Australia - you're standing in it
Albo speaking on what he’s done about Julian Assange . Go to 49.10 minute mark https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=597513&operation_mod...
Supafreak wrote:Albo speaking on what he’s done about Julian Assange . Go to 49.10 minute mark https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=597513&operation_mod...
Jeez you’re keen Supa, how much time do you dedicate to following politics?
Regarding the video, it sounds like one big nothing. It’s all fluff?
flollo wrote:Supafreak wrote:Albo speaking on what he’s done about Julian Assange . Go to 49.10 minute mark https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=597513&operation_mod...
Jeez you’re keen Supa, how much time do you dedicate to following politics?
Regarding the video, it sounds like one big nothing. It’s all fluff?
Is that your interpretation of what he’s done ? Fair enough, other news reports see it differently though . I probably spend as much time on politics as you spend on house prices and economics . Surfed for 3 hours today , how about you ?
I certainly hope it’s not “ all fluff “ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-30/pm-personally-lobbies-us-to-drop-...
Fair enough. I guess I’m part of the environment where people provide a direct answer to a direct question.
Q: What are you doing about Assange?
A: I’m lobbying the US government to drop the charges.
And that’s it. No need for all this other sweet talk. That 5h video should really be 1.5h - 2h. Terrible use of taxpayer resources.
What’s your direct question ? 5 hr video? It’s a taping of parliament question time , are you on the turps ? If your direct question is how much time do I spend on politics the answer is it varies, today about 1 1/2 hours as it was a very significant day in politics. I don’t watch soccer , I find it and most sports boring to watch but I do love playing sports.
What are you on about? I’m talking about the questions being asked in the parliament. Albo was asked a question about Assange by another MP. And he provided an answer that by my estimate was unnecessarily long and unclear about the specific actions that are being taken. If you multiply this pointless rhetoric across many questions and answers in the parliament you end up creating a pretty lengthy and inefficient process. That’s all I’m saying.
Albo always ums and errs and fumbles his answers, have you only just noticed ? He is however the only prime minister to address the Assange situation personally.
From the Hudson Institute paper gsco linked:
"Setting key grand narratives is properly a whole-of-government activity that should be agreed to at the highest levels. Once that is done, there needs to be a devolution of tactical authority to dedicated political warfare teams within relevant agencies and to dedicated teams on the ground in high-priority countries."
"Words have strategic and military ramifications and are weapons in this type of warfare. In this context, political warfare shares many characteristics with traditional warfare."
The geopolitical catchphrases and news we hear are far more purposeful and carefully crafted than we may realise.
Our leaders are also very much in the thick of the narrative war - willing or maybe not so much. They are targets and conduits.
Going against the flow would be tough.
In addition to being an adviser to the Hudson Institute, Scott Morrison has apparently rebranded himself as a "virtuous globalisation mastermind" on the speaking circuit (where the real dollars are made for ex dear leaders if you played the right game).
".... Morrison lends his boundless influence and experience to audiences around the world.”
I expect the censure motion for secret Ministries may boost his speaking fees among some audiences. Some will see him as clearly a man of action, a leader prepared to grab all the levers of power with both hands. A role model for globalists. And to think we just called him Scommo and voted him out of power. Such disrespect for the mastermind.
Random interjection - will politics ever be free of bullshitting.
And another one
Politicians knowingly fucking up illegally and just simply having to say sorry and move on to their next well paying cushy job whereas common folk are put in the slammer?
I’m disillusioned with it all but convince me otherwise.
Nick Bone wrote:Random interjection - will politics ever be free of bullshitting.
And another one
Politicians knowingly fucking up illegally and just simply having to say sorry and move on to their next well paying cushy job whereas common folk are put in the slammer?
I’m disillusioned with it all but convince me otherwise.
Hopefully he will be referred to Privileges Commitee as being pushed by Brandt. Unlikely I guess. He still will have to appear for Robodebt RC and sure something will come up with ICAC. His mate brother Stuey in news for suss behaviour again. Sure Scotty has skeletons hiding somewhere.
But yep he'll probably get off Scott free and make lots of $$$ on right wing nutters speaking circuit.
