anyone notice that all social media channels that have analyzed or provided commentary on the trial have disabled public 'Comments', 'Posts' etc. What are they frightened of?
thanks Bettina for all your hard work & persistence in showing the increasing bias against men, especially when it comes to allegations of sexual assault and/or rape. Social media is full of stories where men have been accused of all kinds of misadventures towards women and suffered the wrath of the law, their friends/peers, and society. However when men fight back and show the woman to be a narcissistic liar, not a word. The Bruce Lehmann case is a classic example. Justice Lee found that all parties (Lehmann, Higgins, TEN, Wilkinson, etc) were pathological liars, but Brittney's lies were 'more credible' than Bruce's. And the consequence? Bruce has been labelled a rapist whilst 'Little Miss Sunshine' returns to her villa in France with $3.6M in the bank. It stinks more than Wilkinson's underwear drawer.
Again, thank you Bettina for your efforts. It's now Wednesday after the Lehmann finding. I have deliberately not followed this story, but for a few highlights and low-lights of the saga. I have chosen to do this because the forces of the media and the Feminist Cult (which it seems to resemble) leave me with the idea that opposing them in the regular way is futile. Cognitive Dissonance, I think it's called.
I wanted to say that the presumption of innocence is not entirely missing. As men have been systematically demonized for a century, it can be taken as-given that we are guilty - our burden is to prove ourselves innocent.
This is not the case for women and children. Women have the God-given right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then, playing the victim card, forgiven for being "oppressed".
So the presumption of innocence is there, but not for men - particularly working men. One need only see the prison population demographics to bear this out.
As a man, I have no faith in the criminal justice system.
I want to say one thing that is important to me. I am of "The Left". I do not subscribe to Right Wing ideology, and I think that one can be Left and still see criminality fairly. The extreme Left, as in the extreme Right, are something both wings have to think about.
Most people think of feminists as being left wing , but there are right wing feminists too, lots of them in business and management , or politics. One that comes to mind is Amanda Vanstone, an ex Liberal Party senator and outspoken man hater . In as much as the Liberal/ Nationals are right wing and conservative these women are too.
Women like to be seen as special, part of the elite of society, so they can look down on other people , feminism gives them this, they look down on the working men , the men who did not go to university and do all the hard dirty jobs, in most cases at least.
But you are right ,the presumption of innocence still works for women , and women feminists have a lot of influence in Australia’s media , so it’s no surprise that this same media is attacking the conference.
Isn't what Deborah Lyttle posted considered "hate" speech? Will she be brought to task for her vile vitriole? And what about the reporter who asked Bruce Lehrmann when leaving the Court House "what does it feel like to be a rapist"? Bruce has NOT been found guilty and this "on the balance of probability" clause is just a bit too convenient.
Are you really a bloke behind the screen? Did you read the summary judgement? It goes like this. Young. Male. Drinking Alcohol. Kiss female. Leaves bar with female = is a rapist.
In light of recent events, Bruce Lehrmann has decided not to appear at the Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference. He is being subject to extremely aggressive pursuit by the media and is concerned that his participation may threaten the audience, jeopardise this important event, and distract from its main purpose.
ASF and Mothers and Sons have accepted his decision, and will find an alternative presenter while ensuring that the Lehrmann case still receives appropriate attention at the conference as a powerful example of trial by media undermining the vital legal principle of the presumption of innocence.
Thank you for the update Bettina. I thought as much. I just read a news article on it and it seems an egregious decision by the judge. Essentially saying, young bloke out drinking with a women who he is attracted to him ( to each other) and drunk, so it follows if he gets her alone at all he must rape her. Thing is Parliament House is hardly “ secluded” as he suggests. Yes, this kind of thing happens. Yes lehrman seems to have panicked and made some details up. There are other reasonable explanations than the judge concluded here.
100% of our "esteemed" judges supported lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
Not all of their decisions are wrong but, inasmuch as they're correct, it's more good luck than good management.
You can parse the whole decision but the key here is that Lee somehow divined that Lehrmann ejaculated in Higgins. How could he have possibly been convinced of such a thing with a high balance of probability?
