Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[Q.]

Family of woman who accused Christian Porter of rape support inquiry

The family of the woman who accused Attorney-General Christian Porter of raping her are supportive of “any inquiry” that will shed light on her death.

In a statement to news.com.au, lawyers acting for the woman’s family said they are open to either a coronial inquiry or an independent investigation into her rape claims, to be established by Parliament.

“The family of the deceased continue to experience considerable grief arising from their loss,’’ the statement said.

“They are supportive of any inquiry which could potentially shed light on the circumstances surrounding the deceased’s passing.

“They ask that their privacy be respected during this difficult time.”

The new statement confirms the woman’s mother, father and sister are supportive of an inquiry into their much-loved daughter’s death.

[Jimmy_041]

Public shaming can’t replace justice
HENRY ERGAS
As extremely serious accusations proliferate about behaviour by senior politicians that is claimed to have occurred years or even decades ago, the greatest damage is likely to be to the cause of justice itself.

To say that is not to contend that the allegations, which have been strenuously denied, are necessarily ill-founded. But there are good reasons the Athenians, whose legal system allowed any citizen to act as a prosecutor and press claims on behalf of alleged victims, introduced a five-year limit on the time that could elapse between when crimes (other than murder) allegedly occurred and when an accusation was launched.

Underpinning the restrictions, which pioneered the modern notion of statutes of limitations, was the harm being done to the city’s integrity by “sycophants” — a term that, in classical Greek, referred not to flatterers but to those who used the right to press charges on behalf of others as a way of advancing their own interests. Originally, the sycophants primarily aimed at enriching themselves by blackmailing the alleged perpetrator or by obtaining a share of the winnings should the claim proceed and succeed.

However, as Athenian politics turned poisonous, sycophancy became as focused on vilifying rivals as it was on pursuing alleged breaches of the law.

That change led to sycophants being known as “borborotarax” — stirrers of muck or excrement — who spread scurrilous rumours in the city’s main meeting places, inflaming partisan tensions and fuelling the rise of the demagogues many of them served.

Characterised, according to Aristotle, by rancour, slander and malice, the sycophants relied on digging up old claims, which were inevitably hard to disprove, and then used the pretence of assisting a victim’s search for justice as an excuse for their defamatory attacks. As Demosthenes, one of Athens’ greatest patriots and orators, put it in commenting on a prominent case, “Nikomakhos, (were you genuinely seeking justice,) you would have brought matters forward when they occurred — but that was 20 years ago.”

Whether the constraints that were eventually imposed on the sycophants proved effective is controversial; what is certain is that even after Athens’ glory had faded, time limits on initiating criminal proceedings remained, though they sank into irrelevance when the collapse of the Roman Empire threw Europe back into tribal law.

However, as modern systems of justice evolved, time limits once again became a major concern of legal scholars and of political philosophers. Central to that re-emergence was a new conception of justice that came out of the renewal of Christian scholarship that began in the 11th century.

In tribal law, justice was mainly a private responsibility, pursued by individual families and clans, often to the point of mutual destruction. But for Anselm of Canterbury and later for Thomas Aquinas, justice’s role was not to satisfy the private demand for revenge; it was to restore the “right ordering” of human affairs by punishing those whose actions not only harmed others but defied the law itself, threatening the divine gift that made human coexistence possible.

Justice was therefore a public responsibility whose task was to use the community’s power to preserve its material and spiritual foundations, including by giving victims their due. However, if public powers of coercion were to be used on victims’ behalf, the victims themselves had an imperative obligation to facilitate justice’s effective operation, not least by pressing claims in a timely manner and allowing their own credibility to be tested.

The importance of timeliness came even more sharply into focus as the absolutist monarchies of the 18th century dramatically expanded the state’s coercive powers, exposing citizens to the danger that they would be disgraced and horrifically punished for crimes allegedly committed long ago.

It was precisely so as to prevent those abuses, and protect the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, that the French liberals who drafted the criminal code of 1791 gave new life to the Athenian statutes of limitation.

