Bill Shorten's comments apply to this perfectly. A pity he only applies them selectively !!
"In the 1993 Oscar nominated true-life drama In the Name of the Father starring Daniel Day-Lewis, a film about the Guildford Four, who were wrongly convicted of being IRA bombers, there is a pivotal moment where a lawyer finds a note that provides an alibi for the accused.
The note said “Not to be shown to the defence” and was hidden from the prosecution to make the Crown’s case against the Guildford Four stick. It worked and, until the note was discovered and justice prevailed, they were wrongly imprisoned for 20 years, with one of the four innocent people dying in jail.
In Australia, we could not imagine our Government burying legal advice that could prove someone’s innocence.
There is an ethos in Australia that the Government always has its people’s best interests at heart and, in legal matters, is a model litigant."
Our police and prosecutors only believing victims is so wrong. So many men are facing this tactic from ex-partners now, some especially scorned women, who are withholding children from their fathers - by using criminal allegations, because they know this will go further than simply making a false DVO application, or alleging assault and abuse in the family courts. Criminal investigations span years, giving the false accusers plenty of time to build fear and mistrust into the children and destroy the relationship children once had with their fathers. Never again, after a criminal court trial, will a man be allowed to see his children, or attempt to build any kind of relationship with them. Because - the victim must always be believed. Never mind that the victim is actually the perpetrator and should herself, be facing criminal proceedings.
Maybe this is off topic and I've certainly had my fair share of life but this is the limit for me... why?
Because why aren't the feminists etc., jumping up and down, for starters!!!!!
WEF is for ? solving the worlds problems and here we have them entertaining themselves with ??? females/males/?? when all the time I thought the leaders/business people/politicians of this world had citizens interests in their hands - first !!!
First bit in german: «Chefs buchen für sich und ihre Angestellten Escorts in die Hotelsuite»
Nächste Woche findet das WEF in Davos statt. Laut der Geschäftsführerin eines Aargauer Escort-Service sind ihre Dienste in dieser Woche gefragt.»
Translated: "«Boss book escorts for themselves and their employees in the hotel suite» Next week the WEF will take place in Davos. According to the manager of an Aargau escort service, your services are in demand this week."
Who pays for all this?
But in line with the article, why aren't the feminists jumping up and down in Davos and protesting that, possibly, women are going to be used for total pleasure by 'leaders' of the world....????
I hold our police in contempt. The past few years have exposed their willingness to exercise power and violence with great enthusiasm here in Victoria and reading this article underlines how corrupt and bigoted they are. Why do stories like these not reach the MSM? Stupid question I know, but one would hope there are a handful of journalists with integrity and courage aside from our Bettina. Sadly, this appears to be a forlorn hope.
There is a report in the Australian newspaper that the Queensland government is going to fast-track laws to allow the media to name men who have been accused of sexual assault.
I was recently shocked to find that Triple 0 and police body cam recordings are edited. Original uncontaminated digital metadata is not preserved in duplication where it is a simple matter to reduce the volume of selected sections to render them unclear or even inaudible. Remedies include Subpoena of original or an Order for access to original for the purpose of verification and making a true copy. What shocked me most was the ignorance and arrogance of those responsible for this.
John, It is very interesting to hear your description of what happened to you. I am so pleased you managed to fight off these charges. You are so right about this new industry, a vast bureacracy set up to support women and destroy men. It is really frightening. And so shameful that our mainstream media pretends it is not happening.
I myself was accused of DV and later set up by the same accuser with the help of these officers to mount a "bogus" rape in the marriage charge against me (eventually after in camera interviews with Detectives, I was told the accuser had herself agreed in interviews with Detectives that the sex we had was consensual - after this failed attempt - the "DV" charge was aligned to a "Common Assault" charge, I was fingerprinted, photographed, jailed for four hours/at the time I was a retired aged pensioner after working 20+ years in Government/mostly Child Support service...I fought the bogus "DV" and "Common Assault" charges at Court and both were dismissed- but the time and resources this depleted me of were enormous - whilst the false accuser was assisted all the way by free services i.e. the "new industry services"...Police, Social Workers, Legal Aid, Lawyers, added Women only Services...this whole thing is a booming "Industry Armagedon"...set up to destroy all males that come into/under its purview whether innocent or guilty makes no difference - THE SYSTEM IS NOW DESIGNED TO FIND THEM ALL GUILTY WITHOUT EVIDENCE!
