A man charged over the serious assault of his de facto's baby boy has had his name suppressed in court to avoid reprisals by those who might "take the law into their own hands".


The man's lawyer Cath Tawagi agreed to the application and said the concern was warranted because of the seriousness of the offence.

"It's not just the family of the baby, it's the general population," Ms Tawagi said.

Magistrate Christopher McRoberts acknowledged the seriousness of the offence meant people might "foolishly decide to take the law into their own hands".

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/07/12/16/00/child-s-assault-may-prompt-revenge-court

Ok... knowing the vein of most of your posts.... what's the motive behind this one?

Don't be shy ... you're normally not.

I theenk he might be of middle eastern appearance.

Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls.

In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ...

Suggested to look out for sancta simplicitas / holy simplicity, child-like innocence.

The Messenger of Allah -may Allah bless him- said: “The influence of an evil eye is a fact.” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 5299)

The same Hadith is found in many other narrations. So undoubtedly the idea and influence of evil eye is recognized as a fact in Islam.

Gnads wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 5:34pm:

Ok... knowing the vein of most of your posts.... what's the motive behind this one? Don't be shy ... you're normally not.

The lawyer's name is Tawagi, which seems foreign (and probably dark skinned).

From this, Taipan would assume that the offender is also foreign (and dark skinned).

The natural assumption to make is that all dark skinned foreigners are baby bashers.

Thus, all darkies should be executed.

Am I close, Taipan?

mark hadfield wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 5:39pm:

Suggested to look out for sancta simplicitas / holy simplicity, child-like innocence. The Messenger of Allah -may Allah bless him- said: “The influence of an evil eye is a fact.” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 5299) The same Hadith is found in many other narrations. So undoubtedly the idea and influence of evil eye is recognized as a fact in Islam.

leave the bigotry for another thread .. there is no mention of this guys background or religion ... it is irrelevant to the topic

leave the bigotry for another thread .. there is no mention of this guys background or religion ... it is irrelevant to the topic

You have no argument to the purpose in your censoring commentray, that is, as my comments were not bigoted whatsoever, touchy aren't you mate, but thanking you for keeping your eye on things.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 5:40pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:34pm: Ok... knowing the vein of most of your posts.... what's the motive behind this one? Don't be shy ... you're normally not. The lawyer's name is Tawagi, which seems foreign (and probably dark skinned). From this, Taipan would assume that the offender is also foreign (and dark skinned). The natural assumption to make is that all dark skinned foreigners are baby bashers. Thus, all darkies should be executed.

Thanks for that Taipan  ::)

Guessing that the lawyer didn't mention about bigots, anything about evil eyes, or even say something like  aribus teneo lupum / i am holding a wolf by the ears. In any event it can be perceived from the link, being for the sake of any argument, that -

The man did not apply for bail and will appear in Penrith Local Court on July 18.

"The problem can be solved by walking".

Gnads wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:40pm: Gnads wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:34pm: Ok... knowing the vein of most of your posts.... what's the motive behind this one? Don't be shy ... you're normally not. The lawyer's name is Tawagi, which seems foreign (and probably dark skinned). From this, Taipan would assume that the offender is also foreign (and dark skinned). The natural assumption to make is that all dark skinned foreigners are baby bashers. Thus, all darkies should be executed. Thanks for that Taipan  ::)

I think I got it one.

Tampon has made no response.

mark hadfield wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

leave the bigotry for another thread .. there is no mention of this guys background or religion ... it is irrelevant to the topic You have no argument to the purpose in your censoring commentray, that is, as my comments were not bigoted whatsoever, touchy aren't you mate, but thanking you for keeping your eye on things.

not bigoted? no mention of this guys ethnicity or religion, and yet you took it upon yourself to b1tch about muslims? Sounds bigoted in my books

Can't you read properly, pal? When you are pointing your finger at somebody you are pointing three back at yourself. Go take a good look at your critical judgement faculty and you will determine you have no argument to the purpose, i repeat, i repeat you have no argument to the purpose. What's your b1tch? The mention of looking after childlike simplicity or the mention of the evil eye? Looks to me you gotta good dose of both and nothing else to do but bitch. It is suggested that you show some relevance in it's stead.

mark hadfield wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 7:17pm:

Can't you read properly, pal? When you are pointing your finger at somebody you are pointing three back at yourself. Go take a good look at your critical judgement faculty and you will determine you have no argument to the purpose, i repeat, i repeat you have no argument to the purpose. What's your b1tch? The mention of looking after childlike simplicity or the mention of the evil eye? Looks to me you gotta good dose of both and nothing else to do but bitch. It is suggested that you show some relevance in it's stead.

a little slow are you? pay attention

do not try to make this about race or religion, especially since it is based on nothing but sheer fantasy

In court on Saturday the prosecution applied for a non-publication order on the man's name because of fear of reprisal from a member of the baby's family.

