HD Forums Australia
Home
Topics

Public comments v natural justice

1/16
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    2 years ago
    So interestingly in the current climate of " Make a allegation and its my truth regardless of the facts" doing the rounds i found some humour in the fact that the logie winner for for Most Outstanding News Coverage or Public Affairs Report for her work on the Brittany Higgins case, Lisa Wilkinson has been compelled to comment on the case after winning her award. As a result of those comments there was over 880k searches that the defendants barrister claim where prejudicial to his client. Wonder how Ms Higgins feels now.
  • fatbat
    fatbat
    2 years ago
    Lisa Wilkinson needs to shut her mouth about a matter before court. She’s one of the only proper qualified journalists on that shit show the project so should know better. Her employer ought to reign her in 

    Whilst the me too movement and certain journalists have been happy to publish lots of Brittany Higgins material and put her on a pedestal, most media organisations and decent journalists have stopped given it’s before court. And some haven’t commented at all given all the facts aren’t known. There’s a risk of looking like an arse, particularly when there’s  another person involved 
  • 408
    408
    2 years ago
    Quoting fatbat on 20 Jun 2022 09:48 PMedited: 20 Jun 2022 10:06 PM

    Lisa Wilkinson needs to shut her mouth about a matter before court. She’s one of the only proper qualified journalists on that shit show the project so should know better. Her employer ought to reign her in 


    Whilst the me too movement and certain journalists have been happy to publish lots of Brittany Higgins material and put her on a pedestal, most media organisations and decent journalists have stopped given it’s before court. And some haven’t commented at all given all the facts aren’t known. There’s a risk of looking like an arse, particularly when there’s  another person involved 


    I guess when you mention the other person involved, you mean Bruce Lehrmann.
    He raped Brittany Higgins, or he had consensual sex with her and then walked out and left her passed out, pissed, naked, on her back, on the couch.
    I know which scenario I would put my money on, and I'm not part of the 'Me Too' movement.
  • Jay-Dee
    Jay-Dee
    2 years ago
    Irrespective of the circumstances or who is involved, it still has to go through a proper legal process to find innocence or guilt. Something that is much harder to achieve these days for anything that is in the media beforehand and especially in this case when people like Wilkinson (and others) feel the need to shoot their mouth off on a public platform to try and make us feel a certain way. (For the record I didn't actually see Wilkinson but I can guess pretty easily).

    And if it is actually scenario two mentioned above, that might make him an arsehole/slimeball etc, but not a rapist, there's a difference. If we locked up everyone in this country who's an arsehole or slimeball there'd be a lot less traffic on the road.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    2 years ago
    The Justice in this matter has just heard argument for both parties regarding the continuance/delay of the trial.  ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold said her speech (Wilkinson) was a “regurgitation of emotion” and was not a significant departure from her previous comments.
    “Mighten good journalism include being mindful of the impact of your reporting on criminal proceedings, and remembering to insert the magic word alleged,” Justice McCallum responded.
    Mr Drumgold argued the trial did not need to be delayed as the jury could be directed to put her comments, and the media surrounding it, out of their mind.
  • 408
    408
    2 years ago
    Quoting Jay-Dee on 21 Jun 2022 01:05 AMedited: 21 Jun 2022 01:12 AM

    Irrespective of the circumstances or who is involved, it still has to go through a proper legal process to find innocence or guilt. Something that is much harder to achieve these days for anything that is in the media beforehand and especially in this case when people like Wilkinson (and others) feel the need to shoot their mouth off on a public platform to try and make us feel a certain way. (For the record I didn't actually see Wilkinson but I can guess pretty easily).


    And if it is actually scenario two mentioned above, that might make him an arsehole/slimeball etc, but not a rapist, there's a difference. If we locked up everyone in this country who's an arsehole or slimeball there'd be a lot less traffic on the road.


