I agree 100%. My son was attacked by another boy who attempted to pull his shorts down from behind during their coed P E class in high school. When my son responded by defending himself the other student slapped him.
Both my son and his attacker were going to be punished for fighting. And when my wife protested she was told that we either accept the punishment or they would have our son arrested.
When my wife asked to meet with the Administrator and the teacher they refused.
So I called the Administrator and left a message informing him in no uncertain terms. That I was going to take my son to our local police station, file a report then have the other student arrested for sexual assault. Then I was going to get a lawyer and go after the student who attacked my son and the school.
The Administrator couldn't roll over and back peddle fast enough on his threat to have my son arrested and resolved the issue within twenty-four hours.
However, as I have mentioned above, I truly do believe that "Owen" was simply manifesting an attitude which is currently held by the wider corporate culture of Services Australia (or, perhaps, just the CSA in particular?).
That, I think, is the bigger picture which would explain why I was dealt with so very rapidly, and indeed, so very satisfactorily if truth be told (from only a purely personal perspective mind you).
I suspect that all my actions actually did was raise an awareness in the higher echelons of a much much larger problem. Now being feverishly worked on.
I do so wish investigative journalists could look into this problem.
I also wish I had a recording of the 2-hour phone conversation between "Owen" and myself.
It doesn't seem like I would ever need to produce such a hypothetical recording now though anyway. Ah well.
In terms of the finger story, how does anyone get his hand through the back of a chair, along a seat, up underneath her tunic, one presumes not trousers, in through her panties, with enough flexibility to insert what must be very long fingers in her vagina? And to do it without those sitting next to him seeing what he was doing and the girl not reacting as she was digitally raped, since it sounds as if she made the report later after a second offence.
It seems very strange that the man involved with Child Support had received no notice from them before the sequestration of wages. While I have never been personally involved with CSA, I know some who have and remain so and like any Government organisation they are meticulous, perhaps too much so, in ticking boxes.
How would they have had the ability to take any money from him if they did not possess the data and process which would enable them to do so, and which would have necessitated he was at least registered with them.
And without you being on the end of the line for the conversation I feel it is unfair and unprofessional to say: Owen, a smug, sneering child support officer,
The unhappy 'Alan' may well have described his manner so, and indeed, perceived it as such, but he was hardly an objective source and it is just a tad too subjective in the circumstances, and unpleasant to boot.
I can fully understand CSA made a mistake about paternity, but the story reads as if the victim was some random bloke who had never had any contact with CSA until they uplifted half his money.
To specifically address your very valid point about supposedly being notified before the sequestration of my salary (which is certainly a requirement from my very close reading of the Services Australia website concerning a s72 garnishee of wages), I received this notification about a week AFTER the sequestration of my salary. Thus, far too late to attempt a redress.
The notification also arrived AFTER my horrendous exchange with the officious official.
I would have thought written and verbal notification was a norm. And yes, postal services have been erratic. Was the letter dated prior to the removal of your funds. It would be a criminal act to alter a Government document.
If it was dated after your horrendous exchange and resulting from it then it remains evidence of CSA incompetence. If it was dated before then it is simply another form of misery emanating from the Covid chaos.
I completely understand your viewpoint because until this happened to me I thought the same.
As did my colleague who was present throughout. In fact, she said immediately afterwards that she would not have believed a public servant could be like that if she hadn't heard it for herself. The complete disdain was something that would have to be seen to be believed.
I so wish I had a recording of the exchange.
Of course, you only have my word for this and I am in truth asking you to take me on faith which is of course a very big to impossible ask. That is the way it is I suppose.
I am still trying to actually work out how I even showed on the CSA's radar at all in the first place. I will keep working on that one. It certainly has the appearance that somebody has trawled through databases (quite possibly in contravention of some statute/s or other) for an individual who has the same name and date of birth as myself. I was the one who drew their focus.
