Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

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...

Which due or fair process has been trampled on?
Did he get questioned? Nope
Charged? Nope
Has any part of the criminal justice system interacted with him in any way in relation to the allegation? Nope.

Instead he sued the ABC for defamation then when shit got real he dogged it and ran away.
Why didn't he take the opportunity to debunk the ABC's truth defence in court?
Why did he dog it?
 
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...
Oh, give me a break. Porter has been dodgy AF from the word go. I won't go into the legal intricacies but plenty of people who know a lot more about the law than me suggested many steps Porter could have taken to clear his name, but he chose to BS his way through it from the word go.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are correct - but he was NEVER going to be charged - the question remains is he a fit and proper person to be AG? You probably have a similar view of George Pell - I can guarantee you he is no good and guilty of offending against children - you reap what you sow
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Number37 said:
Which due or fair process has been trampled on?
Did he get questioned? Nope
Charged? Nope
Has any part of the criminal justice system interacted with him in any way in relation to the allegation? Nope.

Instead he sued the ABC for defamation then when sh*t got real he dogged it and ran away.
Why didn't he take the opportunity to debunk the ABC's truth defence in court?
Why did he dog it?
Click to expand...

Most defamation trials never get to court for various reasons, one being that the court expects mediation to take place before time and resources are wasted. The decision not to pursue the ABC further should not be read into.
 
western royboy said:
You are correct - but he was NEVER going to be charged - the question remains is he a fit and proper person to be AG? You probably have a similar view of George Pell - I can guarantee you he is no good and guilty of offending against children - you reap what you sow
Click to expand...

Being charged is irrelevant.

Even in non criminal settings, such as employment tribuinals, cross examination is viewed by Western courts as an integral process to ensure a fair hearing. Under some circumstances, cross examination can be limited, but never denied. Cross examination is not simply the domain of criminal trials.

I've been a witness in small claims court and I was cross examined. Without cross examination, my statement would have very little weight put to it by the judge overhearing the dispute.

George Pell is irrelevant to this point.

I'm uneasy with a person, in any job, being unable to continue based on an allegation that has been denied, and that hasn't been tested by cross examination.

I don't think it is unreasonable position to take.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
Most defamation trials never get to court for various reasons, one being that the court expects mediation to take place before time and resources are wasted. The decision not to pursue the ABC further should not be read into.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be 'read into", he dogged it.

Which due process did he miss out on?
Which fair process did he miss out on?
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
Being charged is irrelevant.

Even in non criminal settings, such as employment tribuinals, cross examination is viewed by Western courts as an integral process to ensure a fair hearing. Under some circumstances, cross examination can be limited, but never denied. Cross examination is not simply the domain of criminal trials.

I've been a witness in small claims court and I was cross examined. Without cross examination, my statement would have very little weight put to it by the judge overhearing the dispute.

George Pell is irrelevant to this point.

I'm uneasy with a person, in any job, being unable to continue based on an allegation that has been denied, and that hasn't been tested by cross examination.

I don't think it is unreasonable position to take.
Click to expand...
George Pell is totally relevant - fine being uneasy - I’ve been the victim in criminal and civil proceedings involving csa - with respect your experience has no comparion
 
Number37 said:
It doesn't need to be 'read into", he dogged it.

Which due process did he miss out on?
Which fair process did he miss out on?
Click to expand...
Come-on 37, thankfully, we operate under the rule of law; everyone is entitled to equality before the law regardless whether governed or governors. You appear to be suggesting that a procedure fairly availed to others shouldn’t be availed to a minister, and or if it is that an adverse inference may be drawn.That’s not what Australia is about.
 
Austoraisetheurn said:
Being charged is irrelevant.

Even in non criminal settings, such as employment tribuinals, cross examination is viewed by Western courts as an integral process to ensure a fair hearing. Under some circumstances, cross examination can be limited, but never denied. Cross examination is not simply the domain of criminal trials.

I've been a witness in small claims court and I was cross examined. Without cross examination, my statement would have very little weight put to it by the judge overhearing the dispute.

George Pell is irrelevant to this point.

I'm uneasy with a person, in any job, being unable to continue based on an allegation that has been denied, and that hasn't been tested by cross examination.

I don't think it is unreasonable position to take.
Click to expand...


What about accused suspects, denied bail...should they be set free because the allegations against them haven't been tested by cross examination?
What about terrorists under prevention orders?
What about bikies who consort with 2 or more friends?
What about Witness K?
 
Opine said:
Come-on 37, thankfully, we operate under the rule of law; everyone is entitled to equality before the law regardless whether governed or governors. You appear to be suggesting that a procedure fairly availed to others shouldn’t be availed to a minister, and or if it is that an adverse inference may be drawn.That’s not what Australia is about.
Click to expand...

Which procedure are you talking about? He wasn't denied anything.
 
Opine said:
But you’ve adopted an adverse inference because of it.
Click to expand...

Oh I see.
You want to stop people from having a bad opinion about someone because of an allegation.
Do you also think that magically after an allegation is tested people who formed a bad opinion will change their mind?
It is not the job of the courts to sway public opinion. A court's job is to apply the law to the facts. That's it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37 said:
Oh I see.
You want to stop people from having a bad opinion about someone because of an allegation.
Do you also think that magically after an allegation is tested people who formed a bad opinion will change their mind?
It is not the job of the courts to sway public opinion. A court's job is to apply the law to the facts. That's it.
Click to expand...
It’s the job of the courts to make determinations of fact. Some how this concept of social justice seems to have erroneously done away with proper justice. Opinion is one thing, but you haven’t framed or qualified your conclusion as opinion; you’ve straight out made a judgement. That’s just socially dangerous.
 
Opine said:
It’s the job of the courts to make determinations of fact. Some how this concept of social justice seems to have erroneously done away with proper justice. Opinion is one thing, but you haven’t framed or qualified your conclusion as opinion; you’ve straight out made a judgement. That’s just socially dangerous.
Click to expand...

Socially dangerous...hmmm that's a new one.
 
Opine said:
But you’ve adopted an adverse inference because of it.
Click to expand...

And rightly so;

1/ Porter sued the ABC
2/ Porter reviewed the ABC’s defence.
3/ Porter withdrew his case as a result of seeing the defence.
4/ Porter instigated legal proceedings to ensure no one can see the ABC’s defence.

Exactly what are we to infer from this?
 
QuietB said:
And rightly so;

1/ Porter sued the ABC
2/ Porter reviewed the ABC’s defence.
3/ Porter withdrew his case as a result of seeing the defence.
4/ Porter instigated legal proceedings to ensure no one can see the ABC’s defence.

Exactly what are we to infer from this?
Click to expand...
Porter is an absolute legal dimwit
 
western royboy said:
Porter is an absolute legal dimwit
Click to expand...
Xsef98c.jpg
;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top