Bomber Thompson's House Raided by Police


Must be a relief to deal with the police and the legal system rather than the Kafkaesque AFL/WADA system.


A 54 year old man attended at an appointed time at a Police Station and was arrested, then released without charge.

They have not identified or named the man.


I’m no law expert but don’t police sometimes arrest peopl/hostile witnessese in order to force them to answer questions then release them once they have talked? Could be the case here. Bomber refusing to give evidence against the other two but not actually involved in the trafficking himself. Still looking at the photos of the other two, I think Bomber needs to find new friends.


I think Frawley’s struggling mentally with being overtaken by Dimma as Richmond’s most successful coach of the past 35 years or so…but surely I must be very careful how I portray Spud at this moment.


He’s not a drug dealer. He’s not goddamm Walter White. He just earned squillions from property, not to mention the rest of his career. He has no reason to be a drug dealer. Chill the fark out.

Clearly he’s rented a property to people who are into that though. Not his fault what they’re into, and there’s no compulsion at law for him to find out (assuming he’s not an accomplice of some sort, which he won’t be).

A lot of media fuckknuckles are going to have a lot of egg on their face after this.


Whether he’s guilty or not it doesn’t look good for him unfortunately.

Not real smart renting a property out to a bikie gang member and especially a member of the bikie gang that’s in question.

Hopefully he has at least been smart about it and distances himself entirely from the whole process.


Ever thought that he might have a property agent managing the property, so he has no idea who is living there.
Amazing after the saga, that people here still lap up the sensationalist headlines.


First of all I hope you are right.

Second of all I said that at the bottom of my comment.


You might have gone early here, probably best not to make any black and white statements and let the process proceed at its own pace. In fact probably best not to say anything at all.


I can completely believe that what Frawley said is true: Mark Thompson has huge mental issues as a result of the saga. After all, that’s exactly what Thompson said himself: it eats away at him.

He’s been arrested, and police don’t arrest people unless they have good reason — not people like Mark Thompson, anyway. But he hasn’t been charged.

There are obviously people who would appear to be undesirables at his place in Port Melbourne. They’ve been charged with drug offences. Does that mean Mark Thompson was involved in drug dealing, or even knew about it? Not necessarily.

And I personally can’t believe that Mark Thompson would have anything to do with drug dealing.


With all due respect, isn’t that exactly what happens on a Internet forum? No one gives a sh*t what we say


This is correct, unfortunately. Section 5 of the Drugs Act is a ‘deeming’ provision which provides that a substance will be deemed to be in possession of a person if it is upon land or premises occupied, controlled or used by that person. It operates as a reverse onus of proof (the accused person has to prove that the drugs aren’t theirs) and results in many innocent people being convicted. It’s a ■■■■■■ up law.


Except that if he is not living at the premises and has legally rented the property to someone else, then he is no longer in possession of the property unless he has only part rented it (a room) which then puts him in control again.


If that law didn’t exist, then major drug dealers could just rent houses out to fringe criminals, store the drugs there, and then wipe their hands of it if the cops show up.

I personally reckon Bomba let the wrong ‘aquaintence’ crash at his pad.


its probably been covered, but how on the hell can you be arrested without charge as per the rags headlines?

Surely a charge is required to make an arrest? thats er the point isnt it?


I think you can be arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime and then released if the police can’t collect enough evidence. I guess that’s why they are saying that he is released “pending further inquiries”. Not sure though. It all seems weird.


No. They arrest first, question etc, … then charge or not.


Yes, you can be held in custody for a ‘reasonable’ period of time without charge if the police have a reasonable suspicion you have committed a crime or if they have a warrant.


The deeming provision only applies to possession offences, not trafficking. Major drug dealers generally aren’t too concerned about possession charges.


The wallopers “invite” you down to the station for an interview. If you have the chutzpah to refuse the invitation (as you’re fully entitled to do), they arrest you, to get you down there on their terms. Then you get lawyered up and, if they’re on a fishing expedition, with no evidence against you, they let you go — for the time being…

It’s all bullshit - whatever else he might be, Bomber is not moody.