I am very sorry you feel that I am an "unpleasant" individual. I do not get a sense that you are unpleasant and I would most sincerely hope that you yourself never end up being wrongly targeted by an agency of the state in order to have your viewpoint shifted. A traumatic experience when all is said and done.
Thank you for your contribution Roslyn, it at least allowed me a right of reply (which was initially denied to me in my troubles).
I was at a loss as to why you thought I called you an unpleasant individual. Re-reading makes me understand your error. This medium is cryptic. I referred to you as unhappy which you no doubt were and assumed you had made the reference as the source for the interview. However my deeming it unpleasant was in terms of its use in the article and not by you.
I am sure it has all been very traumatic. I spent many years in real journalism where our approach, indeed instruction, was to ask all questions in order to find a truth.
To clarify, I was curious as to how any Government agency could get the information to access bank details if an individual was not registered with them. If they can that is appalling.
I wondered if you were registered with them on another and valid count for child support and got mixed up in their robotic system as Robert's father.
I did not mean to offend, I was not accusing you of anything, I have enormous sympathy for men given how the system is weighted against them and I was just trying to make sense of your story.
If Government agencies can access the bank details of people with whom they have no prior registration then that is a level of invasive Government which cannot be allowed. If such actions can be taken without prior notification, in writing and by telephone, with the individual then it is even worse. CSA is so hidebound with boxticking it just seems very strange and certainly something which needs to be forensically investigated.
The notion that the Child Support Agency does everything by the book is laughable, Rosalyn. The organisation is notorious for applying rules unfairly, and often maliciously. See the article by Slater here, which just deals with breaches of privacy by the CSA officers.
I saw the correspondence with top people in the department which admitted they had taken the money without any proper attempt to ensure they had the right person. He was NOT registered with them. He did NOT have a dependent child.
As for the description of Owen as smug and sneering, those words came from Alan who was shattered by the way this man treated him. The fact that he refused to believe Alan when he said he had no such child is surely a demonstration of this attitude. Someone doing the job properly would surely have listened to Alan carefully and made some checks before dismissing his objects.
Yes, the story reads as if CSA stole money from a man who had never had contact with the CSA because THAT IS THE TRUTH.
Thanks for the clarification. I do not believe any Government agency does everything by the book but they do tick a lot of basic boxes which here seem to be missed.
If the system is as 'corrupted' as you suggest then the entire agency needs to be forensically examined.
Just as the CSA was remiss in not asking enough questions, so I err on the side of asking questions in order to fully understand.
I love the falsely accused day idea. Imagine it spreading to the US? It would be bigger than Halloween. Im exhausted by all of this type of experience. I have not just had my family expectations ended by someone who is basically a malignant covert narcissist, but before her I had my teaching career as it was ended by a school or women who could not let go of the fact that they were not getting to me until my boss went on leave and it rained the language of a toxic marriage breakup. one overlapped the other, but all my life Ive been dealing with this sexist stuff as I have predominantly worked in female dominated industries where Ive been told all kinds of rubbish and had all kinds of requests made of me some of which made things awkward others attempts to get me fired after my rejections to romantic overtures, and not just from females. Usually because I was with someone else and I do not cheat, but have been cheated on based on economics and competitive blokes. In every case my issues are cancelled, trivialised, reversed and Ive been left to start again, over and over all based on gender that seems to encourage viciousness and all without any help from the law except in one case where I won a workers compensation case within Bob Carr's limits. In Victoria the same situation at the same time scored some ex-teacher $1.3mil. Now I have a few years before I am 60 and jobs I would have liked to go for Im too old for or too sore for after spending the last ten years doing physical work and labour hire until I finally succumbed to depression and am struggling to recover after all of the people it seems willing to line up and bring a nice person down with whatever weapons they have at hand. All I have ever wanted to do was to live life with a female friend, some friends to have a laugh with and some adventures together, have a family and a steady income that takes care of the bills, but instead my life has been fraught with one set of unfair circumstances after the next. Most in he name of my gender my race and my