bob_m_54 (01-03-21),eaglem (01-03-21),peteramjet (01-03-21),wotnot (01-03-21)
Which is exactly the point I was making....
This whole situation is just another muckraking exercise without proof. Allegations are NOT enough, and it's important to try to remember stuff that has already transpired.
It's not that long ago that we had this, supposedly from 1986....the same era.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
bob_m_54 (01-03-21),eaglem (01-03-21),peteramjet (01-03-21),wotnot (01-03-21)
surely the statute of limitations would apply in this case anyway ? Even if this incident did actually occur , at the time the bloke involved was a regular citizen and not an MP , so it should be nothing to do with the parliament !! . Its also really strange for the letter to be sent to a bunch of muck rakers like the Greens anyway? The opposition party maybe , but the Greens? This whole thing smells of using grubby tactics to try and discredit somebody. If something happened at the time , then report it at the time !!!
Admin :these allegations are getting too common and are only muck raking not really a tech site any more????? General chat about tech things not underwear
Replace "unknown politician" (yes, the police know) with your own name. If you were accused of doing something to a person 33 years ago and you know you didn't. Would you like your name dragged through the mud on an allegation? we MUST allow natural justice to take its due course. Sometimes the courts do get it wrong, but that is why we have the PRESUMPTION of innocence until PROVEN guilty. Once guilt is proven, then, all bets are off the guilty party should, then, be made public and further allegations might come forward then. IF OTOH the person is found innocent, then, AT NO TIME, should their details be made public. Politician or otherwise.
The court of public opinion is very cruel, and has destroyed many a life on mere innuendo without any validation of the facts!
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
bob_m_54 (01-03-21),enf (01-03-21),peteramjet (01-03-21),tristen (02-03-21),wotnot (01-03-21)
Then of course even if judged guilty, there are various forms of appeal. George Pell springs to mind as a very public case.
By that read "the press". The place where innuendo, dishonest hinting, and on occasion outright lying is fed to the masses in order to get ratings.....and to satisfy agendas.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Of course the alleged perpetrator should be afforded the presumption of innocents, as should all accused persons. But don't forget this has not stopped charged persons being remanded in custody till the matter comes to trial.
Not suggesting this, in this case, but standing aside until an inquiry is held, seems fair, to me.
One thought-
seeThe alleged victim took her own life in June.
At a writer’s event in Adelaide, Mr Turnbull said the woman had written to him in 2019 – after he had quit politics – detailing the allegations against the minister and that she was in contact in police.
“She described a pretty horrific rape that she said had occurred at the hands of this person, a person she said is now in the cabinet,” Mr Turnbull said.
Why would the woman contact former PM Turnbull after he had left office?
Perhaps it was because the perpetrator was the person who replaced him?
If so that might explain the inaction by Morrison? Who knows?
Last edited by RogerTheDoger; 01-03-21 at 03:42 PM.
I doubt that. Turdbull would do and say just about ANYTHING to sh!t on the government and Morrison.
I came to the conclusion years ago that he was the worst PM we ever had in my voting experience. He is just one of the two deposed and delusional fools we had there recently.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Again, this would need to carefully handle. Remanding in custody is only used in a case that poses a significant risk of the alleged offender absconding, or committing another crime. Standing down, in some cases should be an option but only in cases where the alleged offence is directly related to the employment of the accused. e.g. finance officer accused of embezzlement. In any job there could be repercussions for the innocent if they voluntarily a)went public or b)stood down. Could you imagine a school teacher being vilified by parents on the unproven allegation from an ex-pupil, only to find that said pupil had issues and the poor teacher was entirely innocent. A friend, who is a retired headmaster, had to deal with a situation, such as this. A teacher was accused years later, and he was called on to provide his viewpoint. In this case, he knew the ex-pupil well, and the teacher concerned. Nothing was proven and the accuser was shown to be unreliable. Had the particular teacher still been working, his/her career would have been totally destroyed! All on an allegation.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
RogerTheDoger (01-03-21),VroomVroom (02-03-21)
Now it seems the poor girls family begged the ABC not to do all this......typical.
wish I could read the article. I don't subscribe....
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
RogerTheDoger (01-03-21)
But they are innocent. All have the presumption of innocence, why should it be assumed that an innocent person is going to commit another crime, there is no proof that they even committed the first one, they have the presumption of innocence,
See what I'm saying?