While that code was swept aside in the Terror of 1793-94, the need for strict limits on how far back the law could reach was prominently recognised in 1808 as an integral part of the great Napoleonic codification of criminal procedure, which influenced legal systems worldwide.

“Civil peace cannot persist if claims for vengeance are allowed to remain eternally armed and active, hanging over social life,” Pierre-Florent Louvet explained, in presenting the draft provisions to parliament; “instead, wisdom requires that the passage of time should lead society to remove legal culpability from events (whose contours) have blurred into the distant past.”

The restrictions time limits imposed on human justice were, no doubt, easier to accept in an age universally convinced that a far higher justice than that which could be secured in this life awaited both the guilty and the innocent in the next; and which was also convinced that where there was sin, there could in time be remorse and redemption.

Now those convictions have all but disappeared. And what has filled the vacuum is a renewed culture of retribution, in which those who rightly or wrongly define themselves as victims assert a moral right to be vindicated, quite regardless of whether they have respected their own moral obligation to assist, where they reasonably could, in justice’s timely pursuit.

Aided and abetted by a media that, while claiming to act in the public interest, repeatedly ignores the fundamental Roman axiom of justice — Audi alteram partem, hear the other side — public shaming is replacing the judicial establishment of guilt. And with these contemporary sycophants leading the search for charges that can neither be proven nor rebutted, politically motivated scavenging through the detritus of the past is overshadowing the impartial ascertainment of legally actionable facts.

No one could deny the heart-wrenching torment real or imagined wrongs that have long been left to fester can cause. But Franz Kafka was right when he emphasised in The Trial that the justice “which never forgets” — yet is also incapable of accurately remembering — is no justice at all; it is, as he graphically put it, an ambush perpetually waiting to happen, a disease from which there may be temporary remission but no cure, a nightmare weighing even more heavily on the entirely innocent than on the irretrievably guilty.

It is, in other words, the essence of the Kafkaesque. And in reverting to it, we are not advancing into a brave new world but descending into a very ancient one, for which the Athenians also had a name: barbarism.

HENRY ERGAS
Henry Ergas AO is an economist who spent many years at the OECD in Paris before returning to Australia. He has taught at a number of universities, including Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the University of Auckland and the École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique in Paris, served as Inaugural Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong and worked as an adviser to companies and governments.

[Apachebulldog]

Public shaming can’t replace justice
HENRY ERGAS
As extremely serious accusations proliferate about behaviour by senior politicians that is claimed to have occurred years or even decades ago, the greatest damage is likely to be to the cause of justice itself.

To say that is not to contend that the allegations, which have been strenuously denied, are necessarily ill-founded. But there are good reasons the Athenians, whose legal system allowed any citizen to act as a prosecutor and press claims on behalf of alleged victims, introduced a five-year limit on the time that could elapse between when crimes (other than murder) allegedly occurred and when an accusation was launched.

Underpinning the restrictions, which pioneered the modern notion of statutes of limitations, was the harm being done to the city’s integrity by “sycophants” — a term that, in classical Greek, referred not to flatterers but to those who used the right to press charges on behalf of others as a way of advancing their own interests. Originally, the sycophants primarily aimed at enriching themselves by blackmailing the alleged perpetrator or by obtaining a share of the winnings should the claim proceed and succeed.

However, as Athenian politics turned poisonous, sycophancy became as focused on vilifying rivals as it was on pursuing alleged breaches of the law.

That change led to sycophants being known as “borborotarax” — stirrers of muck or excrement — who spread scurrilous rumours in the city’s main meeting places, inflaming partisan tensions and fuelling the rise of the demagogues many of them served.

Characterised, according to Aristotle, by rancour, slander and malice, the sycophants relied on digging up old claims, which were inevitably hard to disprove, and then used the pretence of assisting a victim’s search for justice as an excuse for their defamatory attacks. As Demosthenes, one of Athens’ greatest patriots and orators, put it in commenting on a prominent case, “Nikomakhos, (were you genuinely seeking justice,) you would have brought matters forward when they occurred — but that was 20 years ago.”

