ABC does it again...

Topics

ABC does it again...

1/3

paulybronco
3 years ago

Well the fish really seems to be rotten from the head down, or is it pure co incidence that the same "Award winning investigative journalist" Ms Louise Milligan has been at the center of two expensive political legal judgements that have cost us the taxpayer 780k in the Porter matter and now 79k in direct damages to MP Andrew Laming, a further 45k for his legal fees plus ABC own 168k legal bills and still rising....so far we are over $1mil in payments.
This now seems to be the norm in the media now days where unsubstantiated nonsense is just thrown out there to see what happens...who cares about the truth now days anyway ?

FBUser214
3 years ago

Bit late to the party.
That was three months ago.

paulybronco
3 years ago

Does the passing of time somehow make the facts less truthful....

Far Canal
3 years ago

Quoting paulybronco on 06 Nov 2021 10:29 PM
Does the passing of time somehow make the facts less truthful....

Didn't do the "flat world theory" any favours.

FBUser214
3 years ago

Quoting paulybronco on 06 Nov 2021 10:29 PM
Does the passing of time somehow make the facts less truthful....

Curious how you come out and support the slimebags
Milligan went after Pell, Porter and Laming and you are not happy about any of it.
ABC management are paying out because they have no balls.
Some in the media came out with information that was not correct about Laming's indiscretions, but he only went after her, and after she had corrected the record, and with Porter's legal team.

paulybronco
3 years ago

Quoting paulybronco on 06 Nov 2021 10:29 PM
Does the passing of time somehow make the facts less truthful....

Quoting FBUser214 on 06 Nov 2021 11:27 PM
Curious how you come out and support the slimebags
Milligan went after Pell, Porter and Laming and you are not happy about any of it.
ABC management are paying out because they have no balls.
Some in the media came out with information that was not correct about Laming's indiscretions, but he only went after her, and after she had corrected the record, and with Porter's legal team.

No one is supporting any of the people mentioned at all....i am supporting the presumption of innocence in every case mentioned. The media are there to report the news not make it or enhance it for their own reasons. Chanel 7 in their rush to get a picture up of the alleged kidnapper of Cloe Smith used the wrong picture from a facebook page because "He had the same name as the accused"!

FBUser214
3 years ago

Quoting paulybronco on 06 Nov 2021 10:29 PM
Does the passing of time somehow make the facts less truthful....

Quoting FBUser214 on 06 Nov 2021 11:27 PM
Curious how you come out and support the slimebags
Milligan went after Pell, Porter and Laming and you are not happy about any of it.
ABC management are paying out because they have no balls.
Some in the media came out with information that was not correct about Laming's indiscretions, but he only went after her, and after she had corrected the record, and with Porter's legal team.

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 12:11 AM
No one is supporting any of the people mentioned at all....i am supporting the presumption of innocence in every case mentioned. The media are there to report the news not make it or enhance it for their own reasons. Chanel 7 in their rush to get a picture up of the alleged kidnapper of Cloe Smith used the wrong picture from a facebook page because "He had the same name as the accused"!

The people mentioned have high standing in society and seem to think they are above the law.
They would not have had to answer at all without the public scrutiny brought by the media.
Pell was certainly guilty of cover up and failing to report abuse. He got off on appeal because the prosecutor failed to ask a simple question of the most important defense witness.
I doubt Porter is free and clear.
Milligan made a mistake by posting stuff on her personal twitter account about Laming, which was doing the rounds, and was not correct. I doubt she will make that mistake again.
They are all entitled to the presumption of innocence, but that has to be tested, and these people would not have been scrutinised at all without the media.

paulybronco
3 years ago

Quoting FBUser214 on 06 Nov 2021 11:27 PM
Curious how you come out and support the slimebags
Milligan went after Pell, Porter and Laming and you are not happy about any of it.
ABC management are paying out because they have no balls.
Some in the media came out with information that was not correct about Laming's indiscretions, but he only went after her, and after she had corrected the record, and with Porter's legal team.

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 12:11 AM
No one is supporting any of the people mentioned at all....i am supporting the presumption of innocence in every case mentioned. The media are there to report the news not make it or enhance it for their own reasons. Chanel 7 in their rush to get a picture up of the alleged kidnapper of Cloe Smith used the wrong picture from a facebook page because "He had the same name as the accused"!

