At the moment, the US is an existential war with China, and China is getting all the runs on the…
Open Thread – Mon 15 April 2024
Finally some sanity from our pollies. Senate votes 56-12 in favour of condemning ‘from the river to the sea’ following…
Just ask Bert Newton with Cassius Clay!
Courts & JusticeWA News Bradley William Derek Smith: How a note from judge Linda Petrusa prompted child sex conviction to…
Chuckle.
He’s now bringing up the Logies case, of which I don’t think he is very happy with… as I said earlier, is it possible he can declare (at a civil level) that rope occurred but Wilkinson can still be cooked?
I am completely astounded here. I honestly do not know how the judge could form that belief on what information he had. Much much smarter man then me obviously. One of out Top Men.
He’s going after Miss Smithies and Wilkinson!!!!
Silly old bugger putting dated interpretations on modern social and sexual behaviour.
I’m damn sure I don’t comprehend the games played in bars and nightclubs anymore.
Again – what forking evidence? There never was any.
Right. So Lee’s obviously seen the CCP CCTV footage from inside Reynolds’ office on the night in question.
What a circus.
Any legal cats help?
Bruce can be found “guilty” (at a civil level) but Ch10 can still lose?
Haven’t been following but its a civil case, so the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, greater than 50% true.
The judge declares Brittany was raped.
Judge gives himself a disclaimer
So Britnah, “won on a technicality”
Judge finds Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament HouseBy Michaela Whitbourn and Sarah McPheeApril 15, 2024 — 1.27pm
Bruce Lehrmann has lost his multimillion-dollar defamation suit after a judge found Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson had proven the former federal Liberal staffer raped his then-colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House.
In a historic decision on Monday, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee upheld Ten and Wilkinson’s truth defence to Lehrmann’s defamation claim over an interview with Higgins broadcast on The Project in February 2021.
Lee was satisfied that Ten and Wilkinson had proven to the civil standard – on the balance of probabilities – that Lehrmann raped Higgins in the Parliament House office of their then-boss, Liberal senator Linda Reynolds, in March 2019.
“I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Lehrmann’s state of mind was such that he was so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins’s consent and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented,” Lee said.
This is lower than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Lee’s decision does not amount to a finding of criminal guilt.
Lehrmann’s criminal trial was aborted in October 2022 due to juror misconduct and the charges were later dropped altogether owing to concerns about Higgins’ mental health.
Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence.
Lehrmann launched defamation proceedings last year against Ten and Wilkinson, a former co-host of The Project, alleging the interview with Higgins conveyed the defamatory meaning that he was guilty of raping Higgins in Parliament House.
Lee found that the broadcast identified Lehrmann even though he was not named, owing to the description given of the alleged perpetrator.
The media parties sought to rely chiefly on a defence of truth, but also on the defence of qualified privilege, which relates to publications of public interest where a media company and its journalists can show they acted reasonably.
As part of his assessment of the qualified privilege defence, Lee was required to consider the conduct of Ten and Wilkinson collectively as well as separately. He found that defence had not been established.
so Justice Lee was a “fly on the wall” but for some reason never called ..!
Learn something new everyday.
Such as Bruce and Brittany in suite alone for 40 minutes and he ejaculated.
I thought I had been following this case fairly closely but apparently not.
What was the evidence of ejaculation as never heard it mentioned before and pretty significant.
Proves now the media are the judge jury and executioners.
Lads, get it in writing.
Network Ten formally wins, costs deferred
Claire Harvey
Justice Michael Lee has formally entered a win for Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.
The barristers are shaking hands in court.
Bruce Lehrmann is standing with his lawyers as observers file out of court.
J. Lee appears to be heavily influenced by recent theories on a woman’s behaviour during/folllowing rape. Namely, that the emotional and psychological results may affect a woman’s subsequent decisions. He referred a couple of times to the state of mind it causes.
Also noted his pause when he referred to Higgins’ decision eventually to inform her father about the matter.
Mmmm.
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line”
Must admit that I’ve lost interest in this tabloid taboo trilogy.
I think the events of the last few days should put this Canberra Mazurka into context.
FFS, they did nothing of the sort.
If I was Bruce I would walk out and ask that the criminal case be reopened.
I would declare I don’t give 2 farks about Brittney’s mental health. I want to tried again in front of 12 jurors.
Well, that didn’t go the way I thought it would.
I always assumed the couple went back to the shop to play hide the sausage but she then passed out after the sausage hiding because Adrian.
Justice Lee found that because she was Adrian she could not give consent therefore rape.
CH10 and the pirates missus off the hook, submissions on costs to be looked at.
Bruce is fkuced.
Brittanaahh still gets away with $2.445M stolen from the public purse – ie taxpayers.
Justice Lee: ” Lehmann went ahead willy nilly.”
Basically, our “justice” system has done to Lerhmann what they did to Ben Roberts-Smith.
The old judge made telling quip at the end:
Words to the effect that if you escape the lion’s den, you shouldn’t go back to get your hat!
Lehrmann made mistake in seeking compensation in respect to the public opinion of Ch10 that had not been ratified by a criminal trial.
What was the evidence of ejaculation as never heard it mentioned before and pretty significant.
Yep, strange that one. Britaaannah washed the frock and in following weeks wore it in Perth sitting next to Linda Reynolds.
No squirt evidence as there was with Monica’s frock after Bill unloaded.
Lee has considered all of the evidence to a much more considerable degree than any of us.
Until today I’ve been inclined to say the rape was a figment.
Now I’m more inclined to think, despite all the post event machinations it’s perfectly possible that Higgins did fall asleep but Bruce went for it anyway.
He didn’t have to launch defamation proceedings.
The Mike Pence strategy should be taught to all young men on entering the Canberra bubble.
Not worth the risk. Quite frankly, this ridiculous decision by Lee basically means that any woman can accuse a man of rape, even years or decades later and that’s it, he’s guilty. Forget about any actual forensic evidence or witness testimony – e.g. someone who witnessed the rape.
On “the balance of probabilities”, of course.
The worst part is this is not the final court matter connected to this ridiculous blobathon. Reynolds had better hope she gets a somewhat fairer hearing.
If memory serves “the ring of truth” line was also deployed by the CoA judges in the Pell abomination….
Not having followed this closely – with the exception of reading the comments of my learned feline peers – I’m hesitant to comment. What I’m intrigued about, however, is the process and pace of execution of the compensation payment.
I think the judge was saying that because she was as drunk as a skunk, there can be no consent. He does have a point as that’s how the law is made up, unfortunately. Lee went into great detail into how much she had consumed, and it wasn’t exactly Earl Grey.
I’m glad the whole saga is over tbh. But I can’t reconcile two bits of evidence Justice Lee admitted as credible:
Ms Higgins repeated that she had tried to scream but nothing came out. She recalled saying “no” and telling Mr Lehrmann to stop. Her evidence was that he did not stop or even acknowledge that she was telling him to stop (T630.1-8).
Justice Lee acknowledged this earlier and then later on said she couldn’t have given consent because she had passed out?
Am I missing something?
One wonders how Craig MacLachlan and John Jarratt have gone career-wise recently. (Not that I followed either case in detail).