He couldn't. Lee just made it up. He's just as much of a liar as anybody who entered his courtroom.
The decision is a disgrace. Our court system is beyond repair.
It is a shame the criminal trial was aborted. I don’t think a jury would have convicted but then that is speculation. I have been a juror, and found trials are run well. But there would be some pressure on the blokes and some bias from the women (within the jury) in such a high profile case. I have a conspiracy that it was done intentionally (bringing a book into jury room) to be able to abort the trial and save face.
I hope Bruce can fight on and appeal the decision all the way to the high court , he would win there . This judge has made a finding of a criminal matter in a civil case , surely grounds for appeal .
I don’t think that’s the issue. Happens in many cases, OJ Simpson being one famous case. The issue is there seems no evidence but speculation (eg being a young male equals horny and going to commit rape at the next opportunity).
The issue was that the media jumped the gun on any jury finding by publicly calling Mr Lehrmann a rapist , the media is there to report the facts , not to make assumptions about a persons guilt , thats the job of a jury after a proper court hearing.
For this reason the defamation case should have succeeded and the court should have sent a clear message to the media that we can not have “trial by media “ .
But this opportunity has been lost by a judge who in effect has also defamed Mr Lehrmann.
I listened today to Justice Lee describing the events of Higgins-Lehrmann affair as he saw them and, in particular as that related to the offence of rape.
I make no comment about the specific events of that evening, but would like to make general comments about the offence in the abstract, particularly in the context of gender equality.
1. The first thing I’d like to say is that in these days of equality, unless there is an element of physical coercion (or a credible threat thereof) why should there be obligations on one gender which are not reflected in the obligations of the other. This issue in this, as so many cases, is the impact of alcohol on the woman’s ability to give (or in this case as I understand .justice Lee, to *continue* giving) consent. There is, however no corresponding consideration on the impact of alcohol on the man’s ability to assess or need to ensure continuing consent. The point I’m trying to explore is this - suppose that two parties arrive at “privacy” with the intention at least of “pashing on”, presumably to conclusion…how can it be - in a world of equality of intellect, decision making, competence etc etc etc - that the woman’s responsibility for her behaviour (but not the man’s for his) is reduced by means of voluntary alcohol consumption.
2. Similarly, in circumstances of equality, why are the two not equally responsible for their shared, known, alcohol consumption (presumably intended by both parties - of not, why not? - to lubricate the implementation of shared desire)
3. Once again, in circumstance of equality, why is it a reasonable assumption that the man is a supplicant, the woman an unwilling provider?
The problem, from my PoV, is the hypocrisy of “the strong woman” coupled with the assumption that, in essence, every man wants to “take advantage” of a woman’s moral weakness…
As I say, physical coercion or its threat, I have no problem understanding…but how is it women hav3 the moral high ground no matter how they act, while men always act from the basest motives.
If this *is* the law (and I think I have it right) the law is no5 just an ass, it’s an evil ass.
what I found as the most ridiculous statement is that Justice Lee found that the parties involved (Lehmann, Higgins, TEN, Wilkinson, etc) were all pathological liars, but Higgins lies were, according to Lee, 'more credible' than Bruce's. That makes zero sense unless there is underlying bias.
It's also a big part of the radical side of feminism.
The leading figures of this movement have decided that women in general are infantile beings incapable of making rational decisions without their input/permission. Consequently you end up with a Matriarchal society that will only allow a limited range of decisions, which does not include sexual activity without their supervision.
Because the media controls the moral compass of society and no pollie is strong enough to go against the current. So women a strong and brave, but also infallible because any indiscretion was the influence of men. I am too old to win this, but I’ll ensure to my best of my abilities to educate my son and daughter on how to protect themselves. One big factor will be to booze as little as possible.
If they were independently behind the wheel of 2 diff vehicles would not they be held to account for the condition each of them allowed themselves to be in? Why then is it different in this age (women want to be considered even) in my opinion one should be accountable for the amount they drink.
I actually surmise that another possibility occurred, which turns to the male ego. He liked the attention and took it as far as possible, but when he got the Parliament House, he felt too guilty to continue and bounced. Many married men have flirted with a women to the edge of cheating and left.
