Bettina, once a resident of Canberra will remember the Public Service Board. The PSB no longer exists.
It's function was to administer the Commonwealth Selection Test (CST) and to oversight management protocol of all other departments except Defence.
The purpose of the CST was threefold.
1. It prevented patronage and nepotism from influencing public service appointments.
2. It established a level of intelligence for entry.
3. As well as being an objective measure of intelligence, reading comprehension etc, it was also non racist and non sexist.
I should finally mention that the Labor Party abolished the CST ...and there was no replacement of any
objective psychological test. Political appointments are now part of the process. As an example, I note former long term politician Bill Shorten was recently appointed to a high paying job in Canberra's ANU (+1 million dollars p.a.) - resigning from parliament after 17 years in office.
How did that come about? And what do we know about Shorten's mental capacity in view of his advancing age ? How likely is it there are younger candidates who would be a better pick for the job ?
How relevant is all this to the issue of "When public servants act as judge and jury "?... It's crucial imo.
This story is greater than the very small slice presented here. It encompasses huge quango structures like the Human Rights commissions, and the recently-in-the-news Esafety Commission. These orgs have basically received delegated power to ruin people's lives through "process". And that power is mostly "inchoate" - that is it achieved their creators' outcomes by scaring people through the chilling effect rather than actually hauling a small number into their star chambers.
When actually exercised those powers are easily abused by kangaroo-court processes that dispense with rules of evidence and threshold of proof; also by exploiting vaguely defined offenses such as hate speech. I am re-living my childhood in communist Eastern Europe now - but in the "free world".
I wish to get a message to Bruce Lehrmann, or at least to his legal team. You see, I have a couple of difficulties with the recent findings in the defamation case.
1. The Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Link at the bottom. While the thought experiment was only theoretical and was also worked on by Albert Einstein himself, the very basic lesson we can get out of this thought experiment is this; under normal conditions we can assume anything, but to be true we must observe or at least have evidence that can be observed. Based on this kind of thinking, the room Bruce and Brittany went into became the box, no one knows exactly what happened in that room except for the fact that there is a high probability that either or both the people in that room know what happened. There is no empirical evidence of anything that went on in that room, but there are pointers.
1. Based on probability and coming from a non emotive stand point there are a multitude of things that could have happened in that room. Some of these are that Bruce did in fact have non consensual sex with Brittany, but there is also an equal probability that he did not. Similarly there is an equal probability that consensual sex occurred and this consent was retracted at a later date. There is also an equal probability that no sex occurred, that Brittany and Bruce went separate ways, that Brittany fell asleep and that Bruce left in a disappointed way because he didn't get what he was probably expecting?!
The fact is that there are a multitude of other probabilities that could have happened in that room, only one of these was put forward as 'the' probability and proposing that there is only one probability is fundamentally wrong, ignoring all other probabilities is also wrong. As there is no empirical evidence that can remove any doubt, the true result with regard to the probability that anything untoward happened in that room must then be, we simply don't know. Personal opinion should not count in court, never.
2. I find it difficult to reconcile the timeline of events to which Brittany remembers the time in that room. In her last testimony, she reported a much more detailed version of the alleged crime. It was much more detailed and vivid than all other times that she had given this evidence. This was also noted and dismissed by the judge in the defamation case, but he didn't go far enough. This alone should have demonstrated Brittany's desire to embellish her story to provide sufficient drama to get the result that she, channel 10 and Wilkinson wanted. Was she schooled to this end? This should have been a bigger point and should have gone toward a finding that she was a more unreliable witness than Bruce, so again, it leads toward a finding that we simply don't know what went on in that room. A proper trial should be required to make that determination.
3. She then fell asleep!!! WTF? If we are to believe Brittany's last testimony, she gave the impression that she did have a reasonable degree of lucidity and based on the next two facts that I will discuss, she should have been in at least a small way in a mental position to make the smallest of decisions. My question is why she thought that after being raped, why did she think it was a great time to have a little sleep?
