Reply With Quoteeaglem (28-02-21)
Dung Puncher in Cabinet
Does anything surprise anyone about the Australian Government?
With allegations of a ministerial staffer raping another staff member in parliamentary office, now we have another allegation of a cabinet minister taking a 16 year old girl up the arse in 1988 before he entered parliament.
It appears the woman became so traumatised by this and perhaps the hoops she had to jump through to get justice (my thoughts) that she took her own life.
seeA letter alleging a man who is now a federal Cabinet Minister raped a young woman in 1988 has been referred to the Australian Federal Police, sending shockwaves through Parliament. .... The woman said she was 16 at the time she was allegedly anally raped in Sydney in 1988, before the man entered federal politics.
I'm shocked, and it takes a lot to shock me. I suspect that if things take their normal course, nothing will happen. But should it be left at that?
eaglem (28-02-21)
| Look Here -> |
Ummmmmm.....53 years? Riiiight...not saying it didn't happen, but seriously?Originally Posted by RogerTheDoger
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
eaglem (28-02-21)
Actually 33 years, but so what, a crime is a crime, should the alleged perpetrator be sitting in cabinet and making decisions that will probably affect us all, while this is investigated? He may have a different value system, his judgement will certainly be impaired with the sword of Damocles hanging over him.
I need new glasses....I read that as 1968....
Again, ...seems....might have.....perhaps.....usual innuendo from the "press"..
I reckon there would hardly be a member of parliament that hasn't done SOMETHING in the past....
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
RogerTheDoger (28-02-21)
Dung Puncher in Cabinet
In NSW (and likely throughout Australia) only 1/3 of sexual assault allegations that go to trial end in a finding of guilt - that’s 2/3 of perpetrators being found not guilty at trial.
These stats could suggest many things, but one thing is clear - a judge or properly instructed jury don’t consider the evidence (including the victims version) to be sufficient to find an alleged perpetrator guilty in the majority of cases.
Consent is the most common issue in contention, and that seems to be the case in almost all sexual assault allegations aired through the media, including many of these recent allegations about parliament and politicians.
I would never go as far to say that alleged victims of sexual assault lie, but there is a strong inference that is clearly shown in court results that suggests what a victim alleges is a sexual assault is - in the majority of cases - not considered to be a sexual assault by a judge or jury.
Consider the above before demanding these politicians and other stand stand aside for allegations that are aired through the media, more so for the matters that are never reported to police.
bob_m_54 (28-02-21),enf (28-02-21),lsemmens (01-03-21),RogerTheDoger (28-02-21)
I do agree with you, but this is a pretty big something.
RogerTheDoger (28-02-21)
I agree that many rape cases fail, often the lack of supporting evidence is a factor. This will be the case here, 33 years ago and the complainant dead will be a huge stumbling block, should this ever get to trial.
Although I don't think consent will be an issue, the victim was a 16 year old child. I don't think a child of 16 can legally give consent to brutal sodomy. (if that is what it was, her letter may clarify that )
But to be so traumatised that the result is suicide is a huge thing. Guilty or not of rape, do we really want this brutal monster in our parliament?
Think of and his actions with Christine Keeler (the 19 year old prostitute). He was not found guilty of anything, not even charged, but the scandal was so intense that he resigned and spent the rest of his life working as a volunteer in a charity.
Why can't this prick do the same thing? We may all well end up thinking better of him for making amends along these lines and put his actions of rooting a child up the tail pipe down to the exuberance of youth. But to achieve that he needs to resign and do something worthwhile and not for his own gain.
I really have trouble understanding all this.
Somebody allegedly underage got raped by somebody in 1988, why was this not reported to the police back then? Why just a year ago but suddenly didn't want to proceed with the investigation?
And then shorty after suicide?
Threat's from the perpetrator? Or hush money? Is it even proven she committed suicide ?
...and what is this club of "swinging dicks" all about?
Does sound all very nasty if there are numerous politicians involved.
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 28-02-21 at 01:02 PM.
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
enf (28-02-21),lsemmens (01-03-21),RogerTheDoger (28-02-21)
The age of consent was and is 16. According to the law (even in 1988) the alleged victim (being a female who had intercourse with a male) is not considered a ‘child’ and would have been able to provide consent.
Consent would 100% be the issue. It would be a case of he said/she said.
It is assumed the suicide was a result of this alleged rape, but without evidence that a sexual assault occurred, nor that there were other issues at play that contributed to her death, you are drawing a long bow.
And why is this individual at this point considered a ‘brutal monster’? There is nothing more than reports in a newspaper at this time. If evidence is forthcoming and he is found to be so then I would stand beside you with that view, but calling for heads to role without evidence is impulsive and premature.
The girl was 16, she was a child. And she was rooted up the tailpipe by nasty man.
I have granddaughters of that age and I don't want anyone in parliament, let alone the government and a minister to boot whose even alleged to have done that, there.
A bit more in the press:
seeScott Morrison has a man problem. Sixteen of them, to be precise.They are the 16 men in the 22-strong Federal Cabinet over whom hang an allegation of a horrible crime, outlined in an anonymous letter sent to the Prime Minister.
One of them is accused of a horrific but until he is identified, all 16 live under a cloud of broader public suspicion.
This is the political conundrum at the heart of the Prime Minister's man problem that threatens to tumble the scandal over parliamentary culture into a full-blown Cabinet crisis. ........
the Morrison government argues that the minister in question must be afforded natural justice. It points to 7.1 of the ministerial code which states that "a Minister should stand aside if that Minister becomes the subject of an official investigation of alleged illegal or improper conduct."
