Australian Politics General...

[farmerge]

Just learning this here:

View attachment 174290

"Pig Iron Bob" blah

 

[farmerge]

What's he talking about?

 

[sptrawler]

The slow but steady move toward a Republic, where we can have a terrific Govt for everyone, like every other republic in the World that we aspire to emulate. Lol

 

[SirRumpole]

Lehrmann case inspires changes to Jury legislation in ACT.

From now on or when legislated, jurors who misbehave themselves will be liable to jail terms of two years.

Not before time.

Bruce Lehrmann mistrial leads to new jury laws in ACT

Laws that passed the ACT Legislative Assembly today mean jurors who do their own research will face criminal penalties of up to two years in jail.

www.abc.net.au

 

[mullokintyre]

Lehrmann case inspires changes to Jury legislation in ACT.

From now on or when legislated, jurors who misbehave themselves will be liable to jail terms of two years.

Not before time.

Bruce Lehrmann mistrial leads to new jury laws in ACT

Laws that passed the ACT Legislative Assembly today mean jurors who do their own research will face criminal penalties of up to two years in jail.

www.abc.net.au

It will more likely lead to a much lower juror pool.
There is no way I would agree to serve on a jury where the remuneration is but a pittance and some puncy judge can decide to stick you into the slammer for 2 years.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

It will more likely lead to a much lower juror pool.
There is no way I would agree to serve on a jury where the remuneration is but a pittance and some puncy judge can decide to stick you into the slammer for 2 years.
Mick

Few people want to serve on a jury, but most would agree to observe the standards I think.

 

[Smurf1976]

Few people want to serve on a jury, but most would agree to observe the standards I think.

As with most things an issue will be the detail.

What counts as "doing your own research"?

If it means actual research intentionally carried out then sure, no problem.

Very different if just reading a mainstream newspaper, watching the TV news or walking down the street potentially counts as "research" however.

 

[IFocus]

As with most things an issue will be the detail.

What counts as "doing your own research"?

If it means actual research intentionally carried out then sure, no problem.

Very different if just reading a mainstream newspaper, watching the TV news or walking down the street potentially counts as "research" however.

My understanding is that the limits are spelled out clearly before hand (not that I have ever served on a jury ) a mate served on one a case where parents molested their kids, jury were barred from certain stuff (parents had previous) so as not to prejudice the trial.

They were found guilty and after the trial the magistrate told them of the parents history to reassure them of the discission.

 

[sptrawler]

Lehrmann case inspires changes to Jury legislation in ACT.

From now on or when legislated, jurors who misbehave themselves will be liable to jail terms of two years.

Not before time.

Bruce Lehrmann mistrial leads to new jury laws in ACT

Laws that passed the ACT Legislative Assembly today mean jurors who do their own research will face criminal penalties of up to two years in jail.

www.abc.net.au

It sounds like mandatory alcohol and drug testing in Parliament house wouldn't go astray either.
They are so busy legislating everyone elses behaviour, while obviously some would believe, they are running a den of iniquity themselves.

 

[Knobby22]

This is a great article on defamation. People see money but it often doesn't work out as hoped.



IN THE NEWS
Judgment day is on the cards
JOHN SILVESTER

A defamation case is like a giant poker game where you spend a fortune to see the other guy’s cards. The trouble is, the deck is stacked with Jokers that can pop up at inopportune times.

Sometimes there will be an out-ofcourt settlement when one side doesn’t like the look of their cards. Other times, the bets keep coming in a winnertakes-all showdown.

Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith was a hero, Australia’s most decorated living soldier, and Father of the Year. That is until The Age published allegations that he was involved in unlawful killings while on tour in Afghanistan.

If Roberts-Smith had issued a dignified rebuttal and not sued, he might still be sitting on the public altar as an Australian icon in the eyes of many. Instead, he gave into his instinct to charge into battle. If he had won, some believe it would have been an Australian record defamation payout.

Roberts-Smith was offered an outof-court settlement, one which would have allowed him to claim victory. Instead, he wanted blood and charged into court not knowing whether he had already run out of bullets.

Not for one moment did he think he would lose – until he did. He walked out of the court (actually, he didn’t turn up for his day of judgment) with a judge declaring he was a war criminal.

Now we have the case of Bruce Lehrmann. He would have walked into his defamation case believing the cards were well and truly stacked in his favour after he had settled similar actions out of court for $445,000.

Channel Ten had broadcast an interview with political staffer Brittany Higgins saying she was raped by a colleague in a minister’s office. The alleged offender was not named but Lehrmann claims he was identified. He was charged with rape but the trial was aborted after a juror broke the rules. Lehrmann denies the accusations and maintains his innocence.