Was referring to Scomo last post. Hopefully ICAC starts to address your concerns.
Have you ever heard a politician continuously blatantly lie ? I give you the honourable liar from the shire .
Classic comments as always"But if there was one line in the speech today... that draw audible gasps from those present, it was this."
— Mia Kennedy (@Mia__Kennedy) November 30, 2022
~ Laura Tingle#abc730 #censure #ScottMorrison #auspol pic.twitter.com/pPngXwA5iu
Sexual assault charge against Bruce Lehrmann expected to be dropped https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/sexual-assault-charg...
Supafreak wrote:Sexual assault charge against Bruce Lehrmann expected to be dropped https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/sexual-assault-charg...
A sad indictment on our legal system.
Supafreak wrote:Sexual assault charge against Bruce Lehrmann expected to be dropped https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/sexual-assault-charg...
Poor lady.
Horrible situation.
From Guardian
""Two independent medical experts say ongoing trauma of prosecution presents unacceptable risk to Higgins: Drumgold
Prosecutors have dropped charges against Bruce Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins.
This is what the ACT director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold had to say speaking from Canberra:
I closely considered the reasonable prospect to conviction test when I first examined the brief of evidence in the week of 21 June 2021 and I formed a clear view that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and this is a view that I still hold today.
The non-exhaustive list of public interest tests, include section 2.9 paragraph being the actual or potential harm occasioned to any person as a result of the alleged offence which in this context includes the actual or potential harm occasioned by the ongoing prosecution of an alleged offence.
In short, I need to consider the harm that could be occasioned to a party, particularly a complainant from an ongoing prosecution. I have recently received compelling evidence from two independent medical experts that the ongoing trauma associated with this prosecution presents a significant and unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant.
The evidence makes it clear that this is not limited to the harm of giving evidence in a witness box, rather applies whether or not the complainant is required to enter a witness box during a retrial. Whilst the pursuit of justice is essential for both my office and for the community in general, the safety of a complainant in a sexual assault matter must be paramount.
In light of the compelling independent medical opinion and balancing all factors, I have made the difficult decision that it is no longer in the public interest to pursue a prosecution at the risk of the complainant’s life. This has left me no option but to file a notice declining to proceed with the retrial of this matter which I have done this morning. This brings the prosecution to an end. Before concluding, during the investigation and trial as a sexual assault complainant, Ms Higgins has faced a level of personal attack that I have not seen in over 20 years of doing this work. She has done so with bravery, grace and dignity and it is my hope that this will now stop and Ms Higgins will be allowed to heal.""
Now the young lady is in hospital and the accused will seem not to have another day in court.
I'm not understanding this. To be honest, I didn't follow this at all but what I'm reading here is really upsetting. Because she is suffering mentally they will not prosecute a suspected rapist? What kind of a court case is this? If he's a suspect in criminal behavior shouldn't he be prosecuted by the state because he's a potential danger to society? Otherwise, they are just allowing all the other criminals to terrorise their victims to the point of the mental breakdown so they can't be prosecuted. What do they need to do to get a conviction, kill a person?
I don't get it, am I missing something here? Is this really how things work?
flollo wrote:I'm not understanding this. To be honest, I didn't follow this at all but what I'm reading here is really upsetting. Because she is suffering mentally they will not prosecute a suspected rapist? What kind of a court case is this? If he's a suspect in criminal behavior shouldn't he be prosecuted by the state because he's a potential danger to society? Otherwise, they are just allowing all the other criminals to terrorise their victims to the point of the mental breakdown so they can't be prosecuted. What do they need to do to get a conviction, kill a person?
I don't get it, am I missing something here? Is this really how things work?
I'm in same boat as you @flollo. How will she feel if an alleged rapist is free without having a trial. I cannot see that helping her mental health in long term. Christain Porter also an alleged rapist avoided his day in court due to his accuser committing suicide. The whole thing stinks, guilty or not there should be a re-trial somehow where they could use the evidence she previously gave. Another thing, she was cross examined in court over every detail of the alleged incident whereas the accused can opt out of this interrogation by the prosecutor.