age starting and getting steadily worse from my 36th birthday. The good times have been when women I have met take off professionally with my support but then sabotage the relationship due to their success that in some way brings pressure to them, followed by gaslighting and inevitably they cheat on me. I don't gamble, drink very much (although who'd blame me) In the last case I was accused of long term coercive control to cover up her affair, which she denies with police support and no effective defence from what i call overpaid clerks but I have experience in being cheated on and know what it looks like. I dont know how men do it, but women find it very hard to hide it when they've allow some guy into the henhouse. I have experienced all kinds of really bad behaviour from women and their families and authorities from serious stalking to fake pregnancies to overnight kidnapping to false campaigns to restart the relationship just to ruin something good I had going to attempts to wreck a relationship that was good at the time. Police laughed at the stalking incident until they discovered she'd lied to them as well as all of the people she was using to keep track of me. I put it down to being a nice person and allowing things to go on too long, but in my life no never means no to most females even as they say it does for them and the double standards are just endemic throughout the culture and legal system. Perjury consequences only apply to men in my experience with some kind of patronising understanding applied to women as an example of patronisation women are happy to retain. As I said, I have worked in many female dominated industries so many of my closest friends have been women, and as a less than powerful male I have come to learn of many anecdotal beliefs held by honest female friends about famale dominated workplace and dealings they've had from other women. In conclusion, I believe the savagery that men are experiencing is a double edged sword where women generally believe men are there to solve their problems and take responsibility for everything that goes wrong. It is reflected in how these rabid feminist zealots in groups such as the Domestic Violence Unit in Brisbane Water Police LAC , who are generating DV stats to justify their existence, both demand appreciation for their work while never dreaming of applying to smelt hot metal or work roofing a house, and then easily let loose with generalisations about male inadequacy on emotional or self control bases when in fact on both levels it is nothing more than transference that is the same for other people with problems against men, or white people, or english speakers when in fact the people who are most likely to suffer the consequences are not from the class responsible for setting up the discriminatory systems that are being fought against. Anyway, thats a whole other story.
They are holding demonstrations in a number of UK cities on Sept 9. Maybe we should do likewise? See how they explain what they are doing.
Every year, thousands of innocent men and women are falsely accused of serious criminal offences. In its efforts to ensure justice for genuine victims of horrific crimes, our criminal justice system has dispensed with Due Process and allowed itself to be used by people with malicious intent. Falsely Accused Day is intended to raise awareness of just how easy it is to fall victim to a false accusation, to point out how the Presumption of Innocence has been removed and how the law continues to be eroded in the name of justice.
On Aug 16th Megan Jayne Somerville, 35y.o. Modbury Heights woman, stabbed her two children, (boys aged 8 and 3), on a Motorway in N.E. Adelaide. As soon as I heard this story on commercial radio, I switched to ABC 'News Radio' to see if this misandrist organisation would mention it. They did NOT, but did mention numerous cases of "domestic violence" against women during the hours that I had ABC News Radio on in the background. That is how the ABC reports 'news'.
I think we all need to keep putting up comments on ABC sites pointing this out. Whenever there is such a story they fail to report, we have to find opportunities to bring this to public attention.
It wasn't the board which summoned the parents... it was the school, after the board had obviously made it clear they had to resolve the matter. This was good news - nothing to complain about!
These two cases are two of the absurd cases that can won in a few months. The less absurd cases cannot be won. Unless men are prepared to spend dead years in suspension or in court, they must avoid relationships with women at their own school and at their own business.
Under these so-called Pence rule, men in business or government must not have dinner, lunch or meetings alone with any woman other than their wife, except with witnesses.
Women can respond to that by changing their votes and their rules.
Great to hear. I also feel for the girl with false accusations, essentially set up to profit by victim status. It won't be easy for her to overcome this. In fact everyone who believes in the mainstream narrative about the sexes puts themselves at psychological risk. Bravo Bettina!
The girl refused to go to the police - understandably, given she was making it all up. The school actually employed an external investigator to conduct the process.