As the case was then abandoned, it makes it more difficult for Ten’s lawyers to convince Federal Court Justice Michael Lee that there is sufficient evidence that the crime was committed. Because of the serious nature of the allegation, the standard of proof is higher than the usual balance of probabilities; the judge must be ‘‘reasonably satisfied’’ of what happened. If Ten’s lawyers can’t convince Lee, Lehrmann has won a big round.

Lee has played his cards close to his chest, but he has said he is having trouble believing some of the things put to him during the case, and he questioned the credibility of both Lehrmann’s and Higgins’ evidence. There are, he said, ‘‘various parts of each witness’s evidence [that] simply can’t be accepted’’.

To recap: Higgins says she was hopelessly drunk when Lehrmann raped her. Lehrmann says he did some work (after a night on the booze) then left without checking on his colleague who was in the next room. It is, at the very least, strange. But is it believable?

Lee may well be ‘‘comfortably satisfied’’ that Lehrmann did enter the room where Higgins was (they had arrived together), but there is insufficient evidence to establish exactly what happened in that room.

Would this mean Lehrmann would win? Not really. In such a case, if a defamation is proved, the compensation is decided based on the damage done to the plaintiff’s reputation.

In court, Lehrmann has been portrayed variously as a liar, a sleaze, a drug user and a manipulator. He walked into court with what he believed was a royal flush. Now his reputation has been flushed down the toilet. But the judge may decide that even if Lehrmann is a sleaze, an unproven allegation of rape damages his reputation.

If Lehrmann loses, he will be financially ruined by his legal costs, and if he wins and receives a small damages payment, he will still be sunk if the court orders him to pay costs.

If Channel Ten offered Lehrmann a reasonable settlement that he refused, he will be hit with a staggering legal bill for both sides – a figure that is sure to be in the millions of dollars. And if the judge finds anyone lied under oath, the law of perjury may come into play.

In a previous defamation case, Lee awarded token damages to plaintiffs so that after they had paid their legal fees, they would probably still be in the red. It was a nifty way of deterring people from wasting the court’s time.

Have to go to the Age to see remainder of article, probably free tonight.

 

[sptrawler]

The taxpayer is paying because of how badly her employer handled it. If it happened at my work it would have been treated seriously,

When the girl went to the minister it should have been referred to the police, The man involved interviewed by HR. It could have been done quietly.
She went to the minister because she was loyal. It wasn't reciprocated.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/st...brittany-higgins-after-allegation-court-told/

I know you say in your day the girl should just suck it up, and everyone would just pretend it didn't happen. I am wondering did this actually happen where you worked?

Why do you say her behaviour as appalling? If it happened to your daughter. I bet you would have been furious. Have a hard look at yourself.

Closer to home, you say that the minister encouraged Higgins not to go to the police, the minister is suing Sharaz for saying the exact same thing.
I don't have any clue as to what actually happened, other than as I've said both behaved badly.
What I find amazing is, you as an engineer making assumptions purely based on allegations, is most unusual.
Most engineers I've worked with are very reserved with their judgements, until all the facts are disclosed and so far that hasn't happened in this case.
There is a high prpbability you are right, but IMO it is too early to call it, let alone hang your goolies over the fence on it.

 

[Knobby22]

Closer to home, you say that the minister encouraged Higgins not to go to the police, the minister is suing Sharaz for saying the exact same thing.
I don't have any clue as to what actually happened, other than as I've said both behaved badly.
What I find amazing is, you as an engineer making assumptions purely based on allegations, is most unusual.
Most engineers I've worked with are very reserved with their judgements, until all the facts are disclosed and so far that hasn't happened in this case.
There is a high prpbability you are right, but IMO it is too early to call it, let alone hang your goolies over the fence on it.

The top electrical engineers need to make judgements, the poor engineers over design everything and cost everyone money. And I am not risking anything here.

But anyway, what I posted was an excellent article, (only part), where people think they can make big money on defamation and how it goes wrong often.
Just because someone pays you out e.g. Robert Smith and Leahmann, and you have the backing of Stokes media and have a rush of greed doesn’t mean the cheque is in the mail

He may win. Doesn't mean he will win in the cash stakes.

In a previous defamation case, Lee awarded token damages to plaintiffs so that after they had paid their legal fees, they would probably still be in the red. It was a nifty way of deterring people from wasting the court’s time.

 

[sptrawler]

The top electrical engineers need to make judgements, the poor engineers over design everything and cost everyone money. And I am not risking anything here.

But anyway, what I posted was an excellent article, (only part), where people think they can make big money on defamation and how it goes wrong often.
Just because someone pays you out e.g. Robert Smith and Leahmann, and you have the backing of Stokes media and have a rush of greed doesn’t mean the cheque is in the mail

He may win. Doesn't mean he will win in the cash stakes.