    An intoxicated person is not able to give informed consent at law, and the security guards noted that Brittany Higgins was very intoxicated, so our arsehole / slimeball is likely still a rapist at law.
  • Jay-Dee
    Jay-Dee
    2 years ago
    Quoting Jay-Dee on 21 Jun 2022 01:05 AMedited: 21 Jun 2022 01:12 AM

    Irrespective of the circumstances or who is involved, it still has to go through a proper legal process to find innocence or guilt. Something that is much harder to achieve these days for anything that is in the media beforehand and especially in this case when people like Wilkinson (and others) feel the need to shoot their mouth off on a public platform to try and make us feel a certain way. (For the record I didn't actually see Wilkinson but I can guess pretty easily).


    And if it is actually scenario two mentioned above, that might make him an arsehole/slimeball etc, but not a rapist, there's a difference. If we locked up everyone in this country who's an arsehole or slimeball there'd be a lot less traffic on the road.

    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 01:49 AM


    An intoxicated person is not able to give informed consent at law, and the security guards noted that Brittany Higgins was very intoxicated, so our arsehole / slimeball is likely still a rapist at law.

    As are millions of people throughout history if that's the case.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    2 years ago
    The law does not explicitly state how sober a person needs to be in order to make an informed decision. It is up to a judge to decide if a complainant was too drunk to consent. A person could be intoxicated but yet a judge could determine that he or she still had the coherent capacity to consent, for example, by saying ‘yes’ to the sexual activity.
    Sexual assault cases are very complicated, especially in cases where the accused may not have realised how heavily intoxicated their partner was or if he or she truly believed the other party gave consent.
    Our legal system works on the presumption of innocence. Are we willing to lower our standard of proof?
    In Australia, situations in which a person can and cannot give consent differ depending on the State and Territory you are in
  • 408
    408
    2 years ago
    Quoting Jay-Dee on 21 Jun 2022 01:05 AMedited: 21 Jun 2022 01:12 AM

    Irrespective of the circumstances or who is involved, it still has to go through a proper legal process to find innocence or guilt. Something that is much harder to achieve these days for anything that is in the media beforehand and especially in this case when people like Wilkinson (and others) feel the need to shoot their mouth off on a public platform to try and make us feel a certain way. (For the record I didn't actually see Wilkinson but I can guess pretty easily).


    And if it is actually scenario two mentioned above, that might make him an arsehole/slimeball etc, but not a rapist, there's a difference. If we locked up everyone in this country who's an arsehole or slimeball there'd be a lot less traffic on the road.

    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 01:49 AM


    An intoxicated person is not able to give informed consent at law, and the security guards noted that Brittany Higgins was very intoxicated, so our arsehole / slimeball is likely still a rapist at law.

    Quoting Jay-Dee on 21 Jun 2022 02:04 AM

    As are millions of people throughout history if that's the case.


    No
    It is the law now, it has not always been the law.

  • 408
    408
    2 years ago
    Quoting paulybronco on 21 Jun 2022 02:08 AM

    The law does not explicitly state how sober a person needs to be in order to make an informed decision. It is up to a judge to decide if a complainant was too drunk to consent. A person could be intoxicated but yet a judge could determine that he or she still had the coherent capacity to consent, for example, by saying ‘yes’ to the sexual activity.

    Sexual assault cases are very complicated, especially in cases where the accused may not have realised how heavily intoxicated their partner was or if he or she truly believed the other party gave consent.
    Our legal system works on the presumption of innocence. Are we willing to lower our standard of proof?
    In Australia, situations in which a person can and cannot give consent differ depending on the State and Territory you are in


    Yeah, I read that too pb.
    You need to learn how to use quotation marks, or are you claiming those words as your's ?
  • Jay-Dee
    Jay-Dee
    2 years ago
    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 01:49 AM


    An intoxicated person is not able to give informed consent at law, and the security guards noted that Brittany Higgins was very intoxicated, so our arsehole / slimeball is likely still a rapist at law.

    Quoting Jay-Dee on 21 Jun 2022 02:04 AM

    As are millions of people throughout history if that's the case.