Bruce Lehrmann is standing with his lawyers as observers file out of court.
The legal team is now as fcuked as Bruce as in getting paid..
Wondering whether to appeal throw good money after bad.
No. Lee’s decision is a sham.
So now Nickerless can sue ’em all for disbelieving her & mocking her .. publically ..
Go, girl go ……LOL!
What a disgraceful decision. Even if it’s reasonable for the judge to side with Britney’s credibility over Lehrmann’s based on their respective testimonies (not saying it is, but let’s say), the fact is that Channel 10 made no good faith attempt to get Lehrmann’s side of the story before they went ahead with the story.
So any “truth” was pure dumb luck on their part.
Lysander
I believe the law is just one sided by recognizing only the female can be adjudicated not to give consent by way of inebriation. A dude can be equally drunk and therefore both are at fault for finding themselves in that state.
Big mistake pursuing a defamation case in the current circumstances.
And in other news, sorry if posted, the Sydney killer was a male, gay, hooker?
I don’t think so. He was pretty thorough. Under the current law, if a sheila is drunk, consent isn’t given.
It’s very likely he did muff her in some way or another. As it stands, the law sucks. (no pun)
Remember JC.
Womynnzzzes are all strong and independent and better than men at everything but at the same time they are all hopeless victims with no agency of their own.
At one stage during the marathon judgement Lee delivered I thought his early comments about the Fiona Brown evidence would have Linda Reynolds rubbing her hands with glee.
Not so sure now.
In fact, further to this, Justice Lee rejected her evidence that she scream “no” out.
With one great big, well connected exception.
Lesson for all young dudes. DO NOT try to have sex with a sheila on the first night if she’s drunk and can be proven to be so.
Let the gloating commence!
Does the mug judge post h e re as mutley. He knows things no one else does.
Well, even with quick piss breaks, that’s about three and a half hours of my life I won’t get back.
He didn’t need to. He went with the likely and almost 100% certainty that she was as drunk as.
With one great big, well connected exception.
Who mentioned Short Willie 🙂 ?
JC – a significant proportion of what Lee appears to have said in his judgement is pure speculation.
All Hoggins had to do was front up to a cop shop or a hospital immediately after leaving PH on the Saturday morning and get a rape test done. Any of Lehrmann’s DNA on her (especially various bodily parts) and he’s gone on the “incapable of consent” principle.
But of course she didn’t and her reasons for not doing so are entirely fantastical.
I seem to recollect in some earlier proceedings about the dress that ‘Hoggins’ was wearing being taken off.
So, did the dingo do it? Take off the dress that is.
I sense something stirring in the Deep…
Quite honestly, how dumb must 2 people be to think that after a night on the piss they could go back inside PH and tear one off in a Minister’s office with no fallout?
Nothing really has changed. Brit is still a tramp using her vagina to climb the ladder and has hit pay dirt. Bruce is typical Govt sleezy staffer grub.
All this sordid squalid carry on inside our PH. Why should I be surprised.
Upthread, someone mentioned that you now require to get consent in writing. That wouldn’t help though if the sheila has been doing countless shots of hard stuff.
Unbelievable.
The state of justice in this country.
And the women complain that men won’t talk to them any more – they’d rather drink with their mates.
Socialist Justice.
So can you, legally/technically/correctly, call Bruce a ropist (given it wasn’t a criminal trial)?
When His Honour, Justice Lee discussed Lehrmann having (ahem) ejaculated in the Minister’s office (so to speak), did he call for any experts on Minister’s offices and ejaculate?
“M’lud, I call to the Bar expert witness, Mr Nathan Winn.”
Sorry, I just had to bring the gay Minister’s staffer Nathan Winn back into discussions.
The smug gloating has begun – Daily Tele……
Lisa Wilkinson has spoken out after winning the defamation case brought forward by Bruce Lehrmann – after a judge found he raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019.
Outside court, a vindicated Lisa Wilkinson said: ‘Today the federal court has found that I published a true story about a rape at a federal politician’s office in March 2019.
‘I sincerely hope the judgment gives strength to women around the country.
Rabz, all you’re doing is stating the current state of the law and how unjust it is to dudes, especially young guys, who have an uncontrollable appetite for sex.
The law is quite clear though as unjust and one sided it is. Don’t go near drunk sheilas. Avoid drunk bints like an STD.
If a dude bonks a drunk sheila, she then claims rape, and it can be proven she was totally moonshined and they had sex, then the dude fcked. That’s the current state of the law these days. Lee acted according to the law.
Britney Higgins behaved in a manner which resulted in her passed out naked and drunk on her employer’s couch in the august surrounds of Parliament House
As she well knew for this behaviour she deserved the sack
Thus she decided to not only absolve herself of all blame for irresponsible conduct but get her partner in crime to carry the can regardless of her complicity in the situation
Unfortunately young women will continue to binge drink and young men will forget what happened to Bruce Lehrmann
There a big difference.
With BRS there are multiple eye witnesses (many dragged kicking and screaming to court to give evidence).
vs
No witnesses to the alleged incident.
I’m wondering if they (the media) can call Bruce a ropist or not? Since it was a civil, not criminal trial.
At the end of the day, what’s he going to do though… sue them for defamation? Perhaps that was Lee’s cunning trick…
Toowoomba.
In brighter news:
https://www.toronto99.com/2024/04/14/reports-klaus-schwab-in-hospital-may-be-dead/
My distillation of reading the judgement
All good to have something signed but I would go further and say take lots of pictures 🙂
To be honest I didn’t follow this sordid affair closely, but I’m astonished by the verdict.
The man is ruined, MSM wins along with “believe all women”.
They’re passionately kissing in a night club. Brucey is in his 20s. Talks a drunk bint to go with him back to parl. house so he can work on the submarine submission, but there was no evidence his computer was logged on.
And jumping her was the last thing on his mind. Okay.
Lysander
April 15, 2024 2:26 pm
I’m wondering if they (the media) can call Bruce a ropist or not? Since it was a civil, not criminal trial.
Absolutely they will. BRS is declared a murderer and war criminal everyday. Australia’s nastiest, most evil man. Bruce will be referred to as a rapist to his dying day,.
Barking Toad
April 15, 2024 2:18 pm
God knows why… from the judgement
methinks Reynolds now has more ammunition for her defamation case
Having returned from my morning coffee the Brittany Blob has taken a remarkable and, from my point of view, unusual turn. Quite where it goes from here is not clear. Marty and former Senator Reynolds would appear to have their work cut out in WA. My thoughts regarding AG Dreyfus would appear mistaken. A most peculiar end to this farce. If indeed it is the end.
I don’t disagree, Lysander. But as the law stands, the male is considered the predator in cases like this. He can claim zero rights and is at fault because she’s unable to give consent.
From the Turnbull Times:
Supersized marsupials roamed the Australian continent for millennia. But until now the understanding of giant kangaroos – or Protemnodon – has been confined to isolated bones and difficult-to-distinguish species.
Scientists have now identified three new species of the extinct giant kangaroo – Protemnodon viator, Protemnodon mamkurra and Protemnodon dawsonae, which lived from 5m to 40,000 years ago.
