So.....a bloke has been charged.

Link.


Quote:

The man accused of raping former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins will be charged over the alleged 2019 incident at Parliament House. ACT police on Friday summonsed the 26-year-old to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court on September 16. Police will allege the man had sexual intercourse without consent at Parliament House on March 23, 2019. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 12 years’ jail.

Now, let's see what emerges.

Ooops, sorry Mr Smith.  Did not see your existing Thread.

Link.

Was about to post that. 

Been playing it close to the chest and not even saying the dick had been interviewed.

Be interesting to see what comes of this...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 5:56pm:

Was about to post that.  Been playing it close to the chest and not even saying the dick had been interviewed. Be interesting to see what comes of this...

Yes...no indication of an interview.  I'll bet there was a request for one, at least.

We will see, won't we 'enry 'iggins.

Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA?

It will be good to hear his side of the story, more she said he said or some evidence not strong enough to hold him.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 8:03pm:

It will be good to hear his side of the story, more she said he said or some evidence not strong enough to hold him.

Not from what I have read.  There are witnesses who could or could not support or otherwise her story.

1.  Those at the function/booze facility they each were at, that night.  (Possibly security video evidence as well, there.)

2.  The Cab driver and any video stuff Cabs normally (in Qld anyway) have inside the car.

3.  The Security guards when they arrived at Parliament.

4.  The security guards when he left.

5.  The security guards when she left.

6.  There will be Parliament camera coverage of 3/4/5....or did I read that had mysteriously disappeared?

7.  Her 'recent complaint.'

Aussie wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 8:28pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:03pm: It will be good to hear his side of the story, more she said he said or some evidence not strong enough to hold him. Not from what I have read.  There are witnesses who could or could not support or otherwise her story. 1.  Those at the function/booze facility they each were at, that night.  (Possibly security video evidence as well, there.) 2.  The Cab driver and any video stuff Cabs normally (in Qld anyway) have inside the car. 3.  The Security guards when they arrived at Parliament. 4.  The security guards when he left. 5.  The security guards when she left. 6.  There will be Parliament camera coverage of 3/4/5....or did I read that had mysteriously disappeared? 7.  Her 'recent complaint.'

It's on the security guards if they witnessed a rape then, she wasn't dragged into parliament house that much we know.

The cops are leaving this one for the judge given the controversy and the culprit roams free because there is nothing as yet to hold him.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 9:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:28pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:03pm: It will be good to hear his side of the story, more she said he said or some evidence not strong enough to hold him. Not from what I have read.  There are witnesses who could or could not support or otherwise her story. 1.  Those at the function/booze facility they each were at, that night.  (Possibly security video evidence as well, there.) 2.  The Cab driver and any video stuff Cabs normally (in Qld anyway) have inside the car. 3.  The Security guards when they arrived at Parliament. 4.  The security guards when he left. 5.  The security guards when she left. 6.  There will be Parliament camera coverage of 3/4/5....or did I read that had mysteriously disappeared? 7.  Her 'recent complaint.' It's on the security guards if they witnessed a rape then, she wasn't dragged into parliament house that much we know. The cops are leaving this one for the judge given the controversy and the culprit roams free because there is nothing as yet to hold him.

Yes...at the moment.  But he will need to seek bail in Court...which likely will be granted if he answers the summons.

I doubt very much if rape can be proven given what we have read in the media.  This may not be right, but that is how it will be. If the accused is found not guilty it will be in no small measure due to the incompetence  of the so called security personnel at Parliament House.

Belgarion wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 9:37pm:

I doubt very much if rape can be proven given what we have read in the media.  This may not be right, but that is how it will be. If the accused is found not guilty it will be in no small measure due to the incompetence  of the so called security personnel at Parliament House.

Disagree.  They are not charged with the job of invading ministerial suites other than the occasion one of them did after the bloke left, and even then, as she had not emerged, it was reasonable they do a welfare check.

The bloke has been charged with rape....What comes into question here is the disgusting manner in which the Liberal Party covered their own arses instead of supporting a victim of sexual assault....The Liberal Party are complete arse holes!!!


Quote:

The man accused of raping former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins will be charged over the alleged 2019 incident at Parliament House. ACT police on Friday summonsed the 26-year-old to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court on September 16. Police will allege the man had sexual intercourse without consent at Parliament House on March 23, 2019. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 12 years' jail. Ms Higgins went public with the allegation in February triggering a firestorm over a toxic culture in federal politics and national debate about the treatment of women. She alleged she was raped by a colleague while working for then defence industry minister Linda Reynolds. Police said detectives from the sexual assault and child abuse team first received a report on April 2019. "The investigation remained open and in February 2021 a formal complaint was made," they said in a statement. "Detectives have since spoken to a number of witnesses and collected evidence as part of the investigation."

>:( >:( >:(

https://au.news.yahoo.com/brittany-higgins-accused-rapist-to-face-court-060230518.html

Belgarion wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 9:37pm:

I doubt very much if rape can be proven given what we have read in the media.  This may not be right, but that is how it will be. If the accused is found not guilty it will be in no small measure due to the incompetence  of the so called security personnel at Parliament House.

ACT Law says that a woman drunk cannot give consent - but what proof is there that sexual intercourse even took place?

I'm afraid Britanny shot her own case in the foot by not following through on the night or morning after, and I still question whether or not the security staff should have known if sexual intercourse had taken place...

My sense of smell is very poor, but even I can smell raunch....... a drunk woman smelling of semen could not have given consent under ACT Law which governs Parliament House.

Dereliction of Duty is how I see it... and possibly with depraved indifference, and the excuse of following orders given after the event is not sufficient....

Love to see those 'security' officers on the stand... typical lowered standards that apply these days... employ drones and time servers and blind followers with no moral compass ... mainly sheilas of course .... boot out the best....

Just normal procedure to allow drunken sex to take place in Ministerial offices and then cover it up...

Changes Needed On All Fronts!!

https://i2.wp.com/kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Bruce-Lehrmann.jpg

https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2021/04/18/act-police-confirm-they-are-still-investigating-brittany-higgins-rape-allegation-but-refuse-to-answer-questions-regarding-alleged-rapist-bruce-lehrmann/

Did she keep the dress??????

Without it she has no case

At least Monica knew how to set up someone properly.

I guess these shelas that dont get what they want for a little bit on the side, will always be screaming rape.

To Clarify
If they dont report it immediately, its all for profit.

Neferti wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:58pm:

Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA?

Why couldn't he keep his zip done up?

What bloke would root a drunken sheila?
He must have been desperate.

Neferti wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:58pm:

Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA?

what happened to Matty?

John Smith wrote on Aug 7^th, 2021 at 12:51pm:

Neferti wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:58pm: Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA? what happened to Matty?

Who?

Neferti wrote on Aug 7^th, 2021 at 1:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 7th, 2021 at 12:51pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:58pm: Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA? what happened to Matty? Who?

There are a couple of mentally retarded morons on this forum that call everybody Matty.

I believe it's because they are so mind numbingly stupid that they cannot remember names and can only grasp one name, probably the bloke that fathered them.
Rumour has it
It was a one night stand
Money changed hands, and change was given from a dollar
And both the male and female wore dresses and makeup.
And even repeated attempts at termination, these retards survived.

Sad eh?

Valkie wrote on Aug 7^th, 2021 at 1:42pm:

There are a couple of mentally retarded morons on this forum that call everybody Matty.

are you retarded or something? Matty was a poster on here. Young liberal party member who was in love with Sophie Mirrabella .... do you know what happened to him or are you just going to keep showing what a moron you are?

John Smith wrote on Aug 7^th, 2021 at 12:51pm:

Neferti wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:58pm: Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA? what happened to Matty?

Yeah good point what happened to him?

What happened to foo?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Aug 7^th, 2021 at 2:09pm:

What happened to foo?

Wasnt it him that flung the dung?

Brittany Higgins' accused rapist denies any sexual activity took place at all the night parliament staffer alleges she was assaulted - as he is hauled before court and faces 12 years jail

The man accused of raping former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins in Parliament House two years ago has been identified as Bruce Lehrmann.

The 26-year-old Queenslander, who also worked for the Liberal Party, will face one charge of sexual intercourse without consent when he appears before the court next month, which has a maximum sentence of 12 years in jail.

Ms Higgins made headlines in February when she claimed she was raped by a colleague in then defence minister Linda Reynolds' Parliament House office in March 2019.

Lawyers for Mr Lehrmann say he will fight the charge and denies the pair had sexual intercourse when they returned to the office.

'My client absolutely and unequivocally denies that any form of sexual activity took place at all,' his lawyer John Korn told News.com.au.

'He will defend the charge.'

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/08/07/10/46393949-9871203-Mr_Lehrmann_pictured_accused_of_raping_former_Liberal_staffer_Br-a-2_1628326986103.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9871203/Brittany-Higgins-accused-rapist-Bruce-Lehrmann-denies-sexual-activity-took-place.html

'hauled before a court' - already prejudicing the concept of innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Bastard wouldn't be hauled before a court unless he was guilty, eh?

With no evidence of sexual activity... well... let's just say that action should have been taken at the time and not days weeks and months later.

And THAT, Poppets - is a perfectly neutral stance on this issue - I defend and uphold nobody, only the rule of law.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 7^th, 2021 at 8:58am:

Neferti wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:58pm: Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA? Why couldn't he keep his zip done up? What bloke would root a drunken sheila? He must have been desperate.

Nobody knows that he did - he says he didn't. She was comatose and says she woke up etc, but she took no steps to keep the loaded dress (Monica so to speak).

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 8^th, 2021 at 9:58am:

'hauled before a court' - already prejudicing the concept of innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Bastard wouldn't be hauled before a court unless he was guilty, eh? With no evidence of sexual activity... well... let's just say that action should have been taken at the time and not days weeks and months later. And THAT, Poppets - is a perfectly neutral stance on this issue - I defend and uphold nobody, only the rule of law.

'Hauled' is a tad emotive, but, a Summons to appear does have the effect of 'hauling one before the Court.'

No evidence.......I'd say there is plenty.  If he is gonna run this defence of 'nothing happened,' I doubt it has any chance of getting up unless he gives evidence, and as soon as he is in the witness box......he is gonna be torn to shreds.  There are so many avenues to attack him on.

Aussie wrote on Aug 8^th, 2021 at 2:37pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 8th, 2021 at 9:58am: 'hauled before a court' - already prejudicing the concept of innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Bastard wouldn't be hauled before a court unless he was guilty, eh? With no evidence of sexual activity... well... let's just say that action should have been taken at the time and not days weeks and months later. And THAT, Poppets - is a perfectly neutral stance on this issue - I defend and uphold nobody, only the rule of law. 'Hauled' is a tad emotive, but, a Summons to appear does have the effect of 'hauling one before the Court.' No evidence.......I'd say there is plenty.  If he is gonna run this defence of 'nothing happened,' I doubt it has any chance of getting up unless he gives evidence, and as soon as he is in the witness box......he is gonna be torn to shreds.  There are so many avenues to attack him on.

It isn't 'hauling' by a bunch of thugs intent on press-ganging... it is a demand that you appear.  You can choose to or not, and you can have representation as well, to guarantee that you are not treated with violence in that demand.  A little bit different.

'evidence' - yes - evidence amounting to proof positive??  That's another story... all the Compelling, Corroborative, Physical Evidence was never present.

Without substantial corroborating evidence the evidence of a plaintiff alone cannot stand.  That is the rule rarely adhered to in this country.

As I said - I'm defending no-one or their actions - I merely seek the truth.

There are many avenues to attack young Brittany on as well - IF the courts will allow proper cross examination.

Not quite the same, counsellor, and you know it.

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 7^th, 2021 at 1:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 7th, 2021 at 12:51pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:58pm: Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA? what happened to Matty? Yeah good point what happened to him?

I remember, it was so long ago.  Wasn't  he a medical student who moved to US? 

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 1:20pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 7th, 2021 at 1:57pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 7th, 2021 at 12:51pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:58pm: Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA? what happened to Matty? Yeah good point what happened to him? I remember, it was so long ago.  Wasn't  he a medical student who moved to US?

He was studying at Yale or Harvard to become a psychistrist (ask former user Frances), but I recall he was not medically qualified and I once called him out on it... maybe he meant psychologist... a dime a dozen and know next to nothing, expect everyone to come from some little suburban pigeon hole and use nasty words on anyone who doesn't.

There is evidence....The bloke left Brittney Higgins completely naked and he reacons nothing happened???


Quote:

Parliament security guard describes finding Brittany Higgins on night of alleged rape

https://youtu.be/fLoJ_AzsIHs

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

There is evidence....The bloke left Brittney Higgins completely naked and he reacons nothing happened??? Quote: Parliament security guard describes finding Brittany Higgins on night of alleged rape https://youtu.be/fLoJ_AzsIHs :-? :-? :-?

All the signs are there that sexual intercourse took place. Was it consensual? Could Higgins give informed consent given she was drunk?  The waters have been well and truly muddied, in no small part due to the incompetence of the security personnel, as evidenced by the statement this woman made to the press.

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 1:20pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 7th, 2021 at 1:57pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 7th, 2021 at 12:51pm: Neferti wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:58pm: Hadn't the bloke in question zipped off to the USA? what happened to Matty? Yeah good point what happened to him? I remember, it was so long ago.  Wasn't  he a medical student who moved to US?

that was him, studying psychiatry   ..I thought he was studying in NZ ?

Belgarion wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 4:51pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 4:40pm: There is evidence....The bloke left Brittney Higgins completely naked and he reacons nothing happened??? Quote: Parliament security guard describes finding Brittany Higgins on night of alleged rape https://youtu.be/fLoJ_AzsIHs :-? :-? :-? All the signs are there that sexual intercourse took place. Was it consensual? Could Higgins give informed consent given she was drunk?  The waters have been well and truly muddied, in no small part due to the incompetence of the security personnel, as evidenced by the statement this woman made to the press.