    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 02:08 AM


    No
    It is the law now, it has not always been the law.

    No, but if it was applied retrospectively.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    2 years ago
    Quoting paulybronco on 21 Jun 2022 02:08 AM

    The law does not explicitly state how sober a person needs to be in order to make an informed decision. It is up to a judge to decide if a complainant was too drunk to consent. A person could be intoxicated but yet a judge could determine that he or she still had the coherent capacity to consent, for example, by saying ‘yes’ to the sexual activity.

    Sexual assault cases are very complicated, especially in cases where the accused may not have realised how heavily intoxicated their partner was or if he or she truly believed the other party gave consent.
    Our legal system works on the presumption of innocence. Are we willing to lower our standard of proof?
    In Australia, situations in which a person can and cannot give consent differ depending on the State and Territory you are in

    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 02:14 AM


    Yeah, I read that too pb.
    You need to learn how to use quotation marks, or are you claiming those words as your's ?

    There's no claim to anything. I will try to insert the quotation marks next time for you.
  • 408
    408
    2 years ago
    Quoting Jay-Dee on 21 Jun 2022 02:04 AM

    As are millions of people throughout history if that's the case.

    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 02:08 AM


    No
    It is the law now, it has not always been the law.

    Quoting Jay-Dee on 21 Jun 2022 02:58 AM

    No, but if it was applied retrospectively.


    Give his defense lawyer a ring.
    They might want you on board.
  • steelo
    steelo
    2 years ago
    18w9yw.jpg
  • Jay-Dee
    Jay-Dee
    2 years ago
    Quoting paulybronco on 21 Jun 2022 02:08 AM

    The law does not explicitly state how sober a person needs to be in order to make an informed decision. It is up to a judge to decide if a complainant was too drunk to consent. A person could be intoxicated but yet a judge could determine that he or she still had the coherent capacity to consent, for example, by saying ‘yes’ to the sexual activity.

    Sexual assault cases are very complicated, especially in cases where the accused may not have realised how heavily intoxicated their partner was or if he or she truly believed the other party gave consent.
    Our legal system works on the presumption of innocence. Are we willing to lower our standard of proof?
    In Australia, situations in which a person can and cannot give consent differ depending on the State and Territory you are in

    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 02:14 AM


    Yeah, I read that too pb.
    You need to learn how to use quotation marks, or are you claiming those words as your's ?

    Assuming he was drunk as well, does it then come down to who was in the worst shape, that will be very interesting. A witness (possibly unreliable) account of who was the most intoxicated. 

    I've been refused service because I was judged too pissed when I know for sure I wasn't. I was goofing off while getting drinks for others, not drinking them all myself.
  • Jay-Dee
    Jay-Dee
    2 years ago
    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 02:08 AM


    No
    It is the law now, it has not always been the law.

    Quoting Jay-Dee on 21 Jun 2022 02:58 AM

    No, but if it was applied retrospectively.

    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 03:05 AM


    Give his defense lawyer a ring.
    They might want you on board.

    I strongly doubt it.
  • steelo
    steelo
    2 years ago
    Quoting steelo on 21 Jun 2022 03:08 AM

    18w9yw.jpg
    Quoting 408 on 21 Jun 2022 03:13 AMedited: 21 Jun 2022 03:13 AM


    The hypocrites are out and about.


    You're on fire M. Excellent pickup.
    Heck, half my stories wouldn't sound as good (at least to me) if I had to attribute them to other people.
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    2 years ago
    Quoting Jay-Dee on 21 Jun 2022 05:09 AM

    It looks like Queen Wilkinson probably should have kept her mouth shut.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-21/act-bruce-lehrmann-granted-temporary-stay-delaying-trial/101170550

    And i think that's the fair thing under the circumstances. Perhaps others could learn from the judges comments.
    Earlier today, Chief Justice McCallum noted that some of the commentary had ignored the fact the trial had not yet been held.
    "What concerns me is that the distinction between allegation and guilt has been completely obliterated," she said.
Topics
1/16