That does not make sense. The family will all know who he is.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

In court on Saturday the prosecution applied for a non-publication order on the man's name because of fear of reprisal from a member of the baby's family. That does not make sense. The family will all know who he is.

Well.....it did come from the Prosecutor.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

In court on Saturday the prosecution applied for a non-publication order on the man's name because of fear of reprisal from a member of the baby's family. That does not make sense. The family will all know who he is.

the judge actually said

Magistrate Christopher McRoberts acknowledged the seriousness of the offence meant people might "foolishly decide to take the law into their own hands


people, not just family

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/incest-is-no-longer-a-taboo-says-australian-judge-garry-neilson-9599552.html

'Incest is no longer a taboo,' says Australian judge Garry Neilson

http://saynsumthn.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/australian-judge-incest.jpg


The District Court Jude said incest was only illegal 'to prevent chromosomal abnormalities'
ANTONIA MOLLOY  Author Biography   Friday 11 July 2014

http://www.smuggled.com/vicpae1.htm

Protection of child molesters and other criminals bycorrupt Police and other Government Officials in Victoria.

http://www.smuggled.com/BreWin5.jpg

What follows is a copy of a document tendered before a Senate inquiry on 14th October 1997 in Melbourne.

Recently there has been substantial publicity given to protection of high-ranking officials who are also paedophiles or actively protecting paedophiles and other criminals in NSW. There is similar protection of these criminals in Victoria. Likewise for other states including South Australia and Western Australia.

For some years known child molester Brett David Winduss, of Oswin Street, Kew, Victoria, was allowed to engage in serious criminal activity with full knowledge of government officials in Victoria.

Winduss's criminal activities had become known to authorities as far back as 1991, but he was allowed to continue for several reasons, including due to his being a rent-a-witness used by corrupt Police to prosecute innocent people of crimes they hadn't committed.

Winduss would be called as a witness and falsely swear (commit perjury - another serious jailable offense), that the accused (innocent person) had committed crimes that they hadn't done. (By the way, Winduss has even (accidentally) admitted to doing this in a tape recorded conversation). It appears to be a common practice by Victorian Police to use known criminals as rent-a-witnesses in court cases against innocent accused (usually corruption whistleblowers), in order to secure convictions against them. In return the rent-a-witnesses are not prosecuted for their crimes which include serious matters such as drug trafficking, assaults, thefts, murders and child molesting.

On May 3rd 1996, Brett David Winduss came unstuck when he was jailed for some of his varied criminal activity. He was jailed by County Court Judge Roland P. L. Lewis for 12 months after pleading guilty and being convicted of abducting/molesting a 10 year old child in Mount Street, Kew. This incident happened on Wednesday December 27th, 1995. Winduss was intercepted by a neighbor who had noticed the girl's pushbike apparently abandoned on the footpath.

The sentence for this offence was notably light and this is no doubt due to the fact that the case was heard by a Judge who is known to have aided and abetted corruption in Victoria and has a reputation for being a "Police Judge".

Prior to this case, Winduss's criminal activities had been known to many corrupt officials and/or brought to their attention, who were betraying public trust by protecting him and actively ensuring that he was not brought to justice - in other words allowing him to continue. Included among those who were protecting him were the following people.

State Politicians, including Victor Perton, MP for Doncaster, David Perrin, MP for Bulleen, Jeffrey Gibb Kennett, Victorian Premier, and others.
Police Officers, Richard George Valentine, Craig Sharkie, Joan Spence, key officers in the Internal Investigations Division and others.
State Ombudsman's Office Officials, Barry Perry and others.
Magistrate Iain West.
County Court Judge Gordon Lewis.

In a separate case on October 14 1997, Judge Nixon of the County Court allowed child molester Gregory Vincent Coffey (48) of Stoney Creek Road, North Warrandyte to walk out of the County Court a free man after he was convicted of indecently assaulting two school boys, while principal at Preston Catholic School. Coffey was able to walk free from the court without even so much as a paying a fine. He was not jailed either, giving the man further encouragement to re-offend, knowing that the judiciary had no concern for such crimes. That the last statement is true is borne out by Coffey's past performances.