The bloke denies any sexual activity took place....He is going to have a hard time explaining why Ms Higgins was naked when he left after an hour???


Quote:

Man accused of sexual assault at Parliament House to face court, denies any sexual activity

https://www.9news.com.au/national/man-accused-of-sexual-assault-at-parliament-house-to-face-court/4e13369a-1361-43ac-8dd9-3761ed80c1df

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 5:34pm:

The bloke denies any sexual activity took place.

the bigger the lie the easier it is to prove he's lying. If he'd said there had just been a little foreplay and that was it, it would have been much more believable.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 4:40pm:

There is evidence....The bloke left Brittney Higgins completely naked and he reacons nothing happened??? Quote: Parliament security guard describes finding Brittany Higgins on night of alleged rape https://youtu.be/fLoJ_AzsIHs :-? :-? :-?

How do you know HE left her naked?  She wasn't seen naked until much later, and then the stories contradict... one said partially, another said fully.

Belgarion got it right... the waters are way too muddied now, starting with the incompetent security staff, who may very well have jumped in to standard operating procedure in muddying the waters from Moment One, or been ordered to.

I still say this dopey sheila was put up to this interview, which is out of bounds itself, in order to do just that.

Parliamentary rank hath its privileges... one of which is to be protected by those who are on the periphery and whose very jobs depend on their doing this religiously.  This whole joint needs a thorough cleansing, not just the Minister's couch...

'If A discovers evidence at the scene and D, a police expert, wishes to attest to its significance at trial, he may do so only if A, B and C all give evidence that establishes an unbroken chain of possession.  Should they fail to do so, the evidence may be excluded.  This rule may seem inflexible, but it owes it existence to the realistic fear that police may in some instances deliberately fabricate or unwittingly fail to safeguard evidence to the detriment of the defendant's rights'.  -  Mark Lane, 'Rush to Judgement'.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 6:47pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 4:40pm: There is evidence....The bloke left Brittney Higgins completely naked and he reacons nothing happened??? Quote: Parliament security guard describes finding Brittany Higgins on night of alleged rape https://youtu.be/fLoJ_AzsIHs :-? :-? :-? How do you know HE left her naked?  She wasn't seen naked until much later, and then the stories contradict... one said partially, another said fully

The woman security guard who first went to check said she was naked....Why do you defend accused rapists with bullshit???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2021 at 7:18pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 6:47pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 4:40pm: There is evidence....The bloke left Brittney Higgins completely naked and he reacons nothing happened??? Quote: Parliament security guard describes finding Brittany Higgins on night of alleged rape https://youtu.be/fLoJ_AzsIHs :-? :-? :-? How do you know HE left her naked?  She wasn't seen naked until much later, and then the stories contradict... one said partially, another said fully The woman security guard who first went to check said she was naked....Why do you defend accused rapists with bullshit??? ::) ::) ::)

As usual, you get it totally wrong - you have no way of knowing he undressed her or how it happened, and one report said partly undressed, another naked.

I'm defending nobody, just the rule that requires factual evidence and not just assertions.

What if she took off her gear to have a doze?  Do YOU actually know? No - You Don't!  Same as you have no way of knowing if any sex took place at all.  The evidence physical is just not there, got that?

Put up or shut up ...

Nothing I say is bullshit, sonny... you, on the other hand, rave on...

That 'guard' should never have spoken at an interview, and could not do so without permission and certainly not in uniform while speaking as a private citizen, which is all she could be without official permission to speak about a matter that most likely would be under investigation .... that in itself raises questions to anyone who knows anything, which clearly is not the forte of those over West.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 10^th, 2021 at 12:46am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 7:18pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 6:47pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 4:40pm: There is evidence....The bloke left Brittney Higgins completely naked and he reacons nothing happened??? Quote: Parliament security guard describes finding Brittany Higgins on night of alleged rape https://youtu.be/fLoJ_AzsIHs :-? :-? :-? How do you know HE left her naked?  She wasn't seen naked until much later, and then the stories contradict... one said partially, another said fully The woman security guard who first went to check said she was naked....Why do you defend accused rapists with bullshit??? ::) ::) ::) As usual, you get it totally wrong - you have no way of knowing he undressed her or how it happened, and one report said partly undressed, another naked. I'm defending nobody, just the rule that requires factual evidence and not just assertions. What if she took off her gear to have a doze?  Do YOU actually know? No - You Don't!  Same as you have no way of knowing if any sex took place at all.  The evidence physical is just not there, got that? Put up or shut up ... Nothing I say is bullshit, sonny... you, on the other hand, rave on... That 'guard' should never have spoken at an interview, and could not do so without permission and certainly not in uniform while speaking as a private citizen, which is all she could be without official permission to speak about a matter that most likely would be under investigation .... that in itself raises questions to anyone who knows anything, which clearly is not the forte of those over West.

Keep defending alleged rapists with your own assumptions....The police and prosecutor believe their is enough evidence to charge the bloke even though you are in denial....Is it any wonder most woman do not report rapes because of people like you???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2021 at 6:05pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 10th, 2021 at 12:46am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 7:18pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 6:47pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 4:40pm: There is evidence....The bloke left Brittney Higgins completely naked and he reacons nothing happened??? Quote: Parliament security guard describes finding Brittany Higgins on night of alleged rape https://youtu.be/fLoJ_AzsIHs :-? :-? :-? How do you know HE left her naked?  She wasn't seen naked until much later, and then the stories contradict... one said partially, another said fully The woman security guard who first went to check said she was naked....Why do you defend accused rapists with bullshit??? ::) ::) ::) As usual, you get it totally wrong - you have no way of knowing he undressed her or how it happened, and one report said partly undressed, another naked. I'm defending nobody, just the rule that requires factual evidence and not just assertions. What if she took off her gear to have a doze?  Do YOU actually know? No - You Don't!  Same as you have no way of knowing if any sex took place at all.  The evidence physical is just not there, got that? Put up or shut up ... Nothing I say is bullshit, sonny... you, on the other hand, rave on... That 'guard' should never have spoken at an interview, and could not do so without permission and certainly not in uniform while speaking as a private citizen, which is all she could be without official permission to speak about a matter that most likely would be under investigation .... that in itself raises questions to anyone who knows anything, which clearly is not the forte of those over West. Keep defending alleged rapists with your own assumptions....The police and prosecutor believe their is enough evidence to charge the bloke even though you are in denial....Is it any wonder most woman do not report rapes because of people like you??? ::) ::) ::)

You don't understand the simple difference between stating facts and defending someone.

The moment you say 'alleged' everyone has the absolute right to state facts about the matter.  Got that?  Even a conviction does not necessarily mean the person is guilty.

You'd make a great Nazi.  Try discussing the issues here and not attacking the poster.... and get off that sh1t.

Police and prosecutors always want to make a case, assuming, as has been the case for decades now, that the accusation itself will prejudice the outcome in their favour.  One clear reason for a massive overhaul of our courts.

They will try to make a case, and it is the right of the defence to put another scenario, in any 'popular' cause allegation - look at Rod Batterham - two years on remand and then found not guilty.

How would you like to spend two years of your life in fear and uncertainty because some dickweed wants to put on a show to please an audience over some trendy issue, such as a Black criminal or a woman with drunken claims?

How about you put up and SHOW the proof absolute that he had sex with her.  You can't - so shut up and wait for the trial, and in the meantime let the adults do the talking.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 11^th, 2021 at 9:59am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 10th, 2021 at 6:05pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 10th, 2021 at 12:46am: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 7:18pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 6:47pm: philperth2010 wrote on Aug 9th, 2021 at 4:40pm: There is evidence....The bloke left Brittney Higgins completely naked and he reacons nothing happened??? Quote: Parliament security guard describes finding Brittany Higgins on night of alleged rape https://youtu.be/fLoJ_AzsIHs :-? :-? :-? How do you know HE left her naked?  She wasn't seen naked until much later, and then the stories contradict... one said partially, another said fully The woman security guard who first went to check said she was naked....Why do you defend accused rapists with bullshit??? ::) ::) ::) As usual, you get it totally wrong - you have no way of knowing he undressed her or how it happened, and one report said partly undressed, another naked. I'm defending nobody, just the rule that requires factual evidence and not just assertions. What if she took off her gear to have a doze?  Do YOU actually know? No - You Don't!  Same as you have no way of knowing if any sex took place at all.  The evidence physical is just not there, got that? Put up or shut up ... Nothing I say is bullshit, sonny... you, on the other hand, rave on... That 'guard' should never have spoken at an interview, and could not do so without permission and certainly not in uniform while speaking as a private citizen, which is all she could be without official permission to speak about a matter that most likely would be under investigation .... that in itself raises questions to anyone who knows anything, which clearly is not the forte of those over West. Keep defending alleged rapists with your own assumptions....The police and prosecutor believe their is enough evidence to charge the bloke even though you are in denial....Is it any wonder most woman do not report rapes because of people like you??? ::) ::) ::) You don't understand the simple difference between stating facts and defending someone. The moment you say 'alleged' everyone has the absolute right to state facts about the matter.  Got that?  Even a conviction does not necessarily mean the person is guilty. You'd make a great Nazi.  Try discussing the issues here and not attacking the poster.... and get off that sh1t. Police and prosecutors always want to make a case, assuming, as has been the case for decades now, that the accusation itself will prejudice the outcome in their favour.  One clear reason for a massive overhaul of our courts. They will try to make a case, and it is the right of the defence to put another scenario, in any 'popular' cause allegation - look at Rod Batterham - two years on remand and then found not guilty. How would you like to spend two years of your life in fear and uncertainty because some dickweed wants to put on a show to please an audience over some trendy issue, such as a Black criminal or a woman with drunken claims? How about you put up and SHOW the proof absolute that he had sex with her.  You can't - so shut up and wait for the trial, and in the meantime let the adults do the talking.

How about you admit you are a racist prick who defends rapists and puts forwards arguments that are based on your own opinion not the facts presented....Explain why this bloke took a woman to the Ministers office in the middle of the night and after an hour left with her found a short time later naked....The security guard who checked on Ms Higgins clearly stated that she was completely naked and you have put forward no evidence to contradict an eye witness despite posting bullshit....Put up of shut up you dickhead???

8-) 8-) 8-)

Ye grappler has the right of it.  Pointing out the way the law works is not defending rapists. 

Belgarion wrote on Aug 11^th, 2021 at 10:30am:

Ye grappler has the right of it.  Pointing out the way the law works is not defending rapists.

The dickhead called me a Nazi for stating that the bloke has been charged with rape....The police collected the evidence and the Prosecutor found there was enough evidence to charge the bloke....The Grappler with reality is promoting the theory that the police and Prosecutor are somehow complicit or incompetent and even the accusations have prejudice the outcome in their favour (complete bullshit)....This is not pointing out the way the law works it is defending an accused rapist AGAIN!!!

::) ::) ::)

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b7f99a3a-7a3c-44a6-a1a9-6662b38fe2e7

.. and you called me a defender of alleged rapists for stating the facts  - I said you would make a great Nazi given your propensity to condemn anyone on accusation and to throw away the rule of law to get what you think is right...

You ain't nuthin' but a smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer...

You have no idea of the very vast difference between a charge and a conviction to the proper standard.  Haven't you ever heard of Inspector Bias?  Sets out to make a case and ensure all the 'evidence' points one way, and doesn't look at anything else?

That's you....

I ask you again - where is the Proof Positive that he even had sex with her?  Did she immediately report it?  Did she go to a medical facility for a swab?  Was there ever any physical evidence of sexual intercourse that was recorded?  Did the security staff even smell raunch?  did they even say there was a distinctive smell in the room?

Or did she wait for days and weeks to make any complaint?

Sounds like Jarryd Hayne - days/weeks later the 'victim' saw a a doctor who said the scratch on her vagina might have been a bite mark.

Who in the name of god bites pussy??

Get with it, boy Nazi in waiting....... talk about slow and way behind....

Sometimes, like John Smith and a few others, you make a valid point... stick to what you actually know instead of spouting off, you smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer...

"Proof Positive."

Where is the proof positive Cowan killed Morecombe.  Where is the proof positive Baden-Clay killed his wife.

Give me an example of this 'proof positive' which led to a conviction, then give me an example of a conviction where there was no proof positive.  Ring a Pell, for example?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 12^th, 2021 at 2:42am:

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b7f99a3a-7a3c-44a6-a1a9-6662b38fe2e7 .. and you called me a defender of alleged rapists for stating the facts  - I said you would make a great Nazi given your propensity to condemn anyone on accusation and to throw away the rule of law to get what you think is right... You ain't nuthin' but a smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer... You have no idea of the very vast difference between a charge and a conviction to the proper standard.  Haven't you ever heard of Inspector Bias?  Sets out to make a case and ensure all the 'evidence' points one way, and doesn't look at anything else? That's you.... I ask you again - where is the Proof Positive that he even had sex with her?  Did she immediately report it?  Did she go to a medical facility for a swab?  Was there ever any physical evidence of sexual intercourse that was recorded?  Did the security staff even smell raunch?  did they even say there was a distinctive smell in the room? Or did she wait for days and weeks to make any complaint? Sounds like Jarryd Hayne - days/weeks later the 'victim' saw a a doctor who said the scratch on her vagina might have been a bite mark. Who in the name of god bites pussy?? Get with it, boy Nazi in waiting....... talk about slow and way behind.... Sometimes, like John Smith and a few others, you make a valid point... stick to what you actually know instead of spouting off, you smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer...

The police and prosecutor determined there was enough evidence to charge this bloke with rape you dickhead not me....You are sprouting off bullshit racist crap as usual to defend your ignorance and stupidity....Typical butt hurt racist white supremist behaviour....As you have no idea what evidence the Prosecution have it is you who is making baseless assumptions to support your crap not me....Your rants are full of racist comments that say more about you than those you chose to denigrate....You are a disgusting piece of crap Grappler with reality!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse.

Link.

So....bottom line?

Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election.

I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish.

Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused.

Aussie wrote on Aug 30^th, 2021 at 9:19pm:

This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused.

Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 3:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 30th, 2021 at 9:19pm: This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused. Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control.

It is not arm's length legal opinion.  The opinion here comes from blokes inside Government, thus they have a very vested interest if they like to have a job.

It seems you have a very shallow view of how politics/public servants work.

All Morrison has to do is give a back door command and some minion will provide whatever arse tin-playing he wants.

That head bloke inside his own Department could and should have delivered his findings many many months ago.

This is all duck shoving prevarication/obfuscation to at least after the next election.

Aussie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 3:44pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:37pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 30th, 2021 at 9:19pm: This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused. Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control. It is not arm's length legal opinion.  The opinion here comes from blokes inside Government, thus they have a very vested interest if they like to have a job. It seems you have a very shallow view of how politics/public servants work. All Morrison has to do is give a back door command and some minion will provide whatever arse tin-playing he wants. That head bloke inside his own Department could and should have delivered his findings many many months ago. This is all duck shoving prevarication/obfuscation to at least after the next election.

In your link is states the decision was based on legal advice.

I can see if all of this blows up in the media it could impede the trial, and given the medias track record it would go against the accused.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 3:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 30th, 2021 at 9:19pm: This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused. Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control.

rubbish ... Morrison only initiated it to curb some of the blame he was getting. This investigation was supposed to take two weeks in February, instead he's still dicking around 6 months later.

Morrison just doesn't want this out before the election because HE KNEW and did nothing about it.

John Smith wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 4:33pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:37pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 30th, 2021 at 9:19pm: This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused. Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control. rubbish ... Morrison only initiated it to curb some of the blame he was getting. This investigation was supposed to take two weeks in February, instead he's still dicking around 6 months later. Morrison just doesn't want this out before the election because HE KNEW and did nothing about it.

In your opinion.  He initiated it and then put a stop to it.

Maybe he rooted Higgins as well!

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 4:43pm:

In your opinion

it's fact. He did nothing until he started to cop some public backlash

John Smith wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 5:36pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 4:43pm: In your opinion it's fact. He did nothing until he started to cop some public backlash

Classic case of damned if you do damned if you don't, bear in mind Higgins was called out by the top brass as being a lying cow.

The charged rapist walks free because Brittany has nothing but her say so.
She looks a bit slutty to me.

Aussie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 3:44pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:37pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 30th, 2021 at 9:19pm: This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused. Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control. It is not arm's length legal opinion.  The opinion here comes from blokes inside Government, thus they have a very vested interest if they like to have a job. It seems you have a very shallow view of how politics/public servants work. All Morrison has to do is give a back door command and some minion will provide whatever arse tin-playing he wants. That head bloke inside his own Department could and should have delivered his findings many many months ago. This is all duck shoving prevarication/obfuscation to at least after the next election.

This has the feel of truth to it.... good work.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2021 at 9:34am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 12th, 2021 at 2:42am: https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b7f99a3a-7a3c-44a6-a1a9-6662b38fe2e7 .. and you called me a defender of alleged rapists for stating the facts  - I said you would make a great Nazi given your propensity to condemn anyone on accusation and to throw away the rule of law to get what you think is right... You ain't nuthin' but a smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer... You have no idea of the very vast difference between a charge and a conviction to the proper standard.  Haven't you ever heard of Inspector Bias?  Sets out to make a case and ensure all the 'evidence' points one way, and doesn't look at anything else? That's you.... I ask you again - where is the Proof Positive that he even had sex with her?  Did she immediately report it?  Did she go to a medical facility for a swab?  Was there ever any physical evidence of sexual intercourse that was recorded?  Did the security staff even smell raunch?  did they even say there was a distinctive smell in the room? Or did she wait for days and weeks to make any complaint? Sounds like Jarryd Hayne - days/weeks later the 'victim' saw a a doctor who said the scratch on her vagina might have been a bite mark. Who in the name of god bites pussy?? Get with it, boy Nazi in waiting....... talk about slow and way behind.... Sometimes, like John Smith and a few others, you make a valid point... stick to what you actually know instead of spouting off, you smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer... The police and prosecutor determined there was enough evidence to charge this bloke with rape you dickhead not me....You are sprouting off bullshit racist crap as usual to defend your ignorance and stupidity....Typical butt hurt racist white supremist behaviour....As you have no idea what evidence the Prosecution have it is you who is making baseless assumptions to support your crap not me....Your rants are full of racist comments that say more about you than those you chose to denigrate....You are a disgusting piece of crap Grappler with reality!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

A charge is not a guarantee of conviction or guilt - UNLESS you are an Ayatollah in Iran or somewhere similar - though our 'legal system' has always been weighted against the accused and 'magistrates' definitely work on the same values as Ayatollahs do, contrary to the Rule of OUR Law... you see, unlike the Ayatollah, we don't have the privilege of total belief that Allah will sort out any wrong done to someone charged, so convicting and executing them 'just in case they are guilty' doesn't quite work the same way.

Are you a God Believer and think that any wrong done to any individual will be resolved in Heaven?  If not - why do you support kangaroo court convictions based on accusation only without compelling evidence?

As I said - the opportunity to gather convincing and possibly conclusive evidence was long gone by the time this issue ever arose.... and it is an undying principle of mine that any accusation must be supported by substantial evidence and cannot rely exclusively on versions of events.

You should know that, given that such a stance would obliterate many police claims, including traffic etc things... surely as a Niqqer-Lover over there you would have to agree with that principle...

Whatever you think about it, that is the letter of the law even if it is not adhered to in 'courts'... yet it must be adhered to even if it 'costs' the state money for reasons of basic principles and rights ... that is what we pay them for....

Get with it.

Quite frankly, using your standards, you are totally stupid, uneducated, uninformed, and a proto-Fascist who would love to see rights destroyed as long as it suits some idea of your own.  You obviously know nothing and have no real principles unless you can see benefit for your chosen groups... it is certainly not I who am the racist - the Hayne case had nothing to do with race, you dickhead.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 11:19pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:44pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:37pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 30th, 2021 at 9:19pm: This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused. Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control. It is not arm's length legal opinion.  The opinion here comes from blokes inside Government, thus they have a very vested interest if they like to have a job. It seems you have a very shallow view of how politics/public servants work. All Morrison has to do is give a back door command and some minion will provide whatever arse tin-playing he wants. That head bloke inside his own Department could and should have delivered his findings many many months ago. This is all duck shoving prevarication/obfuscation to at least after the next election. This has the feel of truth to it.... good work.

You forget one thing, there is not one scrap of proof so there is no good work done, none at all, forget the feelings, my feelings are she looked for a way out of the situation she found herself in by screaming RAPE later.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 11:34pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 11:19pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:44pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:37pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 30th, 2021 at 9:19pm: This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused. Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control. It is not arm's length legal opinion.  The opinion here comes from blokes inside Government, thus they have a very vested interest if they like to have a job. It seems you have a very shallow view of how politics/public servants work. All Morrison has to do is give a back door command and some minion will provide whatever arse tin-playing he wants. That head bloke inside his own Department could and should have delivered his findings many many months ago. This is all duck shoving prevarication/obfuscation to at least after the next election. This has the feel of truth to it.... good work. You forget one thing, there is not one scrap of proof so there is no good work done, none at all.

No, no, no - I was commenting on Aussie's view that MorrisonCo was doing 'standard operating procedure' to stuff up any case.  Muddying the waters was a hallmark of this issue from Day One - Reporting Day... unlike - say - philperth, I have no way of knowing that any offence actually occurred, and I've already said a great dis-service was done in there not being immediate action.

Obviously phil is too stupid or too narrow-minded or too drunk to understand English and see that any charge requires proof.  I doubt he'll ever be on a jury with that kind of mentality. He simply does not understand that good Law benefits all.... how many of his beloved Kaffir would not go to prison if the full standards of law were upheld as regards evidence?  And yet he wants to hang this man because a woman made the claim.... sorry - not sufficient... it needs EVIDENCE... if this guy was one of his beloved Blacks, would he have the same standard and demand instant conviction?

HOWEVER - that does not mean that I should accept that the accused is guilty because of any charge... this is anathema to OUR law and must never be permitted under any circumstances.

No compelling substantial evidence - no conviction... that's the principle, and it is better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent hang... IF there is compelling evidence and it shows guilt, I've always said this guy should hang..... but we - dear phil and I - simply cannot judge.

Aussie was right about the Canberra Bastardry in action... that's what I was saying was good work...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 11:44pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 11:34pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 11:19pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:44pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:37pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 30th, 2021 at 9:19pm: This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused. Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control. It is not arm's length legal opinion.  The opinion here comes from blokes inside Government, thus they have a very vested interest if they like to have a job. It seems you have a very shallow view of how politics/public servants work. All Morrison has to do is give a back door command and some minion will provide whatever arse tin-playing he wants. That head bloke inside his own Department could and should have delivered his findings many many months ago. This is all duck shoving prevarication/obfuscation to at least after the next election. This has the feel of truth to it.... good work. You forget one thing, there is not one scrap of proof so there is no good work done, none at all. No, no, no - I was commenting on Aussie's view that MorrisonCo was doing 'standard operating procedure' to stuff up any case.  Muddying the waters was a hallmark of this issue from Day One - Reporting Day... unlike - say - philperth, I have no way of knowing that any offence actually occurred, and I've already said a great dis-service was done in there not being immediate action. Obviously phil is too stupid or too narrow-minded or too drunk to understand English and see that any charge requires proof.  I doubt he'll ever be on a jury with that kind of mentality. He simply does not understand that good Law benefits all.... how many of his beloved Kaffir would not go to prison if the full standards of law were upheld as regards evidence?  And yet he wants to hang this man because a woman made the claim.... sorry - not sufficient... it needs EVIDENCE... if this guy was one of his beloved Blacks, would he have the same standard and demand instant conviction? HOWEVER - that does not mean that I should accept that the accused is guilty because of any charge... this is anathema to OUR law and must never be permitted under any circumstances. No compelling substantial evidence - no conviction... that's the principle, and it is better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent hang... IF there is compelling evidence and it shows guilt, I've always said this guy should hang..... but we - dear phil and I - simply cannot judge. Aussie was right about the Canberra Bastardry in action... that's what I was saying was good work...

Aussie believes Higgins was raped and Morrison has a part to play because he is the PM and it happened in his place.

I don't know whether Higgins was raped or not... what I do know is that any solid evidence was long gone before anything happened at all.  I've commented, months ago, on the lack of positive work by the 'security' staff, who obviously are/were 'in the loop' as regards night-time liaisons inside Parliament House... something I trust is now forbidden, and yet poor darkened phil thinks I'm gunning for St Britanny and that I hate Niqqers and such...

I just demand that Law be adhered to - and phil must realise that a charge is not positive proof of anything - and is not a conviction.

Given the recent history of these kinds of things, a verdict of 'guilty' will come about through emotion and not sense..... and for fear of a negative reaction if the Law is properly adhered to... sheilas marching in the streets, most of whom have zero idea what they are marching about - and so forth - and the cowards will all run.

Aussie's comments on Canberra Dastardliness are pretty right.  I commented on the apparent cover-up from Day One - that's for you, dopey phil... but St Brittany did her 'cause' no favours by not doing anything for days.... very like the Hayne case...

Learn to read, you racist semi-literate dick-head.

For the illiterate and stupid here - guilt by accusation will NOT become the law of this land even if the accuser is a woman or a black or something ..... I will go to war if it does, and that ain't pretty.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 1^st, 2021 at 12:35am:

I don't know whether Higgins was raped or not... what I do know is that any solid evidence was long gone before anything happened at all.  I've commented, months ago, on the lack of positive work by the 'security' staff, who obviously are/were 'in the loop' as regards night-time liaisons inside Parliament House... something I trust is now forbidden, and yet poor darkened phil thinks I'm gunning for St Britanny and that I hate Niqqers and such... I just demand that Law be adhered to - and phil must realise that a charge is not positive proof of anything - and is not a conviction. Given the recent history of these kinds of things, a verdict of 'guilty' will come about through emotion and not sense..... and for fear of a negative reaction if the Law is properly adhered to... sheilas marching in the streets, most of whom have zero idea what they are marching about - and so forth - and the cowards will all run. Aussie's comments on Canberra Dastardliness are pretty right.  I commented on the apparent cover-up from Day One - that's for you, dopey phil... but St Brittany did her 'cause' no favours by not doing anything for days.... very like the Hayne case... Learn to read, you racist semi-literate dick-head. For the illiterate and stupid here - guilt by accusation will NOT become the law of this land even if the accuser is a woman or a black or something ..... I will go to war if it does, and that ain't pretty.

It's pretty unfair that someone can be charged for something on the word of another, i want Brittany charged for raping me 5yrs ago down the beach, i was to drunk to say no at the time.

