News Brittany Higgins enquiry

Mr 95%

Mr 95%

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
22,570
Reaction score
23,716
Man she was such a babe..

IMG_1425.jpeg
 
Natboy

Natboy

Banned
Premium Member
SC H2H Champion
SC Top Scorer
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
8,945
Reaction score
11,608
I’d like to apologise to Piggins. She wasn’t paid the absolutely ridiculous amount of 3 million with no evidence or conviction by an incompetent government trying to embarrass the former government, she was paid the absolutely ridiculous amount of 2.3 million with no evidence or conviction by an incompetent government trying to embarrass the former government
 
Gene Krupa

Gene Krupa

Kennel Legend
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
8,477
Reaction score
10,656
Natboy said:
I’d like to apologise to Piggins. She wasn’t paid the absolutely ridiculous amount of 3 million with no evidence or conviction by an incompetent government trying to embarrass the former government, she was paid the absolutely ridiculous amount of 2.3 million with no evidence or conviction by an incompetent government trying to embarrass the former government
Click to expand...
But she is a woman & she has to be believed.
 
Blue_boost

Blue_boost

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
2,272
I think everyone involved in thos
Matter are pretty sketchy.
 
Gene Krupa

Gene Krupa

Kennel Legend
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
8,477
Reaction score
10,656
Brittany Higgins' confidential $2.3 million compensation reveals that the government did not admit liability as she asserted during cross examibation.

Justice Michael Lee confirmed on Thursday that the bombshell document will be published by the Federal Court ruled, with some redactions to private medical information.

“Contrary to the evidence given to me there was no admission of liability, as I understand it,’’ Justice Lee said.

In other words, the Albanese Government paid $2.3 million without admitting any liability.

 
Doogie

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
12,427
No comment from the usual political flunkies about how the previous govt, when asked for the CCTV footage from parliament house, refused to give it to the Police until after the election?

Hmmm. Delaying evidence from an accused rape in your workplace because it might look bad with an election about to happen.

Now lets assume this was a big corporate who was about to have a board election and they did the same. I'd think the complainant would have pretty good grounds to sue their employer and would probably get some big bikkies. So when thinking about the whinge for the following payout, consider that the previous govt, as an employer, refused to hand over key evidence to a police investigation. Never argued they didn't have it or it wasn't available. Just didn't do it.

Good ole Libs/Nats. If they're not fckng each other for favours, their fckng their staff or ignoring basic workplace sexual harassment when its convenient. Lolz....
 
Gene Krupa

Gene Krupa

Kennel Legend
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
8,477
Reaction score
10,656
Doogie said:
No comment from the usual political flunkies about how the previous govt, when asked for the CCTV footage from parliament house, refused to give it to the Police until after the election?

Hmmm. Delaying evidence from an accused rape in your workplace because it might look bad with an election about to happen.

Now lets assume this was a big corporate who was about to have a board election and they did the same. I'd think the complainant would have pretty good grounds to sue their employer and would probably get some big bikkies. So when thinking about the whinge for the following payout, consider that the previous govt, as an employer, refused to hand over key evidence to a police investigation. Never argued they didn't have it or it wasn't available. Just didn't do it.

Good ole Libs/Nats. If they're not fckng each other for favours, their fckng their staff or ignoring basic workplace sexual harassment when its convenient. Lolz....
Click to expand...
WRONG

Justice Lee repeatedly raised on Friday the need for “clarity” around the fact that since “1688” parliament had been responsible for security in its precincts and there were rules around police access.

As such, the presiding offices had “exclusive jurisdiction” and police needed to ask their permission before executing search warrants, arresting someone or accessing CCTV.
But this was not the executive government - for example the Morrison Government, but the presiding officers.

“Thus in Parliament House, the police are subject to the authority of the Speaker and the President,’’ he said.

It’s established practice that the police did not conduct investigations, make arrests or execute any process in the precincts without consultation with the consent of the presiding officers.

“So I just think there should be some precision when we’re talking about the executive government and their powers. The presiding officers and their powers and the powers of the state or federal police.”