The problem lies in how cases like these are tried. The defense go into full attack mode - the complainant suddenly is "on trial". The defendant deserves a fair hearing but these things often seem to descend into a form of shaming of the alleged victim. Poor form by the barrister involved.
flollo wrote:I'm not understanding this. To be honest, I didn't follow this at all but what I'm reading here is really upsetting. Because she is suffering mentally they will not prosecute a suspected rapist? What kind of a court case is this? If he's a suspect in criminal behavior shouldn't he be prosecuted by the state because he's a potential danger to society? Otherwise, they are just allowing all the other criminals to terrorise their victims to the point of the mental breakdown so they can't be prosecuted. What do they need to do to get a conviction, kill a person?
I don't get it, am I missing something here? Is this really how things work?
Not only that flollo, but also;
"The first trial heard from 29 witnesses over almost three weeks, and the jury took another week for deliberations. It was abandoned after a juror brought in outside research papers on sexual assault.
The chance discovery of one research paper led ACT chief justice Lucy McCallum to declare a mistrial. She had repeatedly told jurors not to bring in outside research.
The first research paper discovered by sheriff’s officers attempted to quantify the prevalence of false complaints of sexual assault. It also included an analysis of the reasons for false complaints and why some are sceptical of true complaints. McCallum said the paper could have been used to influence jurors either way in the case."
and;
"A retrial had been planned for February. The ACT typically uses video recordings of a complainant’s first evidence and cross-examination in any retrial. But it had emerged that a legal loophole prevented that in the Lehrmann case, because Higgins had given evidence in-person, and not by remote video link."
Not much justice but a lot of law...
I think despite his public admissions, as the trial progressed, Drumgold knew he wasn't going to secure a conviction. Higgins was a less than stellar witness and Lehrman unfortunately was not compelled to give evidence himself or face cross examination.
No winners here, Brittany will be ok, she has a nation of support behind her. Bruce is fucked- tried and convicted by media before he even set foot in court. The bloke is a dead man walking either way.
Edit: I‘m not supporting him, if he is as was charged, the grub should be locked up, but I am very much in support of being fairly tried and not convicted in the court of public opinion.
Yeah, what a mess, distressing on all accounts.
zenagain wrote:I think despite his public admissions, as the trial progressed, Drumgold knew he wasn't going to secure a conviction. Higgins was a less than stellar witness and Lehrman unfortunately was not compelled to give evidence himself or face cross examination.
No winners here, Brittany will be ok, she has a nation of support behind her. Bruce is fucked- tried and convicted by media before he even set foot in court. The bloke is a dead man walking either way.
Edit: I‘m not supporting him, if he is as was charged, the grub should be locked up, but I am very much in support of being fairly tried and not convicted in the court of public opinion.
"I closely considered the reasonable prospect to conviction test when I first examined the brief of evidence in the week of 21 June 2021 and I formed a clear view that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and this is a view that I still hold today." quote Shane Drumgold.
I agree with you Zen re fair trial and did not really follow it too closely at the time, but it seems Drumgold was of view there may have been a conviction, the guy may be innocent, don't know. However, you would think that our legal system would have some process for a re-trial in a case such as this.
It's a mess.
The problem is, in a no witness he said-she said rape trial there will always be a problem getting enough evidence for a "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion by a jury.
So guilty people will escape conviction.
Hope she can heal up in the long term.
flollo wrote:I'm not understanding this. To be honest, I didn't follow this at all but what I'm reading here is really upsetting. Because she is suffering mentally they will not prosecute a suspected rapist? What kind of a court case is this? If he's a suspect in criminal behavior shouldn't he be prosecuted by the state because he's a potential danger to society? Otherwise, they are just allowing all the other criminals to terrorise their victims to the point of the mental breakdown so they can't be prosecuted. What do they need to do to get a conviction, kill a person?
I don't get it, am I missing something here? Is this really how things work?
“Because she is suffering mentally they will not prosecute a suspected rapist?”
Because she is suffering they will not proceed to trial of a suspected rapist. (He is a suspect because he has been charged).
A suspect can’t be prosecuted. Is my understanding.
