Opinion 7PM Wokeject

[KambahOne]

It’s not always gender based (my family members case wasn’t) but no doubt it happens. I was talking to a barrister I know recently who was telling me about a case where a woman made 40 year old sexual abuse allegations against her father, and even though records were found from the 1980’s saying she made it up, the prosecution proceeded. The poor bastard (now in his mid 70’s) had to endure a weeks long trial and a process that lasted almost 3 years from start to end. Thankfully there were decent people who were prepared to say the allegations were false and in the end the right outcome was reached. My point is the ‘victim’ isn’t necessarily the one who makes the allegation and that’s what we must be careful of.

I've read a bit about mental health issues where a lot of these cases of historical sexual abuse stem from "repressed memories" which are explored, for the want of a better word, in sessions of psychology and psychiatry. And in may cases these may not be personal memories, but something they heard happen to someone else or the patient sees them as a way of getting back at someone, yet during the exploration of they go from being to the other. It's a slippery slope because in many cases the shrink can't hear the difference and it leads to these types if accusations.

 

[Riggs80]

Hahaha so true. If we buy turkish or Lebanese bread I guess it’s cultural appropriation haha

since you wrote about cultural appropriation
you may able to help me out with a question I have as I’m a bit confused

Based on peoples current mentality if we bang someone from a different race wouldn’t that be cultural appropriation ? and then if we don’t bang them or find them attractive then it’s racist ?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

OK, so who else investigates? Is it a civil or criminal matter? Let’s find out one way or another. I don’t care who’s involved on either side but allegations can’t be made unless there’s evidence to back them up.

Probably should be at least an independent investigator. But it's a difficult thing. Both sides have confirmed that the phone call took place but ScoMo's team are saying it wasn't threatening, but also s/he did it alone and it wasn't requested by ScoMo's team.

Any which way, the investigation will hit a dead end as they can't produce audio.

 

[CaptainJackson]

firstly let me say I think he is a Pos and has been literally been caught lying and he is shit in my opinion based on what he has said publically and actions, and certainly won’t be getting my vote .

But to hang this up on number of people especially when noted on Twitter is irrelevant to me and if anything would make me take the opposite thought
- Twitter is just an outrage machine to cancel people
- Also these days it’s all about what peoples politics that they post on Twitter or if something is coming from an “elite”.
So I take no notice unless they provide evidence or court of law confirms something . Take the covid thread on here as an example there were a few posters who politicised the entire discussion and frankly I preferred rodzillas posts on that thread than those that were blatantly using COVID to have their potshots at politicians

I named:

Barnaby Joyce - Leader of the Nationals, Deputy PM of Australia
Gladys - Former Premier of NSW, who until recently was lauded by said individual as a great Premier and unfairly ousted from her position as Premier by ICAC

The other tweet that I put up, she's a journalist. She writes articles for a major newspaper (and that's not to say that her assertion is true or not). It's not the "twitter" outrage factory.

Oh it's good that you can see some people's posts are based on their partisan politics, I just hope you see the whole range of partisan BS that's posted on this forum (hint I've called the partisan hack out on this thread).

 

[Hacky McAxe]

‘Allegedly’ - and that’s my point.

I watched a family member go through two years of defending what were later to be proven false allegations. The interim was hard to watch: almost lost their job, close relationships were damaged, sickness from stress, financial hardship in having to defend the matter and - in the end none of it was true. I backed them from day one because I felt confident in their underlying character and it turned out to be right. I would’ve been shocked and disappointed had the allegations been true/proven but at the end of the day I stand firm in the camp that says if you don’t have evidence, you don’t make allegations to begin with. The presumption of innocence always stands.

Yeah, it's one of the unfortunate things about the law. Goes down to he said/she said. Trust the woman and an innocent man cops it. Trust that man and he could get away with stuff and re-offend.

But as you said, presumption of innocence has to take precedence. To quote Wiggum, "I'd rather 100 guilty men go free, than have to chase after them"

I still think the investigation has to be independent, but it's tricky. I worked in politics for a short while and the policy was that any phone call you made had to be recorded. But that policy was rarely used because no one would talk to you if they knew the conversation was recorded. It was only the head of office that was audited for it.