Strange, there’s nothing in the oral tradition of the world’s first modern, civilised, democratic, moonfaring nation about this?
Bruce should have taken his money to the TAB and backed shorted priced favourites.
Lawyers hit the jackpot again.
From what I’m reading into it, Lee’s judgement is based on evidence from other people in the office who spoke to Higgins in the immediate aftermath.
Higgins herself was deemed very unreliable.
Quite frankly, this ridiculous decision by Lee basically means that any woman can accuse a man of rape, even years or decades later and that’s it, he’s guilty.
Correct, just ask DJT
From what I’m reading into it, Lee’s judgement is based on evidence from other people in the office who spoke to Higgins in the immediate aftermath.
Higgins herself was deemed very unreliable.
In which case, how would what she said to the people in the office in the immediate aftermath be worth anything?
Depends on your politics, “just ask” President Dementia and Tits Shorten.
Don’t forget that Lehrmann is currently accused by some clown in Toowomba. This is going to be devastating for his case there.
Ring, ring. Er hello, oh Mick, having a dinner party to celebrate the “correct decision “.
The law is quite clear though as unjust and one sided it is. Don’t go near drunk sheilas. Avoid drunk bints like an STD.
If a dude bonks a drunk sheila, she then claims rape, and it can be proven she was totally moonshined and they had sex, then the dude fcked. That’s the current state of the law these days. Lee acted according to the law.
Umm…yep. I think, moving forward, that parents need to tell their sons that they need to be very, very careful when engaging with young women.
Look, it was a defamation trial and you always run the risk of it coming back to bite you on the bum. There’s a long history of defamation trials blowing up in the faces of those who initiated the defamation proceedings, we have seen the recent case of BRS but you can back to Oscar Wilde for an example.
My understanding is that Lehrmann ignored advice from his solicitor.
I still don’t think Lehrmann raped Higgins but that’s my opinion. One thing I do find staggering is that Lee states with some certainty that Lehrmann and Higgins had penetrative sex that night and that Lehrmann ejaculated. How does he know Lehrmann ‘ejaculated’? He can’t possibly know. Was he a fly on the wall?
For the record, I’ve long thought Lehrmann to be a grub….but that doesn’t make him a rapist. As for Higgins, she also has zero credibility and I want to see Reynolds and Martin pursue her through the courts.
I had no idea about this caveat in civil cases. This is not justice of any sort, either there is evidence or there isn’t. The magistrate, judge or whoever simply chooses sides in a she said/he said case.
12m ago
Justice Michael Lee’s main findings in caseStaff writers
JUSTICE MICHAEL LEE’S MAIN FINDINGS
Lehrmann and Higgins had sex
‘I’m convinced … that sexual intercourse did take place, and that took place with Mr Lehrmann on top of Ms Higgins on the couch in the minister’s office’
The sex constituted rape
‘Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins. I hasten to stress this is a finding on the balance of probabilities’
The reliability of Lehrmann and Higgins
‘Despite my concerns about the truthfulness of both Mr Lehrmann and Mr Higgins, it will be simplistic to proceed on the basis that means I must reject everything they say’
Network Ten’s conduct
‘(It) was grossly improper and unjustifiable’
The defamation case
‘(It) has become a proxy for broader cultural and political conflicts’
BRUCE LEHRMANN
Lehrmann’s credibility
‘I do not think Mr Lehrmann is a compulsive liar and some of the untruths may have been due to careless and confusion. But in important respects he told deliberate lies’
‘All these falsehoods together with his Walter Mitty-like imaginings … demonstrate that Mr Lehrmann has no compunction about departing from the truth if he thought it was expedient’
Lehrmann pursuing damages after his aborted criminal trial
‘Having escaped the lion’s den Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat’
BRITTANY HIGGINS
Higgins’ credibility
‘(Ms Higgins) made some allegations that made her a heroine to one group of partisans. When examined forensically (those allegations) have undermined her general credibility to a disinterested factfinder’
Higgins’ trauma at the time the rape allegations were made
‘Given the potential effects of trauma, I do not consider (her) 2019 conduct (in the immediate aftermath of the alleged rape) … as inconsistent with a victim of sexual assault working her way through feelings of confusion’
Higgins’ trauma explaining confusion and inconsistencies in her evidence
‘I’m comfortably satisfied that a number of the credit issues … cannot be minimised in this way’
Higgins’ evidence about the bruise on her leg
‘Despite her evidence before me I consider it unlikely there would be genuine confusion in Ms Higgins’ evidence as to how she got the bruise, given the way she and Mr Sharaz deployed it in 2021 (by giving it to The Project)’
Haven’t been following but its a civil case, so the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, greater than 50% true.
Incorrect. Depending on the severity of the accusations (eg rape or murder) the “balance of probabilities” is actually much higher (more like 80:20).
Lee is full of shit saying that he is 80% sure they had non-consensual sex. Lehrmann chose to pursue a “no sex happened” defence which he would have been insane to do if sex did indeed happen (because he couldn’t have known Higgins hadn’t seen a doctor). Whatever other circumstances there were suggesting sex did take place, this fact alone renders it highly unlikely they rooted. Possible – Lehrmann might be just that stupid and/or arrogant – but extremely unlikely.
A terrible decision. But not unexpected in our misandrist courts.
I just hope that Lee and any male progeny he has are likewise accused and have their lives destroyed.
One thing I do find staggering is that Lee states with some certainty that Lehrmann and Higgins had penetrative sex that night and that Lehrmann ejaculated. How does he know Lehrmann ‘ejaculated’? He can’t possibly know. Was he a fly on the wall?
I have no idea whether defamation judgments can be appealed but that statement about Lehrman ejaculating may be the basis for such an appeal. It just seems such a long bow to draw.
From here any appeal will need to show a lack of evidence to support a finding of fact or the drawing of an impermissible inference from a finding of fact. Much like what occurred in the Pell case. Not impossible but pretty tough. Again, we’ll see. I’ve put my crystal ball away for the day.
If they don’t try to take advantage and get into the pants of a drunk woman, and stay away from the Houses of Parliament when doing so, any such accusations might have trouble sticking.
One business that will see a definite upswing in trade…the oldest.
Make that two. Cat shelters will find clearance rates skyrocketing.
Agree Cassie, where civil cases require a lower “burden of proof,” the fact that someone published something about you with enough rumours to go round should be a fair warning (whether it be 50/50 or 80/20).
Figures, I think you’ve made that point before about Bruce never knowing if Britnah went to a doctor, kept samples or had an STD check. And I think it is an eminent one.
Either way, I can’t see how Wilkinson hasn’t been damaged despite whatever spin they put on it.
Is the “going back for your hat” swipe a Toowoomba reference?
He can’t possibly know.
No he can’t. And neither, it seems, did the “perpetrator”, otherwise he would have been worried about forensic evidence.
Which was never handed in. Because reasons.
This isn’t a win for BH, it’s a win for the well-connected under whose wings she shelters.
Turns out Michael Caton’s character in The Castle, Darryl Kerrigan, was right about the Australian superior courts: “It’s the vibe. It’s Mabo”.
IMO, Judge Lee has made the Federal Court a laughing stock and a target for female gold diggers.
One business that will see a definite upswing in trade…the oldest.