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 12:57 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 12:57 AM
The people mentioned have high standing in society and seem to think they are above the law.
They would not have had to answer at all without the public scrutiny brought by the media.
Pell was certainly guilty of cover up and failing to report abuse. He got off on appeal because the prosecutor failed to ask a simple question of the most important defense witness.
I doubt Porter is free and clear.
Milligan made a mistake by posting stuff on her personal twitter account about Laming, which was doing the rounds, and was not correct. I doubt she will make that mistake again.
They are all entitled to the presumption of innocence, but that has to be tested, and these people would not have been scrutinised at all without the media.

Because they have "high standing in society and seem to think they are above the law" somehow allow us to magically wave a magic wand deny them the most basic foundation of the law, i would submit that it doesn't. To suggest that somehow the media brought these people before the courts is a injustice to the police and prosecutors who charged and get the cases into court.
Regardless of all the people mentioned the law has proven them NOT GUILTY regardless if its a technicality, error or a range of other reasons, including personal beliefs they are not guilty. Unpalatable as it is.
The presumption of innocence is slowly being eroded in Australia, the media aren't helping the matter.

FBUser214
3 years ago

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 12:11 AM
No one is supporting any of the people mentioned at all....i am supporting the presumption of innocence in every case mentioned. The media are there to report the news not make it or enhance it for their own reasons. Chanel 7 in their rush to get a picture up of the alleged kidnapper of Cloe Smith used the wrong picture from a facebook page because "He had the same name as the accused"!

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 12:57 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 12:57 AM
The people mentioned have high standing in society and seem to think they are above the law.
They would not have had to answer at all without the public scrutiny brought by the media.
Pell was certainly guilty of cover up and failing to report abuse. He got off on appeal because the prosecutor failed to ask a simple question of the most important defense witness.
I doubt Porter is free and clear.
Milligan made a mistake by posting stuff on her personal twitter account about Laming, which was doing the rounds, and was not correct. I doubt she will make that mistake again.
They are all entitled to the presumption of innocence, but that has to be tested, and these people would not have been scrutinised at all without the media.

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 01:41 AM
Because they have "high standing in society and seem to think they are above the law" somehow allow us to magically wave a magic wand deny them the most basic foundation of the law, i would submit that it doesn't. To suggest that somehow the media brought these people before the courts is a injustice to the police and prosecutors who charged and get the cases into court.
Regardless of all the people mentioned the law has proven them NOT GUILTY regardless if its a technicality, error or a range of other reasons, including personal beliefs they are not guilty. Unpalatable as it is.
The presumption of innocence is slowly being eroded in Australia, the media aren't helping the matter.

The Royal Commission made adverse findings against Pell which still stand. He is not innocent.
The public are now aware that Laming has a record of poor behaviour towards women and he said he would stand down at the end of his term.
Porter has access to unlimited funds through a 'private' Trust which is not allowed by parliamentary rules.
And you reckon the media should not have told us about any of this stuff ?

paulybronco
3 years ago

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 12:57 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 12:57 AM
The people mentioned have high standing in society and seem to think they are above the law.
They would not have had to answer at all without the public scrutiny brought by the media.
Pell was certainly guilty of cover up and failing to report abuse. He got off on appeal because the prosecutor failed to ask a simple question of the most important defense witness.
I doubt Porter is free and clear.
Milligan made a mistake by posting stuff on her personal twitter account about Laming, which was doing the rounds, and was not correct. I doubt she will make that mistake again.
They are all entitled to the presumption of innocence, but that has to be tested, and these people would not have been scrutinised at all without the media.

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 01:41 AM
Because they have "high standing in society and seem to think they are above the law" somehow allow us to magically wave a magic wand deny them the most basic foundation of the law, i would submit that it doesn't. To suggest that somehow the media brought these people before the courts is a injustice to the police and prosecutors who charged and get the cases into court.
Regardless of all the people mentioned the law has proven them NOT GUILTY regardless if its a technicality, error or a range of other reasons, including personal beliefs they are not guilty. Unpalatable as it is.
The presumption of innocence is slowly being eroded in Australia, the media aren't helping the matter.

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 03:33 AM
The Royal Commission made adverse findings against Pell which still stand. He is not innocent.
The public are now aware that Laming has a record of poor behaviour towards women and he said he would stand down at the end of his term.
Porter has access to unlimited funds through a 'private' Trust which is not allowed by parliamentary rules.
And you reckon the media should not have told us about any of this stuff ?

