LB 15
Cunt
I never said she didn't. Surly one of you using this account can read? Call a meeting and ask around. BTW how was your 70th?
Rape trial dropped because attacks on the accuser endanger her health?
- Thread starter ShortForBob
- Start date
LB 15
Cunt
It sure is. This thread was Meli's Christmas present to us all. Think of it like a advent calendar for retards.
LB 15
Cunt
Who knows? You might have nice teeth.
ShortForBob
Super Anarchist
- Thread starter
- #364
Hmm.
I believe you said my paranoia imagines socks where no socks be? (paraphrasing)
I think you better credit me for a lot of sailing experience if you look at TP's earlier posts.
and you're a few hours off with my morning "peak" sic
ShortForBob
Super Anarchist
- Thread starter
- #365
Seriously?
Deep down, he's a very contorted, damaged individual.
On the surface he's a 1960's bloke joke.
Ease the sheet.
ignoring stupid people is easy
- 20,970
- 2,658
Busted clocks are not entirely useless...
The Dark Knight
Super Anarchist
So, where are the lies precious?
I'm sorry if you are so lacking of inteligence that you cannot understand what I had written. Anyone with an IQ greater that a goldfish would understand what was inferred. So just for you, I have quoted my comments and inserted in bold/red what I had inferred.
It's not that hare to understand is it? Oh sorry, it is for you.
The Dark Knight
Super Anarchist
The Dark Knight
Super Anarchist
Aren't the one in the same?
Ya Nasty! Kentucky Siblings Indicted on Incest Charges After Having Hillbilly Brother-Sister Sex
27-year-old Derrick Lee Clarke and his 28-year-old sister, D'Nea G. Stephens, both form Leitchfield, Kentucky, were recently indicted on incest charges after they were caught having sex with each other.
The Dark Knight
Super Anarchist
Meli, Random vibrator, slEasy, 8cunts and toilet paper number 12, please do not read this opinion piece by a barrister. It highlights some issues with your blind bias beliefs.Steve Boland
BarristerThe events surrounding the criminal allegations made by Brittany Higgins against Bruce Lehrmann are a lamentable example of what happens to the justice system when the principles of prudence, discretion and sobriety of judgment are set aside in favour of publicity, politics and rank ideology.
From the start of this sorry affair, people who should have known better have inserted themselves into the fray, usually to the great detriment of both parties. You would hope that with the conclusion of proceedings against Lehrmann, who has always maintained his innocence, this practice would have slowed. If anything, it has quickened. All the while, Higgins has suffered a serious decline in her mental health in circumstances that can only be described as tragic.
Bruce Lehrmann denied raping Brittany Higgins in a minister’s office at Parliament House in March 2019.CREDIT:ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN
Consider the remarks of ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold, SC. On announcing the charge against Lehrmann was to be dropped, Drumgold praised the “bravery, grace and dignity” of Higgins, and asked that she be given time “to heal” after facing “a level of personal attack that I’ve not seen in over 20 years of doing this work”.
While this may be true, there is a serious question as to whether it is appropriate for a DPP, who has a duty to the administration of justice rather than to individual complainants, to make public remarks of this kind. Drumgold said nothing of the presumption of innocence or whether Lehrmann may also need time “to heal”. Nor should he have. And that is the point.
And what of the substance of Drumgold’s observations? Has he ever seen a sexual assault complainant consciously eschew the protection of anonymity that is legally available to every sexual assault complainant in ACT criminal proceedings? If the answer is “no”, or “only on a very limited number of occasions”, Drumgold’s placement of Higgins’ experience on a spectrum of 20 years of practice is meaningless.
The fact is there was nothing normal about the Lehrmann trial, which occurred under a glare of unceasing publicity. Such matters are invariably tried in conditions of anonymity, which is a statutory right afforded to the complainant.
There have been other public servants whose conduct in relation to these matters has been questionable. Scott Morrison’s notorious parliamentary apology to Higgins plumbed a new depth. Whatever political advantage Morrison perceived, the potential prejudice that could have been occasioned to a fair trial by a person of the prime minister’s stature in making a comment of this kind, before a jury was even empanelled, is impossible to miss.
This occurred against the backdrop of alleged “political interference” in the investigation stage of the Lehrmann case, according to the ACT police manager of criminal investigations, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller (who says he would not have charged Lehrmann, but the decision was apparently taken out of his hands). This chilling allegation by a senior AFP officer warrants a full accounting of the “political interference” being referred to, particularly given the implicitly political context in which the trial unfolded.
And what of Tanya Plibersek? On the day of Drumgold’s announcement, she published the following comment on social media: “Survivors of sexual assault know that convicting perpetrators is the exception, not the rule. This has to change.”
