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.
It seems that Morrison has already changed his story about his knowledge of the alleged rape a couple of times already.First he said his office knew of it back in April 2019,now he claims that they didn’t know of it until this month.And the text messages mentioned in this article suggest that his office did know of the incident shortly after it occurred.
Of course people here will say move along,nothing to see here,as they always do.But I think most Australians would like to know if their Prime Minister is lying about his knowledge of a rape that occurred in one of his minister’s office.It goes to his credibility and his honesty,I’m sure most Australians would like to know if they can believe anything he says.
"Knowledge of a rape that occurred".
Was Morrison hiding in the cupboard watching?
Go on, share with us the knowledge that you have that we don't and which hasn't been reported. Has the alleged un-named perpetrator signed a written confession ?
If you don't have that, doesn't it go towards your credibility and honesty?
It seems that Morrison has already changed his story about his knowledge of the alleged rape a couple of times already.First he said his office knew of it back in April 2019,now he claims that they didn’t know of it until this month.And the text messages mentioned in this article suggest that his office did know of the incident shortly after it occurred.
Of course people here will say move along,nothing to see here,as they always do.But I think most Australians would like to know if their Prime Minister is lying about his knowledge of a rape that occurred in one of his minister’s office.It goes to his credibility and his honesty,I’m sure most Australians would like to know if they can believe anything he says.
"Knowledge of a rape that occurred".
Was Morrison hiding in the cupboard watching?
Go on, share with us the knowledge that you have that we don't and which hasn't been reported. Has the alleged un-named perpetrator signed a written confession ?
If you don't have that, doesn't it go towards your credibility and honesty?
I’m only repeating what was written in that article,so don’t shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the message.If you’re uncomfortable with what was written there,then that’s your problem not mine.Knowledge of the alleged rape means that someone told you about it,not that you were actually there witnessing it.What a silly point you’re trying to make.
Last edited by doriswilgus on Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stui magpie wrote:^
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on her motivations.
Having just resigned, her behaviour will endear her only to a minority of employers. It may be that she is just pissed off at how the believes/perceives she's been treated and her motivation is as simple as retribution and cause maximum damage but I always assume in cases like this that there is a financial motivation until proven otherwise.
Some people actually think she did the Project interview for nothing...
5 from the wing on debut wrote:The story is paywalled. I don't read that paper, but I very much doubt that it would have said that a rape occurred. More likely that is your opinion.
The story said alleged rape.I should have said alleged rape instead of rape.That was the only mistake I made.
5 from the wing on debut wrote:The story is paywalled. I don't read that paper, but I very much doubt that it would have said that a rape occurred. More likely that is your opinion.
The story said alleged rape.I should have said alleged rape instead of rape.That was the only mistake I made.
Your mistake was probably caused by the politician in parliament a couple of days ago, seeking to make a name for herself as well as political mileage, and using parliamentary privilege, to say that rape occurred.
If you repeat an opinion or a lie often enough some people are duped into treating it as fact.
stui magpie wrote:^
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on her motivations.
Having just resigned, her behaviour will endear her only to a minority of employers. It may be that she is just pissed off at how the believes/perceives she's been treated and her motivation is as simple as retribution and cause maximum damage but I always assume in cases like this that there is a financial motivation until proven otherwise.
Some people actually think she did the Project interview for nothing...
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If not, I'd be very careful in making such assertions, because implying that she's only talking publicly about being raped because she's getting paid for it is an extraordinary (and quite possibly defamatory) accusation otherwise.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
The media pay for everything so it would be extraordinary if she wasn’t.
Some people take that as condoning what happened which is miles from the truth, but what motivates someone to go on the Project to do an interview instead of going to the police? The police interview would be going after the person actually responsible whilst the media route is going after the entire government for what she perceived happened in the aftermath which to me is 2 very different issues obviously connected
She actually went to News Limited first where their journo broke the story, then I don't know whether she approached The Project or they approached her. Generally when these pseudo current affairs programs go seeking an interview, they have their cheque book with them.
Regardless, getting paid for the story would hardly be motivation for going public in the first place, it would just be icing
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
5 from the wing on debut wrote:The story is paywalled. I don't read that paper, but I very much doubt that it would have said that a rape occurred. More likely that is your opinion.
The story said alleged rape.I should have said alleged rape instead of rape.That was the only mistake I made.
Your mistake was probably caused by the politician in parliament a couple of days ago, seeking to make a name for herself as well as political mileage, and using parliamentary privilege, to say that rape occurred.
If you repeat an opinion or a lie often enough some people are duped into treating it as fact.
It was just an oversight on my part.Sometimes I said alleged rape and sometimes I said rape by not really checking what I wrote.It has nothing to do with whatever someone said in the parliament.
I'd suggest that would depend on the grounds of the appeal. In the case of a full retrial then yes, if it's on specific points then I'd think only those are considered
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