So bring on an official investigation and have him stand aside, it's the only way the other 15 male cabinet ministers can breath easy.
To answer that take a look at another case:
see“You keep reading people saying in the paper, ‘Why didn’t you do something?’ But it doesn’t work. It seems like the more serious the allegation is, the less likely it is that anyone will do anything.”
The legal system MUST rely on proof, not allegations. I have 4 daughters, now have seven grand daughters so I understand it's emotive.
If as you say an allegation is enough then we're fvcked!
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 (28-02-21),lsemmens (01-03-21),peteramjet (28-02-21),Uncle Fester (28-02-21),wotnot (28-02-21)
Myself having 2 grand-daughters living on the GCoast, the fear&loathing is real ~ being emotive doesn't help, lest the rock spider's wig argues we should show pity for their client, so afflicted by mental disorder it made him do such a thing.
So much for the legal system, but I wish I was back at Uni doing some doctorate, 'cos one could really write some paper on this sort of thing.
As the allegation is read in the 'news', it must be right, and because it's an allegation of sexual misconduct, the accused must be guilty? Right?...I don't think so. Is it because this person is a member of parliament, that the guilty balance tips their way...ie; politician = immediately guilty ...or something like this? I don't think so.
So yeah mate, we're screwed for as long as society read the news and believe it as truth, without giving a modicum of thought (or even due process) to at least consider the accused may actually be innocent. Perhaps I should murmur, 'do we remember Pell?' ...or... is this different because it was a female allegedly raped, instead of little boys?
I suppose if you whip up enough media attention, it's always good for the book sales, regardless of the outcome =)
enf (28-02-21),lsemmens (01-03-21),peteramjet (28-02-21),Uncle Fester (28-02-21)
Just like the stupid citizenship allegations, it becomes tit for tat....sigh!
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
wotnot (28-02-21)
LoL... I think with that mob, it's a fine line between tit for tat retaliation, and one-upmanship =B^)
I'm missing something here...
Soooo... an unknown person said somebody raped her, but didn't identify who it was?Scott Morrison has a man problem. Sixteen of them, to be precise.They are the 16 men in the 22-strong Federal Cabinet over whom hang an allegation of a horrible crime, outlined in an anonymous letter sent to the Prime Minister.
One of them is accused of a horrific 1988 rape of a 16-year-old but until he is identified, all 16 live under a cloud of broader public suspicion.
Who should be stood down while the matter is investigated?
Edit: And whether you have kids, grandkids or an old spinster great aunt, it has no bearing on the allegation, it only affects your judgement on it.
Last edited by bob_m_54; 28-02-21 at 10:20 PM.
peteramjet (01-03-21)
Yes you are missing something.
Yes she did identify who did this to her, it's in her letter that was forwarded to the PM, to a couple or other politicians and is now in the hands of the federal police. (It's just us who don't know who it was)
They all know who was accused and they all have the covering letter written by her friends who forwarded her letter and which explains the torment she went through before finally taking her own life. The covering letter pleads with the PM to act.
That's the bit you are missing.
I know I'm fair gain for ridicule here, but this is serious. Sure a conviction is unlikely due to lack of evidence and the passage of time, however the PM has it in his power to move this suspect out of the ministry, and the party has the power to disendorse him if he doesn't resign and do the right thing like John Profumo did when a scandal hit the British parliament all those years ago. Remember Profumo's alleged offending was by no means as serious as this blokes, no one was raped up the arse and no one died.
bob_m_54 (01-03-21)
For a pedant like myself, the ridicule bit is low hanging fruit -- it's 'game' not 'gain' =)
As for being serious, that's subjective on your part, but I really need to ask...what part of "innocent until proven guilty" don't you get?
The way you present yourself here, you've already drawn, quartered, and castrated the accused, before any facts have been tabled - you've already made your mind up, before you even know who it is you're condemning!
Thinking like this, will cause you stress, and discomfort, and lower your chances for being selected for jury service...and I'm being serious here -- right now, nobody's even sure any actual crime has taken place.
What exactly prevents you from speculating the accused, may in all fact be falsely accused?
Also...dunno if this is just me or not...but why do you seemingly have a fixation of the alleged sodomy element of the alleged crime? It's seems to be a paramount facet of your reckoning...strange.
bob_m_54 (01-03-21),lsemmens (01-03-21),madtech (01-03-21),peteramjet (01-03-21)
Thank you Wotnot for your illuminating response and for finding my typo.
Now for why I've returned, Just found this, which may be of interest:
seeTwo more federal MPs — one Liberal and one Labor — have revealed they were aware of a historical rape allegation made against a Cabinet Minister before it became public last Friday.
Labor MP Daniel Mulino told the ABC he was contacted by the alleged victim in December 2019. She was Dr Mulino's friend.
"She indicated to me that she was determined to proceed with a formal complaint and I supported her in that decision," he said.
"I ensured that the complainant was receiving appropriate support. I am greatly saddened by the death of my friend. I know that this has been a devastating period for the woman's family and close friends. My thoughts are with them."
Dr Mulino said he had told the Australian Federal Police (AFP), NSW Police and South Australian Police he was willing to assist with any investigation.
Last edited by RogerTheDoger; 01-03-21 at 12:13 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks