This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
stui magpie wrote:Firstly, non-liberal voters need to be very careful throwing stones in this glass house. Labor staffers have already been implicated in the same stuff and more will come out.
Regarding the issue with the security breach and the staffer being sacked but not Higgins, I'll type this really slowly.
From the perspective of Security, there was no security breach, Both people were employees who would have normally had right of access to the offices where they were going.
From the Minister's perspective, having drunk staffers having sex in her office way after hours is absolutely a security breach.
Next working day she calls in the bloke and sacks him.
Higgins is then called in and before she can be sacked she discloses that she was allegedly sexually assaulted. Minister rightfully changes tack and looks to support Higgins rather than sacking her.
Minister advises Morrison at some point later that the staffer was sacked for a security breach, which is what Morrison repeats later.
All very obvious, nothing to see here.
Should be under jokes, jokes and more jokes. You're very funny. I am wondering however if your eyes & ears are painted on? Your defence of Scotty ignoes the evidence. He misled Parliament and he has been obfuscating: that is clear and unambiguous. To argue against this is being silly and not your finest moment
The Liberals have made sex acts and sex abuse an art form and part of the culture whereas there might be some instances in the labour party (although histoically when there were less women ( I'd be surpised if it was not more) . Why the difference? Because there are much more women in the Labour party (members and staffers) that is why it is less Not too hard to get one's head around.
Last edited by watt price tully on Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Pies4shaw wrote:Isn't the key take out that there was no "security breach" on the night in question, so that the suggestion that the alleged rapist was fired the next working day for a "security breach" simply doesn't stack up?
That's right.
Who amongst us hasn't taken a legless woman back to our employer's premises at 2am on a Saturday morning, gone into the bosses office, and given her one on the couch?
stui magpie wrote:Firstly, non-liberal voters need to be very careful throwing stones in this glass house. Labor staffers have already been implicated in the same stuff and more will come out.
Regarding the issue with the security breach and the staffer being sacked but not Higgins, I'll type this really slowly.
From the perspective of Security, there was no security breach, Both people were employees who would have normally had right of access to the offices where they were going.
From the Minister's perspective, having drunk staffers having sex in her office way after hours is absolutely a security breach.
Next working day she calls in the bloke and sacks him.
Higgins is then called in and before she can be sacked she discloses that she was allegedly sexually assaulted. Minister rightfully changes tack and looks to support Higgins rather than sacking her.
Minister advises Morrison at some point later that the staffer was sacked for a security breach, which is what Morrison repeats later.
All very obvious, nothing to see here.
Should be under jokes, jokes and more jokes. You're very funny. I am wondering however if your eyes & ears are painted on? Your defence of Scotty ignoes the evidence. He misled Parliament and he has been obfuscating: that is clear and unambiguous. To argue against this is being silly and not your finest moment
The Liberals have made sex acts and sex abuse an art form and part of the culture whereas there might be some instances in the labour party (although histoically when there were less women ( I'd be surpised if it was not more) . Why the difference? Because there are much more women in the Labour party (members and staffers) that is why it is less Not too hard to get one's head around.
Yes.
I should apologise to Stui. It's my fault he has the sequence of events so hopelessly wrong. They both went back to work on the Monday but he was called in on the Tuesday. Even so, after that - why did the Minister - assuming she has the knowledge that Stui wants to impute to her (but she denies, of course) think it was OK to interview Brittany Higgins at the scene of the assault? Bearing in mind that the Minister has apologised and now says she regrets doing it and, in substance, wouldn't have done so, if she'd known? It does look as if the walls are closing in around a few Government people who are not, as present, glistening with moral rectitude.
Scotty from Marketing press conference this morning:
This started as one of his better performances to date. I congratulate him on the start and part of the middle part of the speech. What he failed to do was say simply “I got it wrong” however he was presenting as much more sensitive to how he did get it so hopelessly wrong before with respect to the needs of women.
The latter part and the end part of the middle part of the presser we’re going back to form: he started saying how the issue of harassment / abuse and the toxic culture needs to be beyond partisanship then goes onto spruik how well his inclusion of women has been
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Pies4shaw wrote:
I should apologise to Stui. It's my fault he has the sequence of events so hopelessly wrong. They both went back to work on the Monday but he was called in on the Tuesday. Even so, after that - why did the Minister - assuming she has the knowledge that Stui wants to impute to her (but she denies, of course) think it was OK to interview Brittany Higgins at the scene of the assault? Bearing in mind that the Minister has apologised and now says she regrets doing it and, in substance, wouldn't have done so, if she'd known? It does look as if the walls are closing in around a few Government people who are not, as present, glistening with moral rectitude.
I really CBF going back over all the detail.
The guy was sacked for coming into the office early saturday etc. She was guilty of the exact same behaviour so was in the gun for it. It was at the interview that she was to be sacked that she made the disclosure. Until that point only a few people would have known that she had been drunk and naked in the office and would have assumed it was all consensual.
Believe WTF you want, you and WPT are both incapable of impartial analysis when it comes to Liberals in general and Morrison in particular.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Pies4shaw wrote:
I should apologise to Stui. It's my fault he has the sequence of events so hopelessly wrong. They both went back to work on the Monday but he was called in on the Tuesday. Even so, after that - why did the Minister - assuming she has the knowledge that Stui wants to impute to her (but she denies, of course) think it was OK to interview Brittany Higgins at the scene of the assault? Bearing in mind that the Minister has apologised and now says she regrets doing it and, in substance, wouldn't have done so, if she'd known? It does look as if the walls are closing in around a few Government people who are not, as present, glistening with moral rectitude.