Make that two. Cat shelters will find clearance rates skyrocketing.
Monogamous lifelong Male/Female marriage should also be doing much better these days. Why it isn’t is a slight mystery.
One other point I noted in Lee’s judgement was a similar line used in the trial against Pell, perhaps it is a fashionable view in legal circles:
Her inconsistencies made her more believable, due to trauma.
….adding, in no single way, shape or form do I put Bruce in the same aspiration as Pell.
It’s amusing that the real reason for all this, which is that it was cooked up two years after the fact as a tactic to smear the Liberal Party in the run up to the election, isn’t being discussed. Weird huh?
Fair dinkum Canberra is a rancid septic tank. It contaminates everything it touches. Everything and everyone involved in this case reeks.
Ten lawyer offers some advice to LehrmannBy Michaela Whitbourn and Sarah McPheeJustin Quill, one of Ten’s solicitors, spoke briefly outside the Federal Court in Sydney.
He was asked if he had any advice for Bruce Lehrmann, who has said he is studying law at university. Quill says Lehrmann should “take up another course at university”.
Reflecting the court’s findings to the civil standard, Quill said that “Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist” and that the case had been an unmitigated disaster for Lehrmann.
Makka
If they don’t try to take advantage and get into the pants of a drunk woman, and stay away from the Houses of Parliament when doing so, any such accusations might have trouble sticking.
There is zero physical evidence they had sex. How do you propose men defend themselves against false rape accusations if the women don’t even need to show that sex took place (something that is very easy for them to do)?
Is your brilliant idea that no man ever goes anywhere near a woman?
Let’s not forget that there were zero judges in this country that criticised lockdowns or forced vaccinations – never mind the Magna Carta, a dozen people in China getting the sniffles cancels out 800 years of accepted legal jurisprudence.
Brucy might yet get a one-on-one (paid) exclusive out of this?
Nein?
Can I just make a comment on the moral aspect of all this.
Females shouldn’t get so drunk they have no idea what they’re doing, and they shouldn’t they put a guy (especially a young guy) in a position where he thinks he’s going to score, and has no intention of letting him.
Guys should never take advantage of a situation where they think a drunk gal is an easy pick.
Did the judge mention ‘trauma’? Oh no. It’s the latest psychobabble fad. Google ‘trauma informed’ and you’ll see what a great load of codswallop this new fad has unleashed.
Wow, this and the BRS judgements prove, John Jarret and McLaughlin as well. Media in this country has carte blanche to smear, character assassinate and generally libel anyone with no recourse to make profits.*
Remember there’s more to come, the judge in the Reynolds case seems a lot less friendly to Reynolds than this one was. Wonder if she’s having second thoughts.
* Not excusing Brucie who seems like a typical sex pest but a lack of other complaints is odd, these guys usually have many priors before they move on to sexual assault.
Females shouldn’t get so drunk they have no idea what they’re doing, and they shouldn’t they put a guy (especially a young guy) in a position where he thinks he’s going to score.
Holy cow – did you hear how much she drank (& others, I presume) at the Canberra bar that night???? I’m surprised she could walk.
So… Is NACC going to look into any corruption or mis-procedures in Britnahs’ $2.4M claim based on bullying and harassment?
“Ucraina nihil cum Moscuae terroristis impetus”
Apologies to Cato – 2024
The Iranian attack on Israel yesterday was largely neutralised by the Israeli Air Defence System. Israel claimed 99%, which may well be the case.
The vast majority of the weapons launched had almost zero hope of hitting a target, eg drones and older cruise missiles.
(As one commentator stated, very old and “noisey” weapons, wrt detection.)
They were launched for domestic purposes, from inside Iran and elsewhere.
Whether the attack was “successful” in its goal, will be determined by Israel’s response.
If there is none, that will speak volumes, because it was the few missiles that did get through, that were the message.
Very high tech missiles, that hit two Israeli airfields, were “the warning” from Iran.
It is unlikely that Iran could manufacture these missiles, certainly not without assistance. They throw out their own decoys as they near the target and as they managed to hit their intended targets, I guess you could say they were successful.
Interestingly, Iran has been in almost constant communication with the US since the events of 1st April. Almost as if they got together, to determine what the targets should be.
Given the distance between Iran and Israel, it took the drones over 3 hours to get near Israel. Plenty of time to prepare.
I seriously doubt, that Iran expected anything other than the result achieved by them. If it was a real “warlike exchange”, Iran would not telegraph their punches like that.
Still, we shall see what Benjamin Pfizer does.
Oh, I forgot to ask, is everyone still happy about the Gaza situation?
Still going swimmingly is it? Hamas must be just about eradicated by now.
IDF are withdrawing because they are in such a winning position, right?
Great!
Lehrmann chose to pursue a “no sex happened” defence which he would have been insane to do if sex did indeed happen
He did actually run with ” it didn’t happen, but if it did it was consensual” as part of his defence. I thought at the time it was a admission rather than a clever move.
As for the ejaculate, I’m assuming that was the substance assumed to have been steam cleaned off the lounge?
I didnt see it raised, and I’d assume it would be based on statements from the cleaners? Possibly the security guard?
Either way I think the judge, in a properly constituted court has made the best silk purse out of the sows ear he’s been presented with.
Liars poker is a risky game.
Article about autogynephilia from a practitioner, at Spiked.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/31/take-it-from-a-transsexual-transwomen-are-not-women/
It’s rather muddled, but there are shafts of light here and there, especially about men whose mid life crisis is to go from being married with children to pretending to be a woman. They are a different animal from neurotic teenagers who are addicted to social media and decide they are trannies.
What they have in common is the level of self-absorption – not surprising for adolescents but less forgiveable in older men who blow up their families, as the author admits. He says that in retrospect he wouldn’t do it again.
His thesis is that the older men are really creating the person they want to be in love with – as themselves.
Sounds like narcissism to me.
Anyway, worth a read, as it is written by someone who has been through it and has remorse for the damage it did to his family.
Does BL qualify for an R.U.O.K after this judgement or is it tuff luck and suck it up, rapist.
There was no steam clean, that was made up crap in the media. The cleaner went to the room and had to double check he had the right room it was so clean. He wiped the couch with a cloth and that’s it.
Lysander
April 15, 2024 2:41 pm
From the Turnbull Times:
Supersized marsupials roamed the Australian continent for millennia. But until now the understanding of giant kangaroos – or Protemnodon – has been confined to isolated bones and difficult-to-distinguish species.
Scientists have now identified three new species of the extinct giant kangaroo – Protemnodon viator, Protemnodon mamkurra and Protemnodon dawsonae, which lived from 5m to 40,000 years ago.
Strange, there’s nothing in the oral tradition of the world’s first modern, civilised, democratic, moonfaring nation about this?
