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.
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 concern about the 'militarization' of police forces and the Victoria Police are out in front on this , recently they changed to black uniforms from the old and more neutral blue. Following the United States, police in Australia now look more paramilitary, armed to the teeth and wearing protection and cameras they patrol our streets but their appearance is threatening and if they want to build better relations with law abiding citizens then they are going about it the wrong way.
Police have shown they are more interested in doing the dirty work of corrupt governments than protecting the public and in fact the 'public' are often seen as the enemy, after all a military force needs an " enemy".
Dob in your neighbour , this is how Hitler's Germany operated in the 1930's and the comparison to Australian police forces is justified.
It seems the Queensland Police want to extract revenge from the Queensland public and can we expect that anyone who dares to criticize them will be be in trouble.
It is always a tragedy when anyone is shot dead and police officers are no exception but evidence of corruption and malpractice in the Queensland police force goes back decades and you could say if they had been more honest and treated people better then this may not have happened.
But police have a double standard and when the boot is on the other foot, when a member of the public is shot dead by a police officer then it's a different matter.
Police then close ranks and protect the killer cop and claim the killing to be "justified".
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.
They name them even when they are simply allegations while the woman remains anonymous. It has been like this for decades and it is a disgrace. Talk about a two-tiered justice system.
WA is not far behind and has had coersive control as grounds for a DV order for several years . The definition is so broad and so vague that anything could be seen as coersive.
A man cuts up his wife's credit card to save the family from bankruptcy and this is grounds for a violence order, as well as coersive control this is "financial violence", ie withholding money from a family member.
This is insanity but what is more troubling is that police and magistrates enforce these laws, when are they gong to find the guts to say "enough"
Yet women control 83% of household spending and a wander through KMart exposes the feminist lie that women are financially disadvantaged as well as the biggest lie regarding a patriarchy which places the interests and welfare of men and boys ahead of the needs of women and girls.
Four fifths of the floor space in any major store is devoted to female products and targeting a female consumer. I went into changeroom yesterday. There were four rooms for men, one of which was jammed to the door with boxes and a trolley. There were three times as many changerooms for women and girls.
As I walked around the shopping centre I saw nail salons, hair salons, jewellery stores, handbag stores, pedicure shops, female clothing shops and all of them were doing a healthy business.
A wander through a shopping centre dismantles all of the feminist lies and tropes in a few minutes. Our world caters almost exclusively to female needs and wants. Why would retailers set up a business targeting consumers who have no capacity to spend? They don't. So the endless myth making about impoverished females living off the scant handouts from a tyrannical hubby is utter BS.
It is women who control and coerce men and their finances at a far higher rate than the reverse, yet you can be sure that only men will be charged under these new ever expanding laws.
Next time a feminist near you starts a rant about the patriarchy and male domination simply say
Right and in fact women in any modern country now have it so good compared to only a hundred years ago that one could wonder why they are complaining so much.
Women have been the big winners from industrialization and the consumer boom. They now have much material comfort and wealth as well as being the most privileged and protected women in all of history.
Why then do we constantly hear of women being "victims" ? , they are oppressed by the patriarchy and their pay is so low they are virtually slaves, they live in fear of domestic violence and sexual assault etc. etc. all things easily disproved.
The answer could be that greater forces are at work which want to undermine stable democracies and destroy the social harmony which can only survive when men and women cooperate out of mutual respect.
Is Queensland introducing a law which makes coersive control a crime? apart from just being grounds for a DV order which is really a civil law .
If so then we should be worried, coercing someone into doing what you want them to do should never be a crime, for very good reason, in some cases coercion can be used to help a person eg. a drug addict is coerced by his family to stop using, nobody could call that a crime surely.
Then there is the normal parental right to control children and a hypothetical case could be - a father or mother locks their underage daughter in the house and forbids her to go out partying out of fear for the girls safety, that would be coercive control.
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.