As far as standing down goes, a cabinet minister has the responsibility of running a significant part of the countries affairs, they can make decisions that will affect many people, or all of us. If an innocent person can be locked up on remand and deprived of doing what they normally do, why should a cabinet minister, about whom a cloud hangs, be permitted to carry on as normal. I believe he should be stood down till an inquiry has been held and a report handed down.
That's all I'm saying.
There is a little more about the alleged victim in the paper see
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday the accused minister “absolutely rejects” the allegations.
“She was extraordinary,” said Jo Dyer, a literary festival director, who had known the deceased woman since they were 15 years old.
“She was someone who was brilliant, acute. She was sensitive and had emotional and intellectual intelligence, and curiosity,” Ms Dyer said.
“People had high expectations of her and with that comes pressure. She was mindful of that.”
After losing touch with many of her old friends for years, in 2019 the woman began talking to trusted friends about her alleged rape in 1988, when she was 16 years old.
She said she had been sexually assaulted in Sydney by a man who now holds a senior position in government.
The woman knew the man when they were teenagers.
“We had a number of conversations because we were all very mindful of the difficulties of seeking justice through the criminal justice system,” Ms Dyer told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
“It was very difficult for her to be seeing him in the press all the time.”
A person is only remanded in custody until trial by a court. This occurs after they have been investigated, had admissible evidence collected, are charged and officially accused of a crime and after a magistrate reviews the facts in the matter and considers - on the evidence - that they should remain in custody until trial.
A person who is alleged to have committed a crime by the media, who has not been charged, who has not been before a court, who has not had any evidence presented before a magistrate, is never remanded.
We don’t lock people up just because the social media masses demand that occur.
lsemmens (02-03-21),RogerTheDoger (02-03-21)
Most of the time, however there are exceptions, asylum seekers and people alleged to be involved in terrorists acts (whether they have been or not) are locked up without trial, sometimes for very long periods. A few asylum seekers in Brisbane have just been let out after 8 years. A doctor from the Gold Coast was locked up for a month without access to a lawyer or given access to even contact anyone and let them know where he was, what did he do? He gave his prepaid phone which still had some credit on it to his cousin in Scotland when he left the country. Peter Duttons mob reckoned this was a terrorist act, seems the authorities in the UK got the story wrong and the cousin wasn't even involved in anything over there, they got the name wrong, but the Doctor was still locked up.
What's my point? These were all drastic actions taken in the name of national security.
However a federal minister with massive powers who has been alleged to have committed an horrific crime is not even made to stand down while this is investigated. (not locked up, not charged) just stood down. Why not?
quote -
“She was someone who was brilliant, acute. She was sensitive and had emotional and intellectual intelligence, and curiosity,” Ms Dyer said.
“People had high expectations of her and with that comes pressure. She was mindful of that.”
what a load of bullshit - if this woman had any sort of intelligence she would have gone to the cops right away. and again if she was that intelligent , she wouldnt have committed suicide. And if it was such a big deal she would have at least gone to the hospital for a checkup , and if she had seen him in the papers so many times then she would have had numerous , numerous opportunities to dob him in. She was probably pissed off that this bloke got some job she wanted so she took the chicken's way out and ensured that other leftard muck rakers would stir the pot a bit.
This could have been setup to blackmail or get money out of the bloke , who knows.
‘Asylum seekers’ are illegal immigrants. They are detained under border control legislation. If they declare ‘asylum’ their matters end up before courts. Someone who is here illegally but is claiming asylum is in no way similar to this matter.
There is no legislation in Australia that allows us to detain ‘alleged terrorists’ for long periods without them being arrested for a crime and going before a court. There is indeed the ability to detain them while under arrest for longer periods than normal offences - but this is by court order only. Regardless, they can’t be ‘locked up for long periods without trial’ without going before a court and having the court decide. The doctor you referred to was *charged* with an offence and remanded in relation to that offence. Again, that is not similar.
Either way, both examples are matters that go before the courts, and the processes are defined in legislation.
Because there is nothing more than an ALLEGATION at this time made by a media outlet. No evidence has been presented anywhere, no one has been charged and there is no allegation of an offence before a court. That is why.
Not quite right:
seeThe story of Dr Mohamed Haneef
On 2 July 2007, Dr Mohamed Haneef, who was working as a doctor in Queensland, was arrested by the AFP. His arrest followed the attempted terrorist car bombings at Glasgow International Airport on 30 June 2007. Under the provision for ‘dead time’, Dr Haneef was detained and questioned without charge for 12 days. The case against Dr Haneef was later dropped due to a lack of evidence.
Bookmarks