Because the bastards killed them:
Humans, not climate change, wiped out Australian megafauna (phys.org)
ustice Michael Lee’s main points part three
Staff writers
WHETHER THE SEX IN THE MINISTERIAL SUITE CONSTITUTED RAPE
Whether Higgins expressed that she did not consent
‘I have not reached the level of satisfaction that during the sexual act Ms Higgins said no on a loop’
‘I have reached a state of actual persuasion on the balance of probabilities that Ms Higgins was not fully aware of her surroundings and did not consent to intercourse. The non-consent element is made out’
Whether Lehrmann was conscious of the fact Higgins did not consent
‘I’m satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Lehrmann’s state of mind was such that he was so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins consenting’
‘(Mr Lehrmann was) hellbent on having sex with a woman he found sexually attractive, had been mutually passionately kissing and touching … and knew had reduced inhibition. He did not care one way or the other whether Ms Higgins understood or consented to what was going on’
The nature of rape
‘(The suggestion) a woman is expected to either fight or flight to be accepted as having been a victim of sexual assault is not only not reasonably open but wrongheaded’
The legal bar for Justice Lee’s finding of rape
‘These findings should not be misconstrued or mischaracterised as a finding that I can exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. As I’ve explained this a substantive difference between the criminal standard of proof and the single standard of proof and as a tribunal effect, I have only to be satisfied that Mr Lehrmann has acted as I have found, and I am not obliged to reach that degree of certainty necessary to support conviction on a criminal charge’
AFTER THE ALLEGED ASSAULT
Higgins having a coffee with Lehrmann and exchanging friendly emails after the alleged assault
‘I have little doubt that if she had been raped that, by the time of these interactions, Ms Higgins would be driven by conflicting emotions, self-doubt … and questioning the prudence of her behaviour’
‘On the assumption she was a victim, (these actions) can be readily characterised as the actions of a woman who had not yet come to terms with what had happened to her, but needed to confront the reality that she had to work out a way of being in the same professional office as a male colleague who had assaulted her’
Higgins not going to a doctor in the days after the alleged assault
‘There may be many reasons on the assumption … for her not wanting to subject (herself) to such a process, particularly when the surrounding contemporaneous materials suggest she had no intention of pursuing a complaint with the police at this time’
THE POLITICAL ‘COVER-UP’
The political element of the Higgins rape allegations
‘From the first moment the cover-up component was promoted as the most important part of the narrative’
Higgins’ claims leading to her $2.4m settlement payout from the commonwealth
‘It is evident that several things being alleged were untrue’
There are millions!
Go back a few months and i was oblivious to the problem.
Things we learn.
—-
Jack Out The Back:
Camels Versus the Thermal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mxXgr_4fN8
Those awkward Mother/Daughter, Father/Son talks we all have to give our children all just got a whole lot more awkward.
So glad my children are all happily married and stable.
They will have to be very plain with their children, particularly the boys. And this time it won’t be about avoiding pregnancy and STDs and broken hearts like the olden days. It will be about avoiding a prison sentence and bankruptcy and social ruin.
Figures,
This wasn’t a criminal case. Bruce was absolved of criminal rape so therefore he was clear at that point of not being a rapist. But being an egotistical sleaze and seeing BH get a payout, he wanted more. So Bruce went for the money in defamation claims. That’s his right and risk.
He had every intention IMO of getting into that drunk tramp’s pants – in PH. That’s what he took her there for. It wasn’t to play monopoly for 40 mins. All the shyte that has followed is on his head as a result of him being an opportunistic sleaze. Yes, that’s what I consider any man to be who tries to take advantage of a drunk woman purely for sex. He wasn’t convicted and should have been satisfied with that result.
I’m not exonerating BH for her shameful behavior. But Bruce chose to bring this civil case to court with all the attendant risks , when he should have just been content with his earlier win. He rolled the dice and lost.
So spare me the lecturing and history lesson. I’m more than comfortable with what I see as right and wrong regarding Lehrmann. That doesn’t mean I agree with the payoff to Britney. She just played her cards a whole lot better.
Females shouldn’t get so drunk they have no idea what they’re doing, and they shouldn’t they put a guy (especially a young guy) in a position where he thinks he’s going to score, and has no intention of letting him.
Agree.
Guys should never take advantage of a situation where they think a drunk gal is an easy pick.
Agree.
Gee. Looks like a date with any elements of intimacy will require a chaperone for the lady, lawyers for both and signed & witnessed consents prepared before and after the event. Plus alcohol and blood tests in case either party was not fully compos mentis all the time.
What it the “balance of probability”? 49% versus 51%?
We saw the video. Someone didn’t look badly drunk, if at all.
Yes, that’s what I consider any man to be who tries to take advantage of a drunk woman purely for sex.
Ok. So every man in history that has brought a woman an alcoholic beverage and then had sex with them is a rapist.
How exactly do you think civilisation will function when 80 per cent of men are in prison?
If he does appeal, I’m sure that will be the basis. Ianal
Has any party won a truth defence case whilst being called a liar or not credible repeatedly by the very same judge ?
Blokes taking advantage of drunk women.
Welcome to my fist!
Boof!
Makka said – This wasn’t a criminal case. Bruce was absolved of criminal rape so therefore he was clear at that point of not being a rapist.
Never absolved of anything. The criminal trial was abandoned because of “juror misconduct”. Then the DPP didn’t seek a re-trial and withdrew the charges. Game over.
But then he went down the defamation path seeking a big payout. Lies and mistruths all around from many of the major players. I still find some of Justice Lees declarations weird but don’t expect them to be challenged – apart from many Cats & Kittehs and social media.
Bruce will declare bankruptcy or wait for the creditors petition from his legal team. Probably best he avoid media and courts for a while.
Wonder if Brittahnny has a spare room in the shack in France for an old drinking mate?
He had every intention IMO of getting into that drunk tramp’s pants – in PH.
Thanks oh sainted one. Bruce is the first man in history to want sex.
That’s what he took her there for. It wasn’t to play monopoly for 40 mins.
Did he pick her up and carry her there? Did she have no agency at all in terms of getting into a taxi with him? Why is it that none of her actions are deemed to be her choice?
Giving women the vote would have to be the dumbest idea in history given that, according to women and simps, zero women have any choice for any of their actions.
All the shyte that has followed is on his head as a result of him being an opportunistic sleaze.
What does “opportunistic” mean? Is it “opportunistic” for a billionaire to have sex with women because women are highly attracted to money and power? Do they have to be chaste as well?
Yes, that’s what I consider any man to be who tries to take advantage of a drunk woman purely for sex.
Was he supposed to marry her? Don’t get me wrong, perhaps we should go back to making adultery illegal but good luck getting feminists on board with that idea.
He wasn’t convicted and should have been satisfied with that result.
Yes. The media should be free to destroy people’s lives with false accusations with impunity. Good one. Bruce was massively impoverished by the trial, not to mention his reputation was in tatters. Sure it’s even worse now but to argue that the accusation and trial didn’t hurt him such that seeking redress was understandanble is disgusting.
Lee is a smug bastard with his “lion’s den” comment. He has no idea what happened that night but he’s happy to contribute to the ruin of a man because a bunch of feminists and simps will give him likes on twitter.
Dumb enough to be employed as Ministerial staffers in a Liberal government.
And I don’t imagine the Labor government is any better.