 

[SARGE]

Probably should be at least an independent investigator. But it's a difficult thing. Both sides have confirmed that the phone call took place but ScoMo's team are saying it wasn't threatening, but also s/he did it alone and it wasn't requested by ScoMo's team.

Any which way, the investigation will hit a dead end as they can't produce audio.

Problem is, is there a truly independent, non-corruptable investigator these days?

 

[CaptainJackson]

firstly let me say I think he is a Pos and has been literally been caught lying and he is shit in my opinion based on what he has said publically and actions, and certainly won’t be getting my vote .

But to hang this up on number of people especially when noted on Twitter is irrelevant to me and if anything would make me take the opposite thought
- Twitter is just an outrage machine to cancel people
- Also these days it’s all about what peoples politics that they post on Twitter or if something is coming from an “elite”.
So I take no notice unless they provide evidence or court of law confirms something . Take the covid thread on here as an example there were a few posters who politicised the entire discussion and frankly I preferred rodzillas posts on that thread than those that were blatantly using COVID to have their potshots at politicians

Just wanted to add to this.

You do realise before Twitter existed, that the "cancel culture", "outrage factory" was Murdoch publications/media right? And still to this day they are.

They'd set out their attack dogs to attack people they don't like, which in turn would cause the crazies in society make death threats to those targets because of the publications in Murdoch rags.

So this "Twitter outrage" thing is not something that's new or unique to twitter

 

[SARGE]

Yeah, it's one of the unfortunate things about the law. Goes down to he said/she said. Trust the woman and an innocent man cops it. Trust that man and he could get away with stuff and re-offend.

But as you said, presumption of innocence has to take precedence. To quote Wiggum, "I'd rather 100 guilty men go free, than have to chase after them"

I still think the investigation has to be independent, but it's tricky. I worked in politics for a short while and the policy was that any phone call you made had to be recorded. But that policy was rarely used because no one would talk to you if they knew the conversation was recorded. It was only the head of office that was audited for it.

Why a short while in politics, too honest or you're just not a ****?

 

[Natboy]

since you wrote about cultural appropriation
you may able to help me out with a question I have as I’m a bit confused

Based on peoples current mentality if we bang someone from a different race wouldn’t that be cultural appropriation ? and then if we don’t bang them or find them attractive then it’s racist ?

Hahaha. Didn’t some bloke on MAFS get called racist because he said he wasn’t attracted to the Asian bird he was paired up with? We can’t help who we are attracted to

 

[SARGE]

Just wanted to add to this.

You do realise before Twitter existed, that the "cancel culture", "outrage factory" was Murdoch publications/media right? And still to this day they are.

They'd set out their attack dogs to attack people they don't like, which in turn would cause the crazies in society make death threats to those targets because of the publications in Murdoch rags.

I'd go further and say all publications set attack dogs on anyone not following their agendas.

 

[Natboy]

I'd go further and say all publications set attack dogs on anyone not following their agendas.

100%

 

[DinkumDog]

Opinions are formed from evidence. Again, there's more than enough evidence (aside from just the 3 I mentioned in the previous post) that we have the makings of a pathological liar (more so than an average politician), several incidents, aside from those mentioned in this thread, where he was exposed as lying and then whatever interactions that Barnaby and Gladys had with him, in private, where they felt so strongly about that particular view. Especially Barnaby's texts, where as a seasoned politician, he would be quite aware of the dangers of saying to Brittany Higgins that Morrison can't be trusted (remember the timing of those texts refer to whether Morrison knew about the rape allegations beforehand or not).

Sorry, no. Opinions are formed from experiences maybe, but that doesn't make it evidence. That's just more talk of 'where there's smoke there's fire'.
I don't have a law degree but I have immediate family members who do and who spend their days dealing with this stuff so I think I have pretty good handle of how courts would view this if it ever came to them. Stuff like texts would only be considered if it directly implicated someone eg: Morrison sent a text saying 'I lied, this is what happened'. Just because you've got a Barnaby or a Gladys or anyone else saying 'he lied' - doesn't mean it's evidence - it's hearsay and would be disregarded. Those are the legal realties when you remove emotion or politics from the matter.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I'd go further and say all publications set attack dogs on anyone not following their agendas.