I really CBF going back over all the detail.
The guy was sacked for coming into the office early saturday etc. She was guilty of the exact same behaviour so was in the gun for it. It was at the interview that she was to be sacked that she made the disclosure. Until that point only a few people would have known that she had been drunk and naked in the office and would have assumed it was all consensual.
Believe WTF you want, you and WPT are both incapable of impartial analysis when it comes to Liberals in general and Morrison in particular.
The security officer cleared them to come in, used a system to allow them in when they didn’t have their ID’s. The woman security officer was clear about that. That was not a security breach. However in Scotty’s presser he disclosed for the first time (unless you’re in the inner Scotty sanctum this was not known till now) there was confidential defence information in the office where Higgins was allegedly raped) it was this that constituted a means by which Scotty could sack the Phuker (this it transpires was the security breach and apparently this liberal party male staffer had form)
Now unless you have special powers (then I’ll be requesting a rectal (sorry) a psych assessment
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Another interesting part of Scotty’s presser is that unlike earlier he didn’t come out and immediately defend Christian Porter with respect to Porter’s fitness to remain in the position of Australia’s highest law officer, the Attorney General.
Scotty said he is taking advice from the Solicitor General. Thus is a significant departure from his previous responses which included: the police have cleared him and there’s a legal case going on (the defamation case)
I could be wrong but I think it is increasingly likely that Porter will have to step aside. On Insiders this week Samantha Maiden of Murdoch Press reckons that Scotty will cut Porter adrift ( if the political cost is too high to keep him)
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Pies4shaw wrote:You have a point, I expect. You could share it. I think when you try to express it directly, you'll find that we are actually in agreement.
Nah, in an echo chamber it's far better to be obtuse.
Pies4shaw wrote:
I should apologise to Stui. It's my fault he has the sequence of events so hopelessly wrong. They both went back to work on the Monday but he was called in on the Tuesday. Even so, after that - why did the Minister - assuming she has the knowledge that Stui wants to impute to her (but she denies, of course) think it was OK to interview Brittany Higgins at the scene of the assault? Bearing in mind that the Minister has apologised and now says she regrets doing it and, in substance, wouldn't have done so, if she'd known? It does look as if the walls are closing in around a few Government people who are not, as present, glistening with moral rectitude.
I really CBF going back over all the detail.
The guy was sacked for coming into the office early saturday etc. She was guilty of the exact same behaviour so was in the gun for it. It was at the interview that she was to be sacked that she made the disclosure. Until that point only a few people would have known that she had been drunk and naked in the office and would have assumed it was all consensual.
Believe WTF you want, you and WPT are both incapable of impartial analysis when it comes to Liberals in general and Morrison in particular.
If you were to go back over my posts about the Libs and Morrison fairly, you'd see that neither of those things is true.
watt price tully wrote:Another interesting part of Scotty’s presser is that unlike earlier he didn’t come out and immediately defend Christian Porter with respect to Porter’s fitness to remain in the position of Australia’s highest law officer, the Attorney General.
Scotty said he is taking advice from the Solicitor General. Thus is a significant departure from his previous responses which included: the police have cleared him and there’s a legal case going on (the defamation case)
I could be wrong but I think it is increasingly likely that Porter will have to step aside. On Insiders this week Samantha Maiden of Murdoch Press reckons that Scotty will cut Porter adrift ( if the political cost is too high to keep him)
I didn't hear his presser - but I think the advice he's getting from Stephen concerns the areas in which Porter can't advise by reason of a perception of potential conflict of interest. I don't think he's actually asked for advice about whether or not Porter can remain in his position.
Last edited by Pies4shaw on Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Another huge mistake made by Scotty which I mssed was when he got into an argument with a reporter / journalist from Sky. It was when Scotty got highly defensive, smug and said journalists should not throw stones (glass houses and all that). Scotty asked that journalist if he was aware of allegations of sexaul abuse at his workplace (Sky) having gone to the police. The journalsit said no
The issue here & Scotty's huge f*ckup (and going off track) was that women who make allegations like this want the allegagions to be kept private. Scotty used a natioinal friggin' aiudience to make an agressive (based of defensiveness) point.
He is losing his judgement and is a displaying a worse shambles than Collingwood's Centre clearances last week (alright nothing is as bad as that)
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Looks like the collective wisdom was that Scotty while wanting to do some good seriously stuffed up and angered a lot more women with his press conference today: From News Limited to the ABC to Channel 9 Scotty from Marketing really f*cked up good and proper. Mostly around the issues noted above. The astute Laura Tingle now of the ABC but has been a Canberra correspondent for years for various employers including the conservative press puts it best:
This is the bit that got my attention - it concerns the issue you raised earlier today and, if Tingle is right, it does appear that the PM is changing tack on Porter:
LAURA TINGLE: One interesting development today which perhaps reflects the growing pressure on the PM is a change of tune about the Attorney-General.
SCOTT MORRISON: As I indicated I was getting advice from the Solicitor-General. I have received that advice and I'm now taking advice through the department regarding how that sits with the ministerial standards and I'll be making further decisions on that matter.
SCOTT MORRISON: Ministerial standards. This is a significant change from the PM's original statement that the Solicitor-General was only advising on what areas of the Attorney-General's responsibilities might be affected by his defamation action against the ABC.
The second quote attributed there to the PM is, I assume, actually Tingle - the PM wouldn't speak about himself in the third person, like that.