Verity it was nice to see a woman understanding the gross hipocracy of the Lawful institutions in Australia. You need to know that thee is now a whole "industry" built around the wrongful (lying) assertions of women about "DV" and rape - indeed when women go to this industry machine that guides and assists in the lies quite often the women asserting "DV" are instructed by the employees of the services (machine) set up to assist women to allege "rape" also as that will further their illicit assertions in the "industry machine". So for example Police - in most Police stations in NSW there is access to "DV" Units (mostly employing female officers, imagine how many jobs this has created in NSW and the cost to support those positions/DV Units officers). Part 1
What is it that these female activists and gutless police/prosecutors want.....blood!!! It is disgraceful the way males are being treated these days and what for??? This will come back to "bite them in the bum" as males will take precautions when dealing with all types of females. It is a sad society we are living in when women and those in authority disregard "proof of innocence" as well as proof of the accusation. Where did these nasty women come from? I am a "senior" woman who is so glad she is coming to the end of her life cycle. Maybe these withholders of proof cannot handle the truth!
If any of my readers have subscriptions to Spectator Australia, it would be great if you could make a comment under the version of this blog just published on their digital version, Flat White. Always good to get the conversation started on these important issues.
Thanks Bettina, your fine article comes at a time where separate attacks in 3 states and 1 territory have been carried out on our common law protections of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. We are reminded of the persecution of Cardinal Pell with his passing. In that case, any presumption of innocence was completely trampled over by Victoria Police commencing its infamous Operation Tethering investigation without having a complainant or a crime to investigate, and ended with a unanimous High Court decision exonerating him of alleged crimes which never had any basis or evidence to support it. A classic police state case of investigating people in search of a crime. We learn this morning that a report by the quasi-judicial ICAC of former NSW Premier Gladys Berejyklian will be delayed until after the election. Berejyklian was publicly exposed as having a secret sexual relationship with MP Daryl Maguire who was the subject of the anti-corruption investigation. At least she is a public official. Charif Kaizal is not a public official. He was subjected to an ICAC inquiry over what turned out to be entirely baseless allegation. He is still attempting to restore his unfairly stained reputation to this day. This morning on the radio I heard about an alleged rape case in Queensland where the identity of the "prominent" accused has been suppressed because, so we were told, under Queensland law his naming may inadvertently identify the "victim" (i.e. complainant). This is directly contrasted by the Higgins trial now subject to review by the ACT government. In that case, the complainant did everything possible to identify herself as the complainant assisted by her boyfriend at the time, and the complaint was co-ordinated by politicians who schemed to have the matter given maximum media exposure for transparently political purposes. As you have covered, the matter ended controversially with a mistrial and the dropping of the case. The same politicians who were initially involved with publicising the case for their own political purposes, orchestrated a purported multi-million dollar payout for the complainant. In the background of all this, the misuse of supposed privacy protections to further erode the civil liberties of ordinary citizens who are entitled to a fair trial by concealing relevant facts from juries in criminal trials to tilt the balance toward the miscarriage of justice, is a real concern.
It's a sure sign you are living in a totalitarian system when the criminal justice process is traduced to align with the authorised narrative. I have yet to take up the issue of Operation Soteria with those who contributed to the Select Committee report in 2018 - I must do so.
Decades ago I argued with a roommate the women who lied about rape should be prosecuted to the fullest. She was outraged and a complete f&*% up who lived a life of lies and chaos. When the #metoo movement came I feared my then young son dating anyone. I have read that in some countries women who are raped are only believed if there was a male witness (have no knowledge of veracity.) We are in the inverse where a male is only believed if there is a witness and even that is iffy.
In my own naivety, I've never understood how police/prosecutors, etc. cherry pick 'evidence'!
Surely it is easy to select which evidence is related to a case!
Example: A person having previously kissed 'the victim' some months ago 'does not' mean they raped the victim or intended to [then we see this kind of 'evidence' flashed across the media damaging the 'persecutors' name, without a court case and decision of guilt and yet the 'victim' can now cry 'privacy' is absolutely a shame against governments that allow this or refuse to address this issue from now and into the future...