Whether the constraints that were eventually imposed on the sycophants proved effective is controversial; what is certain is that even after Athens’ glory had faded, time limits on initiating criminal proceedings remained, though they sank into irrelevance when the collapse of the Roman Empire threw Europe back into tribal law.

However, as modern systems of justice evolved, time limits once again became a major concern of legal scholars and of political philosophers. Central to that re-emergence was a new conception of justice that came out of the renewal of Christian scholarship that began in the 11th century.

In tribal law, justice was mainly a private responsibility, pursued by individual families and clans, often to the point of mutual destruction. But for Anselm of Canterbury and later for Thomas Aquinas, justice’s role was not to satisfy the private demand for revenge; it was to restore the “right ordering” of human affairs by punishing those whose actions not only harmed others but defied the law itself, threatening the divine gift that made human coexistence possible.

Justice was therefore a public responsibility whose task was to use the community’s power to preserve its material and spiritual foundations, including by giving victims their due. However, if public powers of coercion were to be used on victims’ behalf, the victims themselves had an imperative obligation to facilitate justice’s effective operation, not least by pressing claims in a timely manner and allowing their own credibility to be tested.

The importance of timeliness came even more sharply into focus as the absolutist monarchies of the 18th century dramatically expanded the state’s coercive powers, exposing citizens to the danger that they would be disgraced and horrifically punished for crimes allegedly committed long ago.

It was precisely so as to prevent those abuses, and protect the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, that the French liberals who drafted the criminal code of 1791 gave new life to the Athenian statutes of limitation.

While that code was swept aside in the Terror of 1793-94, the need for strict limits on how far back the law could reach was prominently recognised in 1808 as an integral part of the great Napoleonic codification of criminal procedure, which influenced legal systems worldwide.

“Civil peace cannot persist if claims for vengeance are allowed to remain eternally armed and active, hanging over social life,” Pierre-Florent Louvet explained, in presenting the draft provisions to parliament; “instead, wisdom requires that the passage of time should lead society to remove legal culpability from events (whose contours) have blurred into the distant past.”

The restrictions time limits imposed on human justice were, no doubt, easier to accept in an age universally convinced that a far higher justice than that which could be secured in this life awaited both the guilty and the innocent in the next; and which was also convinced that where there was sin, there could in time be remorse and redemption.

Now those convictions have all but disappeared. And what has filled the vacuum is a renewed culture of retribution, in which those who rightly or wrongly define themselves as victims assert a moral right to be vindicated, quite regardless of whether they have respected their own moral obligation to assist, where they reasonably could, in justice’s timely pursuit.

[b][b]Aided and abetted by a media that, while claiming to act in the public interest, repeatedly ignores the fundamental Roman axiom of justice — Audi alteram partem, hear the other side — public shaming is replacing the judicial establishment of guilt. And with these contemporary sycophants leading the search for charges that can neither be proven nor rebutted, politically motivated scavenging through the detritus of the past is overshadowing the impartial ascertainment of legally actionable facts.
[/b][/b]
No one could deny the heart-wrenching torment real or imagined wrongs that have long been left to fester can cause. But Franz Kafka was right when he emphasised in The Trial that the justice “which never forgets” — yet is also incapable of accurately remembering — is no justice at all; it is, as he graphically put it, an ambush perpetually waiting to happen, a disease from which there may be temporary remission but no cure, a nightmare weighing even more heavily on the entirely innocent than on the irretrievably guilty.

It is, in other words, the essence of the Kafkaesque. And in reverting to it, we are not advancing into a brave new world but descending into a very ancient one, for which the Athenians also had a name: barbarism.

HENRY ERGAS
Henry Ergas AO is an economist who spent many years at the OECD in Paris before returning to Australia. He has taught at a number of universities, including Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the University of Auckland and the École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique in Paris, served as Inaugural Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong and worked as an adviser to companies and governments.

Once again jimmy ya have presented a brilliant article

I have highlighted what I think is relevant to todays view and reporting by the FAKE media which stirs up the sjws and the so called do gooders.

[Dinglinga75]

Good ol Henry Ergas ....

He was critical of the NBN plan and is an open Liberal supporter ... so whilst he is highly accredited maybe think of which way he is leaning in his article ...

[Jimmy_041]

Good ol Henry Ergas ....

He was critical of the NBN plan and is an open Liberal supporter ... so whilst he is highly accredited maybe think of which way he is leaning in his article ...

I’m not sure how his politics matters if this isn’t a political witch hunt

[Jimmy_041]

Opinion

After the show trial, there’s no way to know the truth

All sides are playing politics with the allegations against Christian Porter. And an independent inquiry can never tell us what really happened.

Phillip Coorey
Political editor
Mar 4, 2021 – 7.45pm


To this day, Lindy Chamberlain has much to be angry about. But one small mercy, as far as she is concerned, must be that there was no social media in the 1980s.

Chamberlain, accused of murdering her baby Azaria when the perpetrator was, in fact a dingo, was subjected to an overwhelming wave of cereal-box psychology and criminology by both the public and the media.

One can only imagine how even more hideous the whole episode would have been had the internet – including its sewer, Twitter ( ) – existed back then.

Those of us old enough to have witnessed that unedifying pile-on were reminded of it in recent days as all and sundry expressed views – many of them laced with bile and bias – as to whether Christian Porter, as a 17-year-old, raped a 16-year-old companion in 1988.

This column is not saying Porter, like Chamberlain, is innocent. Nor is it saying he did it.

There is simply no way of knowing the truth.

The alleged victim, a member of an Adelaide society family, took her life in June last year, resulting in the suspension of a NSW police investigation, which was declared closed this week on the basis of insufficient admissible evidence.

The alleged perpetrator, as we now know, vigorously and vehemently denies the allegations.

The dead woman’s friends, who last week furnished the Prime Minister and a handful of other politicians with a five-page letter and a 25-page dossier detailing the allegations, believe their friend, and want the matter pursued.

One way or another, everybody seems to have made up their mind.

However, the friends acknowledge in the letter that the woman’s family is of a different view. “[Her] parents feared that she would be found to be an unreliable witness in any trial due to her history of mental illness,” the letter says.

“They worried that she may have confected or embellished the allegations due to her mental illness.

“Her friends and teammates shared her parents’ concern for [her] wellbeing but did not share their doubts about their veracity. This may be because her friends and teammates were in possession of corroborative evidence not known to her parents.”

In one sense, all of that has become immaterial because, one way or another, everybody seems to have made up their mind.

Hours before Porter issued his emotional and angry denial, Labor leader Anthony Albanese dismissed it in advance, saying there must be an independent inquiry to ascertain Porter’s fitness to remain in office, regardless of what the Attorney-General might have to say later that day.

The political debate has now boiled down to whether Scott Morrison should instigate such a probe.

Ideally, according to its proponents, it would be independent and held in camera, with the object of establishing on a balance of probabilities whether Porter was fit to remain in Parliament.

The Heydon precedent
The alleged victim’s friends cite as a precedent the independent investigation instigated by the High Court into the alleged harassment by former justice Dyson Heydon.

From a base political standpoint, an argument for the inquiry is that given the alleged victim is dead, it could only be inconclusive in its findings, which would not be grounds for Porter to go.

There will be no independent inquiry unless the Prime Minister performs a major backflip. He dug in on Thursday, saying to accede to such a demand would not only establish a dangerous precedent, it would be tantamount to succumbing to mob rule and subverting the rule of law.

Albanese should also be mindful that more than a few in his ranks think it’s a bad idea as well, for these very same reasons. Not to mention the prospect of mutually assured destruction in that any inquiry may be extended to cover Bill Shorten as well, who had similar allegations levelled against him last decade, which were dismissed by police.

People on both sides point to the answer Porter gave when asked: “Does the attorney-general need to be beyond reproach?”

“Well, no one is beyond an allegation, no one,” he responded.

Morrison’s position came under pressure later on Thursday when the victim’s family said through lawyers they would like an inquiry if that shed light on the circumstances surrounding their daughter’s death.

That could either be a probe along the lines being demanded by Labor, the Greens and others, or the coronial inquest flagged on Wednesday by the South Australian Coroner.

Morrison, for now at least, has made the choice to carry Porter and tough out the issue.

While it is generally assumed that community views are polarised along political and/or gender lines, Morrison’s radar is homed in on his “quiet Australians” – those with mainstream views who decide elections, and who are neither hard right or hard left.

The belief within government is that this demographic is particularly uncomfortable with the public show trial of recent days. And not just the men.

More than one Coalition MP has noted that many who watched the press conference on Wednesday were most angry about the rudeness of some of the journalists.

This may be whistling past the graveyard. Time will tell.

Playing politics
Everyone is playing politics with this. The government is trying to manage it, and Labor’s real target is Morrison, not Porter.

It is trying to remind everybody of the passive Morrison, the bloke who stood back and was slow to act when the bushfires took hold, with the excuse of “I don’t hold a hose, mate”.

Greens senator Larissa Waters presumed to speak for the alleged victim by asserting the woman pulled the police investigation last year, just before she died, because, like so many other women, she lacked confidence in the justice system.

All of which was starkly at odds with the statement the NSW police released on Thursday.

“On 23 June 2020 the woman sent detectives an email indicating she no longer felt able to proceed with reporting the matter, citing medical and personal reasons,” the statement says.

“She also thanked investigators in this email. She was very grateful for the time and support the investigators provided to her.”

Attorney-General Christian Porter publicly confirmed he is the cabinet minister named in a historical rape allegation from 1988 and emphatically denied the allegations.

Ultimately, a bright, popular woman is dead, a family is shattered, and a man who entered Parliament with aspirations to rise to the highest office, is a trembling wreck, his prospects in ruins.

A government that started the year with well-laid plans to vaccinate the population and fix the economy has been blown off course.

The futures of two of its ministers – Porter and Brittany Higgins’ former boss Linda Reynolds – hang by a thread.

And Twitter or no Twitter, we’ll still never really know what happened.

[Jimmy_041]

Very amusing watching PVO losing the mob he’s carefully cultivated over the past few years.
On the receiving end of what he practices for a change

[stan]

Very amusing watching PVO losing the mob he’s carefully cultivated over the past few years.
On the receiving end of what he practices for a change

Yep he's copping it a bit at the moment because he hasn't teed off on his mate Porter.

The lefties are eating him alive. They probably don't want to completely bury him as in a week's time they will need him to rank again.

[Jimmy_041]

Might even watch The Project tonight if he’s on

[stan]

Might even watch The Project tonight if he’s on

Could be worth it, twitter is melting down right now and the lefties are going for him.

Oh dear me, you can't abandon them Peter at anytime, they will turn on you.

[Jimmy_041]

Might even watch The Project tonight if he’s on

Could be worth it, twitter is melting down right now and the lefties are going for him.

Oh dear me, you can't abandon them Peter at anytime, they will turn on you.

Imagine what they’d be like if it was a political witch hunt!

[Jimmy_041]

Why Porter probe would be stunning denial of natural justice
The impossibility of establishing the facts makes calls for a judicial inquiry into whether the Attorney-General is a fit and proper person is just a witch hunt in legal garb.

Steve Boland
Contributor
Mar 9, 2021 – 2.18pm

Calls for Attorney-General Christian Porter to be tried outside of the criminal courts by an “inquiry” set up specifically for the purpose, are a stunning departure from the ordinary requirements of natural justice.

The argument for such an inquiry, which apparently accepts that Mr Porter could never be convicted of the allegation in a court of law, has evolved into a suggestion that the purpose of such a process would be to reach a conclusion as to whether Mr Porter is a “fit and proper” person for his role.