That reminds me of Cardinal Pell's accuser who didn't mention the "assault" for twenty years because "he was afraid of the power of the Catholic Church", and Brittany Higgins who didn't go to the police because "it might interrupt her career". Why do the MSM and courts not ask hard questions about these excuses?
Sure, going to the police can be painful and time consuming, but its the same for other victims of crime. A timely police report should be the normal minimum for a credible case.
We used to have a statute of limitations for many good reasons. One is that it memories fade and change over time. To me, one of the best reasons is simply - if this hasn't been important enough to you to report for seven years, why should the state and the accused make it important now, with all the expence and distraction which it will entail?
They rightly removed the statute of limitations for child sexual offences, as children can take decades to face up to the abuse, but that has become open slather for much less credible delays.
Why is the school handling it? Doesn’t matter who they get to investigate it, surely it is a police matter? Quite sure that an investigation by the police would show it wasn’t true.
Lie or not, this sounds the same as tertiary institutions carrying out their own “investigations”, and punishments of unproven assaults.
Don't delude yourself that a police investigation would reveal "the Truth". Police are now under such pressure to push through all sexual assault cases to trial that they no longer assess the evidence, but simply gather enough fuel to burn the man. See Erin's story on Mothers of Sons...
I agree 100%. My son was attacked by another boy who attempted to pull his shorts down from behind during their coed P E class in high school. When my son responded by defending himself the other student slapped him.
Both my son and his attacker were going to be punished for fighting. And when my wife protested she was told that we either accept the punishment or they would have our son arrested.
When my wife asked to meet with the Administrator and the teacher they refused.
So I called the Administrator and left a message informing him in no uncertain terms. That I was going to take my son to our local police station, file a report then have the other student arrested for sexual assault. Then I was going to get a lawyer and go after the student who attacked my son and the school.
The Administrator couldn't roll over and back peddle fast enough on his threat to have my son arrested and resolved the issue within twenty-four hours.
Good for you, Dabir. I am so pleased this worked out for your son.
Brilliant! Well done indeed.
Please name "Owen" so that we can have an anti-woke pile-on. We have to start beating these bumfucks at their own game.
Unfortunately Craven, "Owen" is all I was given.
However, as I have mentioned above, I truly do believe that "Owen" was simply manifesting an attitude which is currently held by the wider corporate culture of Services Australia (or, perhaps, just the CSA in particular?).
That, I think, is the bigger picture which would explain why I was dealt with so very rapidly, and indeed, so very satisfactorily if truth be told (from only a purely personal perspective mind you).
I suspect that all my actions actually did was raise an awareness in the higher echelons of a much much larger problem. Now being feverishly worked on.
I do so wish investigative journalists could look into this problem.
I also wish I had a recording of the 2-hour phone conversation between "Owen" and myself.
It doesn't seem like I would ever need to produce such a hypothetical recording now though anyway. Ah well.
In terms of the finger story, how does anyone get his hand through the back of a chair, along a seat, up underneath her tunic, one presumes not trousers, in through her panties, with enough flexibility to insert what must be very long fingers in her vagina? And to do it without those sitting next to him seeing what he was doing and the girl not reacting as she was digitally raped, since it sounds as if she made the report later after a second offence.
It seems very strange that the man involved with Child Support had received no notice from them before the sequestration of wages. While I have never been personally involved with CSA, I know some who have and remain so and like any Government organisation they are meticulous, perhaps too much so, in ticking boxes.
How would they have had the ability to take any money from him if they did not possess the data and process which would enable them to do so, and which would have necessitated he was at least registered with them.
And without you being on the end of the line for the conversation I feel it is unfair and unprofessional to say: Owen, a smug, sneering child support officer,
The unhappy 'Alan' may well have described his manner so, and indeed, perceived it as such, but he was hardly an objective source and it is just a tad too subjective in the circumstances, and unpleasant to boot.
I can fully understand CSA made a mistake about paternity, but the story reads as if the victim was some random bloke who had never had any contact with CSA until they uplifted half his money.