"However, she added: "But actually our job is not all about victims. Our job in investigations is to be fair, to be impartial and when appropriate to bring things to justice." and isn't that how it should always be? The police are there to serve not decide. Then this: "And, of course, to support victims. But it isn't ALL about victims." No!! The 'victim' should be assisted/supported by psychotherapists and not the police.. their job is to collect evidence for a court case or prosecution and not be the gate keeper... [I'm just repeating what Bettina already alerts us to but I cannot repress my disgust at the procedures that are now in place by the police and law system].
Ms Dick is quoted as saying: "I can understand why those who support victims will say, for example, victims must have anonymity in certain areas and it's very important that offenders don't have anonymity, because when an offender is named, other people may come forward. We do find that." But if the 'offender' has not been found guilty, then they are, technically, not offenders and therefore should be allowed to remain 'anonymous'!!! and people coming forward - I understand this, but it seems that some of these men have 'brought forward' mobile telephone information but that is not taken into account, sometimes... so the double standards are deafening to say the least!!!
I think Ms Dick has it right with: "And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police." The police are collectors of information and that is it... and we all know they should not be poltiicised for anything.. and if they want to be warriors saving the world, well take it up privately and not on Tax Payers money...
The Liam Allan case took two years.. two years.. i'ms sorry, but this is disgusting... the guys life is now a living hell - guilty or not, at a certain point - and what happened to the women that accused him...
Bettina’s article says: “had cost a Sydney family six years of their lives and over $650,000 in legal fees. The family is now suing the NSW police ”
Let us remember that by suing the NSW police and ‘’if awarded a payout, then they are actually getting money that was originally from Tax Payers… which is like many other cases where ‘victims’ are paid money from the Government. Is this actually fair? That Tax Payers are burdened by the negligence of Government employee’s, laws, inefficiencies, etc.? Shouldn’t the ‘victim’ that is proven wrong be paying for all this? Paying for, at the bare minimum, the costs of Society providing Courts etc.,?
This is what I and others should be writing to politicians about.. Why, when this ‘victim’ lose their case and why are my taxes supporting such negligence of duty by the police and surrounding Lawyers, etc.?
Bill Shorten's comments apply to this perfectly. A pity he only applies them selectively !!
"In the 1993 Oscar nominated true-life drama In the Name of the Father starring Daniel Day-Lewis, a film about the Guildford Four, who were wrongly convicted of being IRA bombers, there is a pivotal moment where a lawyer finds a note that provides an alibi for the accused.
The note said “Not to be shown to the defence” and was hidden from the prosecution to make the Crown’s case against the Guildford Four stick. It worked and, until the note was discovered and justice prevailed, they were wrongly imprisoned for 20 years, with one of the four innocent people dying in jail.
In Australia, we could not imagine our Government burying legal advice that could prove someone’s innocence.
There is an ethos in Australia that the Government always has its people’s best interests at heart and, in legal matters, is a model litigant."
https://ministers.dss.gov.au/editorial/9661
Our police and prosecutors only believing victims is so wrong. So many men are facing this tactic from ex-partners now, some especially scorned women, who are withholding children from their fathers - by using criminal allegations, because they know this will go further than simply making a false DVO application, or alleging assault and abuse in the family courts. Criminal investigations span years, giving the false accusers plenty of time to build fear and mistrust into the children and destroy the relationship children once had with their fathers. Never again, after a criminal court trial, will a man be allowed to see his children, or attempt to build any kind of relationship with them. Because - the victim must always be believed. Never mind that the victim is actually the perpetrator and should herself, be facing criminal proceedings.
Maybe this is off topic and I've certainly had my fair share of life but this is the limit for me... why?
Because why aren't the feminists etc., jumping up and down, for starters!!!!!
WEF is for ? solving the worlds problems and here we have them entertaining themselves with ??? females/males/?? when all the time I thought the leaders/business people/politicians of this world had citizens interests in their hands - first !!!
https://www.20min.ch/story/chefs-buchen-fuer-sich-und-ihre-angestellten-escorts-in-die-hotelsuite-932992562940
First bit in german: «Chefs buchen für sich und ihre Angestellten Escorts in die Hotelsuite»
Nächste Woche findet das WEF in Davos statt. Laut der Geschäftsführerin eines Aargauer Escort-Service sind ihre Dienste in dieser Woche gefragt.»
Translated: "«Boss book escorts for themselves and their employees in the hotel suite» Next week the WEF will take place in Davos. According to the manager of an Aargau escort service, your services are in demand this week."
Who pays for all this?