100% mate, let's just not pretend that this is unique to twitter though nor that murdoch publications are not the biggest offenders of this outrage factory bullshit in Aus, US and UK.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Sorry, no. Opinions are formed from experiences maybe, but that doesn't make it evidence. That's just more talk of 'where there's smoke there's fire'.
I don't have a law degree but I have immediate family members who do and who spend their days dealing with this stuff so I think I have pretty good handle of how courts would view this if it ever came to them. Stuff like texts would only be considered if it directly implicated someone eg: Morrison sent a text saying 'I lied, this is what happened'. Just because you've got a Barnaby or a Gladys or anyone else saying 'he lied' - doesn't mean it's evidence - it's hearsay and would be disregarded. Those are the legal realties when you remove emotion or politics from the matter.

What a pity that magistrates actually do make judgements taking into account the standing of the person. eg "he said/she said" when that other party is a police office (they're more likely to take the word of a police office over someone in the community), letters of reference from former PM's (Pell's case as an example), finding someone to be a "credible witness" etc

They need to be told to stop taking an individuals standing or position to take into account. to form an opinion.

There's probably also a fair chance that prosecutions and defendants have different versions of what has taken place, where again magistrates take into account certain pieces of evidence which is purely based on whether that magistrate finds it "credible"

 

[Riggs80]

100% mate, let's just not pretend that this is unique to twitter though nor that murdoch publications are not the biggest offenders of this outrage factory bullshit in Aus, US and UK.

you Are correct , all we have to do is refer to the NRL section and point proven .
I think the issue with them is more the headline rather than articles themselves - headlines show outrage etc but articles generally do not align with headline and follow the outrage .

wheras Twitter there is no moderation or filter , entire posts are outrage machines and militant and the shit they get away with compared to what we can write on the kennel is just crazy

 

[CaptainJackson]

you Are correct , all we have to do is refer to the NRL section and point proven .
I think the issue with them is more the headline rather than articles themselves - headlines show outrage etc but articles generally do not align with headline and follow the outrage .

wheras Twitter there is no moderation or filter , entire posts are outrage machines and militant and the shit they get away with compared to what we can write on the kennel is just crazy

Mate Sky News Australia was the biggest proponent (worldwide) of the 2020 election big lie in the US. Murdoch publications/media are not just headline outrage factories, there's plenty in the accusations they make that is full of shit.

 

[CaptainJackson]

wheras Twitter there is no moderation or filter , entire posts are outrage machines and militant and the shit they get away with compared to what we can write on the kennel is just crazy

Which is why people should choose what to read, what to scroll past, and form their opinions based on evidence of past history of how credible said individual was.

This applies in every other aspect of life, I don't see how people can't just apply this for twitter too.

 

[B-Train]

Speaking of wokeness, I've heard that White Lady Funerals are changing their name because it's discriminatory or alienating to non white customers and they've had too much negative backlash about their name..

They should change their name to Rainbow Unicorn Funeral Homes to make everyone happy. I always thought it was a weird name.. But the woke crowd are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

 

[DinkumDog]

What a pity that magistrates actually do make judgements taking into account the standing of the person. eg "he said/she said" when that other party is a police office (they're more likely to take the word of a police office over someone in the community), letters of reference from former PM's (Pell's case as an example), finding someone to be a "credible witness" etc

They need to be told to stop taking an individuals standing or position to take into account. to form an opinion.

There's probably also a fair chance that prosecutions and defendants have different versions of what has taken place, where again magistrates take into account certain pieces of evidence which is purely based on whether that magistrate finds it "credible"

There’s no question courts aren’t foolproof and they are overloaded with cases that shouldn’t even be there. And yes, lawyers are spin doctors to a point, they need to use aspects of the law that will suit their outcome. The other issue I find baffling is that Magistrates have no requirement to have served both in prosecution and defence to get to the bench. One or another is enough. I think it should be both because both have unique challenges in making their cases.

 

[DinkumDog]

Speaking of wokeness, I've heard that White Lady Funerals are changing their name because it's discriminatory or alienating to non white customers and they've had too much negative backlash about their name..

They should change their name to Rainbow Unicorn Funeral Homes to make everyone happy. I always thought it was a weird name.. But the woke crowd are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Cheer cheese was for it for me.
I buy Bega now.
Seriously .
The woke stuff is beyond ridiculous.