Australian Politics - Thread

[DinkumDog]

Sheet I wish you'd said that several days ago when you started your bombastic defence of the unsuitability of holding an enquiry.

What is so hard to fathom is why it's taken you this long to write...

"I personally don’t care if there’s an enquiry or not."

I said I personally don’t care.
Legally there is still not reason to hold it.
Hard to fathom?

 

[wendog33]

"Porter may or may not be a rapist, but now that he's abdicated all authority of judgement over to the court of public opinion he hasnt done himself any favours with past behaviours."

I’m sure it’s been overwhelming.
And stop the victim crap making it sound like I have no interest in crushing sexual assault.

Well stop trying to suppress the validation of the accusers information.

You now dont care if there is an independent enquory so that is progress.

 

[DinkumDog]

I rate Julia Baird.

Too many of us believe women lie about rape. In fact, they rarely report it

The truth is that Australian women overwhelmingly choose not to report rape, but many have found their voice in recent weeks.

www.smh.com.au

Don’t miss her next appearance then! .

 

[DinkumDog]

What's a PVO?

Peter Van Onselen, the political professor and commentator.

 

[wendog33]

Wendy the only hysterical person in this thread is you. If you don’t expect an apology why did you ask for one then?

You haven't addressed why you exaggerate and take out of context my posts.

My examples are above.

 

[wendog33]

Don’t miss her next appearance then! .

Rarely miss The Drum

Glad your usual sense of humour is back

 

[wendog33]

I’ve done nothing of the sort.
Just quoted your own words.
But apparently that’s ‘gaslighting’.
Whatever.

Now you are actually misrepresenting the truth Dinkum I'm sorry to say. You have embellished my words to suit your emotional response

See my examples above

 

[wendog33]

BTW hop over to the Insiders site.

Poor POV is copping a pounding from the axe grinders and hatcheters.

 

[DinkumDog]

Now you are actually misrepresenting the truth Dinkum I'm sorry to say. You have embellished my words to suit your emotional response

See my examples above

Ha. Who’s ‘emotional’?
No interest in re-reading.
I’m getting ready to go out to dinner.
Enjoy what’s left of the Sabbath Wendy.

 

[south of heaven]

Is that a piss take or is that his real head?

Real

 

[DinkumDog]

Real
View attachment 21789

Then Birmingham can just say ‘What, me worry?’ .

 

[wendog33]

Well that statement blown out of the water now.

He has been asked by dozens of journos and radio jocks about the allegations and 4 Corners asked him 2 and a half weeks before broadcasting the allegations, a series of questions beforehand....all journos received no response whatsoever from eith Porter or his office.

Who actually believes the PM and AG would not read those allegations contained in that letter received on Wednesday? Or if they didnt read it, why the hell not? That's just weird.

Journalists reject Christian Porter's claim media never contacted him on allegation details

Reporters from multiple organisations say they called or emailed the attorney general’s office many times and were ignored

www.theguardian.com

 

[wendog33]

Ha. Who’s ‘emotional’?
No interest in re-reading.
I’m getting ready to go out to dinner.
Enjoy what’s left of the Sabbath Wendy.

When you get back I want your opinion on something. No point scoring or silliness. Just the facts m'am.

You work for a big company I believe.

If the same scenario, as with alleged rapist/accuser from 30 years ago and they didn't work for you then, or as close as could be expected same scenario in your current work place, how would that be handled?

This is just a workshop of scenarios.

I think we are done with scoring points

 

[wendog33]

Another statement of Porter's blown out of the water.

Had met the woman probably twice, as she stated in her 31 page dossier, but one dinner has def been verified.

Said he hadn't met her again since the debate contest. An untruth.

 

[wendog33]

https://www.facebook.com/115985586441317/posts/491551842218021

 

[wendog33]

The Big Grift: How the Top End of Town rorted Jobkeeper - Michael West Media

The most rampant era of welfare rorting in Australia's history draws to a close at the end of the month when the JobKeeper scheme ends.

www.michaelwest.com.au

 

[wendog33]

Porter's plan will help cover up corruption, not expose it

The proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission is so badly conceived that it will fail in its core purpose.

www.smh.com.au

 

[DinkumDog]

When you get back I want your opinion on something. No point scoring or silliness. Just the facts m'am.

You work for a big company I believe.

If the same scenario, as with alleged rapist/accuser from 30 years ago and they didn't work for you then, or as close as could be expected same scenario in your current work place, how would that be handled?

This is just a workshop of scenarios.

I think we are done with scoring points

No idea what you mean re: point scoring, but I'll try to answer your question:

We have a very progressive leader of People.
One of the smartest people I've worked with and easily the best person for the job.
Not that it matters, but happens to be female.
Drives a culture of diversity and inclusion.
No nonsense but no agendas either.

So - your question is, if allegations were made about a current employee regarding their conduct 30 years ago when they did not work for this company, how would that be handled? And the alleged victim also works for the company?

If the alleged victim worked for the company: they could access 24/7 confidential counselling that my company provides free of charge for our people who might be struggling with any aspect of their lives. They can talk to someone and not have the conversation disclosed to anyone within the organisation. If the alleged victim then also chose to report the matter internally they would be supported and encouraged to speak up if they could provide evidence of the allegation and to report it to Police. The accused would not be stood down unless they were charged. If they were charged it is likely they would be stood down until judgement. If found guilty they would likely be terminated. If not guilty they would be able to return to work.

If the alleged victim did not work for the company but wanted to make allegations about someone who did - they would be referred to and encouraged to talk to Police as it would not be considered a company matter unless the employee was charged.

So in other words, exactly the same as what's happened to date with the Porter matter - the accused has a right to maintain their position unless charged. Don't forget in any criminal case the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

 

[DinkumDog]

Another statement of Porter's blown out of the water.

Had met the woman probably twice, as she stated in her 31 page dossier, but one dinner has def been verified.

Said he hadn't met her again since the debate contest. An untruth.View attachment 21793

Wendy, why don’t you go ahead and state with precision and zero doubt or foggy memories whether someone you met 33 years ago you also had dinner with 27 years ago. Can’t state with absolute precision? You must be guilty!

 

[wendog33]

No idea what you mean re: point scoring, but I'll try to answer your question:

We have a very progressive leader of People.
One of the smartest people I've worked with and easily the best person for the job.
Not that it matters, but happens to be female.
Drives a culture of diversity and inclusion.
No nonsense but no agendas either.

So - your question is, if allegations were made about a current employee regarding their conduct 30 years ago when they did not work for this company, how would that be handled? And the alleged victim also works for the company?

If the alleged victim worked for the company: they could access 24/7 confidential counselling that my company provides free of charge for our people who might be struggling with any aspect of their lives. They can talk to someone and not have the conversation disclosed to anyone within the organisation. If the alleged victim then also chose to report the matter internally they would be supported and encouraged to speak up if they could provide evidence of the allegation and to report it to Police. The accused would not be stood down unless they were charged. If they were charged it is likely they would be stood down until judgement. If found guilty they would likely be terminated. If not guilty they would be able to return to work.

If the alleged victim did not work for the company but wanted to make allegations about someone who did - they would be referred to and encouraged to talk to Police as it would not be considered a company matter unless the employee was charged.

So in other words, exactly the same as what's happened to date with the Porter matter - the accused has a right to maintain their position unless charged. Don't forget in any criminal case the burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

Thanks DD. Just wondering how a large company would handle it.

What of rugby league and other sports people, coaches etc. Why are they stood down?

Doesn't seem fair.