You do of course understand that regardless of any adverse findings by either a Royal commission, Integrity commission or Crime commission or Coroners court they indemnify you from prosecution on the evidence you provide to such hearings. I do recall that its s 49 declaration for ICAC. The reason for such declarations are that you forfeited your right to "self incriminate" during questions put to you. Adverse findings are NOT a finding of guilt in anyway or form. Nick Griener was a classic example.
Your persistent personal view that all the people mentioned are guilty may well be correct, but the law we live by indicates they are not.
As individuals we are allowed to form a personal view, as a media outlet you need to get your ducks lined up or you might be paying out over $1mil...
As for your last question....they need to present the FACTS not something parroted on a Facebook page or a figment of someone's imagination.

FBUser214
3 years ago

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 01:41 AM
Because they have "high standing in society and seem to think they are above the law" somehow allow us to magically wave a magic wand deny them the most basic foundation of the law, i would submit that it doesn't. To suggest that somehow the media brought these people before the courts is a injustice to the police and prosecutors who charged and get the cases into court.
Regardless of all the people mentioned the law has proven them NOT GUILTY regardless if its a technicality, error or a range of other reasons, including personal beliefs they are not guilty. Unpalatable as it is.
The presumption of innocence is slowly being eroded in Australia, the media aren't helping the matter.

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 03:33 AM
The Royal Commission made adverse findings against Pell which still stand. He is not innocent.
The public are now aware that Laming has a record of poor behaviour towards women and he said he would stand down at the end of his term.
Porter has access to unlimited funds through a 'private' Trust which is not allowed by parliamentary rules.
And you reckon the media should not have told us about any of this stuff ?

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 04:15 AM
You do of course understand that regardless of any adverse findings by either a Royal commission, Integrity commission or Crime commission or Coroners court they indemnify you from prosecution on the evidence you provide to such hearings. I do recall that its s 49 declaration for ICAC. The reason for such declarations are that you forfeited your right to "self incriminate" during questions put to you. Adverse findings are NOT a finding of guilt in anyway or form. Nick Griener was a classic example.
Your persistent personal view that all the people mentioned are guilty may well be correct, but the law we live by indicates they are not.
As individuals we are allowed to form a personal view, as a media outlet you need to get your ducks lined up or you might be paying out over $1mil...
As for your last question....they need to present the FACTS not something parroted on a Facebook page or a figment of someone's imagination.

You seem preoccupied with information on Facebook. I have no interest in any disclosures on Facebook. It is not relevant to your opening post.
If I see something in the media that gets my attention, not social media, particularly about people who are supposed to serve the people, and are paid from the public purse, then I check a few sources before I form an opinion.
You narrative suggests the media should not comment adversely on any of these people and we should remain in the dark.
Media bosses know that there are consequences for putting out false information and there are checks and balances in place.
Sometimes incorrect info gets out and there are consequences.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
The Royal Commission found Pell, based on the evidence provided by others, certainly knew about abuse by paedophile priests and his remedy was to move them on. The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts.
The media have a pretty good hit rate here.

paulybronco
3 years ago

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 03:33 AM
The Royal Commission made adverse findings against Pell which still stand. He is not innocent.
The public are now aware that Laming has a record of poor behaviour towards women and he said he would stand down at the end of his term.
Porter has access to unlimited funds through a 'private' Trust which is not allowed by parliamentary rules.
And you reckon the media should not have told us about any of this stuff ?

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 04:15 AM
You do of course understand that regardless of any adverse findings by either a Royal commission, Integrity commission or Crime commission or Coroners court they indemnify you from prosecution on the evidence you provide to such hearings. I do recall that its s 49 declaration for ICAC. The reason for such declarations are that you forfeited your right to "self incriminate" during questions put to you. Adverse findings are NOT a finding of guilt in anyway or form. Nick Griener was a classic example.
Your persistent personal view that all the people mentioned are guilty may well be correct, but the law we live by indicates they are not.
As individuals we are allowed to form a personal view, as a media outlet you need to get your ducks lined up or you might be paying out over $1mil...
As for your last question....they need to present the FACTS not something parroted on a Facebook page or a figment of someone's imagination.

