FYI after using the correct emails (with an L instead of I-for-Impi) I just received a response from Amy Childs saying that the email was poorly worded.
So if, as in my case, I'd created a shared family account, and she alleged DV, they'd move it into her name, leaving me the actual victim with no ability to get support!
So I replied to them all again with...
"It still appears that a perpetrator use your offer to hurt their victim.
If a couple were in a business together, and one lied about DV lying to gain an advantage over their victim, then the business services could be transferred away from the other person, causing business loss and isolation.
Even in my non-business case I’d set up shared services and gave her access to everything.
According to your statement, based on her allegations you’d have transferred the email and account to her, leaving me without the ability to seek support.
Since Telstra cannot determine the truth in an allegation – and recent studies show 30% of allegations in AU are proven to be false - it seems to me both draconian and probably illegal to take such action, let alone the fact that you’re aiding a perpetrator and worst case causing the suicide of a victim.
To my mind it would be far safe for all parties if you offered to clone the services or offer some less-heavy-handed alternative until the courts can determine the truth in the allegations.
I look forward to seeing Telstra lead the way in supporting all victims whilst staying out of the politics and legalities of any allegations."
This is beyond unbelievable. Telstra has no business weighing in on punishing people.... Especially where it's just allegations...Especially where false allegations are rampant... Especially where there are no controls to stop false allegations.
In sum and substance, it looks like Telstra wants to enable and reward false allegations of domestic violence.
No surprise that the CEO of Telstra is a woman , many big companies now have women at the top . This ensures that anti-men policies and practises prevail and even mining companies are no exception , interfering in the domestic affairs of their employees on the flawed idea of preventing “domestic violence”.
Companies like Telstra should stick to business matters only , but there is a trend for companies to involve themselves in political and cultural issues , QANTAS supported the controversial “voice” campaign ,and remember the Gillette ad. All this is a result of the increase of women in power inside companies thanks to the DEI .
All part of the “Great Feminisation” a book written by Helen Andrews points this out , that an organisation dominated by women will change its policies ,not always for the best and this is what we are seeing here.
Time for some massive class actions. Of course immediately all males would cease to even think about buying a tesla for a start.. Let's see how they like THAT.
It does seem that Telstra may have closed down those email addresses - which speaks volumes. If you have a premium LinkedIn account you can send a letter to Whitcomb using that. https://www.linkedin.com/in/bwhitcomb/?originalSubdomain=au. Please let me know if anyone is receiving responses. I was pleased to hear that a number of radio programs have been talking about the issue as a result of listener comments. Please call in to your local station if they are willinng to take talk back calls on the matter.
Jamie, just a correction on my post. After reading more about the case I may have have confused a Judge's comment with that of the defendant's attorney, a KC, who described the outcome of the case as "one of the worst miscarriages of Justice he had witnessed". That comment had a lot to do with the Prosecution's case and the mishandling of it by the police involved. The fact that the accused was kept in limbo for well over 12 months was also a damming indictment as described by his legal representatives.
The case of any future proceedings of Perjury will be something to observe: The alleged victim? Well how would that go? The male witness who supported the allegations (on record) should be a no brainer as to his complicity. The Police? How that may play out is anyones guess - at the very least it points to a folly in have having the footballer charged in the first instance.
It was the Prosecution that dropped the charges, virtually on the death knell of it proceeding to Trial, based on the admitted lies and witness unreliability that should have been evident earlier on.
...or don't get married to, or have a long term relationship with a feminist at least, a wise person once suggested to me. Feminists are constantly focussed on the all the reasons a relationship won't succeed, and their next best move. It's failed before it starts
I read about the number of men who are driven to suicide in Australia, many due to vindictive wives who wont let fathers see their own children. I don't believe all those women are feminists, i think most women have anti male sexism in them and they don't want equality, they have been given power to murder their husbands and too many of them do by mentaly torturing fathers until they commit suicide.
Many years ago I was working in the Family Court space and was required to complete training in DV. Before the course began we had to read three recent published papers, one of which in particular was very interesting. These researchers had used survey of the broader population rather than relying on the biased sampling (a la women's refuges and emergency services) that had provided the picture re DV up until that point. They identified four different classes of DV, only one of which (the smallest group, albeit most dangerous) fitted the classic systematic coercive controlling type. The other three types were much more common (things like pushing and shoving in the heat of argument when couples lacked more effective communication skills) but did not amount to the calculated controlling behaviours that had been hitherto identified by the refuge workers. This substitute-communication type was, in the case of younger adults and teens, even more likely to be initiated by the young woman; and across all age groups, was even-steven.
The big point in my story though, is that once the actual course began (it was run by Relationships Australia) these research papers were entirely ignored, and we were taught, and tested on, the old paradigm: all DV was seen as the coercive controlling type (which was indeed mostly initiated by men, and could be life-threatening to the woman - but again was much rarer).