WA farmers demanding subsidies after a couple of dry seasons:
Data from the Bureau of Meteorology showed that 2023 was the South West Land Division’s seventh-driest year on record, and driest for rainfall since 2019.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-15/wa-farmers-urged-to-act-livestock-feed-in-short-supply-drought/103689118
Statistical history is immediately trashed in favour of The Narrative:
Ms Jarvis said the WDC taskforce would look at access to feed and fodder in affected areas, but downplayed providing any new subsidies or financial support.
“Farmers need to be prepared, and farmers know this already, that our seasons are getting hotter and drier,” she said.
“Tens of millions of dollars since 2021 have been rolled out across our farming regions to provide the support but also for the research and extension activities to actually teach farmers what they need to do differently in the face of a drying climate.”
What drying climate, Ms Jarvis?
Here’s the thing. At any moment, somewhere on this vast continent is technically ”in drought.” The climate hucksters (I’m looking at TheirABC especially) zero in and complain that it’s due to use of fossil fuels – when they’re not blaming floods on the same thing.
Their wilful and blatant degradation of science in pursuit of fashionable ideology is a disgrace to all the values that have brought us out of the caves and into a lifestyle where committing civilisational suicide is considered to be mainstream for ‘enlightened’ idiots.
The full ruling.
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/lehrmann/nsd-103-of-2023/Lehrmann-v-Network-Ten-Pty-Limited-Trial-Judgment-2024-FCA-369.pdf
You can do a search on Wilkinson.
It is even less flattering than the summary the good judge read out today.
Don’t be pathetic. That’s not what I said, that’s what you are spinning. You on the other hand clearly think it’s quite cool for a man to sexually penetrate a legless drunk woman.
And remember lame brain, he is not a convicted rapist. But he chose to gamble with his creepy reputation and lost.
Lee always said it was a case of credibility.
He said that in the window post the alleged incident, BH was more credible & her evidence for that time stood up.
Especially compared to BL & his evidence at that time period.
& he put anything post that in the bin as they both were proven liars.
It’s a comprehensive ruling that will give a lot of lazy judges cover to rule any way they see fit in the future.
Many commenters saying this is a lesson young men shouldn’t take advantage of drunk women. Where is the evidence she was so drunk? Able to walk into Parliament just fine and not turned away by security for being pissed.
Or, possibly, he felt he had been defamed by a bully media that did not check any of the claims presented as fact.
Bruce is/was a complete goose lacking any insight into the main cause of his issues a.k.a. “Bruce”. But still he ought to have been protected from defamation – regardless of what we think of his character.
Saint Lisa is lucky that 99.9% of the population wouldn’t have heard Lee tear her a new one today & will rely on the media to preach how vindicated she was.
& that 99.99999999% of the population will not read the judgement itself.
Good on Lee spending considerable time on how Fiona Brown was the most credible party in the whole circus by a country mile.
Brown should be the one getting compensation.
You moron. Bruce ruined himself. From the second he took her into PH to getting greedy and going after damages. All his own bad choices.
Again, this is just fantasy land bullshit.
She was either raped or she wasn’t. How stupid would you have to be if you were a female and been raped and not gone straight to the cops or a hospital as soon as possible after the event?
And don’t give me any of that garbage about the fat stupid slag “not wanting to lose her dream jerb” if she had reported it. See Reynolds’ and Brown’s testimony which strongly suggests that Hoggins lied about everything post the evening in question.
I think BL should appeal, he wasn’t give a fair trial , I think Lee even said he didn’t get a fair hearing.
I have been hammering this point for years. This is the key reason why Lehrmann, as repulsive as he is, should never have been put on trial for sexual assault. It was a straight up “she says, he says” matter with zero other evidence to support Hoggins’ allegations of rape.
Yes, I think Lehrmann was nuts to try and win the defamation lottery. Getting out of the criminal trial without being charged should have been enough for him to realise there was nothing to be gained by pushing his luck any further – and here we are, his luck did indeed run out. Much self righteous smugness and gloatage is now ensuing at his expense.
But he chose to gamble with his creepy reputation and lost.
Indeed, and the pursuit of defamation is often a gamble.
With reference to the security guard who was murdered on Saturday.
I only saw the picture of him this afternoon.
Because of his distinct beard, he did stick out.
I’ve remembered seeing him on several occasions when I’ve been up there over the years.
For every no hoper loser that use refugee status to game the system, there’s a dozen guys doing shit jobs for shit pay just trying to make a go of it.
So bloody sad.
Thanks Warwick for posting your experiences before.
Higgins ‘particularly brave’ to testify in public eye: Ten lawyerBy Sarah McPheeJustin Quill, one of Network Ten’s solicitors, has praised Brittany Higgins’ bravery to testify in the unique circumstances in which she did.
He said Higgins was “particularly brave to come to court and, unlike most rape victims, come to court having chosen not to have anonymity, and give her evidence in the glare of publicity and spotlight”.
Justin Quill, one of Network Ten’s solicitors, addresses the media outside the Federal Court in Sydney.Credit: Wolter Peeters
Quill said he knew “those within Bruce Lehrmann’s team expected her not to attend”.
“I think that was pretty much their whole case theory. Perhaps I’m being too harsh there, but certainly, I know, they did not intend or expect her to attend,” he said.
“Of course, Channel 10 couldn’t have defended this case without Brittany. There’s no doubt that Brittany was brave in turning up here and giving the evidence that she did.”
Quill said he had not personally spoken to Higgins following the judgment.
“No doubt The Project and Ten people have already reached out to Brittany,” he said.
For all the holes in BH’s story, the judge thought the holes in BL’s were worse.
unfair
… have you any idea of just how much Cluedo Lee had to play to get the job
And this outcome today proves why Craig McLachlan was wise to drop his defamation against against the ABC, Fairfax and Christie Whelan Browne back in 2022.
Does anyone think Israel will retaliate in any major way other than theatrically, which is the way Iran reacted?
Always one to display a complete lack of self-awareness, I note she’s been quick to vindicate herself on social media today.
Bruce’s life was shattered. Literally had his reputation destroyed. He was also denied a win in the criminal case by a stupid juror and by Higgins pulling the mental health card. He was denied the right to be exonerated on the criminal standard – the only one that should matter. He was left in this ridiculous limbo land. Considered by a majority, yes, at least 50.1% of Australia as being a rapist and only escaping by a legal technicality. Trial aborted because Brittany was too mentally unwell to go thru the process again.
Bruce has been completely farked here. I am astounded the judge could make the case as he did. Given all the bullshit about the Liberals covering a rape and Brittany’s very near killing of Fiona Brown with her horrible slander. All complete bullshit.
Her Project interview was full of complete bullshit. I was so pissed. he dragged me to Parliament House. I was beyond drunk. 11 out of 10 drunk. I can barely remember a thing. All complete bullshit. We have seen the CCTV. SHE WAS NOT Blind drunk.
So the Judge goes, yeah ok,, she was actually keen on Bruce. She went back willingly to PH. Seduced by talk of Bruce giving her whiskey and to party.. But yeah.. all that was shit but Bruce raped her cause she must have been too drunk — despite the clear evidence she was not on CCTV,
Its unbelievable. I literally cannot believe this. That Project interview was a farken abomination to justice. Full of shit. But all ok! No worries.
Daily Mail.