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 05:29 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 06:39 AM
You seem preoccupied with information on Facebook. I have no interest in any disclosures on Facebook. It is not relevant to your opening post.
If I see something in the media that gets my attention, not social media, particularly about people who are supposed to serve the people, and are paid from the public purse, then I check a few sources before I form an opinion.
You narrative suggests the media should not comment adversely on any of these people and we should remain in the dark.
Media bosses know that there are consequences for putting out false information and there are checks and balances in place.
Sometimes incorrect info gets out and there are consequences.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
The Royal Commission found Pell, based on the evidence provided by others, certainly knew about abuse by paedophile priests and his remedy was to move them on. The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts.
The media have a pretty good hit rate here.

Just for the record....i never have had a facebook or social media account and have no intention to open one. If you regard this forum as social media this along with BMW 1200GS forum are the only ones. The reference to Facebook refers to the misinformation and outright garbage spewed and absorbed by equally gullible people.
Again i can just repeat myself....the press are there to report the news...NOT make it up. They should be reporting on anything that's in the public interest...but ONLY those pesky FACTS.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
Perhaps the reverse should be asked....what comments have proven to be fact. (Regarding the alleged assaults') He denies the accusations, the woman never wanted to pursue charges No charges so therefore the presumption of innocence must prevail.
The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Youve completely missed the point regarding the declaration in these proceeding. The declarations allow the commision to force witnesses to answer every question that you could self incriminate you in a normal court. As a result of removing one of your rights they are unable to use any evidence you provide during those hearings to prosecute you. So Pell could NOT self incriminate as a result of taking the declaration.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts. The woman was kneeling, wearing shorts stacking a fridge. The QLD police indicated there was no law broken.

Wideglider
3 years ago

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 03:33 AM
The Royal Commission made adverse findings against Pell which still stand. He is not innocent.
The public are now aware that Laming has a record of poor behaviour towards women and he said he would stand down at the end of his term.
Porter has access to unlimited funds through a 'private' Trust which is not allowed by parliamentary rules.
And you reckon the media should not have told us about any of this stuff ?

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 04:15 AM
You do of course understand that regardless of any adverse findings by either a Royal commission, Integrity commission or Crime commission or Coroners court they indemnify you from prosecution on the evidence you provide to such hearings. I do recall that its s 49 declaration for ICAC. The reason for such declarations are that you forfeited your right to "self incriminate" during questions put to you. Adverse findings are NOT a finding of guilt in anyway or form. Nick Griener was a classic example.
Your persistent personal view that all the people mentioned are guilty may well be correct, but the law we live by indicates they are not.
As individuals we are allowed to form a personal view, as a media outlet you need to get your ducks lined up or you might be paying out over $1mil...
As for your last question....they need to present the FACTS not something parroted on a Facebook page or a figment of someone's imagination.

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 05:29 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 06:39 AM
You seem preoccupied with information on Facebook. I have no interest in any disclosures on Facebook. It is not relevant to your opening post.
If I see something in the media that gets my attention, not social media, particularly about people who are supposed to serve the people, and are paid from the public purse, then I check a few sources before I form an opinion.
You narrative suggests the media should not comment adversely on any of these people and we should remain in the dark.
Media bosses know that there are consequences for putting out false information and there are checks and balances in place.
Sometimes incorrect info gets out and there are consequences.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
The Royal Commission found Pell, based on the evidence provided by others, certainly knew about abuse by paedophile priests and his remedy was to move them on. The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts.
The media have a pretty good hit rate here.

"The media have a pretty good hit rate here".
Is this what's it's come to? Never mind the facts - the media slings mud and then some of it sticks?

paulybronco and GGUser260 like this post

FBUser214
3 years ago

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 04:15 AM
You do of course understand that regardless of any adverse findings by either a Royal commission, Integrity commission or Crime commission or Coroners court they indemnify you from prosecution on the evidence you provide to such hearings. I do recall that its s 49 declaration for ICAC. The reason for such declarations are that you forfeited your right to "self incriminate" during questions put to you. Adverse findings are NOT a finding of guilt in anyway or form. Nick Griener was a classic example.
Your persistent personal view that all the people mentioned are guilty may well be correct, but the law we live by indicates they are not.
As individuals we are allowed to form a personal view, as a media outlet you need to get your ducks lined up or you might be paying out over $1mil...
As for your last question....they need to present the FACTS not something parroted on a Facebook page or a figment of someone's imagination.

