"Why was a criminal matter referred to FWA for a union official where as the rest of us would face police investigation?"
I have been asked previously why I have not condemned thompson.
I pointed to the Haneef affair as my precedent.
Everyone thought he was guilty,and he was subsequently found not guilty.
I do not condone fraud or theft,but I have come to accept human failure.
Just as one snowflake can turn into a snowball,I have to wonder how his expenses were reconciled from the get go?.
Was he ever questioned over any of his expenses?,as he used a credt card,Im presuming he submitted a monthly reconciliation of his expenses.
I too have had to submitt expenses to be reconciled,and can I say from time to time ,I have been castigated over some extravagances,as my employer saw them,which I have ultimately have had to pay myself, from my own money.
I have read there were/are 181 breaches,my point is,were any of these breaches brought to thompsons attention while he worked for his employer.
Is the old saying," give an inch and they will take mile" appropriate?.
Is the problem his(thompsons)or theirs,through lack of oversight?
As George Costanza said to Jerry,"its not a lie ,if you truly beleive it ",Jerry.
So in closing ,if thompson's immediate superior/s never questioned hs expenses ,and if thompson continued to provide his expenses ( even if they are/were excessive at least to us)if he beleives he was entitled to them,has he broken the law?
I dont know,thats my honest answer.
This is completely different to the peter reith affair,as reiths son admitted using the phone to make calls to the tune of $50K. Thompson has never denied the expenses were his,delusional or otherwise,hes under the empression he is/was entitled to them,Im no lawyer,this I beleive is the crux of the matter,had he being pulled up earlier for his "extravagances",he could be on shaky ground,if he hasnt,does this give "tacit" support to his argument.