Johnnie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2021 at 12:46am:

It's pretty unfair that someone can be charged for something on the word of another,

most rapes don't occur in the public area ... in the end it's always ones word against another

Johnnie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 11:54pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 11:44pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 11:34pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 11:19pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:44pm: Johnnie wrote on Aug 31st, 2021 at 3:37pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 30th, 2021 at 9:19pm: This has all the hallmarks of political interference all over it. This bloke had fuqqed around for many months obfuscating for Morrison, now it uses this petty garbage excuse. Link. So....bottom line? Morrison has 'successfully' duck shoved this until after the election. I hope Labour get right up him in QT when they can but the smug shallow arsehole will just brush it off with......'sub judice' rubbish. Fuqqed if I can see a link (any link...let alone a relevant link) between a question about when Morrison's Office first became aware of this alleged incident and a fair trial for the accused. Morrison initiated the investigation. Legal advice says it may impede the Higgins alleged rape trial, sounds like standard procedure and out of Morrison's control. It is not arm's length legal opinion.  The opinion here comes from blokes inside Government, thus they have a very vested interest if they like to have a job. It seems you have a very shallow view of how politics/public servants work. All Morrison has to do is give a back door command and some minion will provide whatever arse tin-playing he wants. That head bloke inside his own Department could and should have delivered his findings many many months ago. This is all duck shoving prevarication/obfuscation to at least after the next election. This has the feel of truth to it.... good work. You forget one thing, there is not one scrap of proof so there is no good work done, none at all. No, no, no - I was commenting on Aussie's view that MorrisonCo was doing 'standard operating procedure' to stuff up any case.  Muddying the waters was a hallmark of this issue from Day One - Reporting Day... unlike - say - philperth, I have no way of knowing that any offence actually occurred, and I've already said a great dis-service was done in there not being immediate action. Obviously phil is too stupid or too narrow-minded or too drunk to understand English and see that any charge requires proof.  I doubt he'll ever be on a jury with that kind of mentality. He simply does not understand that good Law benefits all.... how many of his beloved Kaffir would not go to prison if the full standards of law were upheld as regards evidence?  And yet he wants to hang this man because a woman made the claim.... sorry - not sufficient... it needs EVIDENCE... if this guy was one of his beloved Blacks, would he have the same standard and demand instant conviction? HOWEVER - that does not mean that I should accept that the accused is guilty because of any charge... this is anathema to OUR law and must never be permitted under any circumstances. No compelling substantial evidence - no conviction... that's the principle, and it is better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent hang... IF there is compelling evidence and it shows guilt, I've always said this guy should hang..... but we - dear phil and I - simply cannot judge. Aussie was right about the Canberra Bastardry in action... that's what I was saying was good work... Aussie believes Higgins was raped and Morrison has a part to play because he is the PM and it happened in his place.

Yer not the brightest bulb in the chandelier are you, Bundy.

I have never said that I believe Higgins was raped, and I have never said that Morrison played any part in that rape event.

I do assert that Morrison is in micro control of what his public servants and staffers say on the matter of WHEN Morrison's Office was made aware of the alleged event.

That is what the smug arsehole is covering up and prevaricating on, claiming (via proxy) legal advice allegedly received from some receptionist in the AG's Office (by the proxy) prevents the bloke (the proxy) in Morrison's Office from telling us what he should have been able to tell us many, many months ago, before anyone was charged.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 31^st, 2021 at 11:28pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 12th, 2021 at 9:34am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 12th, 2021 at 2:42am: https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b7f99a3a-7a3c-44a6-a1a9-6662b38fe2e7 .. and you called me a defender of alleged rapists for stating the facts  - I said you would make a great Nazi given your propensity to condemn anyone on accusation and to throw away the rule of law to get what you think is right... You ain't nuthin' but a smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer... You have no idea of the very vast difference between a charge and a conviction to the proper standard.  Haven't you ever heard of Inspector Bias?  Sets out to make a case and ensure all the 'evidence' points one way, and doesn't look at anything else? That's you.... I ask you again - where is the Proof Positive that he even had sex with her?  Did she immediately report it?  Did she go to a medical facility for a swab?  Was there ever any physical evidence of sexual intercourse that was recorded?  Did the security staff even smell raunch?  did they even say there was a distinctive smell in the room? Or did she wait for days and weeks to make any complaint? Sounds like Jarryd Hayne - days/weeks later the 'victim' saw a a doctor who said the scratch on her vagina might have been a bite mark. Who in the name of god bites pussy?? Get with it, boy Nazi in waiting....... talk about slow and way behind.... Sometimes, like John Smith and a few others, you make a valid point... stick to what you actually know instead of spouting off, you smart mouthed, stupid-ass, swamp-runnin' Niqqer... The police and prosecutor determined there was enough evidence to charge this bloke with rape you dickhead not me....You are sprouting off bullshit racist crap as usual to defend your ignorance and stupidity....Typical butt hurt racist white supremist behaviour....As you have no idea what evidence the Prosecution have it is you who is making baseless assumptions to support your crap not me....Your rants are full of racist comments that say more about you than those you chose to denigrate....You are a disgusting piece of crap Grappler with reality!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] A charge is not a guarantee of conviction or guilt - UNLESS you are an Ayatollah in Iran or somewhere similar - though our 'legal system' has always been weighted against the accused and 'magistrates' definitely work on the same values as Ayatollahs do, contrary to the Rule of OUR Law... you see, unlike the Ayatollah, we don't have the privilege of total belief that Allah will sort out any wrong done to someone charged, so convicting and executing them 'just in case they are guilty' doesn't quite work the same way. Are you a God Believer and think that any wrong done to any individual will be resolved in Heaven?  If not - why do you support kangaroo court convictions based on accusation only without compelling evidence? As I said - the opportunity to gather convincing and possibly conclusive evidence was long gone by the time this issue ever arose.... and it is an undying principle of mine that any accusation must be supported by substantial evidence and cannot rely exclusively on versions of events. You should know that, given that such a stance would obliterate many police claims, including traffic etc things... surely as a Niqqer-Lover over there you would have to agree with that principle... Whatever you think about it, that is the letter of the law even if it is not adhered to in 'courts'... yet it must be adhered to even if it 'costs' the state money for reasons of basic principles and rights ... that is what we pay them for.... Get with it. Quite frankly, using your standards, you are totally stupid, uneducated, uninformed, and a proto-Fascist who would love to see rights destroyed as long as it suits some idea of your own.  You obviously know nothing and have no real principles unless you can see benefit for your chosen groups... it is certainly not I who am the racist - the Hayne case had nothing to do with race, you dickhead.

Your comments are complete bullshit....There has been no conviction you dickhead and you are a racist prick....Why deny it when it is self evident???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2021 at 8:18pm:

Your comments are complete bullshit....There has been no conviction you dickhead and you are a racist prick....Why deny it when it is self evident??? ::) ::) ::)

I gave you the privilege of reading your crap, boy - like some others, you just get worse with every stupid utterance you make.... something wrong with you lot over that way....

https://media1.giphy.com/media/cO96Vi06GWXir9j8Ib/200.gif

My yawns are better than brian's....

About time!  Bruce Lehrmann committed to Supreme Court trial over alleged rape of Brittany Higgins at Parliament House  ::) ::)

Quote:

I don't know whether Higgins was raped or not... what I do know is that any solid evidence was long gone before anything happened at all.

you know no such thing. None of us do.

I do recall though that security camera footage from the room in question was handed over to the police, and for all we know is being used to support the prosecution's case.

I was of the understanding that ministerial offices were not under direct video surveillance, and were sacred sites built on absolute trust... you can't have meetings recorded and details leaked.......

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5^th, 2021 at 1:39pm:

I was of the understanding that ministerial offices were not under direct video surveillance, and were sacred sites built on absolute trust... you can't have meetings recorded and details leaked.......

Perhaps not in the actual ministerial suite then, but there is ctv footage that the police have held on to. Also there may be other evidence that no one apart from the police know of.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5^th, 2021 at 2:46pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 1:39pm: I was of the understanding that ministerial offices were not under direct video surveillance, and were sacred sites built on absolute trust... you can't have meetings recorded and details leaked....... Perhaps not in the actual ministerial suite then, but there is ctv footage that the police have held on to. Also there may be other evidence that no one apart from the police know of.

Their entrances and their exits... none of which shows sexual intercourse.... and I cannot see where there is any available evidence that sexual intercourse even took place... those birds had long flown by the time any effort was made. Where is the stained dress... the torn vaginal wall... the deposits inside...

All there is, is security staff half-doing their job finding the woman either naked or half-naked on the couch, and Ms Higgins' totally inebriated recollection of waking up with him on top of her.

On a darker side - this is an extension of the feminist insanity that men should be convicted on accusation, regardless of hard evidence, and the fervent hope in pursuing this charge is that in the modern day and age, an unthinking jury will find guilt where no evidence indicates it, purely on the basis of their emotions and their feelings about 'poor victims'.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:46pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 1:39pm: I was of the understanding that ministerial offices were not under direct video surveillance, and were sacred sites built on absolute trust... you can't have meetings recorded and details leaked....... Perhaps not in the actual ministerial suite then, but there is ctv footage that the police have held on to. Also there may be other evidence that no one apart from the police know of. Their entrances and their exits... none of which shows sexual intercourse.... and I cannot see where there is any available evidence that sexual intercourse even took place... those birds had long flown by the time any effort was made. Where is the stained dress... the torn vaginal wall... the deposits inside... All there is, is security staff half-doing their job finding the woman either naked or half-naked on the couch, and Ms Higgins' totally inebriated recollection of waking up with him on top of her. On a darker side - this is an extension of the feminist insanity that men should be convicted on accusation, regardless of hard evidence, and the fervent hope in pursuing this charge is that in the modern day and age, an unthinking jury will find guilt where no evidence indicates it, purely on the basis of their emotions and their feelings about 'poor victims'.

Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk.
If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault.

But if a man is drunk and a waman has sexual intercourse with the man ...its his fault.

If she drinks too much.....its his fault.
If she comes to his private room in a motel....its his fault.
If she decides that she didnt like it, or sees an opportunity for advancement....its his fault.

Women have been seducing men to take advantage of the situation for as long as human kind has existed.
Only now have they the ability to claim all manner of "abuses" years and even decades after the supposed act.

A rape is when the woman is taken unwillingly and reports it immediately.
Sexual assault is the same, if its not reported, there has to be some doubt.

We are now at the ludicrous stage when a man must gain both verbal and written acknowledgement of willing female participation in an act of love or sex, but even that will be open to interpretation eventually.

I can see a time when a man will have to have recorded evidence of willingness on the behalf of a woman (at various stages of coitus).
He will have to have blood samples of the female dated and retained as evidence that she is not drunk or drugged.
Written confirmation, with witness or witnesses.

The only safe male these days is a dole bludging male who has nothing any woman can get from him.

Valkie wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 7:14am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 5:26pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:46pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 1:39pm: I was of the understanding that ministerial offices were not under direct video surveillance, and were sacred sites built on absolute trust... you can't have meetings recorded and details leaked....... Perhaps not in the actual ministerial suite then, but there is ctv footage that the police have held on to. Also there may be other evidence that no one apart from the police know of. Their entrances and their exits... none of which shows sexual intercourse.... and I cannot see where there is any available evidence that sexual intercourse even took place... those birds had long flown by the time any effort was made. Where is the stained dress... the torn vaginal wall... the deposits inside... All there is, is security staff half-doing their job finding the woman either naked or half-naked on the couch, and Ms Higgins' totally inebriated recollection of waking up with him on top of her. On a darker side - this is an extension of the feminist insanity that men should be convicted on accusation, regardless of hard evidence, and the fervent hope in pursuing this charge is that in the modern day and age, an unthinking jury will find guilt where no evidence indicates it, purely on the basis of their emotions and their feelings about 'poor victims'. Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault. But if a man is drunk and a waman has sexual intercourse with the man ...its his fault. If she drinks too much.....its his fault. If she comes to his private room in a motel....its his fault. If she decides that she didnt like it, or sees an opportunity for advancement....its his fault. Women have been seducing men to take advantage of the situation for as long as human kind has existed. Only now have they the ability to claim all manner of "abuses" years and even decades after the supposed act. A rape is when the woman is taken unwillingly and reports it immediately. Sexual assault is the same, if its not reported, there has to be some doubt. We are now at the ludicrous stage when a man must gain both verbal and written acknowledgement of willing female participation in an act of love or sex, but even that will be open to interpretation eventually. I can see a time when a man will have to have recorded evidence of willingness on the behalf of a woman (at various stages of coitus). He will have to have blood samples of the female dated and retained as evidence that she is not drunk or drugged. Written confirmation, with witness or witnesses. The only safe male these days is a dole bludging male who has nothing any woman can get from him.

Morning Shorty.

Do you feel threatened by women over 5 ft?

I'm curious.

Valkie wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 7:14am:

Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault.

you really struggle don't you? The man is merely responsible for having sex with the drunk woman.

Have you always needed to get woman drunk to sleep with you valkie?

John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 12:24pm:

Valkie wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 7:14am: Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault. you really struggle don't you? The man is merely responsible for having sex with the drunk woman. Have you always needed to get woman drunk to sleep with you valkie?

And if the guy is the drunk one or they both are? It's a view that victimises women, saying they cannot handle their alcohol and men can and therefore women should not drink, well unless they accompanied by a brother or father. Women cannot be trusted to be self directed agents, they are inferior and need coddling..

John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 12:24pm:

Valkie wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 7:14am: Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault. you really struggle don't you? The man is merely responsible for having sex with the drunk woman. Have you always needed to get woman drunk to sleep with you valkie?

Is she equally responsible for having sex with him while he was drunk?

A little off the topic of whether or not sex took place without her consent, even by willing participation..... but still... an important issue.

WHY are men always responsible for the actions of women?

Setanta wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 6:38pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:24pm: Valkie wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 7:14am: Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault. you really struggle don't you? The man is merely responsible for having sex with the drunk woman. Have you always needed to get woman drunk to sleep with you valkie? And if the guy is the drunk one or they both are? It's a view that victimises women, saying they cannot handle their alcohol and men can and therefore women should not drink, well unless they accompanied by a brother or father. Women cannot be trusted to be self directed agents, they are inferior and need coddling..