But in line with the article, why aren't the feminists jumping up and down in Davos and protesting that, possibly, women are going to be used for total pleasure by 'leaders' of the world....????
I hold our police in contempt. The past few years have exposed their willingness to exercise power and violence with great enthusiasm here in Victoria and reading this article underlines how corrupt and bigoted they are. Why do stories like these not reach the MSM? Stupid question I know, but one would hope there are a handful of journalists with integrity and courage aside from our Bettina. Sadly, this appears to be a forlorn hope.
There is a report in the Australian newspaper that the Queensland government is going to fast-track laws to allow the media to name men who have been accused of sexual assault.
Trial by media.
I was recently shocked to find that Triple 0 and police body cam recordings are edited. Original uncontaminated digital metadata is not preserved in duplication where it is a simple matter to reduce the volume of selected sections to render them unclear or even inaudible. Remedies include Subpoena of original or an Order for access to original for the purpose of verification and making a true copy. What shocked me most was the ignorance and arrogance of those responsible for this.
This apparently is also happening in Canada.
John, It is very interesting to hear your description of what happened to you. I am so pleased you managed to fight off these charges. You are so right about this new industry, a vast bureacracy set up to support women and destroy men. It is really frightening. And so shameful that our mainstream media pretends it is not happening.
PART 2
I myself was accused of DV and later set up by the same accuser with the help of these officers to mount a "bogus" rape in the marriage charge against me (eventually after in camera interviews with Detectives, I was told the accuser had herself agreed in interviews with Detectives that the sex we had was consensual - after this failed attempt - the "DV" charge was aligned to a "Common Assault" charge, I was fingerprinted, photographed, jailed for four hours/at the time I was a retired aged pensioner after working 20+ years in Government/mostly Child Support service...I fought the bogus "DV" and "Common Assault" charges at Court and both were dismissed- but the time and resources this depleted me of were enormous - whilst the false accuser was assisted all the way by free services i.e. the "new industry services"...Police, Social Workers, Legal Aid, Lawyers, added Women only Services...this whole thing is a booming "Industry Armagedon"...set up to destroy all males that come into/under its purview whether innocent or guilty makes no difference - THE SYSTEM IS NOW DESIGNED TO FIND THEM ALL GUILTY WITHOUT EVIDENCE!
Verity it was nice to see a woman understanding the gross hipocracy of the Lawful institutions in Australia. You need to know that thee is now a whole "industry" built around the wrongful (lying) assertions of women about "DV" and rape - indeed when women go to this industry machine that guides and assists in the lies quite often the women asserting "DV" are instructed by the employees of the services (machine) set up to assist women to allege "rape" also as that will further their illicit assertions in the "industry machine". So for example Police - in most Police stations in NSW there is access to "DV" Units (mostly employing female officers, imagine how many jobs this has created in NSW and the cost to support those positions/DV Units officers). Part 1
What is it that these female activists and gutless police/prosecutors want.....blood!!! It is disgraceful the way males are being treated these days and what for??? This will come back to "bite them in the bum" as males will take precautions when dealing with all types of females. It is a sad society we are living in when women and those in authority disregard "proof of innocence" as well as proof of the accusation. Where did these nasty women come from? I am a "senior" woman who is so glad she is coming to the end of her life cycle. Maybe these withholders of proof cannot handle the truth!
If any of my readers have subscriptions to Spectator Australia, it would be great if you could make a comment under the version of this blog just published on their digital version, Flat White. Always good to get the conversation started on these important issues.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/mobiles-in-the-dock/
Thanks Bettina, your fine article comes at a time where separate attacks in 3 states and 1 territory have been carried out on our common law protections of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. We are reminded of the persecution of Cardinal Pell with his passing. In that case, any presumption of innocence was completely trampled over by Victoria Police commencing its infamous Operation Tethering investigation without having a complainant or a crime to investigate, and ended with a unanimous High Court decision exonerating him of alleged crimes which never had any basis or evidence to support it. A classic police state case of investigating people in search of a crime. We learn this morning that a report by the quasi-judicial ICAC of former NSW Premier Gladys Berejyklian will be delayed until after the election. Berejyklian was publicly exposed as having a secret sexual relationship with MP Daryl Maguire who was the subject of the anti-corruption investigation. At least she is a public official. Charif Kaizal is not a public official. He was subjected to an ICAC inquiry over what turned out to be entirely baseless allegation. He is still attempting to restore his unfairly stained reputation to this day. This morning on the radio I heard about an alleged rape case in Queensland where the identity of the "prominent" accused has been suppressed because, so we were told, under Queensland law his naming may inadvertently identify the "victim" (i.e. complainant). This is directly contrasted by the Higgins trial now subject to review by the ACT government. In that case, the complainant did everything possible to identify herself as the complainant assisted by her boyfriend at the time, and the complaint was co-ordinated by politicians who schemed to have the matter given maximum media exposure for transparently political purposes. As you have covered, the matter ended controversially with a mistrial and the dropping of the case. The same politicians who were initially involved with publicising the case for their own political purposes, orchestrated a purported multi-million dollar payout for the complainant. In the background of all this, the misuse of supposed privacy protections to further erode the civil liberties of ordinary citizens who are entitled to a fair trial by concealing relevant facts from juries in criminal trials to tilt the balance toward the miscarriage of justice, is a real concern.
