SA Footy

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:11 pm**

Maybe a reason why the Government doesn't want an anti corruption watchdog if for example the ministerial rapist was the attorney general who has held the position since 2017. The implications are massive , having access to the sexual offences cases and want or and potentially interfering in process

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:29 pm**

InDaily https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/03/03/ ... legations/ wrote:Attorney-General Christian Porter rejects historical rape allegations

Twitter (and the rest) will go into meltdown. Attorney General!

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:34 pm**

laser wrote:
InDaily https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/03/03/ ... legations/ wrote:Attorney-General Christian Porter rejects historical rape allegations

Twitter (and the rest) will go into meltdown. Attorney General!

Has it what!

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:47 pm**

RB wrote:
Jimmy_041 wrote:But, yeah, hang him up. The left have already found him guilty so he must be

Calling for some sort of investigation - though I too am skeptical that that's the right approach in this case - does not amount to presuming guilt.

That is the key point that some in this thread are missing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:52 pm**

stan wrote:I tend to lean towards this point for this, we are looking to hang the guy based on Social media outrage and stand him down.

I'm not sure how we can approach this and go about getting this investigated. But regardless we can't be hanging people based on outrage.

Also what are people expecting the PM to do here?

He could call for the review, but really he should be getting the direction of the AFP.

The AFP do not investigate rape.

The PM can instigate an independent investigation - ensure the voice of the alleged victim is heard and give Porter the opportunity to demonstrate his stated innocence (and meet the minimum standards of probity required from someone in his position).

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:06 pm**

None of this sits comfortably, particularly the trial by media and the subsequent guilty verdict reached.

It's awful for the woman involved, her family, her friends and despite what you think of him, for Porter, for all we know his version of events is indeed true.

We'll never know anything other than this being a terribly sad story on so many fronts.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:08 pm**

Porter has stated that in an independent inquiry he would be "required to disprove the allegations" - this is false.

For those watching on at home - there is no onus of proof in any independent inquiry and would not require him to disprove anything. The inquiry is not about him but simply about having the merits of the allegation investigated and ensuring the alleged victim has her voice heard - otherwise, we are continuing to send the message to wider society that rape victims do not have a voice.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:11 pm**

Q. wrote:Porter has stated that in an independent inquiry he would be "required to disprove the allegations" - this is false.

For those watching on at home - there is no onus of proof in any independent inquiry and would not require him to disprove anything. The inquiry is not about him but simply about having the merits of the allegation investigated and ensuring the alleged victim has her voice heard - otherwise, we are continuing to send the message to wider society that rape victims do not have a voice.

And this cannot be. Nor can an allegation be treated as a guilty verdict, a slippery slope we would find ourselves on there. Well, here.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:34 pm**

Booney wrote:
Q. wrote:Porter has stated that in an independent inquiry he would be "required to disprove the allegations" - this is false.

For those watching on at home - there is no onus of proof in any independent inquiry and would not require him to disprove anything. The inquiry is not about him but simply about having the merits of the allegation investigated and ensuring the alleged victim has her voice heard - otherwise, we are continuing to send the message to wider society that rape victims do not have a voice.

And this cannot be. Nor can an allegation be treated as a guilty verdict, a slippery slope we would find ourselves on there. Well, here.

Thus the only way forward is an independent inquiry.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:09 pm**

Someone want to explain to me how you can retract an allegation of rape?

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:19 pm**

Q. wrote:
Booney wrote:
Q. wrote:Porter has stated that in an independent inquiry he would be "required to disprove the allegations" - this is false.

For those watching on at home - there is no onus of proof in any independent inquiry and would not require him to disprove anything. The inquiry is not about him but simply about having the merits of the allegation investigated and ensuring the alleged victim has her voice heard - otherwise, we are continuing to send the message to wider society that rape victims do not have a voice.

And this cannot be. Nor can an allegation be treated as a guilty verdict, a slippery slope we would find ourselves on there. Well, here.

Thus the only way forward is an independent inquiry.

That “independent inquiry” is called a criminal trial

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:19 pm**

Armchair expert wrote:Someone want to explain to me how you can retract an allegation of rape?

You can withdraw the complaint anytime I thought.
That press conference was pretty sad to watch actually.
If he's guilty then hopefully his conscience will get to him.
If he's innocent then wow, good luck dealing with it.

Interestingly, not enough admissible evidence.
What does that mean?