This distinction is so important, as by rolling it all into together (a) a subset of victims are probably at greater risk; and (b) accused men are assumed to be dangerous when most are not. It was just so weird that the RA course just ignored the distinction even though they had distributed the info!
One of the core goals of the Feminist Industrial Complex is the "normalization" of "the presumption of [male] guilt" plus the entrenchment of a lack of due process, procedural fairness and the right of appeal in all facets of government /politics, big business, legacy media and especially the family and criminal courts, so that in due course when there is sufficient (read “enough votes to win an election’) societal acceptance of this travesty of natural justice, our laws and our constitutions, the toxic feminist misandrists will maneuver to get these travesties of basic rights and democratic society legislated.
These feminist goals also include subversively entrenching the feminist mantra that “to question, examine and test in a court of law” the “allegations” made by a woman is to “victim blame” the woman. The feminists want to legislate “believe all women (even when they lie)”
The “presumption of guilt” based on “untested” allegations without “right of appeal”
I was “de-banked” before “de-banking” was a policy adopted by the big 4 banks (and their minions) and before feminists started lobbying governments for “coercive control laws” targeting men.
The CBA refuse to say why they had frozen my accounts, but over the course of a complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), it emerged that allegations of domestic violence had been made against me by my ex-wife, though the woke CBA refused to confirm this. AFCA endorsed that this “de-banked” was a “business decision” made by the CBA and therefore outside their purview.
At the parenting matters trial, the presiding judge (since removed from the bench) found this and my ex-wife fraudulently using my credit card and bank accounts highly amusing, going so far as to say “women quiet often do that when they decide to leave the relationship.”
FYI after using the correct emails (with an L instead of I-for-Impi) I just received a response from Amy Childs saying that the email was poorly worded.
However, personally, I feel it's still not right.
Their website (https://www.telstra.com.au/customer-terms/customer-terms-update) currently says "Only services used by the victim survivor would be disconnected and/or moved to another account. Any other services will remain unchanged."
So if, as in my case, I'd created a shared family account, and she alleged DV, they'd move it into her name, leaving me the actual victim with no ability to get support!
So I replied to them all again with...
"It still appears that a perpetrator use your offer to hurt their victim.
If a couple were in a business together, and one lied about DV lying to gain an advantage over their victim, then the business services could be transferred away from the other person, causing business loss and isolation.
Even in my non-business case I’d set up shared services and gave her access to everything.
According to your statement, based on her allegations you’d have transferred the email and account to her, leaving me without the ability to seek support.
Since Telstra cannot determine the truth in an allegation – and recent studies show 30% of allegations in AU are proven to be false - it seems to me both draconian and probably illegal to take such action, let alone the fact that you’re aiding a perpetrator and worst case causing the suicide of a victim.
To my mind it would be far safe for all parties if you offered to clone the services or offer some less-heavy-handed alternative until the courts can determine the truth in the allegations.
I look forward to seeing Telstra lead the way in supporting all victims whilst staying out of the politics and legalities of any allegations."
PS the ACMA guidelines (https://www.acma.gov.au/articles/2025-02/new-protections-telco-consumers-facing-domestic-violence) quote a direction by the Minister for Communications, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP, in December 2024. “Tragically, ABS data shows around a third of women are affected by domestic violence..."
No mention of male victims as usual.
<Sigh>
This is beyond unbelievable. Telstra has no business weighing in on punishing people.... Especially where it's just allegations...Especially where false allegations are rampant... Especially where there are no controls to stop false allegations.
In sum and substance, it looks like Telstra wants to enable and reward false allegations of domestic violence.
This is an embarrassing corporate policy.
No surprise that the CEO of Telstra is a woman , many big companies now have women at the top . This ensures that anti-men policies and practises prevail and even mining companies are no exception , interfering in the domestic affairs of their employees on the flawed idea of preventing “domestic violence”.
Companies like Telstra should stick to business matters only , but there is a trend for companies to involve themselves in political and cultural issues , QANTAS supported the controversial “voice” campaign ,and remember the Gillette ad. All this is a result of the increase of women in power inside companies thanks to the DEI .
All part of the “Great Feminisation” a book written by Helen Andrews points this out , that an organisation dominated by women will change its policies ,not always for the best and this is what we are seeing here.
Time for some massive class actions. Of course immediately all males would cease to even think about buying a tesla for a start.. Let's see how they like THAT.
ooops "about dealing with telstra i mean :-). we already stay away from tesla.
hahaha
Tesla?
I worry about the future that my little grandsons will be faced with as they grow up. Thanks for the excellent article.
It does seem that Telstra may have closed down those email addresses - which speaks volumes. If you have a premium LinkedIn account you can send a letter to Whitcomb using that. https://www.linkedin.com/in/bwhitcomb/?originalSubdomain=au. Please let me know if anyone is receiving responses. I was pleased to hear that a number of radio programs have been talking about the issue as a result of listener comments. Please call in to your local station if they are willinng to take talk back calls on the matter.
It appears at least 2 of the email addresses in the Draft Letter have a capital "i" (for Impi) instead of an "l" (for Lima).
