Finding the truth vs. "The Rule of Law"

[sptrawler]

The radio announcer made specific comments about Higgins which were not true, and made further inferences, including comments about rape.
Given the specific comments made, Higgins' circumstances are what are relevant. How is it risky to return to one of the most secure buildings in Australia where access to the room she was in was further restricted to people she had to have known?
It seems more the case that Higgins acted very responsibly by putting herself at least risk, irrespective of whether or not she was drunk.

As per usual we see things differently, so be it.

 

[sptrawler]

Cordeaux made comments which were factually false.
How do you construe false claims as mere "opinion"?

That is your opinion, his comments haven't been tested.
Until something is tested it is only opinion, as was shown in the Israel Falou incident, when RA didn't want to test it and apologised with compensation.
Which by the way you were just as adamant about.

 

[rederob]

That is your opinion, his comments haven't been tested.
Until something is tested it is only opinion, as was shown in the Israel Falou incident, when RA didn't want to test it and apologised with compensation.
Which by the way you were just as adamant about.

There are no reasonable measures that support Cordeaux's contentions that Higgins is silly, little, or a girl.
Courts do not require the obvious to be tested.
Nevertheless, what evidence did Cordeaux rely on in making those statements such that they could be tested?
What are you suggesting?

 

[sptrawler]

There are no reasonable measures that support Cordeaux's contentions that Higgins is silly, little, or a girl.
Courts do not require the obvious to be tested.
Nevertheless, what evidence did Cordeaux rely on in making those statements such that they could be tested?
What are you suggesting?

By her own admission that she was paralytic.

Silly: having or showing a lack of common sense or judgement.

little: is subjective, so therefore not quantifiable.

Girl: a young or relatively young woman. ( again subjective term).

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

While not wishing to come to judgement, all these matters have been covered before in Classical Antiquity.

The gods behaved well and badly, men behaved well and badly, women behaved well and badly.

I am presently just finished reading the Iliad and plan to move on to the Odyssey soon, and then the Roman texts.

Believe me, in the pantheon of humanity this is quite a small ripple, from a small stone, in the pool of human matters.

gg

Higgins is not "silly" and not "little". Nor is she a "girl". These are defamatory imputations.
Getting drunk is not of itself an offence, but getting raped is a crime.
Rapists are often opportunists and don't necessarily rely on their victims to be drunk in order to rape them.
You are falling into the same trap of victim blaming as Cordeaux.
Furthermore, what Cordeaux said is not speculative. His remarks are on the public record and were broadcast to tens of thousands.
Your opinion that a media circus is running the country is very much at odds with that very same media that regularly defames people and recants.


His former employer will have been advised of the legal liability of Cordeaux's commentary and acted accordingly.
You seem to think that hosting a talkback program indemnifies Cordeaux from the law.

 

[rederob]

By her own admission that she was paralytic.

Silly: having or showing a lack of common sense or judgement.

little: is subjective, so therefore not quantifiable.

Girl: a young or relatively young woman. ( again subjective term).

She admits to being drunk - we have been over that many times.
She returned to one of Australia's safest buildings, to a room further restricted to people she would have known and, presumably, trusted, thereby showing excellent judgement despite her state.
Little is quantifiable as its very existence as a word implies smallness.
Girl is ambiguous, except it also relies on context for meaning, and in in this case Cordeaux used the run on phrase "little girl", which she is not.
Cordeaux's sacking was well advised and it will be interesting to see if Higgins issues his former employer a concerns notice.

 

[sptrawler]

She admits to being drunk - we have been over that many times.
She returned to one of Australia's safest buildings, to a room further restricted to people she would have known and, presumably, trusted, thereby showing excellent judgement despite her state.

Most rapes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, this is a well known fact and obviously a reason people need to be vigilant.

Acquaintance rape - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the report:
Most rapes are perpetrated by a person known to the victim; however, it is less likely to be reported than stranger rape and thus crime statistics often underestimate the prevalence of acquaintance rape compared to national surveys. The legal consequences of acquaintance rape are the same as for stranger rape.

Little is quantifiable as its very existence as a word implies smallness.

A 5'4" person is little compared to a 7' tall person, whereas the same 5'4" person is tall compared to a 3' tall person, therefore someone I call little may not be little in your eyes.
So it isn't quantifiable it is subjective and up to the persons personal judgement and what they are personally comparing it to in their mental image.
Little is only quantifiable when the object it is being compared to is stated e.g a mouse is little compared to an elephant, bug huge when compared to an ant.
Therefore Cordeaux saying she is little, is his opinion and not quantifiable.

Girl is ambiguous, except it also relies on context for meaning, and in in this case Cordeaux used the run on phrase "little girl", which she is not.
Cordeaux's sacking was well advised and it will be interesting to see if Higgins issues his former employer a concerns notice.