4. The above is backed up with two pieces of evidence. If there was a date rape drug used, this would have answered the above question and provided evidence as to why she fell asleep. The problem here is that depending on the amount of these drugs administered, they can have quite long affects on the person, from 6 to 12 hours. A person should know that something is wrong when they wake up and then should seek medical and or police assistance to determine what had happened. This did not happen. In addition to this there was that welfare check carried out by the female security officer. Now we would hope that this security officer was reasonably well trained and could determine whether a woman is in a questionable state or not. It is known that nothing was said or done by these officers, no police were called, and no impropriety was observed, just a woman sleeping off a night on the turps.
I am hoping that Bruce Lehrmann’s team already know this and can argue it successfully, but I just can't get these factors out of my head, they are just too obvious to me.
This is inevitable whenever a bureaucracy is involved. Bureaucratic incentives are always neck-on-the-line. There’s no downside to false positives, only to false negatives.
The real kicker of these massive injustices against the innocent is that nobody cares. If nobody cares because it hasn't happened to them personally, and even if this injustice hits a family member, as long as it doesn't happen to them, they are ok with it. This is the sin of our neighbors, co-workers, family and friends. They don't give a damn. They have their career, their job, their house, and most importantly their reputation, and if you lose all of your reputation and everything you own they secretly believe you likely deserved it. This is how we got here and this is how the bureaucratic persecution is sustained.
Do you want to know how a Christian society collapsed? They permitted it, because of their disdain of their fellow man. The fruit of this contempt to the laws of nature and nature's God is death, destruction and lots of pain. The Lord Jesus Christ will not be mocked.
This WWCC thing must not exist. It is purely the reversal of presumption of innocence. In sane countries, people applying to jobs with minors involved, have to prove a clean record of criminal offenses. No accusations are listed. Only convictions.
The bureaucrats will always tend to delay a WWCC paper. They can issue it 1000 times and nothing happens, then good. On the 1001th time something can go wrong and then society/media will come down to them on their failure. How could they. And issuing a WWCC cannot be a guarantee that someone offends in the future. This is why the WWCC is a joke and gives a false security, destroying presumption of innocence and with it the thousands an millions of lives.
This is a feminist /Marxist conspiracy , make it as hard as possible for men to work with children and they’ll be discouraged leaving more women in these roles , that’s what’s happened in schools .
Lefty women dominate in the teaching profession , indoctrinating the nations young minds in anti male , anti patriarchy, women as victims nonsense .
What’s this got to do with Marxism you may ask, but this is their favourite method, used by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Hitlers Nazis etc., get at the children and brainwash them in the ideology and they’ll willingly do anything , even betray their own family as shown in Hitler’s Germany (the Hitler Youth). and the Khmer children.
There is not any government or elected representative brave and concerned enough to take on the system which was set up to protect and now in many cases does the opposite. Thousands of lives all over the world have now been ruined due to processes and suspicion arising from obsessive and over zealous application of safeguarding. They all look the other way. There is now even an International False Accused Day (https://falselyaccusedday.org). I hope the young man in this injustice is young enough to recover and the mental scar it will leave eventually fades.
“Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy."
I was falsely accused 10 years ago. The jury took less than 10 minutes to find me not guilty. The star witness was found to have lied repeatedly. I received a costs order.
I’ve now been waiting nearly 3 years for a WWCC. Each time I ask for an update I get fobbed off that they’re busy. It’s an absolute
joke. I wanted mine to coach kids sport, not for work, but I now have a record even though I don’t have a record.
The legislation that governs this needs to change so that they are obliged to have no regard for a court process if someone is found not guilty.
I still haven’t had any sort of sensible explanation as to why people who lie under oath aren’t charged with perjury or similar. They cause so much damage but walk away.
Police prosecutors are bowing to political pressure from the powerful feminist lobby. The excuse for not charging women perjurers is that it “ would discourage other women from reporting sexual assaults”.