Agree Zen,
If he’s guilty then it’s fucked that he will walk free.
But if he’s innocent, have to feel sorry for the guy. His career and life is basically ruined because of the media.
Shit situation
I don’t know if he did what he is charged with, for me the presented evidence was more weighted towards an innocent verdict.
I read this thread and it seems most opinion is weighted towards a guilty verdict?
andy-mac wrote:flollo wrote:I'm not understanding this. To be honest, I didn't follow this at all but what I'm reading here is really upsetting. Because she is suffering mentally they will not prosecute a suspected rapist? What kind of a court case is this? If he's a suspect in criminal behavior shouldn't he be prosecuted by the state because he's a potential danger to society? Otherwise, they are just allowing all the other criminals to terrorise their victims to the point of the mental breakdown so they can't be prosecuted. What do they need to do to get a conviction, kill a person?
I don't get it, am I missing something here? Is this really how things work?
I'm in same boat as you @flollo. How will she feel if an alleged rapist is free without having a trial. I cannot see that helping her mental health in long term. Christain Porter also an alleged rapist avoided his day in court due to his accuser committing suicide. The whole thing stinks, guilty or not there should be a re-trial somehow where they could use the evidence she previously gave. Another thing, she was cross examined in court over every detail of the alleged incident whereas the accused can opt out of this interrogation by the prosecutor.
“she was cross examined in court over every detail of the alleged incident whereas the accused can opt out of this interrogation by the prosecutor.”
Innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is with the prosecution. Thus the defence does not need to front up for interrogation.
That is the system we have.
Roadkill wrote:andy-mac wrote:flollo wrote:I'm not understanding this. To be honest, I didn't follow this at all but what I'm reading here is really upsetting. Because she is suffering mentally they will not prosecute a suspected rapist? What kind of a court case is this? If he's a suspect in criminal behavior shouldn't he be prosecuted by the state because he's a potential danger to society? Otherwise, they are just allowing all the other criminals to terrorise their victims to the point of the mental breakdown so they can't be prosecuted. What do they need to do to get a conviction, kill a person?
I don't get it, am I missing something here? Is this really how things work?
I'm in same boat as you @flollo. How will she feel if an alleged rapist is free without having a trial. I cannot see that helping her mental health in long term. Christain Porter also an alleged rapist avoided his day in court due to his accuser committing suicide. The whole thing stinks, guilty or not there should be a re-trial somehow where they could use the evidence she previously gave. Another thing, she was cross examined in court over every detail of the alleged incident whereas the accused can opt out of this interrogation by the prosecutor.
“she was cross examined in court over every detail of the alleged incident whereas the accused can opt out of this interrogation by the prosecutor.”
Innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is with the prosecution. Thus the defence does not need to front up for interrogation.
That is the system we have.
But does that seem fair to you for the alleged victim? I know there needs to be legal protections for the accused, but this trial will not go ahead due to the alleged victim being too traumatised due to the first trial which was voided due to the fault of a juror.
Also, now that it will now not go to trial the accused will not have opportunity to be given an innocent verdict and will have the stigma for the rest of his life.
Yep it's a mess.
Roadkill wrote:I don’t know if he did what he is charged with, for me the presented evidence was more weighted towards an innocent verdict.
I read this thread and it seems most opinion is weighted towards a guilty verdict?
I actually don't know as I didn't follow the case at all. But I believe that there is a lack of detail about dropping the case. I mean, what exactly is the problem? Is it that she can't testify because of her mental illness? And without her testimony, there is not enough evidence? These are just speculations and I would like to see some specific detail rather than high-level commentary so I can make an appropriate judgment. Current explanation does not give me much confidence in our judicial system.
flollo wrote:Roadkill wrote:I don’t know if he did what he is charged with, for me the presented evidence was more weighted towards an innocent verdict.
I read this thread and it seems most opinion is weighted towards a guilty verdict?
I actually don't know as I didn't follow the case at all. But I believe that there is a lack of detail about dropping the case. I mean, what exactly is the problem? Is it that she can't testify because of her mental illness? And without her testimony, there is not enough evidence? These are just speculations and I would like to see some specific detail rather than high-level commentary so I can make an appropriate judgment. Current explanation does not give me much confidence in our judicial system.