This is not the first time the repeat child molester (Coffey) has been protected by the judiciary. In at least two previous cases, allegedly corrupt Magistrates had allowed Coffey to walk free from Preston Court after he'd been found guilty by the court of assaulting students. He had been similarly protected for his illegal and indecent assaults on young people by the South Australian authorities when caught out in that state. A South Australian court allowed Coffey to walk away without paying a fine or any other penalty after he was found guilty of yet another indecent assault.

Nixon has substantial form for being biased against corruption whistleblowers, while at the same time being lenient on hardened criminals whose activities are often supported by corrupt Police.

In a separate case, Nixon unsuccessfully attempted to direct a jury to convict "NAME SUPPRESSED" on a falsified charge of make threat to kill against three members of State Parliament. The jury refused Nixon's wishes and acquitted him.


http://www.smuggled.com/vrb2.htm

TWO NEW BOOKS ON
POLICE CORRUPTION

JULY 1999

VICTORIA POLICE CORRUPTION (736 PAGES)

It goes without saying, nevertheless, Freediver you are absolutely correct in your earlier post - which may be clearly seen if one would take their peculiar time being to read the link posted in the first instant instead of living in a fantasy world of their own making where they indulge in condemnation and would appear nil admirari / to wonder at nothing, to admire nothing, to be superior and self-complacent -

In court on Saturday the prosecution applied for a non-publication order on the man's name because of fear of reprisal from a member of the baby's family.
Read more at ....

In other breaking news,[i] olim meninesse juvabit / it will sometimes be a pleasure to remember these trials.

:)

John Smith wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 5:39pm:

Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ...

Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea.

https://www.facebook.com/facaaus/posts/692149057497325?stream_ref=5

Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia [F.A.C.A.A]
April 8 ·
We've always said it ! Magistrate who released child rapists was himself one ! (A)
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australian-magistrate-threw-out-paedophile-charges-royal-commission-into-institutional-responses-to-child-sexual-abuse-told/story-fni6uo1m-1226860221376

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australian-magistrate-threw-out-paedophile-charges-royal-commission-into-institutional-responses-to-child-sexual-abuse-told/story-fni6uo1m-1226860221376?nk=3cb220d0f33aef1d3dbfedd8b0dda713

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/03/20/1226860/221350-841cdba0-afdf-11e3-bf6a-6ec13e402258.jpg

Former Catholic school bus driver Brian Perkins who sexually assaulted intellectually disabled children.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2014/03/20/1226860/288123-2de18ce4-afe5-11e3-bbbe-18ebc4e71679.jpg
Former magistrate Richard Brown died of cancer soon after child sex charges against him were dropped.

POLICE had difficulty successfully prosecuting paedophiles almost two decades ago, an inquiry has heard, with one case thrown out by a magistrate who was himself later charged with child sex offences.

Detective Senior Sergeant Walter Conte has told the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse charges were laid against a paedophile following a raid in 1993 but the matter was dropped.

“The charges for some reason were brought before the Adelaide Magistrates Court whereas they were originally set down for a committal hearing at the Holden Hill Magistrates Court,” he said.

“I recall bringing along my witnesses, and essentially everything was thrown out by Magistrate (Richard) Brown, or perhaps there was no evidence tendered, or something like that.”

Mr Brown was later charged with child sex offences — he was on sick leave, pending a diagnosis of cancer, for the majority of the time that matter progressed through the courts.

His lawyers argued the boys he had sex with were over 17, and he died from cancer soon after the charges were dropped in 2009.

The paedophile who appeared before Mr Brown, part of a group of offenders, was ultimately successfully convicted in another court. Another member of the group pleaded guilty to multiple offences while the remaining counts were dismissed by another magistrate.

Det Snr Sgt Conte appeared as a witness on the fourth day of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The inquiry is examining the handling of claims of child sexual abuse at St Ann’s Special School at Marion between 1985 and 1991 by the Catholic Church and South Australia Police.

Counsel Assisting the Commission, Sophie David, asked Det Snr Sgt Conte about the extradition of paedophile Brian Perkins, who was also part of the same paedophile network and is the focus of the inquiry.