Ah!!  The Muslims have it right then!!   ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Jim Lahey wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 10:38am:

Valkie wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 7:14am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 5:26pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:46pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 1:39pm: I was of the understanding that ministerial offices were not under direct video surveillance, and were sacred sites built on absolute trust... you can't have meetings recorded and details leaked....... Perhaps not in the actual ministerial suite then, but there is ctv footage that the police have held on to. Also there may be other evidence that no one apart from the police know of. Their entrances and their exits... none of which shows sexual intercourse.... and I cannot see where there is any available evidence that sexual intercourse even took place... those birds had long flown by the time any effort was made. Where is the stained dress... the torn vaginal wall... the deposits inside... All there is, is security staff half-doing their job finding the woman either naked or half-naked on the couch, and Ms Higgins' totally inebriated recollection of waking up with him on top of her. On a darker side - this is an extension of the feminist insanity that men should be convicted on accusation, regardless of hard evidence, and the fervent hope in pursuing this charge is that in the modern day and age, an unthinking jury will find guilt where no evidence indicates it, purely on the basis of their emotions and their feelings about 'poor victims'. Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault. But if a man is drunk and a waman has sexual intercourse with the man ...its his fault. If she drinks too much.....its his fault. If she comes to his private room in a motel....its his fault. If she decides that she didnt like it, or sees an opportunity for advancement....its his fault. Women have been seducing men to take advantage of the situation for as long as human kind has existed. Only now have they the ability to claim all manner of "abuses" years and even decades after the supposed act. A rape is when the woman is taken unwillingly and reports it immediately. Sexual assault is the same, if its not reported, there has to be some doubt. We are now at the ludicrous stage when a man must gain both verbal and written acknowledgement of willing female participation in an act of love or sex, but even that will be open to interpretation eventually. I can see a time when a man will have to have recorded evidence of willingness on the behalf of a woman (at various stages of coitus). He will have to have blood samples of the female dated and retained as evidence that she is not drunk or drugged. Written confirmation, with witness or witnesses. The only safe male these days is a dole bludging male who has nothing any woman can get from him. Morning Shorty. Do you feel threatened by women over 5 ft? I'm curious.

You prick - don't strike through my reasonable post which merely looks impartially at the situation.

Mods - eat this guy alive.....   ;D ;D ;D ;D   G'day, Greg... get some sleep lad....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5^th, 2021 at 5:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:46pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 1:39pm: I was of the understanding that ministerial offices were not under direct video surveillance, and were sacred sites built on absolute trust... you can't have meetings recorded and details leaked....... Perhaps not in the actual ministerial suite then, but there is ctv footage that the police have held on to. Also there may be other evidence that no one apart from the police know of. Their entrances and their exits... none of which shows sexual intercourse.... and I cannot see where there is any available evidence that sexual intercourse even took place... those birds had long flown by the time any effort was made. Where is the stained dress... the torn vaginal wall... the deposits inside... All there is, is security staff half-doing their job finding the woman either naked or half-naked on the couch, and Ms Higgins' totally inebriated recollection of waking up with him on top of her. On a darker side - this is an extension of the feminist insanity that men should be convicted on accusation, regardless of hard evidence, and the fervent hope in pursuing this charge is that in the modern day and age, an unthinking jury will find guilt where no evidence indicates it, purely on the basis of their emotions and their feelings about 'poor victims'.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 11:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:24pm: Valkie wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 7:14am: Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault. you really struggle don't you? The man is merely responsible for having sex with the drunk woman. Have you always needed to get woman drunk to sleep with you valkie? Is she equally responsible for having sex with him while he was drunk? A little off the topic of whether or not sex took place without her consent, even by willing participation..... but still... an important issue. WHY are men always responsible for the actions of women?

No, No, get with the plan.

Women want equal treatment .....when its to their advantage.

But they also want "affirmative" action (preferential treatment) when its to their advantage.

Men are called morons, but must be responsible for women and what they do.
If she comes to a mans room under her own volition, what does she expect? a discussion about politics?

You are responsible for what you do, its all up to you.
If you get drunk, its your own fault.
If you are incapable of controlling yourself, simple ....don't drink.

Of course, true rape or sexual harassment is different.
But if its not immediately reported... there must be some doubt.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 11:51pm:

Jim Lahey wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 10:38am: Valkie wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 7:14am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 5:26pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 2:46pm: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 1:39pm: I was of the understanding that ministerial offices were not under direct video surveillance, and were sacred sites built on absolute trust... you can't have meetings recorded and details leaked....... Perhaps not in the actual ministerial suite then, but there is ctv footage that the police have held on to. Also there may be other evidence that no one apart from the police know of. Their entrances and their exits... none of which shows sexual intercourse.... and I cannot see where there is any available evidence that sexual intercourse even took place... those birds had long flown by the time any effort was made. Where is the stained dress... the torn vaginal wall... the deposits inside... All there is, is security staff half-doing their job finding the woman either naked or half-naked on the couch, and Ms Higgins' totally inebriated recollection of waking up with him on top of her. On a darker side - this is an extension of the feminist insanity that men should be convicted on accusation, regardless of hard evidence, and the fervent hope in pursuing this charge is that in the modern day and age, an unthinking jury will find guilt where no evidence indicates it, purely on the basis of their emotions and their feelings about 'poor victims'. Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault. But if a man is drunk and a waman has sexual intercourse with the man ...its his fault. If she drinks too much.....its his fault. If she comes to his private room in a motel....its his fault. If she decides that she didnt like it, or sees an opportunity for advancement....its his fault. Women have been seducing men to take advantage of the situation for as long as human kind has existed. Only now have they the ability to claim all manner of "abuses" years and even decades after the supposed act. A rape is when the woman is taken unwillingly and reports it immediately. Sexual assault is the same, if its not reported, there has to be some doubt. We are now at the ludicrous stage when a man must gain both verbal and written acknowledgement of willing female participation in an act of love or sex, but even that will be open to interpretation eventually. I can see a time when a man will have to have recorded evidence of willingness on the behalf of a woman (at various stages of coitus). He will have to have blood samples of the female dated and retained as evidence that she is not drunk or drugged. Written confirmation, with witness or witnesses. The only safe male these days is a dole bludging male who has nothing any woman can get from him. Morning Shorty. Do you feel threatened by women over 5 ft? I'm curious. You prick - don't strike through my reasonable post which merely looks impartially at the situation. Mods - eat this guy alive.....   ;D ;D ;D ;D   G'day, Greg... get some sleep lad....

Ignore peccarheads alter ego, I do.

Its pathetic attempts at engaging in similar stupidity just isnt worth it.

It must be so sad for peccarhead to throw out all these socks to attack anyone who keeps reminding him that.......

He promised to leave the forum if Trum won.

Trump won
TRUMP WON
TRUMP WON

BUT PECCARHEAD, THE LIAR....IS STILL INFESTING THE FORUM WITH HIS PATHETIC TROLL SOCKS.

Setanta wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 6:38pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:24pm: Valkie wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 7:14am: Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault. you really struggle don't you? The man is merely responsible for having sex with the drunk woman. Have you always needed to get woman drunk to sleep with you valkie? And if the guy is the drunk one or they both are? It's a view that victimises women, saying they cannot handle their alcohol and men can and therefore women should not drink, well unless they accompanied by a brother or father. Women cannot be trusted to be self directed agents, they are inferior and need coddling..

What a load of bullshit....Have you ever contemplated that Brittney Higgins was raped and telling the truth???

:-? :-? :-?

And she was unconscious. Just saying.

mothra wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 7:13am:

And she was unconscious. Just saying.

So she recalls how?  I'm just presenting facts here.. I say, you say... adds up to the same thing.

He's a dork if he took advantage, and if he did so by design, he is an asshole... but security of the populace demands that there be zero conviction upon accusation, regardless that this has been permitted through our courts for many decades when the accuser is police.

To accord to any person or group any special status via being 'persons of standing in the community' is contrary to our Law, and according to women the status of having higher standing than men is also contrary to our Law.  We continue to suffer from an incredible system of 'class', wherein employer has more value than employee, ordinary person has less value than a farmer, wife of politician is somehow seen as a higher calling than being a taxi driver when it comes to a traffic accident etc.....

What is not and never can be acceptable is handing to women higher status under Law.

You should know that from what happens to your Abo mates, mothra, on a near daily basis.

In this sense we are all in the same boat, and the disingenuous 'differences' between people on the basis of colour are misleading at best, and malicious at worst.

She recalls how? Are you kidding?

Stepping entirely over your utter ignorance of the the female body, the fact she awoke naked may have been a clue.

mothra wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 7:51am:

She recalls how? Are you kidding? Stepping entirely over your utter ignorance of the the female body, the fact she awoke naked may have been a clue.

You said she was "unconscious"... got that so far..... so how does she accurately recall anything in her state?  There are countless reasons she may have awoken naked.

Exactly which part of the female body was examined in a timely fashion so as to ascertain her status?

How DID she come to awaken naked???  Tell us ...........

Thank Christ the laws have moved on past you. Jesus.

mothra wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 8:05am:

Thank Christ the laws have moved on past you. Jesus.

OH?  and exactly which changes are you talking about?  Now a woman must be totally presumed to be telling the truth regardless of all other considerations, and that is sufficient to send the one she accuses to prison?

When did they bring in that one?

IF that is the case - and it can never be under the proper rule of Law here - why is that you fail utterly to see that this is the exact same process by which your Kaffir mates are consistently 'convicted' and sent to prison?

Which rock have you been hiding under?

Now - can you address the questions instead of just lashing out?  I know that's hard for you, but you could at least try.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 7:59am:

mothra wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 7:51am: She recalls how? Are you kidding? Stepping entirely over your utter ignorance of the the female body, the fact she awoke naked may have been a clue. You said she was "unconscious"... got that so far..... so how does she accurately recall anything in her state?  There are countless reasons she may have awoken naked. Exactly which part of the female body was examined in a timely fashion so as to ascertain her status? How DID she come to awaken naked???  Tell us ...........

Now try again.... YOU tell us how she came to be naked; how she could recall anything accurately; what examinations were undertaken; and why she took so long to even raise the issue.

I take it you were there, so you know all this..... so tell us in your absolute certainty.

God. You're so not worth talking to.

mothra wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 8:27am:

God. You're so not worth talking to.

You're not talking to me - you are diverting and trying to get out of answering the questions.... that's called using your own echo chamber..... bouncing your own petty prejudices off the walls......

I thought you knew all the Higgins story from personal experience and observation - you were so positive in your already drawn conclusions... you HAD to be the fly on the wall to be that positive......

Thank Christ the jury system was designed to leave people like you way behind and out of it... now, of course, some seek to alter the parameters in which they are required to function...... a dangerous move for any accused.

grap, there may be a legitimate point to be made about due process and how important it is to acquire real evidence before convicting.

However in this case your argument is somewhat compromised by the fact that:

a) your starting position, not just here but in every single discussion of this nature, is always that this is just some sinister conspiracy to oppress men.

b) you willfully ignore the deep, dark historical and cultural context of rape, and without even an acknowledgement of how heavily and unfairly the cards are stacked against the victim achieving justice. Its about the glaring power imbalance - both biological and societal that has empowered rapists throughout our history. And its about victims feeling so disempowered, and so ashamed (by culture and society) that they overwhelmingly don't even report it. Hence when an alleged victim does actually report it, that should mean something - something a bit more than "you are presumed to be lying until evidence surfaces supporting your claim".

So what am I saying? Is it right to convict men purely on the say-so of their accused? Of course not. But at the same time, we should not automatically assume that an accuser is lying until physical evidence comes to light. And in a similar vein, I don't accept that the only admissible evidence should be from whats obtained through an examination of the woman's vagina. I don't have the solution, its a terrible pickle for our justice system, which most of the time is woefully inadequate to deal with the issue of rape. But I would say we can begin to approach this better by changing our starting position - to acknowledge that a) rape is horribly endemic, and always has been, and b) that almost always the perpetrator will get away with it, and c) victims rarely report the crime.

No doubt you would deny it, but my feeling is that our society, including our justice system, still errs towards reflexively blaming the victim whenever a case comes up.

And I would also make the bold claim that the number of men who have been falsely accused of rape is absolutely infinitesimal compared to the number of rapists who have got away scot free.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 12:41pm:

grap, there may be a legitimate point to be made about due process and how important it is to acquire real evidence before convicting. However in this case your argument is somewhat compromised by the fact that: a) your starting position, not just here but in every single discussion of this nature, is always that this is just some sinister conspiracy to oppress men. b) you willfully ignore the deep, dark historical and cultural context of rape, and without even an acknowledgement of how heavily and unfairly the cards are stacked against the victim achieving justice. Its about the glaring power imbalance - both biological and societal that has empowered rapists throughout our history. And its about victims feeling so disempowered, and so ashamed (by culture and society) that they overwhelmingly don't even report it. Hence when an alleged victim does actually report it, that should mean something - something a bit more than "you are presumed to be lying until evidence surfaces supporting your claim". So what am I saying? Is it right to convict men purely on the say-so of their accused? Of course not. But at the same time, we should not automatically assume that an accuser is lying until physical evidence comes to light. And in a similar vein, I don't accept that the only admissible evidence should be from whats obtained through an examination of the woman's vagina. I don't have the solution, its a terrible pickle for our justice system, which most of the time is woefully inadequate to deal with the issue of rape. But I would say we can begin to approach this better by changing our starting position - to acknowledge that a) rape is horribly endemic, and always has been, and b) that almost always the perpetrator will get away with it, and c) victims rarely report the crime. No doubt you would deny it, but my feeling is that our society, including our justice system, still errs towards reflexively blaming the victim whenever a case comes up.

Pure nonsense - it was not I who initiated discussion of conspiracy - I merely pointed out that proper handling of Law requires fact and not assumption, supposition, innuendo, or outright discrimination.

At no time did I suggest that any accuser was a liar.... I merely pointed out that OUR system of law, as opposed to Star Chambers and Ayatollah justice - demands that the rights of the accused be protected, that all doubt must go to the defence, and that any matter be determined on the basis of facts and not anything else.

On what basis do you say that the accuser's right are being abrogated by ensuring a proper handling of Law?  YOU are the one creating out of thin air some conspiracy to do down poor little women.  HOW exactly is it difficult for the victim - who has yet to be proven to be so and should properly be referred to as the 'alleged victim' - to get what you consider justice?  What do you consider this 'justice' to be?  He's accused - therefore he must be guilty?  Your thinking is muddled.

Once again - I run Australia's Wrongfully Convicted, on whose front page I make clear the world of difference between false and wrongful conviction.

Your assumption that anyone who demands due process is somehow calling the accuser a liar is utter nonsense.

In the Higgins case - there is NO physical evidence, largely because of her own actions - ergo by your own reasoning, no reason for this matter to proceed at all, other than it has become a political hobby-horse in the movement to reduce men under penury and subservience.