The glaringly obvious premise of the proposed inquiry is that it could reliably make findings of fact in relation to an alleged sexual assault from 1988.

Examining the Porter affair, it is difficult not to conclude that this is what mob justice looks like in 2021.

From the foundation of these findings, a conclusion could purportedly be drawn as to whether Mr Porter is a “fit and proper” person to occupy his Office.

Nothing in the public sphere remotely supports the proposition that such findings of fact could be made to any relevant standard upon any sensible appraisal of the known evidence.

The inquiry would be in possession of a printed allegation from a person who is unable to give evidence in chief or to be cross examined.

In the absence of admissions, and in the face of a specific denial from the accused, the essence of an uncorroborated sexual assault allegation is that it requires basic procedural niceties of this kind to be observed.

No judicial inquiry is capable of overcoming that fundamental difficulty.

Journalists can be forgiven for this oversight, but lawyers supporting the call are in a more tenuous position.

They must surely know that no fact-finding inquiry can overcome this basic failing.

Sections of the media have also failed to recognise that allusions to the bright and happy disposition of the complainant, prior to the night in question, are a thinly disguised invitation to reverse the onus of proof.

Four Corners this week continued the focus upon the complainant’s mental condition before and after the alleged attack, as if this might be a legitimate yardstick against which the veracity of the allegations can be judged.

Such arguments invite unseemly counter-attacks in relation to the complainant’s subsequent diagnosis with bipolar disorder, her apparent detention as a psychiatric patient, her entry into dissociative states, her engagement with a recovered memory counsellor, and her conclusion that her memory of the incident is surreal because her attacker had drugged her.

More to the point, character-based reasoning would not be utilised by a duty-bound judicial officer to make factual findings in relation to the allegation. In fact, it would be specifically disavowed.

An inquiry should not be used as an education tool in relation to this principle, despite the fact that it may be politically expedient.

Those prosecuting the case for an inquiry have also marshalled a comparison with the independent workplace investigation conducted into former High Court judge, Dyson Heydon.

The analogy, however, is specious.

In the Heydon inquiry, the impediments to reliable fact-finding were few. There were six workplace complainants, all of whom made similar complaints, some of whom did so contemporaneously.

Unlike Mr Porter’s accuser, there is no indication that the relevant High Court employees expressly indicated that they wished to discontinue the complaint process.

While the extent to which the Heydon allegations are criminal in nature remains unclear, no such uncertainty exists in relation to the heinous crime alleged against Mr Porter.

Were a criminal allegation to be made that a judge had committed an offence matching the seriousness of the Porter allegation, obvious impediments would prevent the High Court from convening an extra-judicial inquiry, only to announce afterwards that the complainant had “been believed”.

Moreover, the idea that such an inquiry would have occurred in relation to an allegation outside of the workplace, deriving from a judge’s childhood, is inconceivable.

The Heydon analogy breaks down from almost every angle.

Given that all of the above seems conspicuously obvious, the proposition that an inquiry should take place into the allegations in order to determine whether Mr Porter is a fit and proper person should be seen as a far more insidious question masquerading in legal garb.

After the show trial, there’s no way to know the truth
The question posed is this: have we have arrived at a point where an untested allegation, on an irresolvable set of facts, is sufficient to defenestrate a person’s reputation and career?

If the answer to that question is “yes”, we should say so directly and avoid the show-trial.

Examining the Porter affair, it is difficult not to conclude that this is what mob justice looks like in 2021.

We no longer come for people with pitch forks and lanterns. Instead, we come with lawyers, saintly intentions and high-minded arguments that on their face seem reasonable enough, but contain at their core the most wild injustices.

Steve Boland is a Sydney barrister

[Q.]

Very amusing watching PVO losing the mob he’s carefully cultivated over the past few years.
On the receiving end of what he practices for a change

Yep he's copping it a bit at the moment because he hasn't teed off on his mate Porter.

The lefties are eating him alive. They probably don't want to completely bury him as in a week's time they will need him to rank again.