Lerhman has lost, I listened to much of what the judge said and by the strictest definition of the law that is correct. I am greatly uncomfortable with this decision. The interpretation is that they both went to Parliament House with the intention of sex. Britney was too drunk so on probability Bruce went ahead anyway. Britney has no idea whether she had sex or not. Waking up in Reynolds office unless someone cleaned up she ought have been aware. That being so immediate attendance at a doctor's would have been expected. If you accept probability that presumes all young men would proceed no matter the state of sobriety. The weight of evidence for a civil case is less then for a criminal case but to be judged like this I do not think is adequate.
If, and that is if they both had sex, then to my mind it was drunken consensual sex, especially when Higgins admitted she went out that night not wearing any underwear. That to me is intent (if not ambush). I found the Judge's remarks to be contradictory and cannot help but wonder where his loyalties lie....with the Labour/Green's Party or the justice system.
I would think that rather be concerned about “new laws” to protect the weak women they should be concerned to make it mandated to visit a Doctor within 24 hours!
When one looks at the photos of them both entering Parliament house, Brittany had her shoes off, but she did not appear to be heavily under the influence of alcohol - she was not staggering or leaning on counters to hold herself up. It is hard to imagine the person who we see walking in, later out cold & not aware that she had had sex. Her communication with friends that appears to have been not considered by Lee ? Sure she fell over in the hotel, but she may have slept in the taxi - It is only Lee’s opinion that Bruce was hell bent on sex. Lee is not infalible! Bruce did not appear to be hell bent on sex; he did not have his arm around her! He was not walking as one would ‘hell bent on sex’. She did not go to the Dr, her clothes were not torn or wripped (she has worn this dress later)
So if you've ever wound up in the cot with a chick after a night on the piss and you screw before passing out, you're guilty of rape, because she's deemed incapable of consent. By that standard most Australian men of my generation (boomers) are rapists, and many of us married the drunken chicks we drunkenly raped. Of course, back in those days, women weren't so precious about their vaginas. Lee's decision reflects just how far we've gone down the road of infantilizing women and demonizing men. It's a very sick country we're living in now, which I no longer recognize as Australia.
Back in those days Orr, rape was considered a violent act, not as you allude to, drunken sex. And for Higgins to be paid $3million for something that has not been proven .....well, I am speechless. A real rape victim of the 1970's sometimes did not get compensation and if she did, I am sure it was not in the millions. I agree, this is not my country anymore.
It is what Governments seem to do. Punish new generations for past mistakes. Back in the day, rape victims would offer be re-victimised through the trial and media. Likewise WW1 soldiers didn’t get much on return pay, now military finish with multimillion pay outs for injuries unrelated to work. Emotional responses and buying short term votes seem to always end in extremes.
Yes ,the definition of rape has been expanded to ridiculous extremes. It used to mean a forced act upon a woman ,or man , against the persons will. Clear and simple , anything less was seen as less serious and if the woman had consented but then changed her mind , well she would be laughed out of any police station.
Simple black and white laws work best , but that’s not good enough for feminists who are deliberately muddying the water , in their obsessive war against men.
We are not murders or criminals, just good hearted men that have been the victims of injustice in the family law court, and other areas where men are falsely accused for no other reason than we are “men”. The presumption of innocence must be maintained, not thrown out at the whim of tabloid media.
Hold the line Bettina! Blessings from Ipswich Queensland.🌻😊
It is hardly a surprise that those who have absolute disregard for due process and the presumption of innocence would seek to gag those who have a different view. They do not understand objective discourse, let alone that the law is designed to protect the innocent and its integrity must be preserved.
Bruce Lerhman is innocent, or the only other option is that he and Linda Renolds are both complete lunatics.
I am sitting here suffering the full effects of my second bout of Covid, but I can't not write this down, so I will try my best to sound as coherant as possible considering my health at this time.
The court case against Bruce Lehrman was declared a mistrial due to no fault of either Brittany Higgins and more importantly Bruce Lehrman. A juror brought in information that was not introduced in the trial so because of this the trial was ended. In the days following, the prosecution gave the extrordinary statement that they would not seek a retrial due to Brittany Higgins' mental health.