That is true and the court ie. magistrates and judges can and do alter transcripts before they are released for printing. I once caught out a stupid magistrates on this issue , he knew that I knew that he had deleted a whole passage of text on a transcript . I won on that day and I wonder why?
We are fooled into thinking these people are honest and nothing could be further from the truth, transcripts are said to be "verbatim" but this can be interpreted any way the courts want.
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.
Sadly this is the same here in the UK. Made even worse by the fact that legal aid is in fact only given if DV is alleged. Needless to say following the introduction of this in our course thre was an immediate doubling or in some areas quadrupling of accusations of DV or abuse. This being the cause of investigation and report, because the expected "savings" had not materialised. Of course even having found this out and noting that it reflected the advice given by solicitors firms (they looked at dramatic differences in different boroughs) nothing has been done about this 6 years on.
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!
Sadly this is the same here in the UK. Made even worse by the fact that legal aid is in fact only given if DV is alleged. Needless to say following the introduction of this in our course thre was an immediate doubling or in some areas quadrupling of accusations of DV or abuse. This being the cause of investigation and report, because the expected "savings" had not materialised. Of course even having found this out and noting that it reflected the advice given by solicitors firms (they looked at dramatic differences in different boroughs) nothing has been done about this 6 years on.
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.
As I'm sure you'll know the famous cases in the UK which began the whistle blowing on the Police tactic of not registering evidence with the Courts and the CPS sharp practice in only revealing evidence to the court (and thence the defence) at the very last minute to undermine the defence, was first exposed by a Department of Justice investigation some nine months previously. Subsequently the Criminal Bar Association (headed by a woman) also exposed and protested and even the BBC did a survey of barristers as part of a documentary about these illegal (in the cases of tte Police) and dubious practice (in the case of the CPS). Interestingly the DoJ report, the Bar Association investigation and the BBC survey all estimated that about a quarter of convictions in the years previously were "unsound" as a result. It is suggestive that in recent years the number of court cases fell by a quarter. The fall being the catalyst for the current attempt to revive the practice of ignoring or concealing communications from the complainant. In effect legalising the Police practice of ignoring or treating as irrelevant such evidence.
Of course in the debate I have seen nothing at all about looking backwards to reexamine the many cases (25%) that are likely to have meant an innocent man was convicted and is serving time and or still on a sex offender register.
Probably the best that can be hoped for is that we can head off the reintroduction of the police deliberately concealing evidence to "build a case". The scandals about this were of course precisely why the CPS was created in the first place to reduce the temptation of the Police not to do their legal duty to investigate without fear or favour, and hand on the result to the CPS to see if it actually amounted to a case in law!
It's baffling to me that the CPS is in charge of disclosure. It appears to be that arrangement which leaves the door open for this abuse, i.e., the police being 'guided' to 'build a case', rather than seek the truth (the latter being the clear advice of the Justice Select Committee in 2018). I suppose it might be problematical to put the defence in charge of disclosure, but there is an obvious case for an independent body whose formal remit would be truth seeking.
In theory and law that is thd responsibility of the Police , who collect evidence, and the "court" before which the evidence is presented. The CPS was introduced as a check on the police who were found to not have properly investigated a number of high profile cases and either connived in prosecutions that much later were quashed or decided not to prosecute at all. The really sneaky bit in all this is that it still remains the Police who decide what evidence is "relevant" for the court to see. Of course the crucial point is that whatever is shown to the "court" is also made available to the defence. It was often on this point that trials were stopped by judges, when the prosecution started introducing evidence during a case which had not be put before the court (and defence) in the proper time. So if the Police sit on evidence and do not inform the court, and the CPS simply asks no questions it is up to the defence to demand it. And of course its hard to make a demand for something you cannot be sure exists. Basically much depends on the Police doing their legal duty and being honest. In truth any defendant faces the massive resources of "the crown" in the form of the police and crown prosecution service with just the good offices of the magistrate or judge to see they are fairly treated, and a jury in serious crimes, Hence the importance of "beyond reasonable doubt". So if they have targets there is an incentive for the Police not to look into evidence and certainly not tag it for court. And for tte CPS to not delve too deeply if the Police say that there were no electronic records or these are not relevant. In a way it was a hopeful sign that there was that 25% drop following tte scandal and such as the select committee report. As it suggests the Police were being more honest in the evidence presented and the CPS were deciding far more cases were not "safe" enough to go to prosecution. The Bill in effect seeks to make legal what was illegal and dishonest in the Police most of all.