This is crap , there is no foundation of fact for this which is a serious detour from the code by which police should operate . Perjury is still in Criminal Codes and if there is evidence a person has committed the offence then police should charge.
The issue is political pressure on police , a serious matter in a democracy and it should be debated in parliament, but wait I forgot, Parliaments are controlled by feminists too.
Ok know there are a variety of reasons why this thought of mine is rejected out of hand but one of it hold water for me, when man or young man/boy is falsely accused like the ones I. Your stories B, as we know there is no jeopardy on their part for making said false statement and that’s why it’s open season on men , best game in town same goes for police no come back on them at all! Even when it is obvious the have done the wrong thing and manipulated situations, ok the aggrieved person might get compensation for it but the individual police walk away scott free it’s the tax payer that foots the compensation and I honestly see nothing but “thin ice ahead” for men in society given how one sided it really is, very disturbing in my mind.Dx
I ask why there is not support for men who feel caught in a corner by an abusive, narcissistic woman. If there was a refuge for men to escape to, it may avoid the inevitable blow up which could result in serious injury or worse. There a man could receive help and advice and maintain his job and perhaps contact with his children. Otherwise he feels cornered, alone. Faced with the possible loss of house, children, job, dreams etc, if he just left or lost his temper. I think providing such an avenue to men to withdraw from a dangerous situation would be a proactive, preventative approach. As it is men get nothing except 100% of the blame.
Totally agree. Too often a divorce creates a homeless man on one hand, and a single mother household on the other. No one cares about the former, and the latter is the highest risk place for children.
We can blame the Labor Party for the massive increase in divorce , “no fault” divorce introduced by Labor PM Gough Whitlam In the 70’s opened the floodgates. Women had complained for years about how hard it was to get out of a bad marriage and many probably had a reason. But now it’s too easy and is being abused. The traditional marriage was a cornerstone of stable societies, now gone what’s next?
Agree. Divorce is a sad event for all concerned, especially the children. If both parties could be supported to take the heat out of it and support realistic outcomes.
The stats on homeless ( and there are gender specifics) to suggest that a "couch-surfer" is homeless in the Government assessments. It would appear that the Governmemt looks at those who are "needy" and forget the folk, some in their environs, who are the very folk sleeping rough under bridges.
A woman fleeing an abusive relationship certainly; a male in an abusive relationship, both of whom are nasty folk and will exit the family home, and on what basis could the male challenge it, all things being "equal".
And the kinder? The Court will determine the welfare of those children. Mostly with mum.
And, why when the Government Agencies return children to an abusive drug affected "mum".
"The stats on homeless ( and there are gender specifics) to suggest that a "couch-surfer" is homeless in the Government assessments."
The federal definition was changed about fifteen years ago. We went from ninety five percent of the homeless being male to about sixty percent at the stroke of an administrative pen. Meanwhile those who never have a roof over their heads are still almost exclusively male.
A version of the "deep state." Government is full of appointed authorities who sit in highly-paid jobs from one administration to another. They do exactly what they want, no matter what the people at the top, those who were elected to their positions, say. The top level gets credit for setting and revising policy, but the reality of policy is the business of the appointed bureaucrats, secure in their own "state" and invisible to those of us whose lives they seem to control. Thanks, Bettina. You earn the gratitude of your readers.
There was a time when the peoples representatives ,the MPs , would fight the bureaucracy on behalf of the powerless ordinary citizens , but now it’s these same bureaucrats who are the MPs ,and Albenese is a good example .
He has always been a public servant so we know where his loyalties are. As for the Libs and Dutton well he’s another one, an ex cop .We need charismatic leaders who have succeeded in private enterprise and are clearly on the side of the ordinary people .
Jamie police gave me the CCTV footage that proved the car my wife was driving and I left the scene fully 1 hour before the supposed offence was committed.
Clearly, wrong prosecution for a criminal offence is far more harrowing and potentially impactful, than wrong prosecution of an ADVO.