Hi Roslyn,
To specifically address your very valid point about supposedly being notified before the sequestration of my salary (which is certainly a requirement from my very close reading of the Services Australia website concerning a s72 garnishee of wages), I received this notification about a week AFTER the sequestration of my salary. Thus, far too late to attempt a redress.
The notification also arrived AFTER my horrendous exchange with the officious official.
That smacks of "oops".
A.
I would have thought written and verbal notification was a norm. And yes, postal services have been erratic. Was the letter dated prior to the removal of your funds. It would be a criminal act to alter a Government document.
If it was dated after your horrendous exchange and resulting from it then it remains evidence of CSA incompetence. If it was dated before then it is simply another form of misery emanating from the Covid chaos.
Hello Roslyn,
I completely understand your viewpoint because until this happened to me I thought the same.
As did my colleague who was present throughout. In fact, she said immediately afterwards that she would not have believed a public servant could be like that if she hadn't heard it for herself. The complete disdain was something that would have to be seen to be believed.
I so wish I had a recording of the exchange.
Of course, you only have my word for this and I am in truth asking you to take me on faith which is of course a very big to impossible ask. That is the way it is I suppose.
I am still trying to actually work out how I even showed on the CSA's radar at all in the first place. I will keep working on that one. It certainly has the appearance that somebody has trawled through databases (quite possibly in contravention of some statute/s or other) for an individual who has the same name and date of birth as myself. I was the one who drew their focus.
I am very sorry you feel that I am an "unpleasant" individual. I do not get a sense that you are unpleasant and I would most sincerely hope that you yourself never end up being wrongly targeted by an agency of the state in order to have your viewpoint shifted. A traumatic experience when all is said and done.
Thank you for your contribution Roslyn, it at least allowed me a right of reply (which was initially denied to me in my troubles).
A.
Alan,
I was at a loss as to why you thought I called you an unpleasant individual. Re-reading makes me understand your error. This medium is cryptic. I referred to you as unhappy which you no doubt were and assumed you had made the reference as the source for the interview. However my deeming it unpleasant was in terms of its use in the article and not by you.
I am sure it has all been very traumatic. I spent many years in real journalism where our approach, indeed instruction, was to ask all questions in order to find a truth.
To clarify, I was curious as to how any Government agency could get the information to access bank details if an individual was not registered with them. If they can that is appalling.
I wondered if you were registered with them on another and valid count for child support and got mixed up in their robotic system as Robert's father.
I did not mean to offend, I was not accusing you of anything, I have enormous sympathy for men given how the system is weighted against them and I was just trying to make sense of your story.
If Government agencies can access the bank details of people with whom they have no prior registration then that is a level of invasive Government which cannot be allowed. If such actions can be taken without prior notification, in writing and by telephone, with the individual then it is even worse. CSA is so hidebound with boxticking it just seems very strange and certainly something which needs to be forensically investigated.
The notion that the Child Support Agency does everything by the book is laughable, Rosalyn. The organisation is notorious for applying rules unfairly, and often maliciously. See the article by Slater here, which just deals with breaches of privacy by the CSA officers.
https://walta.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The_Western_Australian_Jurist_Vol_8_2017.pdf
I saw the correspondence with top people in the department which admitted they had taken the money without any proper attempt to ensure they had the right person. He was NOT registered with them. He did NOT have a dependent child.
As for the description of Owen as smug and sneering, those words came from Alan who was shattered by the way this man treated him. The fact that he refused to believe Alan when he said he had no such child is surely a demonstration of this attitude. Someone doing the job properly would surely have listened to Alan carefully and made some checks before dismissing his objects.
Yes, the story reads as if CSA stole money from a man who had never had contact with the CSA because THAT IS THE TRUTH.
Thanks for the clarification. I do not believe any Government agency does everything by the book but they do tick a lot of basic boxes which here seem to be missed.
If the system is as 'corrupted' as you suggest then the entire agency needs to be forensically examined.
