Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

[Saint]

I hope after this trial, no matter the outcome, that the media absolutely launches at Reynolds and gives her what she deserves. Which is a lot worse than a couple of tweets barely anybody saw or cared about.

 

[Cap]

I hope after this trial, no matter the outcome, that the media absolutely launches at Reynolds and gives her what she deserves. Which is a lot worse than a couple of tweets barely anybody saw or cared about.

The problem is, the people that defender her behaviour won't care anyway.

 

[Saint]

The problem is, the people that defender her behaviour won't care anyway.

It'll be a lesson that if somebody gets r*ped in an office, doesn't matter if you're an Australian Senator, if you go after the victim, you'll be mocked and derided.

 

[Cap]

It'll be a lesson that if somebody gets r*ped in an office, doesn't matter if you're an Australian Senator, if you go after the victim, you'll be mocked and derided.

Knowing some dyed in the wool LNP voters, they won't.

They still consider this a witch hunt and Higgins is as dodgy as Lehrmann.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Knowing some dyed in the wool LNP voters, they won't.

They still consider this a witch hunt and Higgins is as dodgy as Lehrmann.

Many still think Lehrmann is an innocent victim of a false allegation... let alone poor Linda just trying to do her job and getting put through all this stress and denigration.

 

[Harro59]

This is all very strange, Morrison comes on almost as a character witness when he left little bit of an issue behind his multi universe of ministries.

The cross examination is then a minefield.

I mean damn nobody saw that coming.

Absolutely bizzare at the moment.

 

[peetoo]

Wondering which bible lymo took the oath on

 

[campbell]

Wondering which bible lymo took the oath on

The Trump bible, of course.

 

[Not Important]

 

[Not Important]

frankly, i chuckled when reynolds called scummo as a character witness.

 

[peetoo]

These clowns ran our defence portfolio

 

[QuietB]

These clowns ran our defence portfolio

And the USA would tell you they ran it very very well - spending like drunken sailors all in the USA’s direction

 

[Festerz]

At least Senator Reynolds has the backing of the bots.

 

[QuietB]

Good article in the Saturday Paper - this part is actually pretty funny - who doesn't love a bit of hyperbole;

A cardiologist, who has not given evidence, met with Reid and Reynolds there.

He said, ‘We might lose her,’ ” Reid (Reynold's husband) said through tears. “He said, ‘This is very serious.’ ”

Despite this, Reynolds was not admitted to hospital. The cardiologist sent her home.
.....
Scott Morrison was of a similar mind to the cardiologist, at least.

“I remember for a period there we were very fearful that Senator Reynolds… that this could be a fatal outcome for her,” he said.
FFS

‘Some kind of monster’: Inside the Reynolds defamation trial

Giving evidence in Linda Reynolds’ defamation trial, Scott Morrison says he doesn’t remember the details of the review he commissioned into Brittany Higgins’s rape but says Reynolds suffered as a result of prolonged ‘attacks’.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

 

[Rob R]

And the USA would tell you they ran it very very well - spending like drunken sailors all in the USA’s direction

Yet the biggest waste went to the French. It would be if great if the NACC would look into why their is no paperwork to explain why so many failed projects were awarded to the French by pollies over the objections of defence smes eg. Subs, MRH90, Tiger, ERP, Thales EO, DASR, MU90 etc

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[QuietB]

Higgins is not even testifying any more - what a monumental screw up this is turning out to be

Young said there were three reasons behind the decision.

“The first is the defendant is not obliged to go into oral evidence,” she said.

“The second is … we don’t think we need to call Ms Higgins to satisfy Your Honour as to being successful in these proceedings.

“The third is a matter of Ms Higgins’ medical state.”
......
Earlier in the court hearing, the WA Liberal party selection committee chair, Jeremy Buxton, gave evidence that the furore around Higgins and her boss at the time would likely have affected the senator’s re-election chances if she had not chosen to retire at the next election.

Buxton said that while Reynolds had been a well-regarded senator, she could have “been struggling … to get the third position” on the Liberal election ticket.

“It is very likely … there would be a feeling among a considerable number of delegates that [she] had mishandled the situation in her office, that she may have been unethical in her cover-up,” he said.

Brittany Higgins will no longer give evidence at Linda Reynolds’ defamation trial, lawyer tells court

Rachael Young tells court Higgins’ ‘medical state’ forms part of the reasoning behind no longer calling her to give evidence

www.theguardian.com

 

[Festerz]

Excellent article from Jo Dyer that goes straight to the hear of the evil behind Liberal Senator and former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds ongoing legal pursuit of her former staffer and rape survivor Brittany Higgins.

Dyer knows a fair bit about Liberal politicians, sexual assault allegations and defamation law, having successfully defended action brought against her by former Attorney General Christian Porter in 2020 in relation to her comments made in a Four Corners program about the alleged rape by Porter of her best friend who subsequently committed suicide.

'Throughout her time in the witness box, it became clear just how angry Reynolds had been in the period after Brittany’s story went public. She was angry with Labor Senators about the way they questioned her handling of the rape during Question Time (and was prepared to invoke the name of the now dead Kimberley Kitching in her defence despite contemporaneous documentary evidence from Kitching refuting Reynolds’ account). She was angry about the outfits Brittany wore to Lehrmann’s criminal trial. She was angry at Mark Dreyfus for excluding her from the mediation session that resulted in Brittany’s settlement. She was angry at Peter Dutton for her demotion from the Front Bench after the election. Notably – apart from her choice of attire – Brittany was directly responsible for none of these enraging incidents.

But, of course, if Brittany hadn’t been r*ped, or if she’d kept her story to herself, or if she’d accepted that one tense meeting held at the scene of the crime was sufficient support for an employer (Reynolds) to offer the victim of a workplace crime, then maybe none of the distressing events that happened thereafter would have occurred.

In a bid to prove she was sufficiently supportive of her rape survivor employee, Reynolds is suing her rape survivor employee. She was unmoved by the conciliatory statement and apology Brittany proffered at the conclusion of Lerhmann’s defamation case. She is oblivious to the fact Brittany is now pregnant with her first child. She is unconcerned by Brittany’s mental health challenges that have led to suicidal ideation and hospitalisation. She is indifferent to Brittany’s ongoing trauma resulting from the rape itself. She is suing Brittany despite all the things about which Reynolds is so enraged having happened well before the July Instagram post on which her action is based and, whilst Reynolds’ may believe that her actions as described by Brittany in her post are all completely justified, an outsider may view them as falling well within any reasonable definition of harassment, being undertaken by a thwarted politician hellbent on finding a scapegoat for her own failings, and intent on revenge.

This devastatingly ill-judged lawsuit seems further evidence of that.

The Tale of a Supportive Boss - The Shot​

There’s a certain kind of operative ensnared deep within the political depths who sees everything through a dark partisan prism.

theshot.net.au

 

[Festerz]

And in the light of the defamation action being brought by Senator Reynolds, which follows similar past actions taken by serving politicians from all sides of politicsand other defamation actions being threatened - including by Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton for being called a racist, an excellent discussion piece from Brendan Clift, lecturer in law at the University in Melbourne, on whether politicians should be allowed to sue for defamation action in Australia.

Western Australia Senator Linda Reynolds is already embroiled in a bruising defamation fight against her former staffer Brittany Higgins. Now, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is reportedly considering suing independent MP Zali Steggall after she told him to “stop being racist”.

It has become impossible to miss the fact that our political class – including some who invoke freedom of speech while disparaging others – is remarkably keen on defamation litigation in response to actual or perceived slights.

It’s rarely a good look when the powerful sue the less powerful. It is an especially bad look for a democracy when politicians, who enjoy not just power but privileged access to communication platforms, pursue legal avenues likely to bankrupt all but the best-resourced defendants.

With more lawsuits potentially looming, should politicians be allowed to sue for defamation?

As Linda Reynolds’ defamation trial against Brittany Higgins continues, Peter Dutton is apparently considering suing fellow MP Zali Steggall. Our legal system is out of step with democracy.

theconversation.com

 

[The Punter]

Everyone should have access to defamation laws.

Politicians generally should not use them.

 

[Festerz]

Everyone should have access to defamation laws.

Politicians generally should not use them.

Agreed.

The article's hypothetical conclusion makes sense from both a legal and political (democracy) perspective.

It’s reasonable that politicians should also have rights of action in defamation. But those rights must be constrained according to what is appropriate in a democratic society.

A way to better align defamation law with democratic expectations may be to return cases to the state courts and reinstate juries to a prominent role. Currently, the overwhelming majority of cases are brought in the Federal Court, where they are decided by a judge sitting alone.

If a public figure claims their reputation has been tarnished in the eyes of the community, we should test that factual claim with members of that community under the legal guidance of a judge. That might make for a welcome injection of common sense.

 

[DapperDon]

I'd actually love to see Dutton prove he isn't a racist in court.

From his cop bashing days to now leader of the opposition we'd have 6 weeks of witness testimonies going against him.

 

[QuietB]

Everyone should have access to defamation laws.

Politicians generally should not use them.

Not everyone has access to parliamentary privilege

And the defamation laws are shit.

 

[The Punter]

Not everyone has access to parliamentary privilege

And the defamation laws are shit.

Parliamentarians can't sue for anything said about them under parliamentary privilege either. And there are ways of addressing and holding parliamentarians accountable for things said under parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege exists so our laws can be debated without fear of things like defamation.

And parliamentarians got themselves elected.

We are seeing a lot of high profile cases lately, but as far as the political world is concerned, not a lot of them are succeeding. Mrs Deeming is next unfortunately.

 

[Festerz]

 

[Not Important]

Excellent article from Jo Dyer that goes straight to the hear of the evil behind Liberal Senator and former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds ongoing legal pursuit of her former staffer and rape survivor Brittany Higgins.

Dyer knows a fair bit about Liberal politicians, sexual assault allegations and defamation law, having successfully defended action brought against her by former Attorney General Christian Porter in 2020 in relation to her comments made in a Four Corners program about the alleged rape by Porter of her best friend who subsequently committed suicide.

'Throughout her time in the witness box, it became clear just how angry Reynolds had been in the period after Brittany’s story went public. She was angry with Labor Senators about the way they questioned her handling of the rape during Question Time (and was prepared to invoke the name of the now dead Kimberley Kitching in her defence despite contemporaneous documentary evidence from Kitching refuting Reynolds’ account). She was angry about the outfits Brittany wore to Lehrmann’s criminal trial. She was angry at Mark Dreyfus for excluding her from the mediation session that resulted in Brittany’s settlement. She was angry at Peter Dutton for her demotion from the Front Bench after the election. Notably – apart from her choice of attire – Brittany was directly responsible for none of these enraging incidents.

But, of course, if Brittany hadn’t been r*ped, or if she’d kept her story to herself, or if she’d accepted that one tense meeting held at the scene of the crime was sufficient support for an employer (Reynolds) to offer the victim of a workplace crime, then maybe none of the distressing events that happened thereafter would have occurred.

In a bid to prove she was sufficiently supportive of her rape survivor employee, Reynolds is suing her rape survivor employee. She was unmoved by the conciliatory statement and apology Brittany proffered at the conclusion of Lerhmann’s defamation case. She is oblivious to the fact Brittany is now pregnant with her first child. She is unconcerned by Brittany’s mental health challenges that have led to suicidal ideation and hospitalisation. She is indifferent to Brittany’s ongoing trauma resulting from the rape itself. She is suing Brittany despite all the things about which Reynolds is so enraged having happened well before the July Instagram post on which her action is based and, whilst Reynolds’ may believe that her actions as described by Brittany in her post are all completely justified, an outsider may view them as falling well within any reasonable definition of harassment, being undertaken by a thwarted politician hellbent on finding a scapegoat for her own failings, and intent on revenge.

This devastatingly ill-judged lawsuit seems further evidence of that.

The Tale of a Supportive Boss - The Shot​

There’s a certain kind of operative ensnared deep within the political depths who sees everything through a dark partisan prism.

theshot.net.au

this is brilliant. what a nasty piece of work reynold's is.