and he reckons he`s as pure as freshly blown in snow.
https://i.imgflip.com/eh3wy.jpg
Well done, Pete.
Thanks for your help Scott
Regarding the Craig Thomson matter, here is a view contrary to the generally sympathetic one held by most of the people who contribute to the Wixxy blogsite.
I sometimes despair at the competence of prosecutorial “professionals”. An issue that I was aghast at during the first Thomson trial appears to have made an appearance at his second trial in Melbourne today. Had the prosecution laid charges against Thomson that were “tighter” in nature, all this could easily have been avoided.
Thomson was/is charged with improper use of a Union credit card. The defence is arguing that Thomson was validly issued various credit cards and he had the right to use/operate those cards. And at one level, this appears to be a very sound and reasonable defence to offer against the charges laid.
In my view, Thomson should have been charged with the improper use of members’ funds. The ridiculous focus on “credit card use” rather than the money disbursement aspect has possibly given Thomson a way out. By focussing on the credit cards themselves, discussion on the proper use of union funds can be avoided. For those concerned with the appropriate use of Union funds, it might be hard to swallow, but the fact is Thomson was/is not charged with misusing Union funds. Thus, he cannot be found guilty of such an offence.
I know I am not a lawyer, and that I do not think as a lawyer thinks, but I am genuinely puzzled as to why defence lawyers seem to be a whole lot smarter than prosecution lawyers.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/thomson-lawyer-says-he-lied-over-using-union-money-for-prostitutes/story-e6frg6n6-1227134199285
“gives an insight into Thomson’s mind as he rolls the dice and hopes for a better outcome this time.”
My insight into Thomson’s ,mind is I hope that Karl Bitar and Mark Arbib are going to give him a life time of blow jobs for saying he used the sex services himself and keeping the a lid firmly on the ALP entrenched culture of corruption.
“Barrister Greg James, QC, representing Thomson, told Judge Douglas on Tuesday that his client lied to Channel Nine’s Laurie Oakes in a May 2012 interview at the height of the scandal.
That was the interview in which Thomson claimed he had been set up by union rival. Mr James said Thomson lied to Oakes to divert attention away from him because “he was under attack for moral turpitude”.
“To rebut that, he lies,” he said.”
Heres hoping the judge upholds the original sentence. I find his conduct in this court case far more reprehensible than if he actually had used the prostitutes.
So, by the admission of his own barrister, it seems Craig Thomson told deliberate lies about his use of prostitutes – both inside Parliament and on television. This invites an obvious question: if Thomson lied about this, what else might he have lied about? It is to be hoped that this revelation will cause those who have up until now given Thomson the benefit of the doubt to reassess their whole-hearted support of him. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who espouses true Labor values and who professes concern for the ideals of trade unionism and the interests of ordinary trade unionists would not now begin to have at least some doubts about Craig Thomson’s previous leadership of the HSU. It appears that the HSU has been blessed with an abundance of crooked or corrupt leaders – Michael Williamson, Craig Thomson, Kathy Jackson and perhaps others according to evidence led at the Royal Commission into trade union corruption. This has got nothing to do with political leaning, but all to do with human greed and dishonesty.