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 05:29 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 06:39 AM
You seem preoccupied with information on Facebook. I have no interest in any disclosures on Facebook. It is not relevant to your opening post.
If I see something in the media that gets my attention, not social media, particularly about people who are supposed to serve the people, and are paid from the public purse, then I check a few sources before I form an opinion.
You narrative suggests the media should not comment adversely on any of these people and we should remain in the dark.
Media bosses know that there are consequences for putting out false information and there are checks and balances in place.
Sometimes incorrect info gets out and there are consequences.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
The Royal Commission found Pell, based on the evidence provided by others, certainly knew about abuse by paedophile priests and his remedy was to move them on. The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts.
The media have a pretty good hit rate here.

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 06:52 AM
Just for the record....i never have had a facebook or social media account and have no intention to open one. If you regard this forum as social media this along with BMW 1200GS forum are the only ones. The reference to Facebook refers to the misinformation and outright garbage spewed and absorbed by equally gullible people.
Again i can just repeat myself....the press are there to report the news...NOT make it up. They should be reporting on anything that's in the public interest...but ONLY those pesky FACTS.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
Perhaps the reverse should be asked....what comments have proven to be fact. (Regarding the alleged assaults') He denies the accusations, the woman never wanted to pursue charges No charges so therefore the presumption of innocence must prevail.
The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Youve completely missed the point regarding the declaration in these proceeding. The declarations allow the commision to force witnesses to answer every question that you could self incriminate you in a normal court. As a result of removing one of your rights they are unable to use any evidence you provide during those hearings to prosecute you. So Pell could NOT self incriminate as a result of taking the declaration.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts. The woman was kneeling, wearing shorts stacking a fridge. The QLD police indicated there was no law broken.

'Again i can just repeat myself....the press are there to report the news...NOT make it up. They should be reporting on anything that's in the public interest...but ONLY those pesky FACTS.'
So, in the Porter case, what did the press make up ?
At best , he is a liar. And he was the top law person in the country.

The Royal Commission made adverse findings against Pell. The findings were not released until after his trial.
At trial he was found guilty by a unanimous verdict of the jury, after hearing all the evidence, of 5 child sexual offences.
He got off on a technicality on appeal. That does not make him innocent in my book.

And you have Laming's sanitised version of the photo incident. Did you look any further than that ?
The store manager saw him taking photos, from behind, unknown to the woman, of the woman bending over , stocking the fridge.
The manager confronted him and asked to see the photo. The woman and a co-worker saw the photo. The woman and the co-worker said the photo of her bending over, from behind, showing some of her underwear, was inappropriate. The co-worker called him a perv. The manager ensured he deleted the photo before he left.
The woman made a formal complaint and the co-worker gave supporting evidence. They said she was bending over. Laming's version is the only one which has her kneeling in front of the fridge.
And this from a Member of Parliament, a Member of our Federal Government ?
I know which version I believe. But still not a crime.

I don't think any of these guys pass the pub test. Looks like they pass the pb test.

And you think the media should not be able to put this stuff before us ?

And the strike rate ? I reckon they got 3 out of 3.

Wideglider
3 years ago

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 05:29 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 06:39 AM
You seem preoccupied with information on Facebook. I have no interest in any disclosures on Facebook. It is not relevant to your opening post.
If I see something in the media that gets my attention, not social media, particularly about people who are supposed to serve the people, and are paid from the public purse, then I check a few sources before I form an opinion.
You narrative suggests the media should not comment adversely on any of these people and we should remain in the dark.
Media bosses know that there are consequences for putting out false information and there are checks and balances in place.
Sometimes incorrect info gets out and there are consequences.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
The Royal Commission found Pell, based on the evidence provided by others, certainly knew about abuse by paedophile priests and his remedy was to move them on. The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts.
The media have a pretty good hit rate here.

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 06:52 AM
Just for the record....i never have had a facebook or social media account and have no intention to open one. If you regard this forum as social media this along with BMW 1200GS forum are the only ones. The reference to Facebook refers to the misinformation and outright garbage spewed and absorbed by equally gullible people.
Again i can just repeat myself....the press are there to report the news...NOT make it up. They should be reporting on anything that's in the public interest...but ONLY those pesky FACTS.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
Perhaps the reverse should be asked....what comments have proven to be fact. (Regarding the alleged assaults') He denies the accusations, the woman never wanted to pursue charges No charges so therefore the presumption of innocence must prevail.
The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Youve completely missed the point regarding the declaration in these proceeding. The declarations allow the commision to force witnesses to answer every question that you could self incriminate you in a normal court. As a result of removing one of your rights they are unable to use any evidence you provide during those hearings to prosecute you. So Pell could NOT self incriminate as a result of taking the declaration.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts. The woman was kneeling, wearing shorts stacking a fridge. The QLD police indicated there was no law broken.