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:50 pm**

tigerpie wrote:
Interestingly, not enough admissible evidence.
What does that mean?

Not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:51 pm**

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Q. wrote:
Booney wrote:
Q. wrote:Porter has stated that in an independent inquiry he would be "required to disprove the allegations" - this is false.

For those watching on at home - there is no onus of proof in any independent inquiry and would not require him to disprove anything. The inquiry is not about him but simply about having the merits of the allegation investigated and ensuring the alleged victim has her voice heard - otherwise, we are continuing to send the message to wider society that rape victims do not have a voice.

And this cannot be. Nor can an allegation be treated as a guilty verdict, a slippery slope we would find ourselves on there. Well, here.

Thus the only way forward is an independent inquiry.

That “independent inquiry” is called a criminal trial

Which cannot proceed because the victim is dead, we've addressed this. So the family and friends are seeking an independent inquiry - this is a legitimate course of action , particularly so because the allegations are against one of the most powerful men in the country, the Attorney General. He has a minimum standard of probity to meet (which is high) - if he is innocent as he and Morrison claim, then it seems counterintuitive to not initiate the inquiry.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:53 pm**

heater31 wrote:
tigerpie wrote:
Interestingly, not enough admissible evidence.
What does that mean?

Not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

http://safooty.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2480816#p2480816

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:17 pm**

heater31 wrote:
tigerpie wrote:
Interestingly, not enough admissible evidence.
What does that mean?

Not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

'Admissible' evidence is evidence which can legally be tendered in court in support of a case. 'Hearsay', for instance, is not admissible; the law does not permit hearsay statements to be tendered for the purpose of proving the truth of those statements.

In this case, the NSW Police were satisfied that, even if all evidence that would be admissible in court were adduced in a court trial (e.g. in this case, that could include witnesses to the events, documentary evidence such as diaries, circumstantial evidence), it would almost certainly not be enough to convince a judge/jury beyond reasonable doubt as to the alleged offender's guilt.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:19 pm**

tigerpie wrote:Interestingly, not enough admissible evidence.
What does that mean?

For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.

Admissibility of evidence is always a big argument in our both our criminal and civil Courts

Hearsay or “Twitter says he’s guilty” are good examples

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:21 pm**

Booney wrote:
laser wrote:
InDaily https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/03/03/ ... legations/ wrote:Attorney-General Christian Porter rejects historical rape allegations

Twitter (and the rest) will go into meltdown. Attorney General!

Has it what!

Twitter is generally always in Meltdown.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:51 pm**

Q. wrote:Porter has stated that in an independent inquiry he would be "required to disprove the allegations" - this is false.

For those watching on at home - there is no onus of proof in any independent inquiry and would not require him to disprove anything. The inquiry is not about him but simply about having the merits of the allegation investigated and ensuring the alleged victim has her voice heard - otherwise, we are continuing to send the message to wider society that rape victims do not have a voice.

It's interesting - why would Porter lie about this? He's the Attorney General and would know full well that an inquiry would not demand he prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent.

Secondly, why would he lie about never being contacted by journalists re. the allegations - several have stated their calls were ignored and not returned.

Finally, the PM stated yesterday that he discussed the letter with the Porter and "he vigorously and completely denied the allegations", whereas Porter today stated that he had never been given any details at all about what is being alleged. Who is lying here?

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:02 pm**

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Q. wrote:
Jimmy_041 wrote:I’ll condemn both Shorten & this bloke if they’re convicted in a proper criminal Court otherwise where does it stop?

Most recently, an independent investigation was used to examine Dyson Heydon's sexual harassment of six junior court staff. There is plenty of precedence for this.

The High Court instituted an investigation into what happened to its employees just as your employer or mine is allowed to do.

There is no way an employer would investigate an alleged crime such as this. They’d probably end up on the end of their own legal problems.

Not quite true. As Kathleen Foley points out in her interview with Tingle:

No-one is saying it's a precise analogy with the Dyson Heydon situation. Obviously there are differences. What is useful from the Dyson Heydon situation is a model where an independent person of the highest integrity and calibre is appointed.

In many situations in law firms for example and in large companies when a serious allegation is made, for example, against a senior law partner, one that won't be dealt with through the criminal courts perhaps the complainant doesn't want to go down the path, a process like this will be adopted. There is nothing extraordinary about that.

SA Footy

Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch