Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

What a good question by Georgie Dent. In other words, is there anyone in the gov't who has an ounce of integrity?

Tick to the outgoing Speaker on that matter.

.
PoHJLEV.jpg
 
Christopher Buttersnip said:
What a good question by Georgie Dent. In other words, is there anyone in the gov't who has an ounce of integrity?

Tick to the outgoing Speaker on that matter.

.
PoHJLEV.jpg
Click to expand...

And this is why Tony Smith leaves Parliament as one of the most highly regarded bipartisan politicians - but never a serious consideration for Cabinet, much less the leadership. Like it or not, it seems only ambitious assholes make it to the very top.
 
Forward Press said:
And this is why Tony Smith leaves Parliament as one of the most highly regarded bipartisan politicians - but never a serious consideration for Cabinet, much less the leadership. Like it or not, it seems only ambitious assholes make it to the very top.
Click to expand...
Shush! You'll upset Number37.:)

Albo's speech farewelling him said it all. Although saying Bishop was "divisive" was a huge understatement. A political cheat would have been more to the point.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'm not a CP fan or an LNP voter.

The CP issue is a disgrace.

Here is why.

Majority of silent Australians value due process. CP has been accused of a historical alleged crime. The only defence available to someone under these circumstances is cross examination of an accuser and/or witnesses.

Indeed, it is a declared human right that everyone is entitled to a fair trial when criminally charged, and a fair, impartial process when people are called to tribunials or enquiries that may not be criminal.

Cross examination is an integral part of a fair process.

Many court rulings, in the criminal context, and in other jurisdictions, such as employment tribunials, etc, reinforce this point and emphasise how crucial it is.

CP is unable to have his accuser cross examined due to her tragic death.

As such, there is no inquiry or trial, or anything else, that could possibly reach any threshold that any reputable ruling body could find acceptable in terms of due and fair processes.

If people are unable to accept that, then perhaps they might be better suited to living in some countries where these protections and rights are thrown to the wayside.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
I'm not a CP fan or an LNP voter.

The CP issue is a disgrace.

Here is why.

Majority of silent Australians value due process. CP has been accused of a historical alleged crime. The only defence available to someone under these circumstances is cross examination of an accuser and/or witnesses.

Indeed, it is a declared human right that everyone is entitled to a fair trial when criminally charged, and a fair, impartial process when people are called to tribunials or enquiries that may not be criminal.

Cross examination is an integral part of a fair process.

Many court rulings, in the criminal context, and in other jurisdictions, such as employment tribunials, etc, reinforce this point and emphasise how crucial it is.

CP is unable to have his accuser cross examined due to her tragic death.

As such, there is no inquiry or trial, or anything else, that could possibly reach any threshold that any reputable ruling body could find acceptable in terms of due and fair processes.

If people are unable to accept that, then perhaps they might be better suited to living in some countries where these protections and rights are thrown to the wayside.
Click to expand...

does this mean noone should be able to be charged with murder, as the accused is dead?

or crimes against people with mental disabilities who cannot testify in court?
 
Ned_Flanders said:
does this mean noone should be able to be charged with murder, as the accused is dead?

or crimes against people with mental disabilities who cannot testify in court?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Many expert witnesses, such as forensic scientists, can be called for the prosecution. These witnesses can therefore be cross examined.

Children and people with other disabilities can give evidence in a closed court, or their evidence can be pre-recorded. Cross examination can be limited in these circumstances, however, it should not be denied.

In a historical case against CP, being unable to cross examine his accuser, via legal representation, renders him at considerable and unacceptable disadvantage.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
Not at all. Many expert witnesses, such as forensic scientists, can be called for the prosecution. These witnesses can therefore be cross examined.

Children and people with other disabilities can give evidence in a closed court, or their evidence can be pre-recorded. Cross examination can be limited in these circumstances, however, it should not be denied.

In a historical case against CP, being unable to cross examine his accuser, via legal representation, renders him at considerable and unacceptable disadvantage.
Click to expand...

How can a person with a severe mental disability give testimony if they cannot communicate?

Views like yours are why aged care and disability accom have been historically targeted by sexual predators.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
I'm not a CP fan or an LNP voter.

The CP issue is a disgrace.

Here is why.

Majority of silent Australians value due process. CP has been accused of a historical alleged crime. The only defence available to someone under these circumstances is cross examination of an accuser and/or witnesses.

Indeed, it is a declared human right that everyone is entitled to a fair trial when criminally charged, and a fair, impartial process when people are called to tribunials or enquiries that may not be criminal.

Cross examination is an integral part of a fair process.

Many court rulings, in the criminal context, and in other jurisdictions, such as employment tribunials, etc, reinforce this point and emphasise how crucial it is.

CP is unable to have his accuser cross examined due to her tragic death.

As such, there is no inquiry or trial, or anything else, that could possibly reach any threshold that any reputable ruling body could find acceptable in terms of due and fair processes.

If people are unable to accept that, then perhaps they might be better suited to living in some countries where these protections and rights are thrown to the wayside.
Click to expand...

What a load of unmitigated garbage.
 
Ned_Flanders said:
How can a person with a severe mental disability give testimony if they cannot communicate?

Views like yours are why aged care and disability accom have been historically targeted by sexual predators.
Click to expand...

What a disgusting post. Sailing mighty close to the line there skip....let me make that clear right off the bat.

People like you have no idea what you are talking about. You let your biases and prejudices cloud your judgement.

You have no idea about the legal system. The origins of the assumption of innocence in English law and the reasons behind it.

Things like "due process" and a "fair hearing" are just obstacles to be tossed to the wayside in your eyes, or more specifically, tossed to the wayside when the person accused is someone you don't like.

That is a disgusting and rephrensible post you have made. Basically insinuating that because I advocate for a fair process, that I somehow am some type of apologist for people accused of sexual crimes. Hang your head in shame.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
The origins of the assumption of innocence in English law and the reasons behind it.
Click to expand...

Is the 'assumption of innocence' in addition to the presumption of innocence?

I'd like to know the origins of the 'assumption of innocence'. I think its origins is your arse.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Austoraisetheurn said:
Semantics. Soft lad.
Click to expand...

Soft lad, like this?

I never heard anything about a rape before last week, I am such a victim, look at my tears, woe is me. My mate van Onselen will set the record right before he deletes all his tweets.


1638105669768.png
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
Not at all. Many expert witnesses, such as forensic scientists, can be called for the prosecution. These witnesses can therefore be cross examined.

Children and people with other disabilities can give evidence in a closed court, or their evidence can be pre-recorded. Cross examination can be limited in these circumstances, however, it should not be denied.

In a historical case against CP, being unable to cross examine his accuser, via legal representation, renders him at considerable and unacceptable disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Please. Even if everything you say is true it does nothing to mitigate how badly CP & the Gov handled it. He could have made a dignified denial & Stepped down from his role voluntarily while an enquiry was held by a 3rd party at arms length. If it was found there was nothing in it he could have resumed his role.

Instead he refused to step down, went on the attack, the Gov shut down any attempt to get to the bottom of it.

He squibbed the lawsuit at the first hurdle & ran away claiming victory while the gov allowed against all precedent & ethics, an unknown entity to pay his legal fees.

Remember this was started by a woman, now dead who claimed he r*ped her. It wasn’t a political smear campaign, it was always going to come out in the media.

Once it did he has only himself to blame for the complete shitstorm that resulted from his Ill judged actions & once again the Morrison gov proved that it’s solution to everything is denial & sweeping under the rug. Just as they’re doing with Higgins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
E Shed said:
Please. Even if everything you say is true it does nothing to mitigate how badly CP & the Gov handled it. He could have made a dignified denial & Stepped down from his role voluntarily while an enquiry was held by a 3rd party at arms length. If it was found there was nothing in it he could have resumed his role.

Instead he refused to step down, went on the attack, the Gov shut down any attempt to get to the bottom of it.

He squibbed the lawsuit at the first hurdle & ran away claiming victory while the gov allowed against all precedent & ethics, an unknown entity to pay his legal fees.

Remember this was started by a woman, now dead who claimed he r*ped her. It wasn’t a political smear campaign, it was always going to come out in the media.

Once it did he has only himself to blame for the complete shitstorm that resulted from his Ill judged actions & once again the Morrison gov proved that it’s solution to everything is denial & sweeping under the rug. Just as they’re doing with Higgins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How the government handled it, or the political side of things is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

Who was paying his lawyers? Irrelevant once again to the principle that is at play here.

I'm not a LNP voter. I'm sick and tired of seeing fair process and due process trampled on by people who believe their point of view is so right and just, that it warrants due process to be thrown by the wayside.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
What a disgusting post. Sailing mighty close to the line there skip....let me make that clear right off the bat.

People like you have no idea what you are talking about. You let your biases and prejudices cloud your judgement.

You have no idea about the legal system. The origins of the assumption of innocence in English law and the reasons behind it.

Things like "due process" and a "fair hearing" are just obstacles to be tossed to the wayside in your eyes, or more specifically, tossed to the wayside when the person accused is someone you don't like.

That is a disgusting and rephrensible post you have made. Basically insinuating that because I advocate for a fair process, that I somehow am some type of apologist for people accused of sexual crimes. Hang your head in shame.
Click to expand...
no, all he said was that persons in aged care and the disabled have a higher incidence of being victims in sexual crimes due to inability to raise alarm/ testify etc.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
How the government handled it, or the political side of things is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

Who was paying his lawyers? Irrelevant once again to the principle that is at play here.

I'm not a LNP voter. I'm sick and tired of seeing fair process and due process trampled on by people who believe their point of view is so right and just, that it warrants due process to be thrown by the wayside.
Click to expand...
So what should have happened when the story became public? What due process should have occurred?
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
What a disgusting post. Sailing mighty close to the line there skip....let me make that clear right off the bat.

People like you have no idea what you are talking about. You let your biases and prejudices cloud your judgement.

You have no idea about the legal system. The origins of the assumption of innocence in English law and the reasons behind it.

Things like "due process" and a "fair hearing" are just obstacles to be tossed to the wayside in your eyes, or more specifically, tossed to the wayside when the person accused is someone you don't like.

That is a disgusting and rephrensible post you have made. Basically insinuating that because I advocate for a fair process, that I somehow am some type of apologist for people accused of sexual crimes. Hang your head in shame.
Click to expand...
Bit hard for there to be due process when the NSW cops dont take her statement as they should have done.......................
 
SBD Gonzalez said:
In a case were the alleged offender has used every piece of legal trickery he can lay his hands on to avoid due process, I would say the complaints about due process not being followed are a tad misdirected.
Click to expand...

Fact remains, the original allegation against Porter was made knowing full well that it would destroy his career. It was made knowing that it was impossible for the allegation to ever be proven on the basis on probabilities.

It was made knowing full well that their was no avenue that Porter could take to defend himself.

I'm still flabbergasted there are people who find this acceptable.
 
CakeEater said:
Bit hard for there to be due process when the NSW cops dont take her statement as they should have done.......................
Click to expand...

Once again, irrelevant.

The main point is that CP is unable to cross examine his accuser. As such, there is no enquiry that would fulfull any threshold of fairness that western democracy would find acceptable.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
Fact remains, the original allegation against Porter was made knowing full well that it would destroy his career. It was made knowing that it was impossible for the allegation to ever be proven on the basis on probabilities.

It was made knowing full well that their was no avenue that Porter could take to defend himself.

I'm still flabbergasted there are people who find this acceptable.
Click to expand...
I have a question.

As you point out, our legal system is designed to assume innocence on the part of the accused for very good reason. However it also means that, as a consequence for holding guilt to such a high standard of evidence, there are those who are guilty who will escape consequence for their actions.

So, my question is this: if the person/persons have evidence that is enough to satisfy them that Porter committed this act, even though they know it is not enough to satisfy a courtroom, what are their responsibilities to society (1) and the victim (2)?

On the first basis it is in our collective best interest to ensure that our Attorney General is completely above reproach, and having them be in the situation where they can be blackmailed is not an acceptable circumstance. He was the highest legal officer in the country. There is no question of whether this case was made on a partisan basis. This is not a cheap politically motivated attack on him. While insufficient to demonstrate his guilt in a legal context, he could not remain in office as AT without full exoneration, and as you point out that is not possible.

On the second, if someone is subjected to what is alleged here, that person should be entitled to having their story told. Do you not agree?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top