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 11:45 AM
'Again i can just repeat myself....the press are there to report the news...NOT make it up. They should be reporting on anything that's in the public interest...but ONLY those pesky FACTS.'
So, in the Porter case, what did the press make up ?
At best , he is a liar. And he was the top law person in the country.

The Royal Commission made adverse findings against Pell. The findings were not released until after his trial.
At trial he was found guilty by a unanimous verdict of the jury, after hearing all the evidence, of 5 child sexual offences.
He got off on a technicality on appeal. That does not make him innocent in my book.

And you have Laming's sanitised version of the photo incident. Did you look any further than that ?
The store manager saw him taking photos, from behind, unknown to the woman, of the woman bending over , stocking the fridge.
The manager confronted him and asked to see the photo. The woman and a co-worker saw the photo. The woman and the co-worker said the photo of her bending over, from behind, showing some of her underwear, was inappropriate. The co-worker called him a perv. The manager ensured he deleted the photo before he left.
The woman made a formal complaint and the co-worker gave supporting evidence. They said she was bending over. Laming's version is the only one which has her kneeling in front of the fridge.
And this from a Member of Parliament, a Member of our Federal Government ?
I know which version I believe. But still not a crime.

I don't think any of these guys pass the pub test. Looks like they pass the pb test.

And you think the media should not be able to put this stuff before us ?

And the strike rate ? I reckon they got 3 out of 3.

Strike-rate, strike-rate? Are you an American baseball player?
Are you attempting some sort of statistical/probability analysis? You conclude that because the particular media that you focus on, has in recent history (a very small sample-size) 'got it right' - means it is ALWAYS right?
Pub-test? Pub-test before all the facts are heard? OK then, drunken revellers with no access to any facts will solve the world's issues here for you.

paulybronco
3 years ago

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 05:29 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 06:39 AM
You seem preoccupied with information on Facebook. I have no interest in any disclosures on Facebook. It is not relevant to your opening post.
If I see something in the media that gets my attention, not social media, particularly about people who are supposed to serve the people, and are paid from the public purse, then I check a few sources before I form an opinion.
You narrative suggests the media should not comment adversely on any of these people and we should remain in the dark.
Media bosses know that there are consequences for putting out false information and there are checks and balances in place.
Sometimes incorrect info gets out and there are consequences.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
The Royal Commission found Pell, based on the evidence provided by others, certainly knew about abuse by paedophile priests and his remedy was to move them on. The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts.
The media have a pretty good hit rate here.

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 06:52 AM
Just for the record....i never have had a facebook or social media account and have no intention to open one. If you regard this forum as social media this along with BMW 1200GS forum are the only ones. The reference to Facebook refers to the misinformation and outright garbage spewed and absorbed by equally gullible people.
Again i can just repeat myself....the press are there to report the news...NOT make it up. They should be reporting on anything that's in the public interest...but ONLY those pesky FACTS.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
Perhaps the reverse should be asked....what comments have proven to be fact. (Regarding the alleged assaults') He denies the accusations, the woman never wanted to pursue charges No charges so therefore the presumption of innocence must prevail.
The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Youve completely missed the point regarding the declaration in these proceeding. The declarations allow the commision to force witnesses to answer every question that you could self incriminate you in a normal court. As a result of removing one of your rights they are unable to use any evidence you provide during those hearings to prosecute you. So Pell could NOT self incriminate as a result of taking the declaration.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts. The woman was kneeling, wearing shorts stacking a fridge. The QLD police indicated there was no law broken.

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 11:45 AM
'Again i can just repeat myself....the press are there to report the news...NOT make it up. They should be reporting on anything that's in the public interest...but ONLY those pesky FACTS.'
So, in the Porter case, what did the press make up ?
At best , he is a liar. And he was the top law person in the country.

The Royal Commission made adverse findings against Pell. The findings were not released until after his trial.
At trial he was found guilty by a unanimous verdict of the jury, after hearing all the evidence, of 5 child sexual offences.
He got off on a technicality on appeal. That does not make him innocent in my book.