My brother got bounces (probably from O365), I got nothing (from Gmail).
He resent with the corrections below and got no bounces.
I have resent too but nothing yet.
vicki.brady@team.telstra.com
Amy.Childs@team.telstra.com
Brad.Whitcomb@team.telstra.com
We assume they must have cut off these services. Has anyone had a response?
At this point of writing, the Telstra addresses:
Brad.Whitcomb@team.telstra.com,
Amy.Childs@team.teIstra.com,
vicki.brady@team.teIstra.com
Childs and Brady emails are not working!!!
Jamie, just a correction on my post. After reading more about the case I may have have confused a Judge's comment with that of the defendant's attorney, a KC, who described the outcome of the case as "one of the worst miscarriages of Justice he had witnessed". That comment had a lot to do with the Prosecution's case and the mishandling of it by the police involved. The fact that the accused was kept in limbo for well over 12 months was also a damming indictment as described by his legal representatives.
The case of any future proceedings of Perjury will be something to observe: The alleged victim? Well how would that go? The male witness who supported the allegations (on record) should be a no brainer as to his complicity. The Police? How that may play out is anyones guess - at the very least it points to a folly in have having the footballer charged in the first instance.
It was the Prosecution that dropped the charges, virtually on the death knell of it proceeding to Trial, based on the admitted lies and witness unreliability that should have been evident earlier on.
i wish Australian men were like me, dont get married
...or don't get married to, or have a long term relationship with a feminist at least, a wise person once suggested to me. Feminists are constantly focussed on the all the reasons a relationship won't succeed, and their next best move. It's failed before it starts
I read about the number of men who are driven to suicide in Australia, many due to vindictive wives who wont let fathers see their own children. I don't believe all those women are feminists, i think most women have anti male sexism in them and they don't want equality, they have been given power to murder their husbands and too many of them do by mentaly torturing fathers until they commit suicide.
Fair points
Newsfeed from The Weekend Australian newspaper is titled…” The five things to do before uttering ‘I want a divorce’”
All men should now add a sixth.
Telstra, you are divisive and gender biased. I am disgusted.
Victims and survivors are self proclaimed- it is ridiculous.
If I have experience something untoward, the last thing I want to be known as is a victim
Many years ago I was working in the Family Court space and was required to complete training in DV. Before the course began we had to read three recent published papers, one of which in particular was very interesting. These researchers had used survey of the broader population rather than relying on the biased sampling (a la women's refuges and emergency services) that had provided the picture re DV up until that point. They identified four different classes of DV, only one of which (the smallest group, albeit most dangerous) fitted the classic systematic coercive controlling type. The other three types were much more common (things like pushing and shoving in the heat of argument when couples lacked more effective communication skills) but did not amount to the calculated controlling behaviours that had been hitherto identified by the refuge workers. This substitute-communication type was, in the case of younger adults and teens, even more likely to be initiated by the young woman; and across all age groups, was even-steven.
The big point in my story though, is that once the actual course began (it was run by Relationships Australia) these research papers were entirely ignored, and we were taught, and tested on, the old paradigm: all DV was seen as the coercive controlling type (which was indeed mostly initiated by men, and could be life-threatening to the woman - but again was much rarer).
This distinction is so important, as by rolling it all into together (a) a subset of victims are probably at greater risk; and (b) accused men are assumed to be dangerous when most are not. It was just so weird that the RA course just ignored the distinction even though they had distributed the info!
Another way to message Brad Whitcomb is LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bwhitcomb/?originalSubdomain=au
One of the core goals of the Feminist Industrial Complex is the "normalization" of "the presumption of [male] guilt" plus the entrenchment of a lack of due process, procedural fairness and the right of appeal in all facets of government /politics, big business, legacy media and especially the family and criminal courts, so that in due course when there is sufficient (read “enough votes to win an election’) societal acceptance of this travesty of natural justice, our laws and our constitutions, the toxic feminist misandrists will maneuver to get these travesties of basic rights and democratic society legislated.
These feminist goals also include subversively entrenching the feminist mantra that “to question, examine and test in a court of law” the “allegations” made by a woman is to “victim blame” the woman. The feminists want to legislate “believe all women (even when they lie)”
The “presumption of guilt” based on “untested” allegations without “right of appeal”
I was “de-banked” before “de-banking” was a policy adopted by the big 4 banks (and their minions) and before feminists started lobbying governments for “coercive control laws” targeting men.
The CBA refuse to say why they had frozen my accounts, but over the course of a complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), it emerged that allegations of domestic violence had been made against me by my ex-wife, though the woke CBA refused to confirm this. AFCA endorsed that this “de-banked” was a “business decision” made by the CBA and therefore outside their purview.
At the parenting matters trial, the presiding judge (since removed from the bench) found this and my ex-wife fraudulently using my credit card and bank accounts highly amusing, going so far as to say “women quiet often do that when they decide to leave the relationship.”