However, consider that the test in a criminal matter, is beyond reasonable doubt, compared to balance of probabilities for ADVOs. Also, that a prosecutor of a criminal offence has the check, of knowing that it is wrong to imprison an innocent person. There is no comparable check on their conscience, of wrongly prosecuting a 'piece of paper' (ie ADVO) despite the impact it can have for an innocent person. Plus ADVOs are overseen by magistrates, whereas serious criminal matters are at least typically before judges. No right of appeal to Supreme Court for outrageous ADVOs.
Guess where biggest frequency is, of appalling wrongful damage, to innocent men in our society. ADVOs, which supposedly "can't hurt anybody?".
I Agree , the domestic violence orders given out so readily by stupid magistrates are a travesty of justice , a woman just has to ask for an order and she gets it, no evidence is needed. The man will then have to prove the order is not needed, and that’s not easy.
This would be a good discussion subject for the presumption of innocence conference, a man accused of “ domestic violence” is certainly denied this presumption.
I suppose to say magistrates are stupid is a sweeping statement , many would be educated ,intelligent people , but as you say they are “fearful “ ,of what exactly is a good question .
But some time ago in WA the issue of magistrates giving DV orders out Willy Nilly to any woman who just wanted it ,no evidence needed, was taken up by the media and a prominent lawyer , president of the Law Society came out and said words to the effect that magistrates we’re giving DV orders far too carelessly.
The reason being ,magistrates were afraid that IF they refused a woman an order and she was later hurt or even killed by the would be defendant , then this would reflect badly on the magistrate and his reputation would suffer.
So you are right and it did not matter to these arrogant magistrates that an innocent man could be kicked out of his own home and be forced to spend his life savings on lawyers, just as long as the magistrate did not lose face .
Bettina, once a resident of Canberra will remember the Public Service Board. The PSB no longer exists.
It's function was to administer the Commonwealth Selection Test (CST) and to oversight management protocol of all other departments except Defence.
The purpose of the CST was threefold.
1. It prevented patronage and nepotism from influencing public service appointments.
2. It established a level of intelligence for entry.
3. As well as being an objective measure of intelligence, reading comprehension etc, it was also non racist and non sexist.
I should finally mention that the Labor Party abolished the CST ...and there was no replacement of any
objective psychological test. Political appointments are now part of the process. As an example, I note former long term politician Bill Shorten was recently appointed to a high paying job in Canberra's ANU (+1 million dollars p.a.) - resigning from parliament after 17 years in office.
How did that come about? And what do we know about Shorten's mental capacity in view of his advancing age ? How likely is it there are younger candidates who would be a better pick for the job ?
How relevant is all this to the issue of "When public servants act as judge and jury "?... It's crucial imo.
This story is greater than the very small slice presented here. It encompasses huge quango structures like the Human Rights commissions, and the recently-in-the-news Esafety Commission. These orgs have basically received delegated power to ruin people's lives through "process". And that power is mostly "inchoate" - that is it achieved their creators' outcomes by scaring people through the chilling effect rather than actually hauling a small number into their star chambers.
When actually exercised those powers are easily abused by kangaroo-court processes that dispense with rules of evidence and threshold of proof; also by exploiting vaguely defined offenses such as hate speech. I am re-living my childhood in communist Eastern Europe now - but in the "free world".
I wish to get a message to Bruce Lehrmann, or at least to his legal team. You see, I have a couple of difficulties with the recent findings in the defamation case.
1. The Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Link at the bottom. While the thought experiment was only theoretical and was also worked on by Albert Einstein himself, the very basic lesson we can get out of this thought experiment is this; under normal conditions we can assume anything, but to be true we must observe or at least have evidence that can be observed. Based on this kind of thinking, the room Bruce and Brittany went into became the box, no one knows exactly what happened in that room except for the fact that there is a high probability that either or both the people in that room know what happened. There is no empirical evidence of anything that went on in that room, but there are pointers.