Now, as we are all aware. Brittany's mental health picked up quite well when she was awarded $3.4M in compensation and was offered a nice cushy job in Paris. Her mental health was so good that she was quite OK to attend the defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrman against channel 10. Brittany's mental health is also so good right now that after talks broke down between her and Linda Reynolds she is again back to court to attend a defamation case against her.
Now, here is the fun part. Is Bruce Lehrman a lunatic, and is Linda Reynolds a lunatic as well?
Bruce Lerhman, through no fault of his own got a get out of jail free card due to the trial being declared a mistrial. If he was guilty, and only he and Brittany know what happened that night, then you would expect that his legal team would have spelled this out to him to make him abundantly aware how vaulable a get out of jail free card is in a situation like this. No, Bruce decided to do what he did, he brought a defamation case against channel 10 and that forgettable reporter whose face brings dread to my mind every time I see it. Bruce is either completely stupid or he completely knew that a defence for defamation is truth, speaking as a person who has sucessfully brought a defamation case against another person and won, I am abundantly aware that truth is probably the best defence for a defamation case. Bruce must have been aware of this and yet he proceeded. His legal team would know this and yet they proceeded.
Our legal system may be a bit off the rails, but it isn't completely bent, not yet anyway.
Then Linda Reynolds begins her defamation case against Brittany Higgins! So, here is the king pin, Linda is obviously a strong and intelligent woman, everything the femanists aspire to, and Linda is now sueing Brittany for defamation, talks have floundered and they are off to court. Again, the best defence against defamation is the truth. If there is any truth to Brittany's story then it will be a shoe in for a defence, Linda would know that and still proceeded.
Hence, Bruce Lehrman is innocent. It is obvious that due to his previous employmet he is no dope, he must know the concequences should Brittany and that forgettable reporter manage to convince the judge that their story is truthful. Bruce had no one forcing him to proceed with this defamation case.
I hope this all makes sense, I am back off to bed to do some recovering and I am looking forward to0 this conference, online for me though. The fact that this conference is drawing bad press goes to show how important it is, keep up the great work Bettina, you are an angel.
After the rape trial was abandoned I recall one journalist saying that if Lehrmann sued for defamation it would be like escaping the lion's den and going back to retrieve your hat. I quite liked the analogy, and that's exactly what he did. We'll know in a few hours if he succeeded - here's hoping!
I am noticing today that the general perspective I am seeing in the news is that it is being seen as vindication day, for Brittany!!!
Yes, re-entering the lion's den to get your hat is exactly the reason why I believe that Bruce Lehrman is innocent, while he may be of questionable character (who isn't under the intense scrutiny of our media) he hasn't actually done anything that is illegal so that should be that. However, in our ever increasingly acceptance for hatred toward all men, this line is simply not acceptable and is surely showing the biased reporting that our media is blatently putting up every single day. Our media really needs to be haulled over the coals and for me this case seems to be as good as any to be the starting point for that. The percieved inability for our media to remain unbiased and simply report in a balanced style by saying that it is also vindication day for Bruce is possibly worse than anything else that has happened during this case and also provides further proof of his defamation. Simply anyone and everyone who believes that Bruce is a rapist is a witness to prove his defamation case, that is unless they can prove that Brittany was telling the truth.
Now, where did I leave my hat?
I have woken up today hoping that the judge is an intelligent person and has not been swayed by the complete rubbish that the media has put out about all this, I am hoping that by the end of the day Bruce Lehrman is a multi millionair, I think $6M should do it. I then hope that Linda Reynolds manages to secure $2.4M from Brittany in her defamation case. If this happens then we as a general public can relax knowing that justice has been done and that all that we stand up for is actually working, but it isn't really, is it?
