Chris "Ice Cream" McArdle says the freedom fighter and politically persecuted victim Craig Thomson heroically rejected an offer by the desperate, weak and frightened political-police.   "Ice-Cream" said the Nelson-Mandela-style-hero will fight and defeat the 60,000 members of the HSU who the police-state prosecuters are perversely trying to paint as the victims of crime.

Here's how Brad Norington and Rachel Baxendale reported it in the first paragraph of their story in The Australian today.

THE police fraud case against former Labor MP Craig Thomson could be in doubt with the revelation that Victorian prosecutors offered to drop all 173 charges over alleged misuse of union credit cards if he pleaded guilty to a single offence of "obtaining benefits by deception".

Here's their source.

Mr Thomson's lawyer, Chris McArdle, told The Australian yesterday his client was offered the deal to face a "single charge" on Friday during pre-trial discussions between prosecution and defence legal teams.

Here's how The Australian's subeditors saw it in their headline to the story:

Craig Thomson fraud case in doubt

And here's what the prosecutor said:

"I can say that we're not in the business of prosecution to make offers."  Lesley Taylor, SC.

Earlier, Ms Taylor told the court the parties had held extensive, productive discussions, and the new charges were intended to clarify proceedings.

"Clarity is not something that's descending in any vast fashion, I might say," magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg responded. Mr Thomson's barrister, Greg James QC, said the parties were talking with "purpose and good intent".

Ms Taylor said Mr Thomson's alleged offences warranted the extra charges because, through each alleged act of using a union credit card for non-union purposes, Mr Thomson obtained a financial advantage as well as deceiving the members of the HSU and the service provider to whom he was making a payment.

Mr James disputed this, saying that it was immaterial to the service provider where the money came from.

Oh really Mr James.   If I was a, ahem, service provider and I was presented with a card and invited to process charges for services onto it believing that was a good and valid order for the transfer of money in payment - only later to find that I was being subpoenaed, speaking to police, making statements, being available as a witness in court and facing orders for restitution, I think I might feel a little bit duped.

It would be material to me where the money came from - why, I might even feel bad if I thought it came from the toil of lowly paid workers.   I might feel obliged to assist them in their efforts towards recovery.   It all depends, my learned friend, on your sense of justice.