Parliament House sexual assault and harassment allegations

[ronrat]

A workmate of mines intelllectualy disabled 13 year old sister was sexually abused by the town pest in Warwick QLD about 50 years ago. Ray was 17 at the time and the girl came home crying and when he found out he raced down the street and punched the shit out of him. Ray was one of 6 brothers who all played in he local rugby team and the coach was the local sergeant of police.

It became obvious that it would be very hard to prosecute as the girl would be a very confused witness and the police would probably have to charge Ray with assault as well and he was due to join the Army in 8 weeks time.

The coppers had a meeting with the perpetrators family and bluntly said "This town can not deal with the 2 families feuding so one of you will need to go. And I don't like the idea of losing half my team plus the girls parents who ran the railway station. If you are out of this town and at least 100 miles away we will call it quits. You have 7 days. I will keep the girls family at bay.

They were gone in 4 days and moved to NSW and the arsehole went very slowly because he had 6 broken ribs and severe bruising to the face,

[5 from the wing on debut]

Of course though it won't be the end of it because for the most part it has never been about the alleged victim, it has been about scoring political points.

I think you’ll find her friends think differently and they have been very strong here.

Fortunately or unfortunately as the 4 corners programme attests Porter has some related form

At the same time the timing has been impeccable:

1. Scotty from Marketing saying before he becomes pm that we need to believe victims of abuse
2. Women pollies in the liberal party identifying a culture of abuse and bullying
3. Two women staffers identifying their maltreatment in the Liberal Party
4. The Four Corners Programme in November 2020 researching 3. above and interviewing the women and also identifying Porter as an alleged creep
5. The Australian of the Year being a young woman who was raped and silenced by antiqued laws

Apart from that you could say it was politically opportunistic.

As my old man used to say: “you’ve made your bed now you gotta lie in it”

(I only saw bits of Porter on TV because of work but no matter how you swing it was painful for him)

An enquiry will give him the benefit of clearing his name. A person died and she claimed he raped her. He should be given the chance to clear his name as the burden lies with the claimants (as it were) on the balance of probabilities.

What her friends want or don't want is irrelevant to what is occurring in the media.

I think that you have missed the point of what I am saying, or you are guided by your dogma and not by logic. Either way, your entire last paragraph makes no sense.

You are also conflating a lot of irrelevant ideas into the discrete issue of whether a woman was raped or not.

Can you tell me:

1. How an enquiry would work? Because, no one anywhere has said that, including the politicians with grudges or other motives that are pushing for a judicial or parliamentary enquiry. Some suggest a parliamentary enquiry. Wouldn't that be fun - we could have our own version of Trump's impeachment saga. What do you propose, the woman's body be exhumed and be asked to provide a statement? Or would you have questions asked based upon a document that was never even provided to the police? The conduct of politicians from all parties in this matter has been reprehensible, taking naive people for a ride.

2. How an enquiry would clear his name? That's not the way it works. Even if the woman was still alive, and he was tried and found not guilty, his name would not be cleared;

3. Where did you dredge up the balance of probability burden of proof from? Why not just toss a coin, best out of 3 wins?

4. Who is the claimant that you mention? The one that did not provide a statement to police, then told the police that she did not want to pursue the matter?

[stui magpie]

The woman advised Police that she didn't want to proceed.

[watt price tully]

Of course though it won't be the end of it because for the most part it has never been about the alleged victim, it has been about scoring political points.

I think you’ll find her friends think differently and they have been very strong here.

Fortunately or unfortunately as the 4 corners programme attests Porter has some related form

At the same time the timing has been impeccable:

1. Scotty from Marketing saying before he becomes pm that we need to believe victims of abuse
2. Women pollies in the liberal party identifying a culture of abuse and bullying
3. Two women staffers identifying their maltreatment in the Liberal Party
4. The Four Corners Programme in November 2020 researching 3. above and interviewing the women and also identifying Porter as an alleged creep
5. The Australian of the Year being a young woman who was raped and silenced by antiqued laws

Apart from that you could say it was politically opportunistic.

As my old man used to say: “you’ve made your bed now you gotta lie in it”

(I only saw bits of Porter on TV because of work but no matter how you swing it was painful for him)

An enquiry will give him the benefit of clearing his name. A person died and she claimed he raped her. He should be given the chance to clear his name as the burden lies with the claimants (as it were) on the balance of probabilities.

What her friends want or don't want is irrelevant to what is occurring in the media.

I think that you have missed the point of what I am saying, or you are guided by your dogma and not by logic. Either way, your entire last paragraph makes no sense.

You are also conflating a lot of irrelevant ideas into the discrete issue of whether a woman was raped or not.

Can you tell me:

1. How an enquiry would work? Because, no one anywhere has said that, including the politicians with grudges or other motives that are pushing for a judicial or parliamentary enquiry. Some suggest a parliamentary enquiry. Wouldn't that be fun - we could have our own version of Trump's impeachment saga. What do you propose, the woman's body be exhumed and be asked to provide a statement? Or would you have questions asked based upon a document that was never even provided to the police? The conduct of politicians from all parties in this matter has been reprehensible, taking naive people for a ride.

2. How an enquiry would clear his name? That's not the way it works. Even if the woman was still alive, and he was tried and found not guilty, his name would not be cleared;

3. Where did you dredge up the balance of probability burden of proof from? Why not just toss a coin, best out of 3 wins?