Hi Tina, are tickets still available, I just tried to buy some buy it says sold out?
anyone notice that all social media channels that have analyzed or provided commentary on the trial have disabled public 'Comments', 'Posts' etc. What are they frightened of?
thanks Bettina for all your hard work & persistence in showing the increasing bias against men, especially when it comes to allegations of sexual assault and/or rape. Social media is full of stories where men have been accused of all kinds of misadventures towards women and suffered the wrath of the law, their friends/peers, and society. However when men fight back and show the woman to be a narcissistic liar, not a word. The Bruce Lehmann case is a classic example. Justice Lee found that all parties (Lehmann, Higgins, TEN, Wilkinson, etc) were pathological liars, but Brittney's lies were 'more credible' than Bruce's. And the consequence? Bruce has been labelled a rapist whilst 'Little Miss Sunshine' returns to her villa in France with $3.6M in the bank. It stinks more than Wilkinson's underwear drawer.
Again, thank you Bettina for your efforts. It's now Wednesday after the Lehmann finding. I have deliberately not followed this story, but for a few highlights and low-lights of the saga. I have chosen to do this because the forces of the media and the Feminist Cult (which it seems to resemble) leave me with the idea that opposing them in the regular way is futile. Cognitive Dissonance, I think it's called.
I wanted to say that the presumption of innocence is not entirely missing. As men have been systematically demonized for a century, it can be taken as-given that we are guilty - our burden is to prove ourselves innocent.
This is not the case for women and children. Women have the God-given right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then, playing the victim card, forgiven for being "oppressed".
So the presumption of innocence is there, but not for men - particularly working men. One need only see the prison population demographics to bear this out.
As a man, I have no faith in the criminal justice system.
I want to say one thing that is important to me. I am of "The Left". I do not subscribe to Right Wing ideology, and I think that one can be Left and still see criminality fairly. The extreme Left, as in the extreme Right, are something both wings have to think about.
Most people think of feminists as being left wing , but there are right wing feminists too, lots of them in business and management , or politics. One that comes to mind is Amanda Vanstone, an ex Liberal Party senator and outspoken man hater . In as much as the Liberal/ Nationals are right wing and conservative these women are too.
Women like to be seen as special, part of the elite of society, so they can look down on other people , feminism gives them this, they look down on the working men , the men who did not go to university and do all the hard dirty jobs, in most cases at least.
But you are right ,the presumption of innocence still works for women , and women feminists have a lot of influence in Australia’s media , so it’s no surprise that this same media is attacking the conference.
It is very interesting is it not? how in the name of LOVE that these leftist radicals are so hateful and vicious.
But then they are the hate movement par excellence who have the effrontery to think that their hatreds are righteous.
The "woe" keep revealing their hypocrisy and outright bullying cruelty at every step.
and for that I can thank them
Isn't what Deborah Lyttle posted considered "hate" speech? Will she be brought to task for her vile vitriole? And what about the reporter who asked Bruce Lehrmann when leaving the Court House "what does it feel like to be a rapist"? Bruce has NOT been found guilty and this "on the balance of probability" clause is just a bit too convenient.
This hasn't aged well has it love
Are you really a bloke behind the screen? Did you read the summary judgement? It goes like this. Young. Male. Drinking Alcohol. Kiss female. Leaves bar with female = is a rapist.
Wrong. In fact the issue is more important than ever.
Thank you Bettina! Where would we be without you. Where would men be? We thank all those who support you.
In light of recent events, Bruce Lehrmann has decided not to appear at the Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference. He is being subject to extremely aggressive pursuit by the media and is concerned that his participation may threaten the audience, jeopardise this important event, and distract from its main purpose.
ASF and Mothers and Sons have accepted his decision, and will find an alternative presenter while ensuring that the Lehrmann case still receives appropriate attention at the conference as a powerful example of trial by media undermining the vital legal principle of the presumption of innocence.
Thank you for the update Bettina. I thought as much. I just read a news article on it and it seems an egregious decision by the judge. Essentially saying, young bloke out drinking with a women who he is attracted to him ( to each other) and drunk, so it follows if he gets her alone at all he must rape her. Thing is Parliament House is hardly “ secluded” as he suggests. Yes, this kind of thing happens. Yes lehrman seems to have panicked and made some details up. There are other reasonable explanations than the judge concluded here.
100% of our "esteemed" judges supported lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
Not all of their decisions are wrong but, inasmuch as they're correct, it's more good luck than good management.