Det Snr Sgt Conte agreed it was his view that an application for the extradition of Perkins, who had fled interstate, was based only a charge of possession of child pornography, not more serious charges.

He told the Commission he formed this view based on his experiences at the time.

“Other matters had been brought before the Adelaide Magistrates Court and we went as far as an oral committal with children who weren’t mentally disabled, and the matters were thrown out,” he said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/paedophile-former-sa-magistrate-peter-liddy-to-win-back-rare-coins-firearms-upon-release-from-jail/story-e6frg6n6-1226611694050?nk=3cb220d0f33aef1d3dbfedd8b0dda713

Paedophile former SA magistrate Peter Liddy to win back rare coins, firearms upon release from jail
COURT REPORTER ANDREW DOWDELL ADELAIDENOW APRIL 03, 2013 1:00PM

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/04/03/1226215/308279-peter-liddy.jpg

PAEDOPHILE magistrate Peter Liddy will be given back valuable coins and firearms when he is released from prison, prompting claims he has manipulated the system to avoid his victims getting access to the dregs of his estate.

District Court judge Julie McIntyre today ruled Liddy should be entitled to receive back a number of items including 18th-century firearms, rare 17th century coins and other historic heirlooms found in shipwrecks.

The items were among possessions seized by police investigating an alleged theft of Liddy's estate after he was jailed in 2001 for a minimum of 18 years for sexually abusing junior lifesavers in the 1980s.

Because no prosecution was ever undertaken into the alleged theft, the items were returned to the Commissioner of Police - who in turn said he had no claim over the items.

Liddy, 63, sought the return of many of the items, as did one of his former victims and Channel 7 - which said it intended to return the proceeds from the sale of the items back to Liddy's victims.

Channel 7 lawyer Peter Campbell said Judge McIntyre's decision to give back some of Liddy's items meant he had "achieved exactly what he attempted to achieve".

Gallery: Peter Liddy's treasures

Mr Campbell said Liddy had concocted stories that he had given away certain items to his mother or had concealed the belongings to prevent them from being seized when a freezing order was placed on his estate when he was convicted of the sexual offences.

Most of Liddy's $1.3m estate was frittered away in legal bills before his victims ultimately received $10,000 compensation each.

"We are concerned that some of those items will be returned to Mr Liddy, we say it is almost rewarding Mr Liddy for the way in which he sought to move items out of reach of the injunction ... this will allow him to achieve his exact purpose he sought to achieve," Mr Campbell said.

Judge McIntyre adjourned the case until May, when Channel 7 lawyers will argue that they should be granted access to the remainder of the items still in dispute.

Kytro wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea.

I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them .

http://www.humanheadline.com.au/Hinch-Says/arrogant--stupid--bulletproof-

Arrogant, Stupid, Bulletproof?
by Derryn Hinch - Wednesday, 07 August 2013

http://images.theage.com.au/2013/08/06/4636734/th-imon-cooper.jpg
Hypocrite. Disgraced magistrate Simon Cooper.

John Smith wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 9:34pm:

Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them .

What, we shouldn't protect people accused of a crime?

Kytro wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 9:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:34pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them . What, we shouldn't protect people accused of a crime?

we shouldn't protect child abusers .....

Au royaume des aveugies les borgnes sont rois (Fr.), in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed are kings.

Selon les regles / according to the rules.


:-[

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/magistrate-simon-cooper-pleads-guilty-on-indecent-assaults-20130806-2rb4o.html

Magistrate Simon Cooper pleads guilty on indecent assaults
Date
August 6, 2013

http://images.theage.com.au/2013/08/06/4636598/art-imon-cooper-620x349.jpg

Guilty plea: Simon Cooper is set to resign as a magistrate after admitting indecent assaults on two teenage brothers Photo: Michael Clayton-Jones
A former Crown prosecutor once thought worthy to be considered for the role of Victoria's chief magistrate now faces a prison sentence after admitting indecent assaults on two teenage brothers that began about 30 years ago.
Magistrate Simon Cooper's crash to disgrace continued on Tuesday in Melbourne Magistrates Court where he had prosecuted and sentenced offenders for crimes similar to those he has committed, which carry a maximum five-year term.
Cooper, 56, pleaded guilty to seven charges of indecent assault, including six on one boy, between 1984 and 1986. Six charges of attempted rape were struck out.
Fairfax Media has learnt he will now resign as a magistrate after being suspended since charges were brought against him in January.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3894807.htm

Child abuse victims groups angered by sentence delivered to former magistrate
Sarah Farnsworth reported this story on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 08:18:00

TONY EASTLEY: As the Royal Commission continues to scrutinise the handling of child abuse, victims' groups in Victoria have lashed out at the sentence handed down to a former magistrate who pleaded guilty to sexually abusing two teenagers.