Brittany Higgins’ fiance David Sharaz shares messages for Australia after court finds Bruce Lehrmann did rape her at Parliament House
You on the other hand clearly think it’s quite cool for a man to sexually penetrate a legless drunk woman.
Spoken like a simp.
She wasn’t actually “legless” when she came with him to PH was she?
What’s more, it’s perfectly plausible that, upon realising she was, indeed, “legless” whilst in Reynolds’ office he decided against rooting her. That’s why he was so confident sex didn’t occur that he used that as his defence.
Justice Lee has tortured logic to get the politically expedient result. Lehrmann was dishonest and evasive immediately after the event because he had a girlfriend. He lied to protect his relationship. Bad but not a crime. Higgins lied to protect her job. Because her lie risked Lehrmann going to prison it was (or should have been) a crime.
Argentina Posts First Surplus in Over a Decade
It took President Javier Milei of Argentina a mere two months to push his nation into a surplus. The Economy Ministry declared that the government posted a $589 million surplus, the first surplus in recent memory. Western media has been silent about Milei’s victory as his policies are pushing the nation back on the path of capitalism, whereas the West insists on continually moving toward socialistic policies.
Milei has pushed forth an emergency package in an attempt to balance the budget and introduced an austerity package worth around $1.4 trillion. He famously slashed government agencies that contribute nothing to the economy. Every public employee on payroll for less than a year has been terminated. He is aiming to reduce government by 34% overall. Transfers to local government have ceased.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/argentina-posts-first-surplus-in-over-a-decade/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=RSS
Where I can see this ruling having major implications in the future in other civil cases (not just defamation or he said/she said rape allegations) is that a witness or witnesses can clearly have lied through out a case (like Lee said BH & other did) but for the critical point of a case, they now have recent, clear precedent where a judge can say said liar or liars are to be believed.
During the Al Muderis case, Lee’s rulings in recent cases are being referred to constantly in submissions.
Ie, his rulings carry weight because they don’t get appealed.
This has been self evident for decades so iv no empathy for blokes with no self control, Calli.
I wonder how Kathy Sheriff is feeling today.
no empathy for blokes with no self control
The trouble is blokes only have so much blood in the body.
Once the little head demands attention it drains blood from the bigger head.
I wonder how Kathy Sheriff is feeling today.
Short Willie would be pleased he never came before Justice Lee.
How legless drunk does a gal have to be before she’s incapable of giving consent? Obviously, if she’s just lying there snoring loudly and asleep, we can say she’s incapable of pretty much anything. But what if it’s n bacardi rums for some positive integer n? And she’s loquacious but not very intelligible? What values of n come into play? Do we also have to consider body mass? Prior drinking history?
On the video from parliament house, she looked quite poised and not at all legless, but could it all have come on suddenly? I’m not well acquainted with drunks, particularly the female ones.
Enquiring minds want to know.
Its possible Milei is more Trump than Trump?
My opinion for what it is worth :
Look, he is a bit of a grub. But the bimbo should also be held responsible for her idiotic behaviour. No condemnation of that.
I think Bruce summed it up best- Canbra is a rancid septic tank
A fetid billabong by the Molonglo.
I postulate Judge “Judy” Lee made a decision that would end the court case, not the one that would see Aussie taxpayers get their money back, nor have Wilkinson pay.
DrBeauGan,
Makka – the resident simp in the absence of Monty – will tell you that if a woman has had a beer at some point in the past week then any sexual congress is aggravated rape.
But even if the woman is a tee-totaller Makka will assure you that the woman is never ever responsible for anything that happens.
I’ve always been unhappy with “I was drunk” defences. People have run over children in cars and had their acts classed as misdemeanours because they were drunk, and Britney gets off the hook because she was too drunk to give consent to sex.
But she went with the bloke after drinking enough to sink a camel, and the whole trajectory was bleeding obvious from the beginning. Claiming it was rape given the obvious consequences of getting that pissed and hanging out with a randy little stoat looks completely untenable to me.
Where I can see this ruling having major implications in the future in other civil cases (not just defamation or he said/she said rape allegations) is that a witness or witnesses can clearly have lied through out a case (like Lee said BH & other did) but for the critical point of a case, they now have recent, clear precedent where a judge can say said liar or liars are to be believed.
That is an interesting observation. It seems true for this case. Lies were recognised – just not when it came to of a rape”.
Claiming it was rape given the obvious consequences of getting that pissed and hanging out with a randy little stoat looks completely untenable to me
In other words, she gave consent long before she got drunk and incapable, and getting drunk was part of the consent.
Another Canbra shit show which proves how broken public administration and democracy is. Rubbish pollimuppetts getting rubbish advice from ‘advisors’ with zero life experience part from wanton sexual adventures. A corrupt palace like something out of Satyricon or I Claudius.
Let’s face it.
Lee was presented with two liars of the most despicable type. He had to decide which one was the biggest liar.
He took the easy, MSM and SM friendly, option.
On such choices future injustices hang.
Beaugy, as a veteran of Cuba’s communist revolution, you know chickybabe gold-diggers are everywhere and looking for sugardaddies to make them rich.
Don’t take them on unless you’re prepared to pay for them and their children.
Bet large amounts of wonga that Bruce is putting the trial behind him with a few white lines and 10k of massage therapy. Self-destruction appears to be his game plan for life.
“on the balance of probabilities” say Lee…
on the balance of flababilities.
Oh the thought of copious flab heaving. Aghh. I can just see the dangling dikus. Now, I’ve been around and met not a few girls who only got excited in a wrestle. Maybe Mike Lee needs a bit of life’s experience. Life is far more nuanced.
So it’s OK for judges to do their own research, but not juries, got it.
After today’s decision we can laugh at any Cat who makes future laudatory or even positive statements about any justice in any case. There are just a few real ones left on the High Court but I’m sure they will retire soon and be replaced by woke ones.
Credlin saying the silent part: if a lunatic armed only with a knife can wreak such havoc what will happen if a group of armed, organised muzzies target a shopping centre.
I wonder what Ted Bullpit would say about all of this?
He’d probably head out to the front yard for a beer with Neville.
Okay:
This is the essence of it in my view, although there are many contributing factors which include, but are not limited to:
Buyer’s remorse (possible);
Embarrassment at waking up nekkid/shitfaced on the boss’ couch, with the previous night’s Cadbury Favourites and Calamari Surprise festooned across the floor (certain);
Opportunism (absolutely certain);
Gold digging on the part of both male and female players (dead set certain);
All major players being used as pawns for media types and legal system perfessionals to further their own careers (lock that one in as well);
The prospect of a handful of minnows bringing down a government (extremely probable);
A further prospect of taxpayer cash (already happened); and
Yet another prospect of free cash from a media company that’s already a US tax write-off (shot down, crashed and burned with a wing missing and all the aircrew dead in their seats).
This was a competition for profile and notoriety, rather than justice.
At the end of the day BL fcuked up. He went back for his hat.
Prior to that, Australians’ judgement of him was probably 50:50. Now he’s done.
I noticed that as well. Funny how jurors can’t learn more about some circumstances but justices may do so because …?
My judgement – on the basis of probabilities Lee also defamed Lehrmann
Its possible Milei is more Trump than Trump?
He’s more than a little Ramaswami, too.