Just as the CSA was remiss in not asking enough questions, so I err on the side of asking questions in order to fully understand.
Fair enough, Rosalyn.
I've just thought of something.
Wouldn't fingering someone constitute digital rape or at least sexual assault?
If so, wouldn't this be a police matter and wouldn't the school have a responsibility to report it to the police?
Would the parents have been within their rights to go to the police?
...
The same reasoning would apply to e.g. rape allegations at universities.
I love the falsely accused day idea. Imagine it spreading to the US? It would be bigger than Halloween. Im exhausted by all of this type of experience. I have not just had my family expectations ended by someone who is basically a malignant covert narcissist, but before her I had my teaching career as it was ended by a school or women who could not let go of the fact that they were not getting to me until my boss went on leave and it rained the language of a toxic marriage breakup. one overlapped the other, but all my life Ive been dealing with this sexist stuff as I have predominantly worked in female dominated industries where Ive been told all kinds of rubbish and had all kinds of requests made of me some of which made things awkward others attempts to get me fired after my rejections to romantic overtures, and not just from females. Usually because I was with someone else and I do not cheat, but have been cheated on based on economics and competitive blokes. In every case my issues are cancelled, trivialised, reversed and Ive been left to start again, over and over all based on gender that seems to encourage viciousness and all without any help from the law except in one case where I won a workers compensation case within Bob Carr's limits. In Victoria the same situation at the same time scored some ex-teacher $1.3mil. Now I have a few years before I am 60 and jobs I would have liked to go for Im too old for or too sore for after spending the last ten years doing physical work and labour hire until I finally succumbed to depression and am struggling to recover after all of the people it seems willing to line up and bring a nice person down with whatever weapons they have at hand. All I have ever wanted to do was to live life with a female friend, some friends to have a laugh with and some adventures together, have a family and a steady income that takes care of the bills, but instead my life has been fraught with one set of unfair circumstances after the next. Most in he name of my gender my race and my age starting and getting steadily worse from my 36th birthday. The good times have been when women I have met take off professionally with my support but then sabotage the relationship due to their success that in some way brings pressure to them, followed by gaslighting and inevitably they cheat on me. I don't gamble, drink very much (although who'd blame me) In the last case I was accused of long term coercive control to cover up her affair, which she denies with police support and no effective defence from what i call overpaid clerks but I have experience in being cheated on and know what it looks like. I dont know how men do it, but women find it very hard to hide it when they've allow some guy into the henhouse. I have experienced all kinds of really bad behaviour from women and their families and authorities from serious stalking to fake pregnancies to overnight kidnapping to false campaigns to restart the relationship just to ruin something good I had going to attempts to wreck a relationship that was good at the time. Police laughed at the stalking incident until they discovered she'd lied to them as well as all of the people she was using to keep track of me. I put it down to being a nice person and allowing things to go on too long, but in my life no never means no to most females even as they say it does for them and the double standards are just endemic throughout the culture and legal system. Perjury consequences only apply to men in my experience with some kind of patronising understanding applied to women as an example of patronisation women are happy to retain. As I said, I have worked in many female dominated industries so many of my closest friends have been women, and as a less than powerful male I have come to learn of many anecdotal beliefs held by honest female friends about famale dominated workplace and dealings they've had from other women. In conclusion, I believe the savagery that men are experiencing is a double edged sword where women generally believe men are there to solve their problems and take responsibility for everything that goes wrong. It is reflected in how these rabid feminist zealots in groups such as the Domestic Violence Unit in Brisbane Water Police LAC , who are generating DV stats to justify their existence, both demand appreciation for their work while never dreaming of applying to smelt hot metal or work roofing a house, and then easily let loose with generalisations about male inadequacy on emotional or self control bases when in fact on both levels it is nothing more than transference that is the same for other people with problems against men, or white people, or english speakers when in fact the people who are most likely to suffer the consequences are not from the class responsible for setting up the discriminatory systems that are being fought against. Anyway, thats a whole other story.