1. Based on probability and coming from a non emotive stand point there are a multitude of things that could have happened in that room. Some of these are that Bruce did in fact have non consensual sex with Brittany, but there is also an equal probability that he did not. Similarly there is an equal probability that consensual sex occurred and this consent was retracted at a later date. There is also an equal probability that no sex occurred, that Brittany and Bruce went separate ways, that Brittany fell asleep and that Bruce left in a disappointed way because he didn't get what he was probably expecting?!
The fact is that there are a multitude of other probabilities that could have happened in that room, only one of these was put forward as 'the' probability and proposing that there is only one probability is fundamentally wrong, ignoring all other probabilities is also wrong. As there is no empirical evidence that can remove any doubt, the true result with regard to the probability that anything untoward happened in that room must then be, we simply don't know. Personal opinion should not count in court, never.
2. I find it difficult to reconcile the timeline of events to which Brittany remembers the time in that room. In her last testimony, she reported a much more detailed version of the alleged crime. It was much more detailed and vivid than all other times that she had given this evidence. This was also noted and dismissed by the judge in the defamation case, but he didn't go far enough. This alone should have demonstrated Brittany's desire to embellish her story to provide sufficient drama to get the result that she, channel 10 and Wilkinson wanted. Was she schooled to this end? This should have been a bigger point and should have gone toward a finding that she was a more unreliable witness than Bruce, so again, it leads toward a finding that we simply don't know what went on in that room. A proper trial should be required to make that determination.
3. She then fell asleep!!! WTF? If we are to believe Brittany's last testimony, she gave the impression that she did have a reasonable degree of lucidity and based on the next two facts that I will discuss, she should have been in at least a small way in a mental position to make the smallest of decisions. My question is why she thought that after being raped, why did she think it was a great time to have a little sleep?
4. The above is backed up with two pieces of evidence. If there was a date rape drug used, this would have answered the above question and provided evidence as to why she fell asleep. The problem here is that depending on the amount of these drugs administered, they can have quite long affects on the person, from 6 to 12 hours. A person should know that something is wrong when they wake up and then should seek medical and or police assistance to determine what had happened. This did not happen. In addition to this there was that welfare check carried out by the female security officer. Now we would hope that this security officer was reasonably well trained and could determine whether a woman is in a questionable state or not. It is known that nothing was said or done by these officers, no police were called, and no impropriety was observed, just a woman sleeping off a night on the turps.
I am hoping that Bruce Lehrmann’s team already know this and can argue it successfully, but I just can't get these factors out of my head, they are just too obvious to me.
This is inevitable whenever a bureaucracy is involved. Bureaucratic incentives are always neck-on-the-line. There’s no downside to false positives, only to false negatives.
The real kicker of these massive injustices against the innocent is that nobody cares. If nobody cares because it hasn't happened to them personally, and even if this injustice hits a family member, as long as it doesn't happen to them, they are ok with it. This is the sin of our neighbors, co-workers, family and friends. They don't give a damn. They have their career, their job, their house, and most importantly their reputation, and if you lose all of your reputation and everything you own they secretly believe you likely deserved it. This is how we got here and this is how the bureaucratic persecution is sustained.
Do you want to know how a Christian society collapsed? They permitted it, because of their disdain of their fellow man. The fruit of this contempt to the laws of nature and nature's God is death, destruction and lots of pain. The Lord Jesus Christ will not be mocked.
This WWCC thing must not exist. It is purely the reversal of presumption of innocence. In sane countries, people applying to jobs with minors involved, have to prove a clean record of criminal offenses. No accusations are listed. Only convictions.
The bureaucrats will always tend to delay a WWCC paper. They can issue it 1000 times and nothing happens, then good. On the 1001th time something can go wrong and then society/media will come down to them on their failure. How could they. And issuing a WWCC cannot be a guarantee that someone offends in the future. This is why the WWCC is a joke and gives a false security, destroying presumption of innocence and with it the thousands an millions of lives.
This is where feminist ideology leads.
This is a feminist /Marxist conspiracy , make it as hard as possible for men to work with children and they’ll be discouraged leaving more women in these roles , that’s what’s happened in schools .