This case was destroyed in the media. And as far as I can tell that rests with those on Higgins side and Higgins who also made public statements
I agree with everyone else that it is a mess.
With now a cloud hanging over the accused, is there any recourse for him to push for the trial to try and clear his name? At the risk of also being found guilty?
Honestly, this makes me sick. This sends a terrible message, as a minimum they should've managed the PR properly. It is basically telling victims in society not to come out and report crimes unless they are 100% mentally stable. Which they are probably not because they went through some horrible trauma. So guess what, many will probably hide it and keep on living (some will probably give up on life) with a tremendous amount of psychological damage. And some sick bastards will know that they can actually get away with their crimes if they cause lifetime traumas to their victims. This is the impression I'm getting from this. I would love for someone to prove me wrong as it's literally making me sick.
flollo wrote:Honestly, this makes me sick. This sends a terrible message, as a minimum they should've managed the PR properly. It is basically telling victims in society not to come out and report crimes unless they are 100% mentally stable. Which they are probably not because they went through some horrible trauma. So guess what, many will probably hide it and keep on living (some will probably give up on life) with a tremendous amount of psychological damage. And some sick bastards will know that they can actually get away with their crimes if they cause lifetime traumas to their victims. This is the impression I'm getting from this. I would love for someone to prove me wrong as it's literally making me sick.
Agree.....
Seems to me that the legal profession and authorities are genuinely trying to help the poor girl in an unfortunate and tricky situation, possibly since they may believe that she will again have little chance of conviction in a retrial.
I think the message is not to bring a case of this nature to court unless it is 100% watertight and guaranteed of conviction.
This might mean that a lot of genuine cases of this nature are not brought to court - and this is probably what regularly happens now - and I don't know the solution to that.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/03/right-to-be-scare...
Really should be some kind of investigation how this occurred in Parliament House. Who knew what and when, and the process of reporting. I remember how the room where the alleged incident occurred was ordered to be immediately cleaned.
Geez the situation is sad and frightening.
udo wrote:https://www.news.com.au/national/brittany-higgins-sensitive-evidence-dis...
The whole saga is a clusterfuck.
There is no proof of a rape as far as I can gauge. Sex occurred but as far as proof of rape, nope. Higgins evidence was a terrible jumble..she was terrible on the stand and as far as helping her case she did more harm than good.
You'd have to think Lisa Wilkinson and Samantha Maiden would have a lot to answer for as well. The both of them pretty much scuttled the case before it got off the ground. Samantha Maiden in particular has completely changed her language as well- no more mention of rape in her reporting when in the past she was happy to throw that out in practically every second sentence.
Lots of people need to be careful with what they say now, Lehrmann could easily have rights to defamation cases if called a rapist.
Do you think they'll hand their awards back?
Roadkill wrote:udo wrote:https://www.news.com.au/national/brittany-higgins-sensitive-evidence-dis...
The whole saga is a clusterfuck.
There is no proof of a rape as far as I can gauge. Sex occurred but as far as proof of rape, nope. Higgins evidence was a terrible jumble..she was terrible on the stand and as far as helping her case she did more harm than good.
Did he not claim that there was no sex as part of his defence? No one except those 2 parties probably know for sure, How the accused now can just go on his merry way without trial makes me furious. Major flaw in legal system....
"Did he not claim that there was no sex as part of his defence?"
thats what I hought, which was a curious line of defence...
all reeked a bit of... 'i did not have sexual relations with that girl'
clearly the liberal party has behaved in quite a grubby manner
but at the same time, it would seem lisa wilkinson and fuckwit fitzimmons - and their 'get em' style of over zealous political vendetta - have a lot to answer for...
what a mess
poor chick
Media alleged that Bruce Lehrmann assaulted other women: court. A court judgment has revealed that the media had previously alleged that Bruce Lehrmann assaulted other women, after a high-profile rape trial against him was dropped over grave fears for Brittany Higgins’ mental health.