Bad behaviour must never be 'erwarded'. That is, take no action and simply roll over.
If we don’t represent the case we have lost before we begin
Here's an interesting idea - Falsely Accused Day. see here... https://falselyaccusedday.org/.
They are holding demonstrations in a number of UK cities on Sept 9. Maybe we should do likewise? See how they explain what they are doing.
Every year, thousands of innocent men and women are falsely accused of serious criminal offences. In its efforts to ensure justice for genuine victims of horrific crimes, our criminal justice system has dispensed with Due Process and allowed itself to be used by people with malicious intent. Falsely Accused Day is intended to raise awareness of just how easy it is to fall victim to a false accusation, to point out how the Presumption of Innocence has been removed and how the law continues to be eroded in the name of justice.
On Aug 16th Megan Jayne Somerville, 35y.o. Modbury Heights woman, stabbed her two children, (boys aged 8 and 3), on a Motorway in N.E. Adelaide. As soon as I heard this story on commercial radio, I switched to ABC 'News Radio' to see if this misandrist organisation would mention it. They did NOT, but did mention numerous cases of "domestic violence" against women during the hours that I had ABC News Radio on in the background. That is how the ABC reports 'news'.
I think we all need to keep putting up comments on ABC sites pointing this out. Whenever there is such a story they fail to report, we have to find opportunities to bring this to public attention.
" When members of the board learned where this was all heading, suddenly the parents were summoned to the school ..."
...
Who the hell are members of the school board to summon people?
Surely the parents could have said "You have something to say to us? Then come here!"
It wasn't the board which summoned the parents... it was the school, after the board had obviously made it clear they had to resolve the matter. This was good news - nothing to complain about!
Great stories, Tina.
These two cases are two of the absurd cases that can won in a few months. The less absurd cases cannot be won. Unless men are prepared to spend dead years in suspension or in court, they must avoid relationships with women at their own school and at their own business.
Under these so-called Pence rule, men in business or government must not have dinner, lunch or meetings alone with any woman other than their wife, except with witnesses.
Women can respond to that by changing their votes and their rules.
Kick a**, Tina!
Great to hear. I also feel for the girl with false accusations, essentially set up to profit by victim status. It won't be easy for her to overcome this. In fact everyone who believes in the mainstream narrative about the sexes puts themselves at psychological risk. Bravo Bettina!
Why was the school conducting an investigation into an alleged sexual assault?
The girl refused to go to the police - understandably, given she was making it all up. The school actually employed an external investigator to conduct the process.
"The girl refused to go to the police".
That reminds me of Cardinal Pell's accuser who didn't mention the "assault" for twenty years because "he was afraid of the power of the Catholic Church", and Brittany Higgins who didn't go to the police because "it might interrupt her career". Why do the MSM and courts not ask hard questions about these excuses?
Sure, going to the police can be painful and time consuming, but its the same for other victims of crime. A timely police report should be the normal minimum for a credible case.
We used to have a statute of limitations for many good reasons. One is that it memories fade and change over time. To me, one of the best reasons is simply - if this hasn't been important enough to you to report for seven years, why should the state and the accused make it important now, with all the expence and distraction which it will entail?
They rightly removed the statute of limitations for child sexual offences, as children can take decades to face up to the abuse, but that has become open slather for much less credible delays.
It is an accusation of assault.
Why is the school handling it? Doesn’t matter who they get to investigate it, surely it is a police matter? Quite sure that an investigation by the police would show it wasn’t true.
Lie or not, this sounds the same as tertiary institutions carrying out their own “investigations”, and punishments of unproven assaults.
Don't delude yourself that a police investigation would reveal "the Truth". Police are now under such pressure to push through all sexual assault cases to trial that they no longer assess the evidence, but simply gather enough fuel to burn the man. See Erin's story on Mothers of Sons...
https://www.mothersofsons.info/mothers-stories/erin
Also watch this video where Margaret Cunneen QC explains why this is happening..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHpOkE2IQrI