Imagine being so tone deaf that you labelled a second wave of the #MeToo movement in Aus as a leftist political witch hunt. It's a watershed moment for survivors of sexual violence that crosses the political spectrum and middle-aged white men are scrambling to write rape apologia in their newspaper columns. How very standard.

[Q.]

Ex-boyfriend of Christian Porter’s accuser reveals new details about alleged rape discussions

A former boyfriend of the Adelaide woman who accused Attorney-General Christian Porter of an alleged rape has revealed for the first time that she had relevant discussions with him in 1989, the year after the alleged incident, and is calling for an independent investigation into the matter.

In a statement detailing his contact with the woman in the 1980s and his conversations with Mr Porter in the early 1990s, Macquarie Group managing director James Hooke has also offered to co-operate with any inquiry.

Mr Porter has strenuously denied the allegations and insists the events described by the accuser never happened.

Mr Hooke does not detail in his statement exactly what the Adelaide woman, whose name has been withheld at the request of the family, told him in 1989. But it suggests the discussions came in stages.

In the statement provided to news.com.au, he notes that he is the man referred to as “James” in the woman’s unsworn statement and the extracts from her diaries.

He also claims that he had relevant discussions with Mr Porter about his relationship with the woman in 1992 in Perth and subsequently. Mr Porter strenuously denies the rape allegation.

[Q.]

NSW Bar Association sets Morrison straight about the 'rule of law' that he is hiding an alleged child rapist behind:

[stan]

Very amusing watching PVO losing the mob he’s carefully cultivated over the past few years.
On the receiving end of what he practices for a change

Yep he's copping it a bit at the moment because he hasn't teed off on his mate Porter.

The lefties are eating him alive. They probably don't want to completely bury him as in a week's time they will need him to rank again.

Imagine being so tone deaf that you labelled a second wave of the #MeToo movement in Aus as a leftist political witch hunt. It's a watershed moment for survivors of sexual violence that crosses the political spectrum and middle-aged white men are scrambling to write rape apologia in their newspaper columns. How very standard.

Calm down Q, actually come on down first to where all us mere mortals exist as we can't talk to you way up there in your perfect tower.

I'm simply pointing out why he is copping shit, simple as that.

I am also stating that you don't want to bury him at the moment because he's the biggest ranter about Morrison and his ways that he's actually still needed.

Keep the insults out of it.

[stan]

NSW Bar Association sets Morrison straight about the 'rule of law' that he is hiding an alleged child rapist behind:

I read this just a few minutes ago, long day yesterday and only just catching up.

Starting to find holes big enough to drive trucks through in ScMos stories at the moment. Just another point that he has covered for Porter and his other mate as well. In which everything has gone quiet.

You would think the electorate would punish him and the LNP hard for all of this.

[stan]

Bit going on yesterday.

Reynolds has settled our of court to pay damages to Britteny Higgins.

Apparently, it's not cool to call a sexual assult victim a lying cow to all her co-workers.......when you are her boss and supposed to be managing the complaint.

[daysofourlives]

NSW Bar Association sets Morrison straight about the 'rule of law' that he is hiding an alleged child rapist behind:

I read this just a few minutes ago, long day yesterday and only just catching up.

Starting to find holes big enough to drive trucks through in ScMos stories at the moment. Just another point that he has covered for Porter and his other mate as well. In which everything has gone quiet.

You would think the electorate would punish him and the LNP hard for all of this.

Its all coming crumbling down, Morrison being exposed, Andrews off the grid, arrested??

[stan]

NSW Bar Association sets Morrison straight about the 'rule of law' that he is hiding an alleged child rapist behind:

I read this just a few minutes ago, long day yesterday and only just catching up.

Starting to find holes big enough to drive trucks through in ScMos stories at the moment. Just another point that he has covered for Porter and his other mate as well. In which everything has gone quiet.

You would think the electorate would punish him and the LNP hard for all of this.

Its all coming crumbling down, Morrison being exposed, Andrews off the grid, arrested??

Yes that's clearly what I was getting at *