And you have Laming's sanitised version of the photo incident. Did you look any further than that ?
The store manager saw him taking photos, from behind, unknown to the woman, of the woman bending over , stocking the fridge.
The manager confronted him and asked to see the photo. The woman and a co-worker saw the photo. The woman and the co-worker said the photo of her bending over, from behind, showing some of her underwear, was inappropriate. The co-worker called him a perv. The manager ensured he deleted the photo before he left.
The woman made a formal complaint and the co-worker gave supporting evidence. They said she was bending over. Laming's version is the only one which has her kneeling in front of the fridge.
And this from a Member of Parliament, a Member of our Federal Government ?
I know which version I believe. But still not a crime.

I don't think any of these guys pass the pub test. Looks like they pass the pb test.

And you think the media should not be able to put this stuff before us ?

And the strike rate ? I reckon they got 3 out of 3.

So how did Porter lie? The only person that could prove that cant testify, or even wanted to testify. Regardless of his position your expectations of peoples standards are unrealistic. Fact....every body tells lies from the beggar to the Queen, and dare i say it both you and i are not excluded. Presumption of innocence must prevail in the absence of evidence.
In the Pell case he was successful on appeal......so in the eyes of the LAW hes innocent. If thats all that got him off then the DPP should have rectified its argument and gone again...In light of the case not proceeding Presumption of innocence must prevail
As for Laming again no up skirting as reported at a cost of close to 200k to tax payers and no charges.
Lastly were not at the pub, and your free to express your view but you've allowed your personal view to mask what the law has decided. Do i have a personal view on what i believe happened...hell yeah. But i don't represent a national tax payer funded organization and tweet and report false information about people regardless how reprehensible they appear.

Wideglider likes this post

paulybronco
3 years ago

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 04:15 AM
You do of course understand that regardless of any adverse findings by either a Royal commission, Integrity commission or Crime commission or Coroners court they indemnify you from prosecution on the evidence you provide to such hearings. I do recall that its s 49 declaration for ICAC. The reason for such declarations are that you forfeited your right to "self incriminate" during questions put to you. Adverse findings are NOT a finding of guilt in anyway or form. Nick Griener was a classic example.
Your persistent personal view that all the people mentioned are guilty may well be correct, but the law we live by indicates they are not.
As individuals we are allowed to form a personal view, as a media outlet you need to get your ducks lined up or you might be paying out over $1mil...
As for your last question....they need to present the FACTS not something parroted on a Facebook page or a figment of someone's imagination.

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 05:29 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 06:39 AM
You seem preoccupied with information on Facebook. I have no interest in any disclosures on Facebook. It is not relevant to your opening post.
If I see something in the media that gets my attention, not social media, particularly about people who are supposed to serve the people, and are paid from the public purse, then I check a few sources before I form an opinion.
You narrative suggests the media should not comment adversely on any of these people and we should remain in the dark.
Media bosses know that there are consequences for putting out false information and there are checks and balances in place.
Sometimes incorrect info gets out and there are consequences.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
The Royal Commission found Pell, based on the evidence provided by others, certainly knew about abuse by paedophile priests and his remedy was to move them on. The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts.
The media have a pretty good hit rate here.

Quoting Wideglider on 07 Nov 2021 11:00 AM
"The media have a pretty good hit rate here".
Is this what's it's come to? Never mind the facts - the media slings mud and then some of it sticks?

Sounds like a percentage game.....fire a shotgun into the crowd lets see who is wounded approach.

FBUser214
3 years ago

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 05:29 AMedited: 07 Nov 2021 06:39 AM
You seem preoccupied with information on Facebook. I have no interest in any disclosures on Facebook. It is not relevant to your opening post.
If I see something in the media that gets my attention, not social media, particularly about people who are supposed to serve the people, and are paid from the public purse, then I check a few sources before I form an opinion.
You narrative suggests the media should not comment adversely on any of these people and we should remain in the dark.
Media bosses know that there are consequences for putting out false information and there are checks and balances in place.
Sometimes incorrect info gets out and there are consequences.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
The Royal Commission found Pell, based on the evidence provided by others, certainly knew about abuse by paedophile priests and his remedy was to move them on. The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts.
The media have a pretty good hit rate here.

Quoting Wideglider on 07 Nov 2021 11:00 AM
"The media have a pretty good hit rate here".
Is this what's it's come to? Never mind the facts - the media slings mud and then some of it sticks?

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 12:30 PM
Sounds like a percentage game.....fire a shotgun into the crowd lets see who is wounded approach.