It's a sure sign you are living in a totalitarian system when the criminal justice process is traduced to align with the authorised narrative. I have yet to take up the issue of Operation Soteria with those who contributed to the Select Committee report in 2018 - I must do so.
Decades ago I argued with a roommate the women who lied about rape should be prosecuted to the fullest. She was outraged and a complete f&*% up who lived a life of lies and chaos. When the #metoo movement came I feared my then young son dating anyone. I have read that in some countries women who are raped are only believed if there was a male witness (have no knowledge of veracity.) We are in the inverse where a male is only believed if there is a witness and even that is iffy.
In my own naivety, I've never understood how police/prosecutors, etc. cherry pick 'evidence'!
Surely it is easy to select which evidence is related to a case!
Example: A person having previously kissed 'the victim' some months ago 'does not' mean they raped the victim or intended to [then we see this kind of 'evidence' flashed across the media damaging the 'persecutors' name, without a court case and decision of guilt and yet the 'victim' can now cry 'privacy' is absolutely a shame against governments that allow this or refuse to address this issue from now and into the future...
In this article, Bettina has a link below, but again: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/it-isn-t-all-about-victims-met-police-to-abandon-practice-of-believing-all-sex-assault-complaints-a3803791.html
"However, she added: "But actually our job is not all about victims. Our job in investigations is to be fair, to be impartial and when appropriate to bring things to justice." and isn't that how it should always be? The police are there to serve not decide. Then this: "And, of course, to support victims. But it isn't ALL about victims." No!! The 'victim' should be assisted/supported by psychotherapists and not the police.. their job is to collect evidence for a court case or prosecution and not be the gate keeper... [I'm just repeating what Bettina already alerts us to but I cannot repress my disgust at the procedures that are now in place by the police and law system].
Ms Dick is quoted as saying: "I can understand why those who support victims will say, for example, victims must have anonymity in certain areas and it's very important that offenders don't have anonymity, because when an offender is named, other people may come forward. We do find that." But if the 'offender' has not been found guilty, then they are, technically, not offenders and therefore should be allowed to remain 'anonymous'!!! and people coming forward - I understand this, but it seems that some of these men have 'brought forward' mobile telephone information but that is not taken into account, sometimes... so the double standards are deafening to say the least!!!
I think Ms Dick has it right with: "And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police." The police are collectors of information and that is it... and we all know they should not be poltiicised for anything.. and if they want to be warriors saving the world, well take it up privately and not on Tax Payers money...
The Liam Allan case took two years.. two years.. i'ms sorry, but this is disgusting... the guys life is now a living hell - guilty or not, at a certain point - and what happened to the women that accused him...
Bettina’s article says: “had cost a Sydney family six years of their lives and over $650,000 in legal fees. The family is now suing the NSW police ”
Let us remember that by suing the NSW police and ‘’if awarded a payout, then they are actually getting money that was originally from Tax Payers… which is like many other cases where ‘victims’ are paid money from the Government. Is this actually fair? That Tax Payers are burdened by the negligence of Government employee’s, laws, inefficiencies, etc.? Shouldn’t the ‘victim’ that is proven wrong be paying for all this? Paying for, at the bare minimum, the costs of Society providing Courts etc.,?
This is what I and others should be writing to politicians about.. Why, when this ‘victim’ lose their case and why are my taxes supporting such negligence of duty by the police and surrounding Lawyers, etc.?
As always, Bettina's articles are nformative.