| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Bruno wrote: | | What I do know is the VPT Left have been vociferous defenders of him. |
Put up or shut up dickhead. Where's the posts supporting him? |
|
|
|
 |
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'd prefer to spend my money on prostitutes.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I'm all for a code of professional conduct for politicians. The only trouble is that Thomson, as you conveniently forget, was not a sitting MP when these incidents are alleged to have occurred. I obviously don't believe that professional codes of conduct should cover acts committed in other jobs or outside the workplace.
Nonetheless, if he's found guilty he'll probably be asked to stand down. Why are you unwilling to wait for that process to run its course? |
No. You are going to have to do better then that.
To take on certain senior roles in these industries, people are required to be of certain character. This is all I am asking of our politicians.
Oh, and if you think every point of order re. something like this requires a court case, get ready for justice to be a very very very slow process. (Don't forget the old cliche ... justice delayed is justice denied). The reality is Industry Codes of Conduct explicitly exist to overcome situations like what we have seen with Craig Thomson. They exist to set standards / a culture so problems don't occur in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
BTW there already are numerous codes of conduct governing the behaviour of politicians. There are also good reasons why it is more important in politics than in any other field I can think of for due process to be observed.
Still waiting for evidence of this vociferous support for Thompson. |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | When (and if) there finally is a "VPT Left", I look forward to being introduced to it.
Reds under the bed much, Bruno? Your repeated party-political drivel is boring. Generally speaking, if you have nothing to say, it's better to say nothing. In recent times, you have been driving almost all room for intelligent thought out of the threads in which you post. It's a shame, really and does you little credit. |
So demanding certain standards from our Politicians is now "party political" is it? I only care about standards because Craig Thomson happens to be Labor?
FWIW ... as far as I am concerned that Geoff Shaw creep who props up the Victorian Liberal Government should be out on his arse too.
Look, I spent most of the last decade in the UK and I saw first hand what happens when there are no behavioral standards. Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats MP's all on the take with their expenses. Too many got a way with too much because "well, everybody was doing it".
NOT GOOD ENOUGH. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | BTW there already are numerous codes of conduct governing the behaviour of politicians. There are also good reasons why it is more important in politics than in any other field I can think of for due process to be observed.
Still waiting for evidence of this vociferous support for Thompson. |
Still how long? Do you think it will take a long time? |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| HAL wrote: | | nomadjack wrote: | BTW there already are numerous codes of conduct governing the behaviour of politicians. There are also good reasons why it is more important in politics than in any other field I can think of for due process to be observed.
Still waiting for evidence of this vociferous support for Thompson. |
Still how long? Do you think it will take a long time? |
Well said Hal!!
Enough about me, let's talk about the pies
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | Bruno wrote: | | What I do know is the VPT Left have been vociferous defenders of him. |
Put up or shut up dickhead. Where's the posts supporting him? |
Still nothing? What a surprise   |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | nomadjack wrote: | | Bruno wrote: | | What I do know is the VPT Left have been vociferous defenders of him. |
Put up or shut up dickhead. Where's the posts supporting him? |
Still nothing? What a surprise |
Nope. Still not good enough. I have said I don't need to trawl through past threads. The fact nobody in this current thread has had a bad word to say is enough.
I wonder if you would show alleged pedophile priests the same benefit of the doubt. I mean, taking Labor's argument, surely the Catholic Church was right to leave Priests where they were given accused Priests had not yet been tried let alone found guilty in a court of law. Surely, as David argues, until the long slow drawn out legal process takes it's course Priests indeed should have been allowed to remain in charge of and alone with children.
Well this actually begs a good question ... how serious does an alleged crime need to be before a politician should be expected to stand down (even if temporarily).
So, overwhelming evidence showing an MP "allegedly" repeatedly ripped off union members money for use on prostitutes doesn't warrant that MP standing down. What if there was overwhelming evidence the MP fleeced money from a company like Skase or Bond? Or forget white collar criminality for a second what if there was overwhelming evidence that an MP allegedly imported millions of dollars worth of amphetamines into the country? Would that be grounds for expecting the the MP to stand down (even if temporarily)? If so, why? |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I see. You identify your own view about a subject, assert the existence of some stupid straw-person opposition to your view and then our collective disinterest in posting in response to such arrant nonsense is somehow taken to be proof that we all hold the stupid straw-person opposition opinion?
I'm really pleased you've got the vote. |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | I see. You identify your own view about a subject, assert the existence of some stupid straw-person opposition to your view and then our collective disinterest in posting in response to such arrant nonsense is somehow taken to be proof that we all hold the stupid straw-person opposition opinion?
I'm really pleased you've got the vote. |
The current "collective disinterest" (as you put it) is very telling ... and shameful. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Bruno wrote: | I wonder if you would show alleged pedophile priests the same benefit of the doubt. I mean, taking Labor's argument, surely the Catholic Church was right to leave Priests where they were given accused Priests had not yet been tried let alone found guilty in a court of law. Surely, as David argues, until the long slow drawn out legal process takes it's course Priests indeed should have been allowed to remain in charge of and alone with children.
Well this actually begs a good question ... how serious does an alleged crime need to be before a politician should be expected to stand down (even if temporarily). |
There are clearly some cases where merely being suspected of misconduct might legitimately lead to suspension — say, stealing from the till at work or perverting the course of justice as a police officer — and, yes, if Thomson had been faced with these accusations when he was still in his position at the HSU it probably would have been right for him to have been given an indefinite suspension while the case was being dealt with. Sacking might still have been inappropriate, however, because it would have functioned as a presumption of guilt.
The purposes of such suspensions are to ensure that the business (as well as the people who work there and are served by it) is not adversely affected by that person's ongoing actions. As Thomson is now in an unrelated job, that is not a relevant consideration in this case.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Bruno wrote: |
I wonder if you would show alleged pedophile priests the same benefit of the doubt. I mean, taking Labor's argument, surely the Catholic Church was right to leave Priests where they were given accused Priests had not yet been tried let alone found guilty in a court of law. Surely, as David argues, until the long slow drawn out legal process takes it's course Priests indeed should have been allowed to remain in charge of and alone with children. |
Key point of difference is that the Catholic Church never, in the main, referred situations they were aware of to the Police to investigate, nor did they conduct any internal investigations that can be scrutinised.
The presumption of innocence is standard, however so is in employment lay the principle of suspension from duty while an investigation is being conducted if it's considered that to have the person continue to fulfil their duties during the investigation would be inappropriate.
That not judging, that's saying it's a serious allegation and while we work out if it's true or not, you shouldn't be there.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Bruno wrote: |
I wonder if you would show alleged pedophile priests the same benefit of the doubt. I mean, taking Labor's argument, surely the Catholic Church was right to leave Priests where they were given accused Priests had not yet been tried let alone found guilty in a court of law. Surely, as David argues, until the long slow drawn out legal process takes it's course Priests indeed should have been allowed to remain in charge of and alone with children. |
Key point of difference is that the Catholic Church never, in the main, referred situations they were aware of to the Police to investigate, nor did they conduct any internal investigations that can be scrutinised.
The presumption of innocence is standard, however so is in employment lay the principle of suspension from duty while an investigation is being conducted if it's considered that to have the person continue to fulfil their duties during the investigation would be inappropriate.
That not judging, that's saying it's a serious allegation and while we work out if it's true or not, you shouldn't be there. |
Sorry Stui, could you please just re-write your second paragraph? I don't quite understand what you are saying. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The point is that, if actually necessary, a suspension pending investigations is a neutral method of allowing the defendant to retain the right to be presumed innocent, whereas sacking presumes guilt.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