Don't like my strike rate analogy ?
You forgotton what you said in your first post?
'This now seems to be the norm in the media now days where unsubstantiated nonsense is just thrown out there to see what happens...who cares about the truth now days anyway ?'
You were talking about Louise Milligan ,she re-tweeted a false description of an incident that others had circulated. So one count of unsubstantiated information.
I still give her 2 out of 3 because of the positive work she did on the other two.
The media in general, get 3 out of 3 from me here. That is my opinion.
We are talking about the Court of Public Opinion.
Not interested in what the Law says, or what the Court says in these cases. They don't always get it right.
This is a bike forum, not a Court of Law. You expressed an opinion, and I have expressed mine.

FBUser214
3 years ago

Quoting paulybronco on 07 Nov 2021 06:52 AM
Just for the record....i never have had a facebook or social media account and have no intention to open one. If you regard this forum as social media this along with BMW 1200GS forum are the only ones. The reference to Facebook refers to the misinformation and outright garbage spewed and absorbed by equally gullible people.
Again i can just repeat myself....the press are there to report the news...NOT make it up. They should be reporting on anything that's in the public interest...but ONLY those pesky FACTS.
What comments in the media about Porter have proven to be false ?
Perhaps the reverse should be asked....what comments have proven to be fact. (Regarding the alleged assaults') He denies the accusations, the woman never wanted to pursue charges No charges so therefore the presumption of innocence must prevail.
The findings had nothing to do with evidence given by Pell and self incrimination.
Youve completely missed the point regarding the declaration in these proceeding. The declarations allow the commision to force witnesses to answer every question that you could self incriminate you in a normal court. As a result of removing one of your rights they are unable to use any evidence you provide during those hearings to prosecute you. So Pell could NOT self incriminate as a result of taking the declaration.
Lamming admitted to most of the accusations levelled at him. He took a picture, from behind, of a woman bending over with underwear partly exposed. Somebody used the term upskirting, which was not the appropriate term because she was wearing shorts. The woman was kneeling, wearing shorts stacking a fridge. The QLD police indicated there was no law broken.

Quoting FBUser214 on 07 Nov 2021 11:45 AM
'Again i can just repeat myself....the press are there to report the news...NOT make it up. They should be reporting on anything that's in the public interest...but ONLY those pesky FACTS.'
So, in the Porter case, what did the press make up ?
At best , he is a liar. And he was the top law person in the country.

The Royal Commission made adverse findings against Pell. The findings were not released until after his trial.
At trial he was found guilty by a unanimous verdict of the jury, after hearing all the evidence, of 5 child sexual offences.
He got off on a technicality on appeal. That does not make him innocent in my book.

And you have Laming's sanitised version of the photo incident. Did you look any further than that ?
The store manager saw him taking photos, from behind, unknown to the woman, of the woman bending over , stocking the fridge.
The manager confronted him and asked to see the photo. The woman and a co-worker saw the photo. The woman and the co-worker said the photo of her bending over, from behind, showing some of her underwear, was inappropriate. The co-worker called him a perv. The manager ensured he deleted the photo before he left.
The woman made a formal complaint and the co-worker gave supporting evidence. They said she was bending over. Laming's version is the only one which has her kneeling in front of the fridge.
And this from a Member of Parliament, a Member of our Federal Government ?
I know which version I believe. But still not a crime.

I don't think any of these guys pass the pub test. Looks like they pass the pb test.

And you think the media should not be able to put this stuff before us ?

And the strike rate ? I reckon they got 3 out of 3.

Quoting Wideglider on 07 Nov 2021 12:15 PMedited: 07 Nov 2021 12:38 PM
Strike-rate, strike-rate? Are you an American baseball player?
Are you attempting some sort of statistical/probability analysis? You conclude that because the particular media that you focus on, has in recent history (a very small sample-size) 'got it right' - means it is ALWAYS right?
Pub-test? Pub-test before all the facts are heard? OK then, drunken revellers with no access to any facts will solve the world's issues here for you.

Not interested in your opinion.
You know as much about this stuff as you do about changing oil.

steelo
3 years ago

Gentlemen. Just something to consider.

paulybronco, GGUser260 and Wideglider like this post

Topics

1/3

ABC does it again...

ABC does it again...

paulybronco

FBUser214

paulybronco

Far Canal

FBUser214

paulybronco

FBUser214

paulybronco

FBUser214

paulybronco

FBUser214

paulybronco

Wideglider

FBUser214

Wideglider

paulybronco

paulybronco

FBUser214

FBUser214

steelo