There is enough plausible deniability in this comment to avoid the imputation that she was referring directly to Higgins and Lehrmann, but only just. And there is enough ambiguity in the comment to delight a receptive crowd without the inconvenience of condescending to a serious policy discussion.
Is she calling for law reform? If so, what precisely is she suggesting given the strong procedural protections that are now offered to sexual assault complainants in criminal prosecutions? Perhaps an erosion of the criminal standard of proof which has been the cornerstone of civilised society for centuries? As a minister of the Crown, Plibersek might humour the public by explaining exactly what she meant.
Perhaps at the same time she might also use her public reach to explain that, aside from the legal availability of anonymity to all sexual assault complainants, such persons may never need to set foot in a courtroom at all – as a statutory starting point, such evidence is given from a remote witness facility.
And before we grant an audience to ambiguous calls for “change”, the public ought to be reminded that Higgins’ experience is not the experience of sexual assault complainants generally. This is not to suggest that Higgins wasn’t perfectly entitled to take the course she took, but the public must be informed that Higgins’ name was only ever published because she specifically chose to approach the media with her allegation.
The broader point is this – superficial public utterances by persons in high office do not advance the administration of justice in any respect, and usually have the opposite effect. They do not set a foundation for legitimate discussions of law reform, which has occurred in this area by quantum leaps over recent decades in any event. Instead, they perpetuate outmoded stereotypes of our justice system and perhaps deter victims from coming forward. And there is apparently no consequence to any of it.
ACT DPP Shane Drumgold announced the re-trial of Bruce Lehrmann would not go ahead.CREDIT:RHETT WYMAN
Lisa Wilkinson puts at risk a criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court – and what institutional consequence have we seen for her?
Drumgold lauds the “bravery” of a person whose allegation remains unproven, immediately following the execution of his duty as a detached Crown prosecutor – and what becomes of that?
Higgins delivers a speech on the courthouse steps impugning the criminal justice system while a prosecution is on foot in which she is the complainant – who makes the decision as to whether she will be prosecuted for contempt; Drumgold?
Morrison uses parliamentary privilege ahead of a highly publicised criminal trial – where is the consequence for that?
And cabinet minister Plibersek speaks of “survivors” and “perpetrators” before the din of Drumgold’s press conference has even died down.
A rot has taken hold at the core of our institutions. But it has nothing to do with the state of the law, and everything to do with the fealty of our public officials to the time-honoured principles upon which our society was built. Worse, there appears to be a total lack of consequence and accountability when there may be cause to investigate whether those principles have been hung out to dry. If you want to talk about change, that would be an excellent place to start.
Steve Boland is a Sydney-based barrister.
Don’t judge the legal system for sorry saga of the Lehrmann trial
This is a lamentable example of what happens to the justice system when the principles of prudence, discretion and sobriety of judgment are set aside in favour of publicity, politics and rank ideology.
LB 15
Cunt
Fucking oath it does. The wider implications of her compensation claim now come into play. For what exactly is she being compensated for in the wake of no guilty finding? For getting pissed and going back to her bosses office? For going to the press instead of remaining anonymous? For letting Lisa Wilkinson use her to further her own career? For the minister calling her a lying cow? Well good luck with that, she did lie - repeatedly and got caught. Any mental health issues she has are of her own making- even if her allegations are true. She choose the spotlight - aided and abetted by that sanctimonious woke cunt.
She wasn't being forced into doing the rallies, the media interviews or the speaking tour with Grace Tame. She wasn't being brave, she was being stupid and naively believed she could continue to avoid a risky trial. She also thought that Wilkinson was on her side. Well she soon found out that dreadful women is only on her own side.
She made that logie speech knowing full well that she was in contempt of the judges instructions, but she thought she was above the law.
But her fuckwit husbands book deal required a guilty verdict, as her publishers lawyers realized that without it, it was going to be a pretty thin book.
So her rolling stone started gathering Moss and there was nothing she could do to stop it.
With the charges against Lehrmann dropped he now has no case to answer and can begin Deformation actions against a whole range of people and so he should. Because a lot of people used their positions to try and interfere with both the police investigations and the trial purely for political reasons.
And number one on his hit list should be Wilkinson and Channel 10. It would appear that Wilkinson has now dropped her little mate Brittney like a hot potato- after fucking with her life. What a cunt she is.
The reality is that despite it not being her own fault Higgins should not receive a penny in compensation and it is her actions that will stop future rape victims coming forward.
The lesson for these women is that you should come forward, but don't get caught up in the cult of celebrity. Stick to the script and remain anonymous - at least until the trial is over. And don't for one second ever think that a Journalist is your friend. And if she has mental issues then she should stay the fuck away from social media instead of tweeting yet more bullshit.