Simon Cooper was handed a suspended sentence yesterday, sparking accusations he was treated as ‘one of the boys’ and given special treatment in the courts.

TONY EASTLEY: Despite admitting crimes against two teenagers in the 1980s, the former magistrate hasn't spent a day in jail since his arrest.

Sarah Farnsworth reports.

SARAH FARNSWORTH: Former magistrate Simon Cooper would have seen plenty of sexual abuse cases during his time on the bench and in his former role as a crown prosecutor.

Hetty Johnston from the child protection advocacy group Bravehearts.

HETTY JOHNSTON: If anybody knows what the penalties are for these things, and if anybody, a person who's been working with victims could understand the damage that has been caused, than this was the man. And yet it feels like his buddies up on the bench there just let him get away with it.

SARAH FARNSWORTH: Simon Cooper pleaded guilty in the Victorian County Court to sexually abusing two teenagers in the 1980s. While the maximum punishment he faced was five years jail for each of the seven offences, he walked from court with a three year wholly suspended sentence.

Perceptions of special treatment in the case emerged earlier this year, when shortly after his arrest the courts gave Cooper permission to go on a two months overseas holiday.

HETTY JOHNSTON: It feels like he's one of the boys: oh he's alright, he's a magistrate, he won't abscond, he's a good fellow, he's one of us. It smells bad. It really smells bad.

SARAH FARNSWORTH: In sentencing, Judge Stephen Norrish said Cooper's safety in prison posed "insurmountable difficulties". The judge also noted that the disgrace and shame he'd suffered under intense media scrutiny and the loss of his career and standing were in themselves a form of punishment.

Victims' groups are worried about the message it sends to others who've been abused by people in positions of power. But outside court yesterday, one of Cooper's victims believed he'd shown them the way forward.

VICTIM: Today is a significant day. It's a day that has demonstrated that if you're a victim of sexual assault, that you should have the courage, the belief, because you're going to have the support of the police force, the judiciary.

SARAH FARNSWORTH: Carolyn Worth from the Centres Against Sexual Assault doesn't agree Cooper was given special treatment, but she says he was at some advantage.

CAROLYN WORTH: The benefit he would have had is that he can get quite you know important people to come and give him character references and so on. And that of course isn't something that's open to the general public.

Often people have trouble finding someone to give them a character reference. So he would have certainly been able to appear very good in court and it's like he's lived a blameless life for the last three decades.

Look, I think it will add to the general perception that people do not get serious sentences for sexual offences and it will add to the view that people have that, you know, the rich and famous or the powerful actually get a better deal than the rest of the community.

SARAH FARNSWORTH: Recent law reforms abolishing suspended sentences in Victoria didn't apply to Cooper because the crimes were committed in the 1980s.

TONY EASTLEY: Sarah Farnsworth reporting.

Certainly not fleuron. Well, now. Fiat lux (L.), let there be light.

Time to get the gardener to weed-spray the purple circle.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 5:40pm:

Gnads wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:34pm: Ok... knowing the vein of most of your posts.... what's the motive behind this one? Don't be shy ... you're normally not. The lawyer's name is Tawagi, which seems foreign (and probably dark skinned). From this, Taipan would assume that the offender is also foreign (and dark skinned). The natural assumption to make is that all dark skinned foreigners are baby bashers. Thus, all darkies should be executed. Am I close, Taipan?

I think Islander was the type - not sure... but Bobby has the right idea for child bashers....

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

In court on Saturday the prosecution applied for a non-publication order on the man's name because of fear of reprisal from a member of the baby's family. That does not make sense. The family will all know who he is.

I would have thought he was in danger from fellow inmates more than family.... but Utu is a tradition in New Zealand.... it's justice meted out but something more....revenge and a sense of rightness at the same time, leaving all in balance.

A visceral response rather than a judicial one.....

John Smith wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:41pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:34pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them . What, we shouldn't protect people accused of a crime? we shouldn't protect child abusers .....

We should protect everyone at risk, but in this case you mean accused abuser.