Remember what I quoted from Angela Davis - Black Afro-American activist in the 1960's.... "If they come for me in the morning - they will come for you at night!"

What far too many of you well-meaning useful fools fail to understand is that once you permit and even demand that Rights be violated by the state to suit some half-baked agenda - the violated Right(s) are the Rights of ALL - and one day it will come back to bite you.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance - and the greatest enemy of democracy is government.

As with mothra - the jury system was created and organised to prevent such fools from making the decisions in most cases.  With your view of female victimhood at all times - you would not make it on the jury.

Quote:

Pure nonsense

Any doubts I might have had was put to rest after reading another unhinged rant in another thread about how Albo and the labor party are neck deep in some sinister femi-nazi campaign to oppress men.


Quote:

I merely pointed out that OUR system of law, as opposed to Star Chambers and Ayatollah justice - demands that the rights of the accused be protected, that all doubt must go to the defence, and that any matter be determined on the basis of facts and not anything else.

And I merely point out, for a whole bunch of reasons around historical and cultural context, that this approach is wholly inadequate for rape. Since the cards are so heavily stacked against the victims, and in favour of the perpetrator. Funny you mention the Ayatollah justice - since they would presumably (if they follow standard Islamic law) - insist that conviction requires nothing less than 4 separate witnesses to the act. I would have thought such heavy burden of proof would be right up your alley.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 1:18pm:

Quote: Pure nonsense Any doubts I might have had was put to rest after reading another unhinged rant in another thread about how Albo and the labor party are neck deep in some sinister femi-nazi campaign to oppress men. [quote]I merely pointed out that OUR system of law, as opposed to Star Chambers and Ayatollah justice - demands that the rights of the accused be protected, that all doubt must go to the defence, and that any matter be determined on the basis of facts and not anything else.

And I merely point out, for a whole bunch of reasons around historical and cultural context, that this approach is wholly inadequate for rape. Since the cards are so heavily stacked against the victims, and in favour of the perpetrator. Funny you mention the Ayatollah justice - since they would presumably (if they follow standard Islamic law) - insist that conviction requires nothing less than 4 separate witnesses to the act. I would have thought such heavy burden of proof would be right up your alley.[/quote]


Well - HOW are the cards stacked against the accuser?  You haven't said.. (you may use the term alleged victim here instead of the emotive term 'victim' - there is NO victim until a crime has been proven to the -roper standard - there is only an alleged victim, capisce?).....

What burden of proof in a rape allegation is imposed that is not the same as any other allegation?

Why EXACTLY is it 'inadequate for rape'?  What do you want to see changed... here's your chance.... do try to be forthcoming and explicit......

Personally I think you're seeing things (now THAT, sonny, is 'unhinged') ...... and the rights of the accuser must never overcome the rights of the accused to a full and proper rendering of evidence.

As for the other - if they come for me in the morning, they will come for you at night... your grandsons will not praise you for aiding and abetting a retrograde social movement .... write it all down for them in a little book, so they will know who and what you were........

Thank god the jury system would exclude you in this case.... (reading your tripe it sounds like you've been listening too closely to your feminist mentors and actually believe they are sane - come on - give it a shot at actually answering the questions without diverting into personal sledging and emotion-based rhetoric)

Ask the hard questions about fundamental realities and genuine equal and fair treatment - and the ideologues run for cover.  Nothing to support their argument but endless rhetoric and attempting to tar any dissenter as a racist of misogynist or some other form of hater - for simply pointing out the desperate need to genuinely treat everyone equally.

Why do I oppose feminism?  Because it is an ideology of supremacy and of calculated unequal treatment in every way, and is used by governments to undermine the real Rights of the ordinary person, so as to establish their dream of a neo-Feudal society.

Look at other strands here - industrial relations, wage theft, union-bashing and so on - what do they all add up to, to YOU?

Less power to the common folk and more to the self-appointed gods of business and government.

Time to bring them to heel!!

"Very good, Number One - the moment we clear the smoke, hard a-starboard and give 'em a broadside... that'll give 'em something to think about... any news on the covering force?"

Far off in the Arctic gloom the two cruisers Sheffield and Jamaica had finally found the convoy... and their radars had locked on to the German ships.  From the bridge of Onslow, clearing the smoke on the side away from the Germans, the northern horizon was lit up by flashes of lightning..... less than a minute later Hipper and Lutzow were suddenly bracketed by twenty four eruptions of cascading water... as 24 six inch naval shells fell around them...

The covering force had arrived.... and Onslow turned once again into the smoke to make another toothless torpedo pass at the German ships.....

mothra wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 7:51am:

She recalls how? Are you kidding? Stepping entirely over your utter ignorance of the the female body, the fact she awoke naked may have been a clue.

You are correct Mothra and the security guard found her naked....All the details are in the link!!!

:) :) :)

https://7news.com.au/politics/security-guard-breaks-silence-over-higgins-c-2411102

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 11:47pm:

WHY are men always responsible for the actions of women?

so she made him stick his dick in her? ... it was her fault ... sorry my bad, hadn't realise she made him do it ::)

you're getting rather pathetic in your old age crappler

Setanta wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 6:38pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:24pm: Valkie wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 7:14am: Men are now responsible for women's actions when drunk. If a woman is drunk and has sexual intercourse with a man its his fault. you really struggle don't you? The man is merely responsible for having sex with the drunk woman. Have you always needed to get woman drunk to sleep with you valkie? And if the guy is the drunk one or they both are? It's a view that victimises women, saying they cannot handle their alcohol and men can and therefore women should not drink, well unless they accompanied by a brother or father. Women cannot be trusted to be self directed agents, they are inferior and need coddling..

blah blah blah ... that was pathetic even by your low standards

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 5:14pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 11:47pm: WHY are men always responsible for the actions of women? so she made him stick his dick in her? ... it was her fault ... sorry my bad, hadn't realise she made him do it ::) you're getting rather pathetic in your old age crappler

That was a general question, Smith - YOU applied it to the allegation of rape..... try again....  you are truly pathetic regardless of your age...

God, these clowns are easy to chop up..... many have tried for the crown - none has succeeded ...

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 6:45pm:

That was a general question, Smith - YOU applied it to the allegation of rape

Given that this thread is about an alleged rape ... DERRRRRRRRRRRR

As a general question it's even more ridiculous.

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 5:08pm:

mothra wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 7:51am: She recalls how? Are you kidding? Stepping entirely over your utter ignorance of the the female body, the fact she awoke naked may have been a clue. You are correct Mothra and the security guard found her naked....All the details are in the link!!! :) :) :) https://7news.com.au/politics/security-guard-breaks-silence-over-higgins-c-2411102

So finding her either semi or fully naked - without even proceeding to a check to see that she was not ill or in pain or anything or ready to choke on her own vomit - later proves intercourse took place?  A quick look in the door is sufficient?  Maybe for some dopey sheila paid to guard Parliament House...

Pull the other leg.... you are not entitled to convict anyone on suspicion... amazing how far you 'progressives' have to go to even match the handling of law in the courts, which by any legal and decent standards, is abysmal in Australia and nothing more than playing with people's lives with a loaded deck.

And you want to make it worse........   ::)  ::)  ::)     ;D  ;D  ;D

One day it will rise up to bite you or yours......... they're your sons and grandsons.....

Jesus these people are easy - I wonder why they even come to the game... knowing nothing.... talk about the great unwashed intellectually ...   this is like playing five dimensional chess with pigeons......   ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D   .... (touche`) ...

So, let me get this right.

Women demand equality, unless they want preferential treatment because they cannot compete with men.

A man is responsible for a woman getting drunk and allowing him to have sex with her, she bears no responsibility for her own actions.

A man is responsible for the wellbeing and sexual promiscuity of a woman, but has no authority to control them or what they do.

A woman may, at any time, retract or decide to put an end to coitus regardless.

A woman does not take any responsibility for going to a man's room, office or other place, and does not accept that this action (including stripping naked, flirting or performing sexual acts on the man)

Have I got this right?

Miss Higgins would be a good root i reckon but i would be breath testing her 1st.

Valkie wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 6:59pm:

So, let me get this right.

Never gonna happen, boomer.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 7:33pm:

Valkie wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:59pm: So, let me get this right. Never gonna happen, boomer.

Tribalism, Peccary - engage brain - you know better.

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 6:46pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:45pm: That was a general question, Smith - YOU applied it to the allegation of rape Given that this thread is about an alleged rape ... DERRRRRRRRRRRR As a general question it's even more ridiculous.

No idea then, smith?  Who'd 've thunk different....

I'll try it so that your simple mind might have a shot...

How does asking a question about why men are held responsible for the actions of women (but not vice versa) translate into her making him put his dick in her?  You're the one who mentioned him putting his dick in her - something that has zero physical substantiating evidence and is only your unsupported view - and tried to pervert my question into a statement of guilt by her.

Nobody remotely said that..

Stay off that sh1t, whatever it is... truly it ruins your mind.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 3:01pm:

What burden of proof in a rape allegation is imposed that is not the same as any other allegation?

You misunderstood me. I am saying that our justice system is inadequate in dealing with rape precisely *because* it demands the same burden of proof as any other allegation.

Yes, rape *IS* different, and I'm frankly amazed I have to spell it out for you. Rape has been a male-privilege weapon since time immemorial. It is the ultimate tool of domination and oppression, with the specific aim of degrading and humiliating its victims. Of course it is compounded by the fact that it is such a biologically instinctive act that terrifyingly comes all too naturally for many men.

But thats just the start of it. Even worse is the cultural complexities surrounding it that stacks the cards against victims even further. We still have this sick cultural legacy of assuming the worst of women in such cases: the old caricature of the manipulative, seductive femme fatal who basically tricks men to 'rape' them, and then cries victim the next morning. So this creates a whole narrative around mixed messaging of the women, questioning around their choice of clothing etc. It leads to such incidences as an Australian judge seriously suggesting that "no sometimes means yes". Long story short, the victim invariably becomes the real culprit, while the culprit ends up as the victim. We still haven't shaken this sick cultural legacy off. Even if we can on occasions stop ourselves from making a martyr of the rapist, we still persist in 'slut shaming' the victim. Why were you out that night? Why did you have to come in seductive clothing, and of course the favourite fall-back - why were you drinking? 

Long story short, for any woman who is brave enough to report their allegation, they are in for a torrent of abuse and humiliation - on top of the abuse and humiliation they have already suffered. And for what? Statistics show an appalingly low conviction rate - and thats just counting the cases that actually make it to court. If you count the cases that the police drop before bringing charges, we're probably talking less than 5% conviction rate:

eg:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/5/7/why-do-so-few-rapes-result-in-a-conviction

Here is the undeniable truth grap, that I want you to at least acknowledge:

if a man is thinking about raping a woman, he can feel safe in the knowledge that he will almost certainly get away with it. And furthermore, that statistically, the least traumatic course of action for the victim will be simply to shut up and live with it in silence. And that is a trully faarked up situation.

If you can at least bring yourself to admit that this is the reality in our culture, then you might actually agree that what I am saying is true - that our justice system is wholly inadequate in dealing with this issue, and that something (I don't have a solution as to what) - needs to change. And then maybe, just maybe, you'll get off your ridiculous 'femi-nazis rule the world and men are an oppressed species' fantasy saddle.

Sadly Gandalf - there can be NO distinction between the burden of proof required for the criminal allegation of rape and any other allegation.  The Law demands that all such allegations be treated the same.

How and why is rape different?  Different from what?  Murder?  Assault?  Robbery?

When you lapse into ideology = 'male privilege weapon' - you have lost the plot.  If it has occurred, it is a crime - and again - there can be no distinction between it and any other crime.  Your feathery ideals are all well and good, but not at the expense of the proper upholding of Law, and clearly you cannot see that even in using that term you have bought into the ideology of a war on men, and through men, on the standards we employ in the West.

What you are doing here is seeking to undermine the rule of Law in the West, and that is not a joke.  The exercise of law in the West is so perilous and so tentative in its application to principle already - and you may not reduce the flimsy protections that currently do exist - protections most often upheld in the abuse than in the keeping already.

You may NOT have separate laws for women or anyone else, I'm sorry to tell you.

Who here has 'seen the worst' in Brittany Higgins?  Certainly not me... I have always stated clearly that any bloke who needs to get a woman drunk to get a root is a dork, and in certain circumstances, given clear proof of intent - is guilty under certain laws of a form of rape.

At NO time have I criticised Higgins for anything but the failure to ensure the case by taking timely action and allowing clear evidence to be available.

Your presumptions about men in this society are, frankly, amazing, and nowhere near the truth.  Men have always been the first to wreak dire punishment on rapists - but there is, in this country, a technical requirement for proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

You are not permitted to act on your emotions; you are not permitted to create special laws for special groups; you are not permitted to make any judgement other than on the basis of the proven facts - not just statements - but facts supported by substantial corroborating evidence.

In this case, substantial corroborating evidence is in very short supply = zero, due to the actions of a number of people, including Brittany Higgins.

Your emotions are touching, your fervour admirable - but you must stick purely to proven and provable facts.

Grap, all I can say is, your lecturing against emotion and blind ideology is truly breathtaking, given your hysterical views about poor downtrodden men and their sinister feminist oppressors.

That said, I agree that due process must be maintained. Always have. I never said I have a solution for dealing adequately with what is, undeniably, the 'special case' of rape in our justice system. Undermining our rule of law is the last thing I want to do. I merely call on society to 'think outside the box' and find ways in which rape cases can simultaneously maintain our rule of law and due process - while also achieving better justice for real victims.

Gandalf - with all due respect - all those things you comment on are part and parcel of feminist rhetoric, propaganda, hyperbole and there is next to no solid evidence to support them.

You need only look at the surveys in universities, in which the figures were blandly inflated by adding into 'rape' figures' things that were nowhere near the  concept of rape.

You are so deeply in thrall to your feminist block kapos and perimeter guards - so very common these days in our houses of learning - that you cannot see the realities... frankly it is your Stockholm syndrome that is breathtaking.