What a fuck up.
Last edited:
Goodvibes
under the southern cross I stand ...
- 2,286
- 787
We understand what Barristers do? You can hire one if you have enough cash, to say what ever you want them to say!!!!
You can meet with them, tell them you did it but want to plead not guilty, and they will go into court and lie for money!!
So now we have a 'self-employed' guy in Sydney who comes out with this piece. Do you really think that he donated his time?
I mean really? Someone paid him to do that. He is a barrister. He may or may not be right but why the fuck would I accept what he says for buck$ ? He's a bullshitter for hire!
LB 15
Cunt
And what is this one?We understand what Barristers do? You can hire one if you have enough cash, to say what ever you want them to say!!!!
You can meet with them, tell them you did it but want to plead not guilty, and they will go into court and lie for money!!
So now we have a 'self-employed' guy in Sydney who comes out with this piece. Do you really think that he donated his time?
I mean really? Someone paid him to do that. He is a barrister. He may or may not be right but why the fuck would I accept what he says for buck$ ? He's a bullshitter for hire!
LB 15
Cunt
Brittany Higgins' boyfriend reveals her condition in hospital - as he launches a scathing Twitter attack on her ex-boss who caused controversy during the trial amid $3million compo lawsuit
Brittany Higgins is in a 'fragile' condition in a psychiatric clinic, her boyfriend says - as he slams her old boss Linda Reynolds, claiming she has 'leaked' information about a $3million lawsuit against her to the media.Ms Higgins' legal team is preparing to launch civil court proceedings against the Commonwealth, Ms Reynolds, and former federal minister Michaelia Cash after an alleged sexual assault case she was a complainant in was abandoned.
Brittany Higgins' boyfriend reveals her condition in hospital
Brittany Higgins will launch civil court proceedings against the Commonwealth, Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash after rape case she was a complainant in was dropped.
Oh so now she is complaining about someone going to the media? YCMTSU! If she is SO ashamed about her cash grab that she doesn't want the public finding out, then she shouldn't do it.
I hope she doesn't get a penny.
Goodvibes
under the southern cross I stand ...
- 2,286
- 787
Where did I say I listen to her either?
I am going on what each of the involved parties say.
So far we have a guy who according to the staff who let then in the House, left the woman unconscious and naked in their bosses office. He arrived with her, he left without her and expects us to believe that he was working and not answering six call from his girlfriend because he was too busy! What a cunt. She said she was raped, and that could be true. That he ws entertaining her is more likely the case given the time, place and circumstances.
Then we have media management by wheeling out struggling barristers to do op ed pieces. I'm sure the Liberal party can use a Blind Trust to fund it. But fuck knows why they would bother after the wrecking ball job scomo did. They are just rearranging the ashes of what's left.
The Dark Knight
Super Anarchist
Nice one Randy. Attack the author rather than addressing to content.We understand what Barristers do? You can hire one if you have enough cash, to say what ever you want them to say!!!!
You can meet with them, tell them you did it but want to plead not guilty, and they will go into court and lie for money!!
So now we have a 'self-employed' guy in Sydney who comes out with this piece. Do you really think that he donated his time?
I mean really? Someone paid him to do that. He is a barrister. He may or may not be right but why the fuck would I accept what he says for buck$ ? He's a bullshitter for hire!
You got nothing.
The Dark Knight
Super Anarchist
Perhaps he is a cunt, but luckily being a cunt is not against the law, otherwise half of SA would be posting from prison. You’d definitely be a lifer.
Welllll, in theory, a barister is an officer of the court and required to uphold the law, and not lie.
But in reality, they do tend to look after each other so as to not rock the boat and interupt the gravy train. Not many complaints get made against QC / AC types by other barristers, no matter how badly they fuck up.
MRS OCTOPUS
Anarchist
Oh deary me, looks like I have touched a bit of a raw nerve. You have been caught altering the facts to suit your narrative, so have now decided to revert back to the old “ pin the moustache on the walrus “ game.
I had moved on from discussing your embarrassment at the CLUB as I felt enough was enough and was starting to tire of your squirming, but hey I’m happy to continue.
Now, I would have thought you wouldn’t have to ask that question after all the experience you gained , highlighted in a couple of previous threads.
You seemed to be of the opinion at the time , one could be guilty ,of let’s say for arguments sake … ABUSE , but you weren’t really guilty if you fled the club like a coward rather than face your peers, admit your guilt and apologise.
There how’s that for a resumption of play.
Jules
Super Anarchist
Couldn't have said it better myself.