Kytro wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 7:33am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 10:07pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:41pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:34pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them . What, we shouldn't protect people accused of a crime? we shouldn't protect child abusers ..... We should protect everyone at risk, but in this case you mean accused abuser.

listen, if they arrest someone for suspicion of robbery, they release his name, if they arrest someone for fighting, they release his name, if they arrest somone for streaking, they release his name almost every other crime and the name is released BEFORE it even goes to court ... before guilt has been determined ...

why treat child abusers differently? the courts needs to get their priorities right and protect the kids, not the perps.

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

Kytro wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 7:33am: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 10:07pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:41pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:34pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them . What, we shouldn't protect people accused of a crime? we shouldn't protect child abusers ..... We should protect everyone at risk, but in this case you mean accused abuser. listen, if they arrest someone for suspicion of robbery, they release his name, if they arrest someone for fighting, they release his name, if they arrest somone for streaking, they release his name almost every other crime and the name is released BEFORE it even goes to court ... before guilt has been determined ... why treat child abusers differently? the courts needs to get their priorities right and protect the kids, not the perps.

but, you can't listen pal can ya, thus,
so why should others listen to you?

look and learn ..
you earlier accused an individual of being a bigot in this same thread, and, as an aside, you are a likely muslimphobic
and, again, you displayed you don't actually read things such as links to the thread as was started in the first instant

you are hereby deemed full of accusation and spite, pal
you are a decided fool here in fantasy land, john smith
welcome, fool!

You can't hold a man down without staying down with him.
Booker T Washington

Resentment, as Jean Amery would write, nails every one of us onto the cross of his ruined past.

fantasy island wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 12:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 9:42am: Kytro wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 7:33am: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 10:07pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:41pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:34pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them . What, we shouldn't protect people accused of a crime? we shouldn't protect child abusers ..... We should protect everyone at risk, but in this case you mean accused abuser. listen, if they arrest someone for suspicion of robbery, they release his name, if they arrest someone for fighting, they release his name, if they arrest somone for streaking, they release his name almost every other crime and the name is released BEFORE it even goes to court ... before guilt has been determined ... why treat child abusers differently? the courts needs to get their priorities right and protect the kids, not the perps. but, you can't listen pal can ya, thus, so why should others listen to you? look and learn .. you earlier accused an individual of being a bigot in this same thread, and, as an aside, you are a likely muslimphobic and, again, you displayed you don't actually read things such as links to the thread as was started in the first instant you are hereby deemed full of accusation and spite, pal you are a decided fool here in fantasy land, john smith welcome, fool! You can't hold a man down without staying down with him. Booker T Washington Resentment, as Jean Amery would write, nails every one of us onto the cross of his ruined past.

Ohh, looky, I have another fan

to much wine for lunch? nothing to say on the subject? you'd rather talk about me?  :-* :-* :-* :-*

Given this......


"THE man who allegedly raped and murdered his defacto’s two-year-old daughter at their coastal home in Coffs Harbour has failed in his bid to hide his identity.
Visiting magistrate Robert Rabbidge this morning ruled it in the community’s interest to identify the alleged child killer, who allegedly molested and murdered the toddler between 7pm and 2.15am on April 20.
Thomas Lock, 23, was arrested by child abuse squad detectives yesterday afternoon and charged with murder, sexual intercourse with a person under 10-years-old and possession of 2g of methylamphetamine.
He was not forced by Mr Rabbidge to appear in court, after his defence team said he “didn’t want to come today”.
Mr Rabbidge described the alleged rape and murder as an “extraordinarily serious matter” and “distressing crimes”.
In reference to suppressing the suspect’s identity, Mr Rabbidge said “representing the community, I’m not convinced that I should make such an order”.
The toddler’s name has been suppressed.
“In my view that (the name of perpetrator) should not be suppressed,” Mr Rabbidge said."


........I am wondering why the Magistrate ordered name suppression of the alleged perpetrator subject of this topic.    Surely the argument of community or family members potentially taking the law into their own hands applies equally.

As neither is free on the streets to face community or family wrath, I don't see the point of name suppression for the reasons given.   



 

I hope he dies in jail ... & soon.  >:(

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

In court on Saturday the prosecution applied for a non-publication order on the man's name because of fear of reprisal from a member of the baby's family. That does not make sense. The family will all know who he is.

..possibly not the extended family!

Kytro wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea.

Hear, Hear!

John Smith wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 9:34pm:

Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them .

All human relations is politics: not protecting 'them' implies what exactly?

John Smith wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:41pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:34pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them . What, we shouldn't protect people accused of a crime? we shouldn't protect child abusers .....

Anarchy is not allowing due process to take place as there is, by definition, no acknowledged process!

;)

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

Kytro wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 7:33am: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 10:07pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:41pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:34pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them . What, we shouldn't protect people accused of a crime? we shouldn't protect child abusers ..... We should protect everyone at risk, but in this case you mean accused abuser. listen, if they arrest someone for suspicion of robbery, they release his name, if they arrest someone for fighting, they release his name, if they arrest somone for streaking, they release his name almost every other crime and the name is released BEFORE it even goes to court ... before guilt has been determined ... why treat child abusers differently? the courts needs to get their priorities right and protect the kids, not the perps.

Innocent until proven guilty!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 6:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:34pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them . All human relations is politics: not protecting 'them' implies what exactly?

not protecting them means just that, not protecting them ...

I don't protect the guy next door either, that doesn't mean I don't like him or that I want to hurt him .... in fact he's a good bloke, just cooked up a batch of pasta with truffle and porchini mushrooms and bought some over ....

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 6:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 9:42am: Kytro wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 7:33am: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 10:07pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:41pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:34pm: Kytro wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 9:20pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Regardless of his ethnicity, the courts need to stop protecting these slime balls. In fact, they should have a half hour show on tele every week who's sole purpose is to out these slime ... Encouraging vigilante action before a case is even heard is a terrible, terrible idea. I'm not encouraging anything ... I merely don't think we should protect them . What, we shouldn't protect people accused of a crime? we shouldn't protect child abusers ..... We should protect everyone at risk, but in this case you mean accused abuser. listen, if they arrest someone for suspicion of robbery, they release his name, if they arrest someone for fighting, they release his name, if they arrest somone for streaking, they release his name almost every other crime and the name is released BEFORE it even goes to court ... before guilt has been determined ... why treat child abusers differently? the courts needs to get their priorities right and protect the kids, not the perps. Innocent until proven guilty!

I have no problem with that, but that's not how the system  works ........why have different rules for all the other crimes? if it's just about any other crime, they have no problem releasing names  .... child abusers however are special ... they need protection :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

listen, if they arrest someone for suspicion of robbery, they release his name, if they arrest someone for fighting, they release his name, if they arrest somone for streaking, they release his name almost every other crime and the name is released BEFORE it even goes to court ... before guilt has been determined ... why treat child abusers differently? the courts needs to get their priorities right and protect the kids, not the perps.

It's about risk of retribution based on accusation.

Kytro wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 8:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 9:42am: listen, if they arrest someone for suspicion of robbery, they release his name, if they arrest someone for fighting, they release his name, if they arrest somone for streaking, they release his name almost every other crime and the name is released BEFORE it even goes to court ... before guilt has been determined ... why treat child abusers differently? the courts needs to get their priorities right and protect the kids, not the perps. It's about risk of retribution based on accusation.

what about the risk to other kids of releasing a possible child abuser into the community where he has opportunity to repeat the crime on another kid? Why are risks to him more important than risks to the greater community?

I'm happy to have one rule for all .... name them, don't name them, I don't really have a preference  ... just make up your mind ...  to make an exception to protect child abusers in my books is simply not acceptable

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 9:23pm:

what about the risk to other kids of releasing a possible child abuser into the community where he has opportunity to repeat the crime on another kid? Why are risks to him more important than risks to the greater community?

That is what the court system is there to determine. Risks if bail should or shouldn't be granted. It's not up to vigilante mobs.


John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 9:23pm:

I'm happy to have one rule for all .... name them, don't name them, I don't really have a preference  ... just make up your mind ...  to make an exception to protect child abusers in my books is simply not acceptable

The rule is to not name them if there is a reasonable risk of vigilante actions, I think that is both fair and equal.