I’ve always been unhappy with “I was drunk” defences.
Being drunk is not relevant here as a defence. Bruce was not so drunk that a McNaughton defence was available to him. The issue was whether britterny was too drunk to consent. After watching the video of her gambolling into the boudoir my initial impression was brucie was going to get fuked senseless. But if she fell asleep before or during the act consent ends. That is what Lee found.
I think the judge has left Mizz Knickerless in a shaky position re the compo claim. Lee J made it quite clear that she lied in her claim. The NACC will have to tie itself in knots to avoid any investigation of the process, leaving the AG in a sticky place.
OTOH, Reynolds’ CoS is now in a good position to seek compo, as Lee has also made it quite clear that her career and employment prospects were destroyed by lies from Knickerless.
Judges are supposed to be more impartial.
Empirical evidence for that claim may be wanting.
The old judge made telling quip at the end:
Words to the effect that if you escape the lion’s den, you shouldn’t go back to get your hat!
I had a queasy feeling that Lee was auditioning his wit to the circus crowd… proven.
This country’s done.
Time will tell if this is a social media spread lie or not.
The story is the Westfield murderer was a prolific online gamer across multiple games & multiple platforms.
Time will tell.
Figures
April 15, 2024 5:38 pm
Here we are, another brain dead keyboard warrior, all so deeply offended because a bloke did himself in through lack of scruples and poor judgement. Your kind of piss weak barracking because male isn’t helping males. You’re just an idiot cheering for another idiot.
Beaugy, as a veteran of Cuba’s communist revolution, you know chickybabe gold-diggers are everywhere and looking for sugardaddies to make them rich.
True. But I don’t see Brit as in that category. I figure she was hoping to soak the taxpayer, and indeed she did.
I think the judge has left Mizz Knickerless in a shaky position re the compo claim. Lee J made it quite clear that she lied in her claim.
Mixed bag. Lee said brucie had non-consensual sex with britternee. He raped her. So she’s safe in that respect. The lying will have to do with her allegations about lack of support from the libs. Lee has made it plain Reynolds and Fiona Brown acted appropriately.
Or was it Lehrmann who was drunk?
After all,who in their right, sober mind would take a pick-up back to their place of employment for a quickie? Especially when that work-place is the Federal Parliament House?
I get it Makka. You desperately want to believe our country is salvageable. So you make up rationalizations as to how this disgraceful decision somehow is compatible with a functioning legal system.
It isn’t. From now on, false rape accusations will be a free-for-all (if they’re not already). And it won’t just be against very naughty boys like Lehrmann it will be against any man. They’ll have zero recourse. The media are now completely free to taint any rape trial they like. The judge won’t dare declare a mistrial and the media know there’s a zero per cent chance of being sued.
And all of this is, according to you, absolutely wonderful.
Hamas Lied, the Media Cried, and the Silence Cannot Be Denied
Why Yemen is Dying & Oman is Booming
Like the endorsements for Julie Bishop to be PM, I do remember the ‘a young man whose life was ruined by a harlot’ comments, including those by Cassie
Having spent some time in that world, I believe neither of them. Any review of my comments will confirm this, BTW, unlike some of our more florid commenters.
Did anyone se The Australian today? Pages and pages of speculative auto-porn duabed by infants.You know, where they re-create the event as if they were there
‘It seemed like a normal day …’ and so on. Pages and pages of it.
I suppose that is what happens when the tabloids die.
NYC block turned into illicit open-air market for migrant crooks, prostitution: ‘It’s relentless’
Bondi Junction killer Joel Cauchi’s suspected motive is revealed – as police source claims he was ‘selecting victims’ and ‘definitely targeting women’
Does Australia have double jeopardy rules similar to USA?
chris merritt Ten’s hollow victory no vindication of ‘shambolic’ trial by media
There is now a real danger society will learn the wrong lessons from Network Ten’s resounding defamation win against Bruce Lehrmann – a man who stands condemned as a rapist.
Mr Lehrmann is the author of his own ruin.
He launched this civil case knowing there was a risk that the lower standard of proof might work to his disadvantage.
Nobody forced him to sue.
He no longer faced the risk of criminal proceedings, which had been abandoned in the ACT.
But as Justice Michael Lee said in his judgment: “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.”
He must now bear the entire responsibility for his own downfall.
But Ten’s triumphalism is a bit rich. It carries the risk that other parts of the media might adopt the same dubious methods that were unmasked by the judge.
theaustralian.com.au06:33
‘Omnishambles’: Lehrmann-Higgins case was ‘like a spider web’Sky News host Danica De Giorgio says the Bruce Lehrmann and Britanny Higgins case is “like a spider web”.… “Today, the Bruce Lehrmann-Britanny Higgins curse claimed another scalp,” Ms De Giorgio said. “That of Bruce Lehrmann himself.” Justice Michael Lee has found it is ‘more likely than not’ Bruce Lehrmann More
Let’s be clear about what happened.
Yes, Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson successfully defended the truth of the assertion that Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins in the office of former Coalition minister Linda Reynolds.
But none of the main parties emerges from this affair wearing a white hat – particularly the nominal victors, Ten and Wilkinson.
It is wrong to go beyond the formal outcome of the case and portray this decision as vindication for the brand of journalism practised by Wilkinson and Ten.
Justice Lee’s ruling makes it clear they allowed themselves to be used to publicise unsubstantiated claims that the former Coalition government engaged in a cover-up of this incident.
That will be welcome news to Senator Reynolds, one of the former ministers who, for a time, had been wrongly maligned and targeted by the then Labor opposition.
Justice Lee shot down the suggestion that Ms Higgins had been the victim of some sort of political conspiracy that had been uncovered by Ten and Wilkinson.
Even though Ten and Wilkinson “have legally justified their imputation of rape, this does not mean their conduct was justified in any broader or colloquial sense”, his judgment says.
He viewed the rape allegation as a minor part of the main theme of political intervention and a cover-up that had been broadcast by Ten’s program, The Project.
And that main theme, according to the judge, turned out to be mere supposition.
“The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won The Project team, like (News Corp journalist Samantha) Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact,” the judge said.
“Its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system.
theaustralian.com.au11:35
Lehrmann, lies & the law: AnalysisThe Front’s Claire Harvey and Legal Affairs Correspondent Ellie Dudley discuss the Bruce Lehrmann…
“To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.”
The real lesson from this affair is that the media is not equipped to displace the courts and the broader justice system when it comes to dealing with accusations of sexual assault.
The justice system has undergone extensive reforms that minimise the trauma inflicted by the trial process.
The media has not.
The real danger is that vulnerable women might misinterpret Ten’s victory as vindication for trial by media – a system that contributed to what Justice Lee described as an “omni-shambles”.
Webb manages to read the mind of a madman. Best to shut up until his medication use and full health record is known.
Webb shows she’s unfit for command at every turn.
Lee appears to have led with some gratuitous detail that doesn’t appear to have been stated let alone substantiated in either the criminal or civil case eg: Brucie actually nutting. Is there a possibility he has intentionally overreached to open the door to an appeal?
Red Fred Chaney finding things getting a bit hot in the political kitchen. Doing some brand damage.
in what way Bear?