She is a 'little girl' in his eyes and unless there is a official standard for "little" and "girl", he has every right to use his judgement when allocating the terms as they are general in nature.
What will be of greater interest will be if Cordeaux decides to pursue it.IMO

 

[SirRumpole]

Cordeaux made comments which were factually false.
How do you construe false claims as mere "opinion"?

What were they ?

 

[rederob]

Most rapes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, this is a well known fact and obviously a reason people need to be vigilant.

Acquaintance rape - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the report:
Most rapes are perpetrated by a person known to the victim; however, it is less likely to be reported than stranger rape and thus crime statistics often underestimate the prevalence of acquaintance rape compared to national surveys. The legal consequences of acquaintance rape are the same as for stranger rape.

A 5'4" person is little compared to a 7' tall person, whereas the same 5'4" person is tall compared to a 3' tall person, therefore someone I call little may not be little in your eyes.
So it isn't quantifiable it is subjective and up to the persons personal judgement and what they are personally comparing it to in their mental image.
Little is only quantifiable when the object it is being compared to is stated e.g a mouse is little compared to an elephant, bug huge when compared to an ant.
Therefore Cordeaux saying she is little, is his opinion and not quantifiable.

She is a 'little girl' in his eyes and unless there is a official standard for "little" and "girl", he has every right to use his judgement when allocating the terms as they are general in nature.
What will be of greater interest will be if Cordeaux decides to pursue it.IMO

You are clutching at straws.
If you are drunk and seek refuge in a very safe building with levels of restricted access and regular security patrols, then it's a nonsense to suggest that action was silly or irresponsible.
If you want to keep claiming it's ok to regard Higgins as a little girl, then you are welcome to that baseless idea. People on juries are ordinary citizens and have no difficulty differentiating between a little girl and a grown woman. They do not need "official standards" when exercising common sense.

 

[SirRumpole]

If you want to keep claiming it's ok to regard Higgins as a little girl, then you are welcome to that baseless idea.

I'm certainly not saying that, I'm saying it's a matter of opinion and not defamatory.

I just don't think it's ok to wipe people out of employment for disagreeing with me, unlike some here.

Brittany Higgins could simply reply that Cordeaux was a silly old man.

Would that be defamatory ?

 

[rederob]

I'm certainly not saying that, I'm saying it's a matter of opinion and not defamatory.

I just don't think it's ok to wipe people out of employment for disagreeing with me, unlike some here.

Brittany Higgins could simply reply that Cordeaux was a silly old man.

Would that be defamatory ?

No reasonable person would regard Higgins as a " silly little girl" so in the context of Cordeaux's remarks it's a defamatory imputation.
Moreover, Cordeaux's comments were wholly pointed and a slight on Higgins. His employer knew this and took immediate action.
Cordeaux has continued his victim shaming and this is a disgrace to broadcasting:


Cordeaux is welcome to give advice and provide opinions.
However, once he names a person whose circumstances are known and makes reckless commentary, then he leaves himself wide open. Higgins definitely did not "put <herself> in harms way" as Cordeaux continues to suggest was the case, and he thinks that comments which can be contradicted by facts still constitute "opinion". Raping a drunk woman who has sought refuge is not a matter that most people would find "controversial", as Cordeaux suggests. It's a crime. He seems not to grasp that fundamental aspect of the matter. Indeed, his focus seems to be about drunkenness as invitation to do as you please to another.

Is Cordeaux a "silly old man"?
After 58 years in broadcasting he failed to grasp that naming and shaming someone without appreciating the specific circumstances or correctly attributing the person's characteristics, can come at a cost. He remains unrepentant!

 

[sptrawler]

You are clutching at straws.
If you are drunk and seek refuge in a very safe building with levels of restricted access and regular security patrols, then it's a nonsense to suggest that action was silly or irresponsible.
If you want to keep claiming it's ok to regard Higgins as a little girl, then you are welcome to that baseless idea. People on juries are ordinary citizens and have no difficulty differentiating between a little girl and a grown woman. They do not need "official standards" when exercising common sense.

Well we shall have to wait and see if either party pursues for a settlement.

 

[SirRumpole]

No reasonable person would regard Higgins as a " silly little girl" so in the context of Cordeaux's remarks it's a defamatory imputation.
Moreover, Cordeaux's comments were wholly pointed and a slight on Higgins. His employer knew this and took immediate action.
Cordeaux has continued his victim shaming and this is a disgrace to broadcasting:


Cordeaux is welcome to give advice and provide opinions.
However, once he names a person whose circumstances are known and makes reckless commentary, then he leaves himself wide open. Higgins definitely did not "put <herself> in harms way" as Cordeaux continues to suggest was the case, and he thinks that comments which can be contradicted by facts still constitute "opinion". Raping a drunk woman who has sought refuge is not a matter that most people would find "controversial", as Cordeaux suggests. It's a crime. He seems not to grasp that fundamental aspect of the matter. Indeed, his focus seems to be about drunkenness as invitation to do as you please to another.