Kytro wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 9:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 9:23pm: what about the risk to other kids of releasing a possible child abuser into the community where he has opportunity to repeat the crime on another kid? Why are risks to him more important than risks to the greater community? That is what the court system is there to determine. Risks if bail should or shouldn't be granted. It's not up to vigilante mobs. John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 9:23pm: I'm happy to have one rule for all .... name them, don't name them, I don't really have a preference  ... just make up your mind ...  to make an exception to protect child abusers in my books is simply not acceptable The rule is to not name them if there is a reasonable risk of vigilante actions, I think that is both fair and equal.

then lets agree to disagree ...... in my books it's not fair or equal by any stretch of the imagination

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 10:08pm:

then lets agree to disagree ...... in my books it's not fair or equal by any stretch of the imagination

It's just that you have not really explained why. I mean you pointed out that other accusations are not treated this way, yes, but other accusations don't have the same effects.

Innocent until proved guilty in a court of law.

So we can agree to disagree, sure. But this isn't simply a matter of opinion in the way that one prefers vanilla to strawberry.

Kytro wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 8:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 9:42am: listen, if they arrest someone for suspicion of robbery, they release his name, if they arrest someone for fighting, they release his name, if they arrest somone for streaking, they release his name almost every other crime and the name is released BEFORE it even goes to court ... before guilt has been determined ... why treat child abusers differently? the courts needs to get their priorities right and protect the kids, not the perps. It's about risk of retribution based on accusation.

"THE man who allegedly raped and murdered his defacto’s two-year-old daughter at their coastal home in Coffs Harbour has failed in his bid to hide his identity.
Visiting magistrate Robert Rabbidge this morning ruled it in the community’s interest to identify the alleged child killer, who allegedly molested and murdered the toddler between 7pm and 2.15am on April 20.
Thomas Lock, 23, was arrested by child abuse squad detectives yesterday afternoon and charged with murder, sexual intercourse with a person under 10-years-old and possession of 2g of methylamphetamine.
He was not forced by Mr Rabbidge to appear in court, after his defence team said he “didn’t want to come today”.
Mr Rabbidge described the alleged rape and murder as an “extraordinarily serious matter” and “distressing crimes”.
In reference to suppressing the suspect’s identity, Mr Rabbidge said “representing the community, I’m not convinced that I should make such an order”.
The toddler’s name has been suppressed.
“In my view that (the name of perpetrator) should not be suppressed,” Mr Rabbidge said."


Would similar risk of retribution not exist in the above??????

Kytro wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 7:47am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 10:08pm: then lets agree to disagree ...... in my books it's not fair or equal by any stretch of the imagination It's just that you have not really explained why. I mean you pointed out that other accusations are not treated this way, yes, but other accusations don't have the same effects. Innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. So we can agree to disagree, sure. But this isn't simply a matter of opinion in the way that one prefers vanilla to strawberry.

really? when they release the names of bikies who beat up another bikie in the streets of broadbeach, doesn't that then mean he then risks being targetted by other bikies? yet his name was front page for weeks

Alinta wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 9:30am:

"THE man who allegedly raped and murdered his defacto’s two-year-old daughter at their coastal home in Coffs Harbour has failed in his bid to hide his identity. Visiting magistrate Robert Rabbidge this morning ruled it in the community’s interest to identify the alleged child killer, who allegedly molested and murdered the toddler between 7pm and 2.15am on April 20. Thomas Lock, 23, was arrested by child abuse squad detectives yesterday afternoon and charged with murder, sexual intercourse with a person under 10-years-old and possession of 2g of methylamphetamine. He was not forced by Mr Rabbidge to appear in court, after his defence team said he “didn’t want to come today”. Mr Rabbidge described the alleged rape and murder as an “extraordinarily serious matter” and “distressing crimes”. In reference to suppressing the suspect’s identity, Mr Rabbidge said “representing the community, I’m not convinced that I should make such an order”. The toddler’s name has been suppressed. “In my view that (the name of perpetrator) should not be suppressed,” Mr Rabbidge said." Would similar risk of retribution not exist in the above??????

Quite possibly, it seems that this judge has a different view.

John Smith wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

Kytro wrote on Jul 14th, 2014 at 7:47am: John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 10:08pm: then lets agree to disagree ...... in my books it's not fair or equal by any stretch of the imagination It's just that you have not really explained why. I mean you pointed out that other accusations are not treated this way, yes, but other accusations don't have the same effects. Innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. So we can agree to disagree, sure. But this isn't simply a matter of opinion in the way that one prefers vanilla to strawberry. really? when they release the names of bikies who beat up another bikie in the streets of broadbeach, doesn't that then mean he then risks being targetted by other bikies? yet his name was front page for weeks

I also disagree with this. Like I said if it puts them at a significant risk then the names shouldn't be released.