Higgins remained in hospital on Friday after ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC said he was left with no choice but to axe a retrial of Lehrmann because of an “unacceptable risk” to the life of Higgins, who he said had faced unrelenting attacks with “bravery, grace and dignity”. It can now be revealed that Lehrmann was accused of sexually harassing or assaulting other women in articles that have since been deleted, after a suppression order was lifted on Friday afternoon.
In a judgment by Chief Justice Lucy McCallum on April 29, 2022, in which she refused to halt the initial trial, the judge noted that in the weeks after Higgins went public with her claims in early 2021, “allegations were published to the effect that the man who had sexually assaulted the complainant was also accused of having sexually assaulted or harassed a number of other women”. “The most damaging material, in my view, is the material disclosing that other women had come forward with similar complaints after hearing the complainant’s allegations.” Lehrmann’s legal team had argued that these allegations, as well as other media attention, meant that Lehrmann was not able to receive a fair trial.
McCallum said the allegations were contained in articles that had since been removed from the internet and had been published before Lehrmann had been charged and named.
It can also now be revealed Higgins paused her evidence during the trial in October due to a mental health crisis. Lehrmann has maintained his innocence and pleaded not guilty to raping Higgins in the office of their then-boss, Liberal minister Linda Reynolds, in Parliament House in the early hours of March 23, 2019, after a night out drinking with colleagues. On Friday the charge against him was dropped.
A spokesman for Lehrmann said the former staffer would be “seeking legal remedies concerning untrue content that has been published about him in the future” but he wouldn’t be making any further statements during this time. The spokesman added Lehrmann would take time off to be with family and friends to get away from this “traumatising episode”.
The first trial - which heard evidence from Reynolds and Liberal senator Michaelia Cash, who Higgins also worked for - was cut short on October 27 after 12 days of evidence and submissions in the ACT Supreme Court and five days of deliberations, because of juror misconduct. McCallum had set down a retrial over a single charge of sexual intercourse without consent for early 2023.
Lehrmann had denied ever having sex with Higgins and in a police interview described himself behaving like a “gentleman” on the night of March 22, 2019, when they were part of a group drinking at The Dock bar in Kingston, and later 88mph nightclub, before the pair shared an Uber and Lehrmann said he needed to drop by parliament. The future of a highly anticipated book by Higgins is now in question due to the circumstances of the trial’s ending and her health, with supporters saying her life was on hold while she recovers.
Higgins’ friend Emma Webster released a statement after Drumgold’s announcement, which said: “Brittany is in hospital getting the treatment and support she needs. “The last couple of years have been difficult and unrelenting. While it’s disappointing the trial has ended this way, Brittany’s health and safety must always come first. “Brittany is extremely grateful for all the support she has received, particularly from our mental health care workers.”
Mr Drumgold said there had been a reasonable prospect of conviction when he proceeded with the first trial.
However, he said he had to weigh that against the prospect of harm caused by proceeding with the retrial. “I’ve recently received really compelling evidence from medical experts that the ongoing trauma associated with this prosecution presents a significant and unacceptable risk for the life of the complainant. “The evidence makes it clear that this is not limited to the harm of giving evidence in a witness box [and] rather applies whether or not the complainant is required to enter a witness box during a retrial.”
He paid tribute to Higgins as he concluded his brief statement, saying that “during the investigation and trial as a sexual assault complainant, [Brittany] Higgins has faced a level of personal attack that I have not seen in over 20 years of doing this work. She has done so with bravery, grace and dignity and it is my hope that this will now stop and Ms Higgins will be allowed to heal.” https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/media-alleged-that-bruce-lehrman...
What a fkn yawnfest that whole show has been. Who cares!
And blown up by selfish scumbags in Wilkinson, Fitzsimmons and co.
Id rather listen to pointless banter about World Cup soccer
there hasn't been much comment anywhere on the end of the trial which seemed interesting, 4 or 5 days in deliberation jury tells judge we can't agree but she keeps sending them back (apparently a little unusual and provoked legal discussion) until a cleaner "bumps" a jurors folder, which happens to fall on the ground, he happens to read it, -, and it just happens to show the juror has looked up something on the internet so its a mistrial not a no verdict. and the dog ate my homework..
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.