Is Cordeaux a "silly old man"?
After 58 years in broadcasting he failed to grasp that naming and shaming someone without appreciating the specific circumstances or correctly attributing the person's characteristics, can come at a cost. He remains unrepentant!

Not a fan of Voltaire then Robbie ?

 

[basilio]

Justice delayed is justice denied

Seems that the NSW Police had a wide number of opportunities to take a statement from the Christian Porter's rape accuser - but managed to miss them all.

Stinks..

NSW police passed up SA offer to take statement alleging sexual assault against Christian Porter​

Request to travel interstate to take accuser’s statement was rejected in March 2020 because it was not deemed essential, documents reveal

Former attorney general Christian Porter has strenuously denied an allegation of raping a woman when she was 16 and he was 17. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP

Paul Karp

@Paul_Karp
Mon 12 Apr 2021 05.00 AEST
Last modified on Mon 12 Apr 2021 06.47 A

New South Wales police passed up an offer by South Australian police to take a statement alleging sexual assault against Christian Porter – apparently without putting the option to the alleged victim – new documents reveal.
The documents, produced to the NSW Legislative Council after a motion by the MP David Shoebridge, reveal how a request to travel interstate to take the statement was rejected in March 2020 because it was not deemed essential.

They also show the NSW police rejected a request from Porter’s accuser to take her statement via Skype and alternatives were not pursued because the alleged victim seemed “resigned” to Covid-19 interruptions to travel delaying it until September.
Shoebridge told Guardian Australia the documents show the NSW police “made two separate decisions to delay taking a statement, neither of which appears to have had a valid basis”.

NSW police passed up SA offer to take statement alleging sexual assault against Christian Porter

Request to travel interstate to take accuser’s statement was rejected in March 2020 because it was not deemed essential, documents reveal

www.theguardian.com

 

[basilio]

As usual it is 4 Corners that will be highlighting how instructions from the top in the NSW Police force stopped the rape victim from giving a formal statement.

New documents reveal detectives were denied trip to interview Christian Porter accuser

NSW detectives investigating the historical rape allegation against former attorney-general Christian Porter were denied permission to travel to South Australia to interview the complainant by the state's Police Deputy Commissioner David Hudson.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

As usual it is 4 Corners that will be highlighting how instructions from the top in the NSW Police force stopped the rape victim from giving a formal statement.

New documents reveal detectives were denied trip to interview Christian Porter accuser

NSW detectives investigating the historical rape allegation against former attorney-general Christian Porter were denied permission to travel to South Australia to interview the complainant by the state's Police Deputy Commissioner David Hudson.

www.abc.net.au

Why couldn't it have been done over Skype ?

 

[sptrawler]

Why couldn't it have been done over Skype ?

Reading through the articles on the internet, it sounds as though the alleged victim was interviewed on numerous occasions, by the S.A police.
So there should be plenty of information to investigate, my guess is that as soon as the accused mentioned who the attacker was,the issue would have been escalated.

 

[basilio]

Why couldn't it have been done over Skype ?

Indeed. Or in South Australia as the South Australian police had offered.
Just stinks of political interference.

And these revelations should reinforce a more general inquiry into the issue. And one of the first items should be examining why it was not examined properly in the first place.

 

[sptrawler]

Yet another media defamation case, where the media has settled, it is becoming monotonous with its regularity IMO.

John Hewson, Nine settle defamation suit over A Current Affair broadcast

A four-day trial was expected to start in the Federal Court on Monday, with Dr Hewson’s lawyers to argue the broadcast made six defamatory claims.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
Former federal Liberal leader John Hewson and Nine have settled a defamation lawsuit over a broadcast of A Current Affair on the eve of a four-day trial.

Dr Hewson filed Federal Court defamation proceedings against Nine, the publisher of this masthead, in June last year over a May 18 broadcast relating to GSA Insurance Brokers, a company he chaired. He is now an advisor to the board.
Justice Wigney vacated the hearing and congratulated the parties on settling the matter.

Dr Hewson’s lawyers had said in court documents that ACA was told prior to broadcast that GSA Insurance Brokers was an insurance broker and not the insurer, which meant it was “not even the decision-maker” on claims.

In the Federal Court last year, Nine’s barrister Lyndelle Barnett said the “primary issue” in the case was the meanings conveyed by the broadcast. Nine denied any of the six defamatory imputations pleaded by Dr Hewson’s lawyers were conveyed.

Justice Michael Wigney told Dr Hewson and Nine last year that he hoped “for the parties’ sake, the matter settles”.

 

[SirRumpole]

And another one..

Buried evidence and threats: How Ben Roberts-Smith tried to cover up his alleged crimes

Australia’s most decorated soldier tried to hide shameful images and apparent evidence of war crimes. Now they have been unearthed.

www.theage.com.au

Soldiers to oppose document release in Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case

Two Australian soldiers expected to be called as witnesses by Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith in a defamation trial against media are set to oppose the proposed release of documents about their own conduct in Afghanistan.

www.smh.com.au