I reject feminism for all the proper reasons - by its very name it is discriminatory; it is based on massive lies and distortions repeated over and over; it is nothing more than a path to power for people who do not wish to do all the hard yards, but consider they have Entitlement™ to fast tracking on account of past ills - which again are vastly exaggerated.

98% of people did not enter professions - it wasn't just women .... why is there any 'need' to push women primarily into the Brave New World nonsense of half-baked professionals on all sides and in every thing - thus according credibility to often rabid views - when clearly these New Professionals are so wrong on many counts?

Opportunities should be parceled out equally - unless our society begins to do so, it will self-destruct.

Sorry - no matter how much you huff and puff - you will NOT alter the flimsy defences of Law that currently exist, so as to make people guilty upon accusation.  The ratbags got away with that with their end run around law , via their 'domestic violence' "laws" - not only must they be prevented from going one step further - they must be driven back....

Ne Passerons!!

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 11:53am:

Grap, all I can say is, your lecturing against emotion and blind ideology is truly breathtaking, given your hysterical views about poor downtrodden men and their sinister feminist oppressors. That said, I agree that due process must be maintained. Always have. I never said I have a solution for dealing adequately with what is, undeniably, the 'special case' of rape in our justice system. Undermining our rule of law is the last thing I want to do. I merely call on society to 'think outside the box' and find ways in which rape cases can simultaneously maintain our rule of law and due process - while also achieving better justice for real victims.

.. and who, then determines who are the REAL victims?  by what process?  By virtue of merely being a complainant?

Do you really imagine in your worst nightmares you should throw that door wide?

You quite simply, by definition, cannot maintain our rule of law while advocating that it be reduced so as to cater to one group... that is Apartheid... a strong suite of your 'feminists', and a few others doing the rounds... and something you and your kind claim to abhor....   ::)  ::)  ::)

Let me add this:-  Even if this single incident is rape - and the evidence that it was so is very thin, not least due to the reality that no single person, even the complainant, made any attempt to preserve evidence - it is one giant leap to cast this as some weapon used against women in some mythical war on women.

That, my son, is pure insanity and could only dribble from the mouth of a rabid feminist supremacist bent on destruction of all or victory, same as Adolph Hitler at the end.

IF it was rape - then it was the stupidity of one stupid bloke, and is in no way reflective of your War, that clearly you and the feminists see themselves as engaged in against Men.  Amazingly you criticise me for speaking out against this War Of Aggression, yet it is not I who have ever struck a blow... you consider open discussion an act of war.... Jesus, son.... get help!!

That is where you are way off the rails, my son - you are attempting to cast a very minor incident as some act in an over-arching (feminist) drama of a War Between Women And Men - a War of which most Men are oblivious.... until it strikes them.

This Feminist War Of Aggression IS the problem ... hence my series on WW IV - Fem War II... Fem War I is upon us as we speak... and you are a useful fool following blindly the propaganda and false conclusions of your feminist overseers.

Clearly you are young and inexperienced and have been persuaded by the propaganda..... stand back and think for yourself, lad - before it is too late.

And what about me being raped by women.

They get him drunk
Screw him
Get deliberately pregnant
Bingo......income for a single screw.

Or when a woman says she is on the pill and isn't
Same deal
Pregnant....bingo.....income.

And don't say it dosent happen.
Go to any mining town, there are any number of miners brides living comfortably on half of some poor miners wage.

Gandalf and the like have already found the guy guilty.  At least they aren't on the jury.... and never would be...

Gandalf Law:-

Old Mad Harry down the road complains that Gandalf stole his car.

Court finds Gandalf guilty despite a total lack of hard evidence..... and Harry's car is still in its garage.... Harry honestly recollects waking up drunk and seeing Gandalf steal the car.... then flakes out for hours...

That is what you are advocating, Gandalf et al.... Guilt By Accusation ......... Grow A Life and a brain to go with it!!

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 7:33pm:

Valkie wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:59pm: So, let me get this right. Never gonna happen, boomer.

Yeah, just like you being honest and keeping your word about leaving the forum.

When peccarhead?  when ya gonna leave us and tale your troll socks with ya??????

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 6:36pm:

Gandalf - with all due respect - all those things you comment on are part and parcel of feminist rhetoric, propaganda, hyperbole and there is next to no solid evidence to support them. You need only look at the surveys in universities, in which the figures were blandly inflated by adding into 'rape' figures' things that were nowhere near the  concept of rape. You are so deeply in thrall to your feminist block kapos and perimeter guards - so very common these days in our houses of learning - that you cannot see the realities... frankly it is your Stockholm syndrome that is breathtaking. I reject feminism for all the proper reasons - by its very name it is discriminatory; it is based on massive lies and distortions repeated over and over; it is nothing more than a path to power for people who do not wish to do all the hard yards, but consider they have Entitlement™ to fast tracking on account of past ills - which again are vastly exaggerated. 98% of people did not enter professions - it wasn't just women .... why is there any 'need' to push women primarily into the Brave New World nonsense of half-baked professionals on all sides and in every thing - thus according credibility to often rabid views - when clearly these New Professionals are so wrong on many counts? Opportunities should be parceled out equally - unless our society begins to do so, it will self-destruct. Sorry - no matter how much you huff and puff - you will NOT alter the flimsy defences of Law that currently exist, so as to make people guilty upon accusation.  The ratbags got away with that with their end run around law , via their 'domestic violence' "laws" - not only must they be prevented from going one step further - they must be driven back.... Ne Passerons!!

You are unhinged.

This incoherent rant, most of which involves topics completely unrelated to what I was talking about (quotas - really??) - just proves how incapable you are of discussing this rationally. I dare raise the very simple and undeniable fact that rape victims rarely get justice, and you twist it into a nazi-feminist plot to take over the world.

I actually thought that by presenting you the statistics showing a mere 5% conviction rate you would at least acknowledge that was unfair for the victims, and there was some inadequacy in our justice system. Silly me. I suspect now that you might actually believe that 95% of those women just made it up because they are sinister and part of the nazi-feminist plot to take over the world.

There you go again - your entire argument is based on rhetoric and propaganda and ideology - and you call me unhinged?  In my view it is you and your feminist masters who are unhinged.

Your stated position on mangling the rule of law to suit your ideology shows that feminism is indeed the clear and present danger for the west, and ultimately for all citizens in it.

Going after me on a personal basis for being a true egaliatarian and humanitarian will do you no good.... when one man in the entire world is right - that man constitutes a majority of one.

P.S.  You are clearly talking to someone else - I never mentioned 'quotas' - nor am I the one or the party or the group who are pushing for them against the rules of law requiring equal treatment across the board.

Pushing one group to the exclusions of others is not 'quotas' - quotas are a formal notice of numbers.  Clearly you are showing how our modern education system has no idea what it is talking about beyond blind rhetoric.  BTW - you would prefer your nation and government to be run by 'at least 50%' of one specified group (the other group is nowhere guaranteed 50% - got that?  Quotas for women should be of 50% feminists of any sex, and 50% anti-feminists - not men and women) - the Hutu and the Tutsi?  The Reichsvolk and the Juden?

See?  You are off in fairyland and sound remarkably like certain others here who espouse the same religion as you.

Clearly it is not I am who am 'unhinged' - it is everyone who pursues your chosen ideology.

Now - to return the the issue raised here - how do YOU know that this man raped Brittany Higgins?

Were you there?  The 'fly on the wall' as I said to mothra?  How do you KNOW anything?

Clearly you have already judged that he is guilty on the very slimmest of evidence, which is - frankly - both bizarre and unhinged and a vile contravention of the rule of law that you somehow, in you woolly fashion, say we can tweak just a little to suit little girlies without causing enormous harm.  Clearly you are totally unsuited to jury duty and would be dismissed and should never hold any position of power in our society.

No, son - you will NOT transpose your Star Chambers in the 'universities' into the legal system - rather the Law should intervene in those Star Chambers and set right the wrongs being done.  Sexual assault is admiring a fine piece.... Jesus Christ..... look at the real harm being done with this nonsense ....

All your kind are doing, is bringing the inevitable civil war closer and closer.... and as I pointed out to cods - this vile and violent assault on the rights of men is the root cause of escalating retaliation, alienation, and hostility in the community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jws_8nmPD4

Grap, it is difficult to make sense of your rantings. But it seemed fairly clear to me you were referring to quotas when you said "Opportunities should be parceled out equally - unless our society begins to do so, it will self-destruct." - in the context of "entering professions". But its true, its difficult to make sense of your rants. Whatever you were trying to say, it was well off track from the relevant discussion on rape and achieving justice.

Also, stop making up crap. I specifically said I don't want to undermine the rule of law, so don't talk rubbish like "mangling the rule of law" being my "stated position".

Also don't play the "personal attack" card. Me saying your rantings are unhinged and that you are completely spellbound by a ridiculous femi-nazi conspiracy to oppress men - should be perfectly fine if its ok for you to repeatedly dismiss me as blinded by propaganda and under the spell of my "feminist masters".

Finally, don't ask stupid questions like "how do YOU know that this man raped Brittany Higgins?" - when I never said anything of the sort.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 10:25am:

Grap, it is difficult to make sense of your rantings. But it seemed fairly clear to me you were referring to quotas when you said "Opportunities should be parceled out equally - unless our society begins to do so, it will self-destruct." - in the context of "entering professions". But its true, its difficult to make sense of your rants. Whatever you were trying to say, it was well off track from the relevant discussion on rape and achieving justice. Also, stop making up crap. I specifically said I don't want to undermine the rule of law, so don't talk rubbish like "mangling the rule of law" being my "stated position". Also don't play the "personal attack" card. Me saying your rantings are unhinged and that you are completely spellbound by a ridiculous femi-nazi conspiracy to oppress men - should be perfectly fine if its ok for you to repeatedly dismiss me as blinded by propaganda and under the spell of my "feminist masters". Finally, don't ask stupid questions like "how do YOU know that this man raped Brittany Higgins?" - when I never said anything of the sort.

You were comfortably home when you said it was difficult for YOU to make sense.

Do you even begin to understand the full meaning and import of the current Labor quota - I'll try again - "at LEAST 50% women"... add to that the simple reality that EVERY Labor man is a feminist or fellow traveler..... then add to that the reality that many men in the 'opposition' are also feminists or fellow travelers.

How then does any view that disagrees with the current nonsense of 'gender wage gap', 'gender super gap' etc ever get a chance to stop or meaningfully alter these thrusts?

Like 'deaths in custody' - the facts speak massively differently from the rhetoric - as for 'wage' and 'super' gaps - you get what you earn and work for... nobody can guarantee you are going to equal everyone else.... and there are countless men and women who have little to no super in retirement and have been ripped off of genuine equal opportunity in many ways along the path to retirement.

As I said - 98% of people did not enter professions in the 1960's - women are not Robinson Crusoe... and you Johnny-come-latelys with all your profound knowledge really need to look at facts and realities.

As for Ms Higgins - there is zero substantial evidence, and no independent witness.  How then has this matter even proceeded into the courts with such a tiny hope of a 'conviction' based on prejudice and emotion, and pushed along by the wailings of the hordes in the streets who have no idea what they are talking about and have no personal knowledge of the events.

YOU are clear proof that this guy, regardless of guilt or innocence, will never receive a fair hearing.

If you can't follow me, son - learn to read English and apply your brain... I can't carry you all you life.

You will NOT install conviction by accusation in my country.

As for opportunities - since you clearly missed it - in 1986 in NSW the school and marking system was altered to 'more reflect the skills and abilities of girls who are currently oppressed in the schoolroom' - a complete and utter bullshit feminist nonsense pushed through as reality, and based on a single un-peer reviewed 'study done by some feminist in the US with a small group (seven I think) of 'troubled girls'.

Got that - girls who already had trouble, a tiny group that was supposed to somehow reflect the reality for every girl in the education system.

We've had affirmative action for women here since 1982 - I was working for the commonwealth at the time - and the wording was "PREFERENCE will be given to women, those from a non-English speaking background, and Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders".

You understand PREFERENCE?  Now tell me how that has changed, given that the public service is now over 70% women in soft jobs and good conditions, while young men languish on the dole queues or dig a day's ditches for casual.

When is it possible, do you think, that this push to 'equalise' women will actually result in equality?  It's been forty years, son, that's two generations at age 20 coming of age, and they still claim to be short-changed despite holding the vast majority of seats in tertiary education and in many job areas ... banking, real estate, public service, teaching, retail, management, and so on - all soft jobs requiring little effort for excellent return.

When will they declare equality and actually tough it out in direct competition with the men who built those social institutions?

Keep coming - your education has just begun for real for a change.

Homework:-  Explain how this blatant discrimination is actually consider not only acceptable, but mainstream and enshrined in our society.


When I was young,
And my heart was an open book,
I used to say live and let live...
I used to vote for, give women a try,
Now it's live and let die.

Now then, Gandy - you yourself said that 'feminists' regarded this apparent issue between men and women as a war - rape, after all, is  male weapon, right?

What do you expect Everyman to do?  Sit back and be swept away and over-run by mad feminists bent on waging war on men and imagine that it is not happening to them?

What do they call a war to which only side comes prepared to make war?

A massacre.

christ on a spike grap... give it a rest. There is no need to make three separate posts every time you reply to me. At least stick to the topic. That should cut down your rants by about 90%.

So you were talking about quotas - after first denying it. Way to win some credibility there grap. And it has precisely what relevance to rape and the justice system? Oh thats right, its relevant because its all part of the grand evil plan of... what did you call it? oh yes, my "feminist masters". Such calm, measured rational arguments you have here.


Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:20am:

As for Ms Higgins - there is zero substantial evidence, and no independent witness.  How then has this matter even proceeded into the courts with such a tiny hope of a 'conviction' based on prejudice and emotion, and pushed along by the wailings of the hordes in the streets who have no idea what they are talking about and have no personal knowledge of the events.