You can parse the whole decision but the key here is that Lee somehow divined that Lehrmann ejaculated in Higgins. How could he have possibly been convinced of such a thing with a high balance of probability?
He couldn't. Lee just made it up. He's just as much of a liar as anybody who entered his courtroom.
The decision is a disgrace. Our court system is beyond repair.
It is a shame the criminal trial was aborted. I don’t think a jury would have convicted but then that is speculation. I have been a juror, and found trials are run well. But there would be some pressure on the blokes and some bias from the women (within the jury) in such a high profile case. I have a conspiracy that it was done intentionally (bringing a book into jury room) to be able to abort the trial and save face.
I hope Bruce can fight on and appeal the decision all the way to the high court , he would win there . This judge has made a finding of a criminal matter in a civil case , surely grounds for appeal .
I don’t think that’s the issue. Happens in many cases, OJ Simpson being one famous case. The issue is there seems no evidence but speculation (eg being a young male equals horny and going to commit rape at the next opportunity).
The issue was that the media jumped the gun on any jury finding by publicly calling Mr Lehrmann a rapist , the media is there to report the facts , not to make assumptions about a persons guilt , thats the job of a jury after a proper court hearing.
For this reason the defamation case should have succeeded and the court should have sent a clear message to the media that we can not have “trial by media “ .
But this opportunity has been lost by a judge who in effect has also defamed Mr Lehrmann.
I listened today to Justice Lee describing the events of Higgins-Lehrmann affair as he saw them and, in particular as that related to the offence of rape.
I make no comment about the specific events of that evening, but would like to make general comments about the offence in the abstract, particularly in the context of gender equality.
1. The first thing I’d like to say is that in these days of equality, unless there is an element of physical coercion (or a credible threat thereof) why should there be obligations on one gender which are not reflected in the obligations of the other. This issue in this, as so many cases, is the impact of alcohol on the woman’s ability to give (or in this case as I understand .justice Lee, to *continue* giving) consent. There is, however no corresponding consideration on the impact of alcohol on the man’s ability to assess or need to ensure continuing consent. The point I’m trying to explore is this - suppose that two parties arrive at “privacy” with the intention at least of “pashing on”, presumably to conclusion…how can it be - in a world of equality of intellect, decision making, competence etc etc etc - that the woman’s responsibility for her behaviour (but not the man’s for his) is reduced by means of voluntary alcohol consumption.
2. Similarly, in circumstances of equality, why are the two not equally responsible for their shared, known, alcohol consumption (presumably intended by both parties - of not, why not? - to lubricate the implementation of shared desire)
3. Once again, in circumstance of equality, why is it a reasonable assumption that the man is a supplicant, the woman an unwilling provider?
The problem, from my PoV, is the hypocrisy of “the strong woman” coupled with the assumption that, in essence, every man wants to “take advantage” of a woman’s moral weakness…
As I say, physical coercion or its threat, I have no problem understanding…but how is it women hav3 the moral high ground no matter how they act, while men always act from the basest motives.
If this *is* the law (and I think I have it right) the law is no5 just an ass, it’s an evil ass.
what I found as the most ridiculous statement is that Justice Lee found that the parties involved (Lehmann, Higgins, TEN, Wilkinson, etc) were all pathological liars, but Higgins lies were, according to Lee, 'more credible' than Bruce's. That makes zero sense unless there is underlying bias.
It's also a big part of the radical side of feminism.
The leading figures of this movement have decided that women in general are infantile beings incapable of making rational decisions without their input/permission. Consequently you end up with a Matriarchal society that will only allow a limited range of decisions, which does not include sexual activity without their supervision.
Because the media controls the moral compass of society and no pollie is strong enough to go against the current. So women a strong and brave, but also infallible because any indiscretion was the influence of men. I am too old to win this, but I’ll ensure to my best of my abilities to educate my son and daughter on how to protect themselves. One big factor will be to booze as little as possible.
If they were independently behind the wheel of 2 diff vehicles would not they be held to account for the condition each of them allowed themselves to be in? Why then is it different in this age (women want to be considered even) in my opinion one should be accountable for the amount they drink.