I say this not to get at the police, because of all the professions involved they are the worst paid and least educated, It should be no surprise they can be manipulated by Solicitors and Baristers etc.
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.
I'm going to take this opportunity to thank my late mother who put quite an effort into warning me about womens' manipulative ways whilst I was still a teenager. I avoided many of the pitfalls as a consequence.
Tragically in much of our woke society there is no longer a commitment to truth. In this post modern world truth is no longer objective, and that destroys any legal system. Our legal system and those working in it, must have finding the truth as their paramount objective. How many convictions are obtained by hiding evidence is not helping to get to the truth of any matter. It leads to tyranny.
Was there ever a " commitment to truth" in this country's justice system? We inherited the British system whether we wanted it or not and many think it is the best, but remember it is adversarial which means the truth of a case is not what is important, only winning .
The adversarial system dates back to the Roman Empire, and surely it is time for change, in the 21st century with all the technical wonders why do we tolerate a dinosaur like this?.
Having very young girl and boy. I used to just worry about the girl. Now it’s both. All I can do is educate - but I think laying of the grog and drugs goes a long way in helping any situation. We are obsessed with the grog in the West and not much good comes from it.
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.
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 concern about the 'militarization' of police forces and the Victoria Police are out in front on this , recently they changed to black uniforms from the old and more neutral blue. Following the United States, police in Australia now look more paramilitary, armed to the teeth and wearing protection and cameras they patrol our streets but their appearance is threatening and if they want to build better relations with law abiding citizens then they are going about it the wrong way.
Police have shown they are more interested in doing the dirty work of corrupt governments than protecting the public and in fact the 'public' are often seen as the enemy, after all a military force needs an " enemy".
Dob in your neighbour , this is how Hitler's Germany operated in the 1930's and the comparison to Australian police forces is justified.
It seems the Queensland Police want to extract revenge from the Queensland public and can we expect that anyone who dares to criticize them will be be in trouble.
It is always a tragedy when anyone is shot dead and police officers are no exception but evidence of corruption and malpractice in the Queensland police force goes back decades and you could say if they had been more honest and treated people better then this may not have happened.
But police have a double standard and when the boot is on the other foot, when a member of the public is shot dead by a police officer then it's a different matter.
Police then close ranks and protect the killer cop and claim the killing to be "justified".
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.
They name them even when they are simply allegations while the woman remains anonymous. It has been like this for decades and it is a disgrace. Talk about a two-tiered justice system.
WA is not far behind and has had coersive control as grounds for a DV order for several years . The definition is so broad and so vague that anything could be seen as coersive.
A man cuts up his wife's credit card to save the family from bankruptcy and this is grounds for a violence order, as well as coersive control this is "financial violence", ie withholding money from a family member.
This is insanity but what is more troubling is that police and magistrates enforce these laws, when are they gong to find the guts to say "enough"
Yet women control 83% of household spending and a wander through KMart exposes the feminist lie that women are financially disadvantaged as well as the biggest lie regarding a patriarchy which places the interests and welfare of men and boys ahead of the needs of women and girls.
Four fifths of the floor space in any major store is devoted to female products and targeting a female consumer. I went into changeroom yesterday. There were four rooms for men, one of which was jammed to the door with boxes and a trolley. There were three times as many changerooms for women and girls.