Statistically then, she doesn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of getting him convicted then. I thought that should please you - she will be dragged through the mud, humiliated and forced relive and recount her alleged trauma - and then she gets to be called a liar by people like you - when her case is thrown out. Win win right?

Women, when given the opportunity, are prejudiced against men.

Look at the school system.
It's a complete mess, men are ostracized and hounded out of teaching and most senior positions.
But has the school system improved the education for our children?

No, in fact, the education standards are dropping at a rate never before seen.
Self harm and suicide is increasing in children.
The young adults leaving school are virtually illiterate and can barely do basic addition and subtraction.

Many leave school with behavioral problems.
I look at these things and think "this is what happens when women take over"

Homework (you will be graded severely on your answers):-

1.  What if the public service, in 1981, had installed a policy that "preference will be given to men, TFANESB, and AATSI."

2.  What if a party today had a policy that "there must be 50% or greater representation by men"... how about we make that "old White men"..?

Gandy - you would not stop screaming.... give it a rest?  When the feminist parasitism is laid to rest will be the time to relax ... until then the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

No - YOU were talking about quotas - I was discussing Preference™ - two totally separate issues.

Clearly your education is lacking...... see comment by Valkie.

Preference™ is unlimited - Quota™ has a definite stop. Neither is acceptable under a Rule of Law that requires/demands that all be treated equally.  It is time that regulation and in-house policy was brought into line with the requirements of Law.

Jesus Christ gandolf ... did you have to get the old white male victim going again? ::) ::)

F-, Smith.  Take a dunce cap - your usual one will do.

.. see how they run like pigs from a gun, when the questions are hard.... see how they fly...

.

---

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:58am:

christ on a spike grap... give it a rest. There is no need to make three separate posts every time you reply to me. At least stick to the topic. That should cut down your rants by about 90%. So you were talking about quotas - after first denying it. Way to win some credibility there grap. And it has precisely what relevance to rape and the justice system? Oh thats right, its relevant because its all part of the grand evil plan of... what did you call it? oh yes, my "feminist masters". Such calm, measured rational arguments you have here. Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 10th, 2021 at 11:20am: As for Ms Higgins - there is zero substantial evidence, and no independent witness.  How then has this matter even proceeded into the courts with such a tiny hope of a 'conviction' based on prejudice and emotion, and pushed along by the wailings of the hordes in the streets who have no idea what they are talking about and have no personal knowledge of the events. Statistically then, she doesn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of getting him convicted then. I thought that should please you - she will be dragged through the mud, humiliated and forced relive and recount her alleged trauma - and then she gets to be called a liar by people like you - when her case is thrown out. Win win right?

You are so ideologically fixated - I never said anything of the kind and have never called her a liar.  She was drunk, she has a drunken recollection, there is zero evidence that any form of sexual activity took place and she said he was on top of her.. she did not say he penetrated her .... there is no substantial evidence.... she may have been mistaken, he may have had a snuggle without going further ...  but I never once called her a liar, or expected or would appreciate her being 'dragged through the mud', and would slap anyone down who did.

Christ you're slow.

So it's OK to drag the guy through the mud, as you and Smith and others are doing, without a shred of solid evidence - but you figure that in making her complaint someone else is dragging her through the mud?  Well, it ain't me... and I do not permit the Law to be dragged through the mud, either. She DID make a public song and dance about it first.... before allowing any investigation to even begin.... who is dragging her through the mud again?

You would drag him through mud for miles behind two mad horses, then tear him apart in a public square... on the basis of a drunken half-recollection.  And you criticise me.

Get your mind right.... one day I hope, if you get what you wish, that it will be you behind the horses...  I really do. Smith of course, in the same position, would be the ultimate victim and would be screeching about it all the way and screaming about the injustice of it all ...... I'd love to see that.

You know what - I wouldn't step in to help, either.  I'll make an exception to my rule above that I would not permit the Law to be dragged through the mud in your case.  You, sir, are the liar, and have lost all right to humanity.

P.S.  One held in thrall and delusion cannot identify that he is in such a state... blissful ignorance.  Usually life experience sorts that out..... listen to me and you will be a much richer man at the end of your life....

None of you ever imagine it will happen to you, since you are 'good guys' - being a good guy is no protection from guilt by accusation.

Quote:

1.  What if the public service, in 1981, had installed a policy that "preference will be given to men, TFANESB, and AATSI." 2.  What if a party today had a policy that "there must be 50% or greater representation by men"... how about we make that "old White men"..? Gandy - you would not stop screaming

Finally, you got something right.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 2:19pm:

Quote: 1.  What if the public service, in 1981, had installed a policy that "preference will be given to men, TFANESB, and AATSI." 2.  What if a party today had a policy that "there must be 50% or greater representation by men"... how about we make that "old White men"..? Gandy - you would not stop screaming Finally, you got something right.

Finally you see what I have been saying all along - ergo - everything I've said so far is right.

Nah, then - what about that quota nonsense for women etc?  You still find quotas and affirmative action acceptable, simply because they are not in favour of men?

Fifth Columnist.... We the People will decide who we want to be our political representatives - not some smoke-shrouded and whiskey/wine engulfed back room party meeting.... got that?

If Labor - the party of the sheilas these days - was honest and actually wanted to win an election, they would allow each branch to put up its chosen candidate, and would not have the Central Bureau dictating quotas and inserting outsiders into branches for pre-selection.

IF the chosen party branch candidates happened to be women - so be it - but if they happened to be men - also and EQUALLY so be it.

You're starting to work out why Labor finds it so hard to win unlosable elections.

In the meantime we, the People, are stuck between a rock and a hard place - one form of stupid and petty dictatorship or the other.

And no - you will NOT enshrine in law the right of anyone to have a person convicted on accusation, as you and others have already done with the accused in the Higgins case.  Just because you come from some petty third world dictatorship, and this once proud nation is rapidly descending into just that - doesn't mean you will dictate to others here, Real Australians, what they will accept as 'law'.  There are rules here... and not your rules.... and they will re restored, upheld and reinforced, lest civil war break out for real.

Finally!  Bruce Lehrmann set to face trial in June 2022 over alleged rape of Brittany Higgins at Parliament House  ::) ::)

Review finds one-third of staff in parliament experience sexual harassment  ::) ::)

Define 'sexual harassment'.....in this context... Sexual Harassment is meant to be the applying of pressure by a superior in order to gain possible sexual favours... of course the lines of what it is and was have been deliberately blurred so that all kinds of things are now 'included' - just like 'domestic violence' - that other one way street.  This issue is indeed one about power - in many ways and not just one, same as DV etc, which seeks to CREATE a serious imbalance of power within personal relationships as a cure for an imbalance of power within personal relationships (DUH).

The Higgins Allegations .... must be tested fully to the proper standard of law in a properly constituted court, not a Kangaroo court, and must not be governed by fear of public outrage, pressure from hostile media, or emotional outbursts and pressure from any source.

This is not some Star Chamber university 'tribunal' playing with a set of loaded dice, that turns the burden of proof on its head as it pleases.

This could indeed be a Rubicon that must be crossed at some time... certainly perhaps a watershed in several ways.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 30^th, 2021 at 12:32pm:

Review finds one-third of staff in parliament experience sexual harassment  ::) ::)

they should name names !

No details in the link, and no definitions of what constitutes 'sexual harassment' in context.  We need that to get a starting point.

"Largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and exclusion and a lack of accountability,"

Where is the evidence for these conclusions?  How is there, for example, 'exclusion' given the number of female staff etc?  How is there 'gender inequality' when they all receive the same pay etc?  You no like - no work for that office.....

This is becoming a hobby horse... not a trial of facts.

Julia Gillard backs Jenkins review's call for politician code of conduct, triggered by Brittany Higgins revelations :o

https://www.cpahq.org/media/s20j1lws/cwp-gender-sensitizing-guidelines.pdf

Some meat for yez to chew on...

Ancillary Question not on subject:-  When is the movement to empower all others equally alongside women going to start?  You know, the groups not based on gender identity but rather on social, monetary, or (for want of a better word) class identity?

Is this just another bug hunt where the brick wall is at the end of 'equalising' the chosen group - a process that never, ever ends, or is ithis going to be a stand-up fight?

"We have reason to believe a gendermorph is involved" ....

"It's another bug hunt....."

More raw meat for the peanut gallery - some good stuff here but I'd prefer the source:-

https://theconversation.com/the-jenkins-review-has-28-recommendations-to-fix-parliaments-toxic-culture-will-our-leaders-listen-172858

Still can't find the original report in full for all the details, for analysis.... just the blurbs that came after it.

Note:- "As one interviewee reported:

    Aspiring male politicians who thought nothing of, in one case, picking you up, kissing you on the lips, lifting you up, touching you, pats on the bottom, comments about appearance, you know, the usual. The point I make with that… was the culture allowed it, encouraged it."

Unacceptable behaviour in the main, but it's one interviewee.  One Farrow Spart a Spring maketh not.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 30^th, 2021 at 6:33pm:

Julia Gillard backs Jenkins review's call for politician code of conduct, triggered by Brittany Higgins revelations :o

One has to ask why it took such allegations to get such a thing on the table. Politicians and staff are handed the sacred duty of husbanding this country on our behalf - they must therefore abide by a higher standard of behaviour, and must curb their animal instincts and exercise self-discipline and not a sense of absolute Entitlement™.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 1^st, 2021 at 8:08am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 30th, 2021 at 6:33pm: Julia Gillard backs Jenkins review's call for politician code of conduct, triggered by Brittany Higgins revelations :o One has to ask why it took such allegations to get such a thing on the table. Politicians and staff are handed the sacred duty of husbanding this country on our behalf - they must therefore abide by a higher standard of behaviour, and must curb their animal instincts and exercise self-discipline and not a sense of absolute Entitlement™.

Yes but......

We all know that politicians are liars, criminals and as corrupt as any criminal organisation on earth.

No one in their right mind would put a politician up as a moral example.

That would be like putting a used car salesman as a model of integrity.

Valkie wrote on Dec 1^st, 2021 at 8:24am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 1st, 2021 at 8:08am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 30th, 2021 at 6:33pm: Julia Gillard backs Jenkins review's call for politician code of conduct, triggered by Brittany Higgins revelations :o One has to ask why it took such allegations to get such a thing on the table. Politicians and staff are handed the sacred duty of husbanding this country on our behalf - they must therefore abide by a higher standard of behaviour, and must curb their animal instincts and exercise self-discipline and not a sense of absolute Entitlement™. Yes but...... We all know that politicians are liars, criminals and as corrupt as any criminal organisation on earth. No one in their right mind would put a politician up as a moral example. That would be like putting a used car salesman as a model of integrity.

There are three major organised crime groups in Australia - the political group, the judiciary, and those granted the privilege of upholding law.  Public  service is a subsidiary of those.

Always have been - still are.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 1^st, 2021 at 8:25am:

Valkie wrote on Dec 1st, 2021 at 8:24am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 1st, 2021 at 8:08am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 30th, 2021 at 6:33pm: Julia Gillard backs Jenkins review's call for politician code of conduct, triggered by Brittany Higgins revelations :o One has to ask why it took such allegations to get such a thing on the table. Politicians and staff are handed the sacred duty of husbanding this country on our behalf - they must therefore abide by a higher standard of behaviour, and must curb their animal instincts and exercise self-discipline and not a sense of absolute Entitlement™. Yes but...... We all know that politicians are liars, criminals and as corrupt as any criminal organisation on earth. No one in their right mind would put a politician up as a moral example. That would be like putting a used car salesman as a model of integrity. There are three major organised crime groups in Australia - the political group, the judiciary, and those granted the privilege of upholding law.  Public  service is a subsidiary of those. Always have been - still are.

Never a truer word spoken.

The reason the grubberment come down on criminals........they hate competition.

From what I hear, they are trying to work out a way to use scamming as yet another tool in their arsenal.

There is the exception that there are many honest politicians and the ones refusing to have a independent investigation body looking into their rort's are not amongst them. 

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 30^th, 2021 at 6:09pm:

No details in the link, and no definitions of what constitutes 'sexual harassment' in context.  We need that to get a starting point. "Largely driven by power imbalances, gender inequality and exclusion and a lack of accountability," Where is the evidence for these conclusions?  How is there, for example, 'exclusion' given the number of female staff etc?  How is there 'gender inequality' when they all receive the same pay etc?  You no like - no work for that office..... This is becoming a hobby horse... not a trial of facts.

In one of my jobs, we all had to undertake harassment and equal opportunity training every year.
( that's what happens when the entire HR department is female)
One particular one was a standout.
The "trainer" was a screaming dyke.
It was anti male from start to finish.
And the whole time she was flirting with a shela in the front row.

There was an electronic questionnaire at the end with a 100% pass required.
You could sit it as many times as it took to sink in.

Every question was loaded so that everything, no matter how minor was considered sexual harassment.
The only way to pass was to simply state that all men were sexual molesters.

For example
Jane walks into a room with Peter.
Which is the correct response.
Peter stands and offers his had and says hello Jane.
Peter stands and moves around the desk and offers Jane a seat.
Peter remains seated and asks Jane to have a seat.
Peter remains seated, looks up and asks Jane what she wants.

The first is demonstrating his masculine superiority, as he knows Jane is weaker and cannot return a firm handshake.

The second is demonstrating his higher status as a male and makes Jane feel uncomfortable.

The third is dismissal of Jane as a person and by staying behind his desk he disrespects her.

The fourth is the worst as it encompasses all of the above, making Jane both uncomfortable and subservient.

The correct answer is none of the above.

This isn't word for word, but the context is the same.

We were instructed
Not to make first move with clients when female. If she offers her hand then shake it lightly.
Not to comment on clothing or quality of work other than as a direct conclusion to the examination of the content.
Not to make eye contact for longer than a few seconds.
Not to discuss any subject other than work.
Keep a respectful distance
If unknown or not stated as to the correct title, Mz must be used until advise otherwise.

Note, no list of how to approach male clients was provided.

This is equality in action.