I actually surmise that another possibility occurred, which turns to the male ego. He liked the attention and took it as far as possible, but when he got the Parliament House, he felt too guilty to continue and bounced. Many married men have flirted with a women to the edge of cheating and left.
Lerhman has lost, I listened to much of what the judge said and by the strictest definition of the law that is correct. I am greatly uncomfortable with this decision. The interpretation is that they both went to Parliament House with the intention of sex. Britney was too drunk so on probability Bruce went ahead anyway. Britney has no idea whether she had sex or not. Waking up in Reynolds office unless someone cleaned up she ought have been aware. That being so immediate attendance at a doctor's would have been expected. If you accept probability that presumes all young men would proceed no matter the state of sobriety. The weight of evidence for a civil case is less then for a criminal case but to be judged like this I do not think is adequate.
If, and that is if they both had sex, then to my mind it was drunken consensual sex, especially when Higgins admitted she went out that night not wearing any underwear. That to me is intent (if not ambush). I found the Judge's remarks to be contradictory and cannot help but wonder where his loyalties lie....with the Labour/Green's Party or the justice system.
I would think that rather be concerned about “new laws” to protect the weak women they should be concerned to make it mandated to visit a Doctor within 24 hours!
When one looks at the photos of them both entering Parliament house, Brittany had her shoes off, but she did not appear to be heavily under the influence of alcohol - she was not staggering or leaning on counters to hold herself up. It is hard to imagine the person who we see walking in, later out cold & not aware that she had had sex. Her communication with friends that appears to have been not considered by Lee ? Sure she fell over in the hotel, but she may have slept in the taxi - It is only Lee’s opinion that Bruce was hell bent on sex. Lee is not infalible! Bruce did not appear to be hell bent on sex; he did not have his arm around her! He was not walking as one would ‘hell bent on sex’. She did not go to the Dr, her clothes were not torn or wripped (she has worn this dress later)
So if you've ever wound up in the cot with a chick after a night on the piss and you screw before passing out, you're guilty of rape, because she's deemed incapable of consent. By that standard most Australian men of my generation (boomers) are rapists, and many of us married the drunken chicks we drunkenly raped. Of course, back in those days, women weren't so precious about their vaginas. Lee's decision reflects just how far we've gone down the road of infantilizing women and demonizing men. It's a very sick country we're living in now, which I no longer recognize as Australia.
Back in those days Orr, rape was considered a violent act, not as you allude to, drunken sex. And for Higgins to be paid $3million for something that has not been proven .....well, I am speechless. A real rape victim of the 1970's sometimes did not get compensation and if she did, I am sure it was not in the millions. I agree, this is not my country anymore.
It is what Governments seem to do. Punish new generations for past mistakes. Back in the day, rape victims would offer be re-victimised through the trial and media. Likewise WW1 soldiers didn’t get much on return pay, now military finish with multimillion pay outs for injuries unrelated to work. Emotional responses and buying short term votes seem to always end in extremes.
Yes ,the definition of rape has been expanded to ridiculous extremes. It used to mean a forced act upon a woman ,or man , against the persons will. Clear and simple , anything less was seen as less serious and if the woman had consented but then changed her mind , well she would be laughed out of any police station.
Simple black and white laws work best , but that’s not good enough for feminists who are deliberately muddying the water , in their obsessive war against men.
It seems that there were three people in that room that night.
Thank you Bettina for sticking up for us men.
We are not murders or criminals, just good hearted men that have been the victims of injustice in the family law court, and other areas where men are falsely accused for no other reason than we are “men”. The presumption of innocence must be maintained, not thrown out at the whim of tabloid media.
Hold the line Bettina! Blessings from Ipswich Queensland.🌻😊
It is hardly a surprise that those who have absolute disregard for due process and the presumption of innocence would seek to gag those who have a different view. They do not understand objective discourse, let alone that the law is designed to protect the innocent and its integrity must be preserved.
Bruce Lerhman is innocent, or the only other option is that he and Linda Renolds are both complete lunatics.