As I walked around the shopping centre I saw nail salons, hair salons, jewellery stores, handbag stores, pedicure shops, female clothing shops and all of them were doing a healthy business.
A wander through a shopping centre dismantles all of the feminist lies and tropes in a few minutes. Our world caters almost exclusively to female needs and wants. Why would retailers set up a business targeting consumers who have no capacity to spend? They don't. So the endless myth making about impoverished females living off the scant handouts from a tyrannical hubby is utter BS.
It is women who control and coerce men and their finances at a far higher rate than the reverse, yet you can be sure that only men will be charged under these new ever expanding laws.
Next time a feminist near you starts a rant about the patriarchy and male domination simply say
KMart. Then walk away.
Right and in fact women in any modern country now have it so good compared to only a hundred years ago that one could wonder why they are complaining so much.
Women have been the big winners from industrialization and the consumer boom. They now have much material comfort and wealth as well as being the most privileged and protected women in all of history.
Why then do we constantly hear of women being "victims" ? , they are oppressed by the patriarchy and their pay is so low they are virtually slaves, they live in fear of domestic violence and sexual assault etc. etc. all things easily disproved.
The answer could be that greater forces are at work which want to undermine stable democracies and destroy the social harmony which can only survive when men and women cooperate out of mutual respect.
Is Queensland introducing a law which makes coersive control a crime? apart from just being grounds for a DV order which is really a civil law .
If so then we should be worried, coercing someone into doing what you want them to do should never be a crime, for very good reason, in some cases coercion can be used to help a person eg. a drug addict is coerced by his family to stop using, nobody could call that a crime surely.
Then there is the normal parental right to control children and a hypothetical case could be - a father or mother locks their underage daughter in the house and forbids her to go out partying out of fear for the girls safety, that would be coercive control.
The crazies are now in charge of the asylum
"...no mention of naming child molesters. Can’t figure that one out."
Same reason P-12 schools were excluded from the federal royal commission into institutional abuse.
Sadly there are also reports of vigilante justice where the accused is killed and later found to have been innocent.
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.
That is true and the court ie. magistrates and judges can and do alter transcripts before they are released for printing. I once caught out a stupid magistrates on this issue , he knew that I knew that he had deleted a whole passage of text on a transcript . I won on that day and I wonder why?
We are fooled into thinking these people are honest and nothing could be further from the truth, transcripts are said to be "verbatim" but this can be interpreted any way the courts want.
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.
Sadly this is the same here in the UK. Made even worse by the fact that legal aid is in fact only given if DV is alleged. Needless to say following the introduction of this in our course thre was an immediate doubling or in some areas quadrupling of accusations of DV or abuse. This being the cause of investigation and report, because the expected "savings" had not materialised. Of course even having found this out and noting that it reflected the advice given by solicitors firms (they looked at dramatic differences in different boroughs) nothing has been done about this 6 years on.
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!
Sadly this is the same here in the UK. Made even worse by the fact that legal aid is in fact only given if DV is alleged. Needless to say following the introduction of this in our course thre was an immediate doubling or in some areas quadrupling of accusations of DV or abuse. This being the cause of investigation and report, because the expected "savings" had not materialised. Of course even having found this out and noting that it reflected the advice given by solicitors firms (they looked at dramatic differences in different boroughs) nothing has been done about this 6 years on.
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.
Thanks Kay, I think you've got a good point.
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.
As I'm sure you'll know the famous cases in the UK which began the whistle blowing on the Police tactic of not registering evidence with the Courts and the CPS sharp practice in only revealing evidence to the court (and thence the defence) at the very last minute to undermine the defence, was first exposed by a Department of Justice investigation some nine months previously. Subsequently the Criminal Bar Association (headed by a woman) also exposed and protested and even the BBC did a survey of barristers as part of a documentary about these illegal (in the cases of tte Police) and dubious practice (in the case of the CPS). Interestingly the DoJ report, the Bar Association investigation and the BBC survey all estimated that about a quarter of convictions in the years previously were "unsound" as a result. It is suggestive that in recent years the number of court cases fell by a quarter. The fall being the catalyst for the current attempt to revive the practice of ignoring or concealing communications from the complainant. In effect legalising the Police practice of ignoring or treating as irrelevant such evidence.