In a previous defamation case, Lee awarded token damages to plaintiffs so that after they had paid their legal fees, they would probably still be in the red. It was a nifty way of deterring people from wasting the court’s time.

I don't disagree with that, what I disagree with is trail by media and then those who are easily led by the media taking up the cause.
I would have thought the Lindy Chamberlain saga would have cured people of that trait, obviously not.

By the way what you posted was a statement, followed by an article, Reynolds could quite easily sue you, as has happened in the past.

 

[SirRumpole]

The top electrical engineers need to make judgements, the poor engineers over design everything and cost everyone money. And I am not risking anything here.

But anyway, what I posted was an excellent article, (only part), where people think they can make big money on defamation and how it goes wrong often.
Just because someone pays you out e.g. Robert Smith and Leahmann, and you have the backing of Stokes media and have a rush of greed doesn’t mean the cheque is in the mail

He may win. Doesn't mean he will win in the cash stakes.

In a previous defamation case, Lee awarded token damages to plaintiffs so that after they had paid their legal fees, they would probably still be in the red. It was a nifty way of deterring people from wasting the court’s time.

Considering that the courts have to deal with real crimes like murder, rape, assault etc, I'm not surprised that spats between usually well off people are a low priority not to be encouraged.

 

[Knobby22]

I don't disagree with that, what I disagree with is trail by media and then those who are easily led by the media taking up the cause.
I would have thought the Lindy Chamberlain saga would have cured people of that trait, obviously not.

Well the media is on Leahmann side.
7 network is actively involved with Newscorp to destroy Paramount.

Newscorp was going to buy 10 but bid too low and didn't see the opposition. They also get to take out Lisa Wilkinson who has been on their hit list for a while. She will lose her home. I think it is trial by media in a sense.

 

[sptrawler]

Well the media is on Leahmann side.
7 network is actively involved with Newscorp to destroy Paramount.

Newscorp was going to buy 10 but bid too low and didn't see the opposition. They also get to take out Lisa Wilkinson who has been on their hit list for a while. She will lose her home. I think it is trial by media in a sense.

One could say just the same about channel 10 being after Lehrmann, when they aired the Wilkinson interview.
All that has come out since, is what a cesspool of gutter dwellers the media and Canberra is.
Hookers, drugs, million dollar payouts without a conviction, sounds like a B grade pr0n production plot.

Court told Brittany Higgins colluded with Lisa Wilkinson to ‘attack’ Linda Reynolds, as defamation case heads for trial

Channel Ten presenter and producer could be called as witnesses in Liberal senator’s defamation case against Higgins and fiance David Sharaz

www.google.com

How Higgins’ face off with senator fell apart

Brittany Higgins and Linda Reynolds were forced to face each other this week in a bid to avoid a trial, but things did not go to plan.

au.news.yahoo.com

Among the defamatory imputations claimed against Mr Sharaz’s posts were that Senator Reynolds pressured Ms Higgins not to proceed with a complaint to police, “is a hypocrite in her advocacy for women’s interests and empowerment”, and interfered in Mr Lehrmann’s trial.

 

[Knobby22]

One could say just the same about channel 10 being after Lehrmann, when they aired the Wilkinson interview.
All that has come out since, is what a cesspool of gutter dwellers the media and Canberra is.
Hookers, drugs, million dollar payouts without a conviction, sounds like a B grade pr0n production plot.

Bet her parents wish she didn't take the job.

 

[sptrawler]

Bet her parents wish she didn't take the job.

I bet she wished she had stayed down at the front desk, while Lehrmann went up to pick up whatever he said he was going back up to the office for.
There was no reason for her to go up there and as always hindsight is a wonderful thing, her parents will be devastated as any parent would be, no one should have to go through this.

 

[Knobby22]

I bet she wished she had stayed down at the front desk, while Lehrmann went up to pick up whatever he said he was going back up to the office for.
There was no reason for her to go up there and as always hindsight is a wonderful thing, her parents will be devastated as any parent would be, no one should have to go through this.

I would put money she was given a date rape drug but we will never know. It destroyed her career.
Stuff keeps coming out about Leahmann (something in the paper today) but everyone tends to just edge on it and not say too much, scared he will sue them.

 

[sptrawler]

I would put money she was given a date rape drug but we will never know. It destroyed her career.

Quite possibly, it would have been so much better if she had said something to the female security guard that woke her up on the couch, the night of the incident.
If she had done that I'm sure he would be in jail as we speak, even if she had just reported to a doctor for a swab, or even just to reported it to the doctor.