I am sitting here suffering the full effects of my second bout of Covid, but I can't not write this down, so I will try my best to sound as coherant as possible considering my health at this time.
The court case against Bruce Lehrman was declared a mistrial due to no fault of either Brittany Higgins and more importantly Bruce Lehrman. A juror brought in information that was not introduced in the trial so because of this the trial was ended. In the days following, the prosecution gave the extrordinary statement that they would not seek a retrial due to Brittany Higgins' mental health.
Now, as we are all aware. Brittany's mental health picked up quite well when she was awarded $3.4M in compensation and was offered a nice cushy job in Paris. Her mental health was so good that she was quite OK to attend the defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrman against channel 10. Brittany's mental health is also so good right now that after talks broke down between her and Linda Reynolds she is again back to court to attend a defamation case against her.
Now, here is the fun part. Is Bruce Lehrman a lunatic, and is Linda Reynolds a lunatic as well?
Bruce Lerhman, through no fault of his own got a get out of jail free card due to the trial being declared a mistrial. If he was guilty, and only he and Brittany know what happened that night, then you would expect that his legal team would have spelled this out to him to make him abundantly aware how vaulable a get out of jail free card is in a situation like this. No, Bruce decided to do what he did, he brought a defamation case against channel 10 and that forgettable reporter whose face brings dread to my mind every time I see it. Bruce is either completely stupid or he completely knew that a defence for defamation is truth, speaking as a person who has sucessfully brought a defamation case against another person and won, I am abundantly aware that truth is probably the best defence for a defamation case. Bruce must have been aware of this and yet he proceeded. His legal team would know this and yet they proceeded.
Our legal system may be a bit off the rails, but it isn't completely bent, not yet anyway.
Then Linda Reynolds begins her defamation case against Brittany Higgins! So, here is the king pin, Linda is obviously a strong and intelligent woman, everything the femanists aspire to, and Linda is now sueing Brittany for defamation, talks have floundered and they are off to court. Again, the best defence against defamation is the truth. If there is any truth to Brittany's story then it will be a shoe in for a defence, Linda would know that and still proceeded.
Hence, Bruce Lehrman is innocent. It is obvious that due to his previous employmet he is no dope, he must know the concequences should Brittany and that forgettable reporter manage to convince the judge that their story is truthful. Bruce had no one forcing him to proceed with this defamation case.
I hope this all makes sense, I am back off to bed to do some recovering and I am looking forward to0 this conference, online for me though. The fact that this conference is drawing bad press goes to show how important it is, keep up the great work Bettina, you are an angel.
After the rape trial was abandoned I recall one journalist saying that if Lehrmann sued for defamation it would be like escaping the lion's den and going back to retrieve your hat. I quite liked the analogy, and that's exactly what he did. We'll know in a few hours if he succeeded - here's hoping!
I am noticing today that the general perspective I am seeing in the news is that it is being seen as vindication day, for Brittany!!!
Yes, re-entering the lion's den to get your hat is exactly the reason why I believe that Bruce Lehrman is innocent, while he may be of questionable character (who isn't under the intense scrutiny of our media) he hasn't actually done anything that is illegal so that should be that. However, in our ever increasingly acceptance for hatred toward all men, this line is simply not acceptable and is surely showing the biased reporting that our media is blatently putting up every single day. Our media really needs to be haulled over the coals and for me this case seems to be as good as any to be the starting point for that. The percieved inability for our media to remain unbiased and simply report in a balanced style by saying that it is also vindication day for Bruce is possibly worse than anything else that has happened during this case and also provides further proof of his defamation. Simply anyone and everyone who believes that Bruce is a rapist is a witness to prove his defamation case, that is unless they can prove that Brittany was telling the truth.
Now, where did I leave my hat?
I have woken up today hoping that the judge is an intelligent person and has not been swayed by the complete rubbish that the media has put out about all this, I am hoping that by the end of the day Bruce Lehrman is a multi millionair, I think $6M should do it. I then hope that Linda Reynolds manages to secure $2.4M from Brittany in her defamation case. If this happens then we as a general public can relax knowing that justice has been done and that all that we stand up for is actually working, but it isn't really, is it?