Of course in the debate I have seen nothing at all about looking backwards to reexamine the many cases (25%) that are likely to have meant an innocent man was convicted and is serving time and or still on a sex offender register.
Probably the best that can be hoped for is that we can head off the reintroduction of the police deliberately concealing evidence to "build a case". The scandals about this were of course precisely why the CPS was created in the first place to reduce the temptation of the Police not to do their legal duty to investigate without fear or favour, and hand on the result to the CPS to see if it actually amounted to a case in law!
It's baffling to me that the CPS is in charge of disclosure. It appears to be that arrangement which leaves the door open for this abuse, i.e., the police being 'guided' to 'build a case', rather than seek the truth (the latter being the clear advice of the Justice Select Committee in 2018). I suppose it might be problematical to put the defence in charge of disclosure, but there is an obvious case for an independent body whose formal remit would be truth seeking.
In theory and law that is thd responsibility of the Police , who collect evidence, and the "court" before which the evidence is presented. The CPS was introduced as a check on the police who were found to not have properly investigated a number of high profile cases and either connived in prosecutions that much later were quashed or decided not to prosecute at all. The really sneaky bit in all this is that it still remains the Police who decide what evidence is "relevant" for the court to see. Of course the crucial point is that whatever is shown to the "court" is also made available to the defence. It was often on this point that trials were stopped by judges, when the prosecution started introducing evidence during a case which had not be put before the court (and defence) in the proper time. So if the Police sit on evidence and do not inform the court, and the CPS simply asks no questions it is up to the defence to demand it. And of course its hard to make a demand for something you cannot be sure exists. Basically much depends on the Police doing their legal duty and being honest. In truth any defendant faces the massive resources of "the crown" in the form of the police and crown prosecution service with just the good offices of the magistrate or judge to see they are fairly treated, and a jury in serious crimes, Hence the importance of "beyond reasonable doubt". So if they have targets there is an incentive for the Police not to look into evidence and certainly not tag it for court. And for tte CPS to not delve too deeply if the Police say that there were no electronic records or these are not relevant. In a way it was a hopeful sign that there was that 25% drop following tte scandal and such as the select committee report. As it suggests the Police were being more honest in the evidence presented and the CPS were deciding far more cases were not "safe" enough to go to prosecution. The Bill in effect seeks to make legal what was illegal and dishonest in the Police most of all.
I say this not to get at the police, because of all the professions involved they are the worst paid and least educated, It should be no surprise they can be manipulated by Solicitors and Baristers etc.
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.
I'm going to take this opportunity to thank my late mother who put quite an effort into warning me about womens' manipulative ways whilst I was still a teenager. I avoided many of the pitfalls as a consequence.
Tragically in much of our woke society there is no longer a commitment to truth. In this post modern world truth is no longer objective, and that destroys any legal system. Our legal system and those working in it, must have finding the truth as their paramount objective. How many convictions are obtained by hiding evidence is not helping to get to the truth of any matter. It leads to tyranny.
Was there ever a " commitment to truth" in this country's justice system? We inherited the British system whether we wanted it or not and many think it is the best, but remember it is adversarial which means the truth of a case is not what is important, only winning .
The adversarial system dates back to the Roman Empire, and surely it is time for change, in the 21st century with all the technical wonders why do we tolerate a dinosaur like this?.
Having very young girl and boy. I used to just worry about the girl. Now it’s both. All I can do is educate - but I think laying of the grog and drugs goes a long way in helping any situation. We are obsessed with the grog in the West and not much good comes from it.