The statutory recognition of parliamentary privilege is founded in the British Bill of Rights 1688 that states that “freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

 
Doogie

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
12,427
Gene Krupa said:
WRONG

Justice Lee repeatedly raised on Friday the need for “clarity” around the fact that since “1688” parliament had been responsible for security in its precincts and there were rules around police access.

As such, the presiding offices had “exclusive jurisdiction” and police needed to ask their permission before executing search warrants, arresting someone or accessing CCTV.
But this was not the executive government - for example the Morrison Government, but the presiding officers.

“Thus in Parliament House, the police are subject to the authority of the Speaker and the President,’’ he said.

It’s established practice that the police did not conduct investigations, make arrests or execute any process in the precincts without consultation with the consent of the presiding officers.

“So I just think there should be some precision when we’re talking about the executive government and their powers. The presiding officers and their powers and the powers of the state or federal police.”

The statutory recognition of parliamentary privilege is founded in the British Bill of Rights 1688 that states that “freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

Click to expand...
So you're arguing that because its the speaker of the house and pres of the senate (both elected Liberal officials) its ok then? The 'presiding officers' held back the CCTV just after the election was called because....? Happy to hear any other reason that may sound reasonable.

Hey - I think the whole thing smells. But when you have a govt (or employer) deliberately interfering with a workplace rape investigation because its inconvenient, you don't think the money is eventually gunna flow on that one?

And as I said before, I think they are both of full of shit. But you could make an argument here that Labor tried to do the Libs a favour by paying her out. If it wasn't for the ACT police fckups, this shit would have been dead and buried. And no one would know that the govt of the time interfered with a workplace rape allegation because it would have been a bad look for the election.

So how exactly am I wrong? The speaker is only obliged to be impartial in parliament sittings and the senate pres has no obligation to be impartial full stop. Also remember that iron fist Scotty was the minister of everything at the time.
 
SexBomb

SexBomb

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
2,604
wendog33 said:
It's unrelenting crucifying of this woman ...and it is still legally possible she is telling the truth. She has been subject to the most vile and vicious media and personal scrutiny. The way she has held herself under the cross examination has been exemplary with the kind of attack she's has endured from BL barrister today for instance.

I dont know the truth of it all but her lies seem relatively minor when one examines the circumstances. Nothing by comparison to the lies he has admitted to of false statements to police and his various supervisors and employers.

Why she lied about the dress at the time, who knows. Shame? Expectation? Judgement? She said she didnt wear it again but really what relevance has that to the possible truth of her allegation. She said the dress was bunched up on her on the couch but the guard said the dress wasn't. She says she was wrong and accepts the guards evidence. She possibly lied about where she found the chocolates. It might not have been the kitchen. So what. Reynolds' Dior? jacket was in a charity box she was to take for donation for Reynolds. Now Reynolds says the lying cow stole it.

There's various women who have confirmed his predatory behaviour towards them and now another staffer in the last few days. Not to mention the upcoming Toowoomba case.

For me he has a much greater pile of telling court evidence against him to suggest that he is of less integrity than her, so therefore I can't just condemn and dismiss her as a liar and vexatious gold digger. 3 million dollars doesn't go to anywhere near enough money to compensate for what she has gone through and it should have been paid by her employer the Liberal Party who had control of this allegation within days of the alleged rape involving 2 of their staff and the associated handling of the mess, not the Australian taxpayer.
Click to expand...
A bridge too far, Wendy, waay too far.
I could elaborate, yet feel you have the intelligence to realise why if you consider the context of your comment.
 
SexBomb

SexBomb

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
2,604
wendog33 said:
Sad hey ;)

I just want to see a bit of even-handedness on here. Big ask. Never happens.
Click to expand...
Your post reminds me of another poster here.
One who recently started posting again.
 
SexBomb

SexBomb

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
2,604
wendog33 said:
Many, many mistakes and dumb stuff done by so, so many in this case starting with Higgins, BL, the security staff, Reynolds and her COS, police, etc etc.