Lefty women dominate in the teaching profession , indoctrinating the nations young minds in anti male , anti patriarchy, women as victims nonsense .
What’s this got to do with Marxism you may ask, but this is their favourite method, used by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Hitlers Nazis etc., get at the children and brainwash them in the ideology and they’ll willingly do anything , even betray their own family as shown in Hitler’s Germany (the Hitler Youth). and the Khmer children.
I don't know how many times I've done Child Protection training and heard the, "If there's smoke there's fire" argument, ie an allegation is enough.
Wait, yes I do - every time.
There is not any government or elected representative brave and concerned enough to take on the system which was set up to protect and now in many cases does the opposite. Thousands of lives all over the world have now been ruined due to processes and suspicion arising from obsessive and over zealous application of safeguarding. They all look the other way. There is now even an International False Accused Day (https://falselyaccusedday.org). I hope the young man in this injustice is young enough to recover and the mental scar it will leave eventually fades.
Brian Hudson
FACtuk
The actions of bureaucrats is almost identical to the tactics used by the Stasi
“Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy."
― Frank Herbert, Children of Dune
I loved that Book
I was falsely accused 10 years ago. The jury took less than 10 minutes to find me not guilty. The star witness was found to have lied repeatedly. I received a costs order.
I’ve now been waiting nearly 3 years for a WWCC. Each time I ask for an update I get fobbed off that they’re busy. It’s an absolute
joke. I wanted mine to coach kids sport, not for work, but I now have a record even though I don’t have a record.
The legislation that governs this needs to change so that they are obliged to have no regard for a court process if someone is found not guilty.
I still haven’t had any sort of sensible explanation as to why people who lie under oath aren’t charged with perjury or similar. They cause so much damage but walk away.
Police prosecutors are bowing to political pressure from the powerful feminist lobby. The excuse for not charging women perjurers is that it “ would discourage other women from reporting sexual assaults”.
This is crap , there is no foundation of fact for this which is a serious detour from the code by which police should operate . Perjury is still in Criminal Codes and if there is evidence a person has committed the offence then police should charge.
The issue is political pressure on police , a serious matter in a democracy and it should be debated in parliament, but wait I forgot, Parliaments are controlled by feminists too.
Ok know there are a variety of reasons why this thought of mine is rejected out of hand but one of it hold water for me, when man or young man/boy is falsely accused like the ones I. Your stories B, as we know there is no jeopardy on their part for making said false statement and that’s why it’s open season on men , best game in town same goes for police no come back on them at all! Even when it is obvious the have done the wrong thing and manipulated situations, ok the aggrieved person might get compensation for it but the individual police walk away scott free it’s the tax payer that foots the compensation and I honestly see nothing but “thin ice ahead” for men in society given how one sided it really is, very disturbing in my mind.Dx
I ask why there is not support for men who feel caught in a corner by an abusive, narcissistic woman. If there was a refuge for men to escape to, it may avoid the inevitable blow up which could result in serious injury or worse. There a man could receive help and advice and maintain his job and perhaps contact with his children. Otherwise he feels cornered, alone. Faced with the possible loss of house, children, job, dreams etc, if he just left or lost his temper. I think providing such an avenue to men to withdraw from a dangerous situation would be a proactive, preventative approach. As it is men get nothing except 100% of the blame.
Totally agree. Too often a divorce creates a homeless man on one hand, and a single mother household on the other. No one cares about the former, and the latter is the highest risk place for children.
We can blame the Labor Party for the massive increase in divorce , “no fault” divorce introduced by Labor PM Gough Whitlam In the 70’s opened the floodgates. Women had complained for years about how hard it was to get out of a bad marriage and many probably had a reason. But now it’s too easy and is being abused. The traditional marriage was a cornerstone of stable societies, now gone what’s next?
Agree. Divorce is a sad event for all concerned, especially the children. If both parties could be supported to take the heat out of it and support realistic outcomes.