4. Who is the claimant that you mention? The one that did not provide a statement to police, then told the police that she did not want to pursue the matter?

No dogma here. An enquiry needs to be independent of parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... lid-course

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-his-name

Porter has been caught out on two occasions:

1. Telling everybody that no journalist ever asked him specific questions which is demonstrably untrue.
2. That he only met / saw the dead woman when he was part of the debating team; turns out he had dinner with her some years later.

Porter should subject himself to a lie detector.

[stui magpie]

You say No Dogma, then you quote the Guardian.

Couldn't find a suitable Beetoota Advocate headline?

If you're happy for Shorten to be subjected to the same form of Inquiry for his alleged rape case that was closed by the Police, then I'm happy.

So then every time an allegation is made against a sitting politician that they did something bad decades ago and the Police say there's insufficient evidence to make a case, we'll hold an inquiry.

[watt price tully]

You say No Dogma, then you quote the Guardian.

Couldn't find a suitable Beetoota Advocate headline?

If you're happy for Shorten to be subjected to the same form of Inquiry for his alleged rape case that was closed by the Police, then I'm happy.

So then every time an allegation is made against a sitting politician that they did something bad decades ago and the Police say there's insufficient evidence to make a case, we'll hold an inquiry.

I don’t have a problem with a form of enquiry for Shorten. However, their are key differences:

1. The culture of women being treated poorly is rife in the Liberal party
2. Porter has form for his behaviour towards women ( see 4 corners)
3. Shorten does not have form
4. The girls family and friends are especially concerned about having an investigation
5. 4 above as far as we know has never been the case for Shorten.
6. He has been caught out lying now in two instances: that he was never asked about the allegations previously when journalists including Neil Mitchell said they had and he only met the dead woman when they were debating: it’s just come to light that he met her and another woman a few years later for dinner (not sure what he had for dessert)
7. Shorten has not made anything similar with respect to 6 above (nuffink)
8. The only one’s bringing Shorten into it in the main are rabid right wingers
9. With respect to ur last paragraph: have you been sleeping ? Have a few locals in Toke been shooting the carrier pigeon that would make you miss well the PM‘’s comment about believing victims, the Australian of the year, Liberal women politicians complaining about the bullying and harassment in the Liberal Party, the multiple women staffers who have been abused, mistreated and raped in the Liberal Party? I’m sure it happens everywhere but guess what? The Libs seemed to have made it an art form.

The overall cure is quotas: 50% women in all parties in Parliament (or thereabouts)

[stui magpie]

^

Bullshit of the highest order

[David]

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

^ Only if they're going to hold an inquiry - otherwise, he is just always going to look guilty.

[David]

Some important clarifications to the article posted above:

https://www.news.com.au/national/politi ... f25781e48b

Friends of the woman have disputed the claims, insisting that she disclosed the alleged incident to friends before September 2019, the date when she says a counsellor pointed her towards a book that champions controversial theories.

In her statement, the woman does not state that she had recently remembered the incident and includes diary entries which she claims referred to the incident in 1991, three years after she attended the debating tournament.

She discussed telling an old boyfriend, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp director James Hooke.

However, there is no way of confirming at this stage when those diary entries were made.

“I have always remembered these things,” she wrote.

This is all reminding me a lot of the Tara Reade case: numerous ambiguities over who was told what when. Friends are claiming she told friends about this years ago, but those other friends aren’t, to my knowledge, coming forward to say when that happened. If Hooke, for instance, can confirm that she told him about this in the years after, that would cast doubt on the implications of the Crikey piece (and suggest that an assault did happen that night, even if the pseudotherapy she apparently underwent did lead her to "remember" false aspects of the story). But at the moment information seems very fragmented and based on a lot of hearsay.

Does anyone understand exactly why the woman’s identity is being suppressed, or why her statement (which journalists are quoting liberally from) hasn’t been released publicly (with identifying elements redacted, if need be)? I understand that there may be privacy issues at play, but I think pretty much everyone agrees that the question of whether or not the attorney-general committed a serious crime is in the public interest. And it’s frustrating that we’re getting such vague and piecemeal reports.

(Also, you should see the Twitter response to this Crikey article; to describe it as a cauldron of fury would be putting it lightly.)

[stui magpie]

That Crikey article certainly does throw a cat amongst the pigeons.

What kind of woman makes false accusations of Rape? One who genuinely believes it happened.

There's enough ambiguity in this case for everyone to feel their opinions are validated, unfortunately

[Tannin]

There's enough ambiguity in this case for everyone to feel their opinions are validated

Yes. Especially my opinion, which has been amply validated.

(Oh, and what is this opinion of mine, which I have not changed in the slightest? That I have absolutely NFI what happened. Surer of that than ever.)

The only thing I can be sure of is that Porter will be Mr Guilty for the rest of his life unless there is an honest enquiry. Without that chance to clear his name, his political career is over.

[David]

Good discussion about the Porter case on Insiders this morning:

https://www.abc.net.au/insiders/sunday- ... m/13224804

[watt price tully]

There’s a Four Corners Programme on tonight which is specifically about the less than Christian Porter.

As was said this morning by Louise Milligan:

Porter has the presumption of innocence

However it has now come to light that the dead raped woman who alleges the perpetrator was Christian Porter went to a therapist in 2013 (well before the allegations of repressed memories). That therapist deals with victims of rape and it is noted that it pertains to Christian Porter being the alleged perpetrator.

As more information comes to light it seems to be incriminating Porter even more.