Both DPP and Sofronoff concurred that there was enough of a case to proceed with the accusation and that it should be prosecuted. Why?

But yeah impossible to succeed (if it's true) if no witnesses and it's a case of he said:: she said.

I said earlier, it's opened up many young womens eyes on how heavy a burden it is to get a conviction and many won't want to put themselves thru it. There's a huge backlash on socials and their responsibility to keep out of any perceivedharms way when getting wasted.

Anyway it is what it is. Hopefully they all pull through it. Bruce went to a Liberal Party event on the weekend so he will be welcomed back into the fold and Higgins has a job so can move on.... % believe him and % believe her and they can gravitate to their own sympathizers I guess. They'll be ok if/when it all dies down.
Click to expand...
Where does the crowd that doesn't believe either party gravitate to?
Reality?
 
SexBomb

SexBomb

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
2,604
wendog33 said:
Their case is based about the law of probability isn't it that in his plying her with drinks. Signing her into PH. Spending 45? mins there giving 3 different reasons why he wanted access. Leaving without the drunk woman he escorted there. He wasn't actually named so that must help Ch 10? I don't know either how it will all play out.

If he is innocent, I feel sorry for him. He does have those other cases and women who have come forward accusing him so there's that. Be highly unlikely that of the 6 woman who are accusing him, that they are all lying. That goes to his truthfulness in this case I assume??

And if she is telling the truth, it's been a harrowing time for her. I really don't think the incidence of falsely accusing men if rape is that high a % by comparison to the amount of sexual assault that is prevalent in ourr society as per criminalogist stats...but it def does happen :(

The case has shined a light on lots of different issues in society for a lot of different reasons. Hope lessons are learnt.
Click to expand...
You are aware of confirmation bias, are you not?
 
SexBomb

SexBomb

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
2,604
Hacky McAxe said:
It does seem pretty suspect. But I would add some critiques:

- "Don't care what anyone says but fibbed about her state of being drunk"

Probably. She looked a bit drunk in the footage, but not completely hammered. Bruce looked more hammered

- "Wore the dress that she was 'raped' in again at of all things a parliamentary dinner"

Bit of a tricky one. People who suffer tramatic events can do weird things. I have a friend who was raped in a town in the NT while travelling around Australia. After the incident she went to the same pub every night for the next few weeks, even though she had planned to keep going. I asked her why and her response was, "I don't know. I just couldn't let it end me"

But most cases I have seen are the complete opposite. Anything associated to the incident leads them to so much pain and stress that they can't deal with it. For most, wearing the dress you were raped in would be like going through the hell all over again. As I said though, everyone is different and it's not really proof of anything. But it does seem a bit off

- "this isn't the 70's. You get raped, you go see a doctor asap if for nothing else other than evidence"

Only around 35% of rapes are reported to police. Less than that actually go to the doctor. Which makes sense. When someone goes through the worst thing to ever happen to them, they aren't going to think straight.

As I said though, something seems off. When you stack up all the points, it seems a bit shifty. And there definitely isn't enough for the bloke to be convicted based purely on the testimony of the victim. But if there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that no matter how sure you are of your stance, unless you were there then you can't really know for sure.

Speculation is still interesting though.
Click to expand...
Which, if they were intimate, places the onus of consent for both parties onto her.
Technically, it could be argued if she proves they had sex, she, as per the law, committed statutory rape.
An absolute basket case however you dissect this.
 
SexBomb

SexBomb

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
2,604
Gene Krupa said:
Stuff that, get them on The Amazing Race.

Or I'm A Celebrity, Get me out of here (And they never bring them back) But shit, one would eat all the food.
Click to expand...
Gogglebox, both on the same lounge watching only ABC.
 
SexBomb

SexBomb

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
2,604
Bad Billy said:
Why don’t you two kiss and make up?
If there’s one thing I hate about the world at the moment, it’s people overreacting to political or ideological positions.
Believe it or not, there was a time in the not too distant past, where people could disagree and still be friends.
Click to expand...
No we couldn't!
Why lie? ; )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top