Andrew,
The stats on homeless ( and there are gender specifics) to suggest that a "couch-surfer" is homeless in the Government assessments. It would appear that the Governmemt looks at those who are "needy" and forget the folk, some in their environs, who are the very folk sleeping rough under bridges.
A woman fleeing an abusive relationship certainly; a male in an abusive relationship, both of whom are nasty folk and will exit the family home, and on what basis could the male challenge it, all things being "equal".
And the kinder? The Court will determine the welfare of those children. Mostly with mum.
And, why when the Government Agencies return children to an abusive drug affected "mum".
"The stats on homeless ( and there are gender specifics) to suggest that a "couch-surfer" is homeless in the Government assessments."
The federal definition was changed about fifteen years ago. We went from ninety five percent of the homeless being male to about sixty percent at the stroke of an administrative pen. Meanwhile those who never have a roof over their heads are still almost exclusively male.
Wild and upsetting. But thanks to you for giving us this information. Much appreciated source
Bettina is so astute
A version of the "deep state." Government is full of appointed authorities who sit in highly-paid jobs from one administration to another. They do exactly what they want, no matter what the people at the top, those who were elected to their positions, say. The top level gets credit for setting and revising policy, but the reality of policy is the business of the appointed bureaucrats, secure in their own "state" and invisible to those of us whose lives they seem to control. Thanks, Bettina. You earn the gratitude of your readers.
There was a time when the peoples representatives ,the MPs , would fight the bureaucracy on behalf of the powerless ordinary citizens , but now it’s these same bureaucrats who are the MPs ,and Albenese is a good example .
He has always been a public servant so we know where his loyalties are. As for the Libs and Dutton well he’s another one, an ex cop .We need charismatic leaders who have succeeded in private enterprise and are clearly on the side of the ordinary people .
Jamie police gave me the CCTV footage that proved the car my wife was driving and I left the scene fully 1 hour before the supposed offence was committed.
Thank you for your support mate.
Bettina
Clearly, wrong prosecution for a criminal offence is far more harrowing and potentially impactful, than wrong prosecution of an ADVO.
However, consider that the test in a criminal matter, is beyond reasonable doubt, compared to balance of probabilities for ADVOs. Also, that a prosecutor of a criminal offence has the check, of knowing that it is wrong to imprison an innocent person. There is no comparable check on their conscience, of wrongly prosecuting a 'piece of paper' (ie ADVO) despite the impact it can have for an innocent person. Plus ADVOs are overseen by magistrates, whereas serious criminal matters are at least typically before judges. No right of appeal to Supreme Court for outrageous ADVOs.
Guess where biggest frequency is, of appalling wrongful damage, to innocent men in our society. ADVOs, which supposedly "can't hurt anybody?".
I Agree , the domestic violence orders given out so readily by stupid magistrates are a travesty of justice , a woman just has to ask for an order and she gets it, no evidence is needed. The man will then have to prove the order is not needed, and that’s not easy.
This would be a good discussion subject for the presumption of innocence conference, a man accused of “ domestic violence” is certainly denied this presumption.
"stupid magistrates"
I'm inclined to view it as "fearful" magistrates.
I suppose to say magistrates are stupid is a sweeping statement , many would be educated ,intelligent people , but as you say they are “fearful “ ,of what exactly is a good question .
But some time ago in WA the issue of magistrates giving DV orders out Willy Nilly to any woman who just wanted it ,no evidence needed, was taken up by the media and a prominent lawyer , president of the Law Society came out and said words to the effect that magistrates we’re giving DV orders far too carelessly.
The reason being ,magistrates were afraid that IF they refused a woman an order and she was later hurt or even killed by the would be defendant , then this would reflect badly on the magistrate and his reputation would suffer.
So you are right and it did not matter to these arrogant magistrates that an innocent man could be kicked out of his own home and be forced to spend his life savings on lawyers, just as long as the magistrate did not lose face .
Never underestimate the viciousness and the machiavellian nature of the sisterhood.