Feminist tub-thumpers to the rescue…

…of women whose allegations don’t harm the wrong side, that is

EVEN though his name was being jealously redacted by the media, in August 2014 Bill Shorten outed himself as the “senior Labor figure” at the centre of a Victoria police ‘investigation’ into an accusation that he had raped a woman at a Young Labor camp in 1986. Police concluded there was no prospect of a conviction – a very concise formula which most reporters felt obliged to re-write as cleared of. Some took the sub-editorial economies of partisan rehabilitation still further and favoured “exonerated.” Michelle Grattan’s main concern was Shorten’s political future rather than “the woman.” Then Prime Minister Tony Abbott was, after all, the Trump of the time and an angry accuser could derail the media’s push to demonise him out of The Lodge:

A central factor in how things move from here will be the woman’s reaction. Worrying from Shorten’s point of view are comments she made after learning the matter was advancing no further. The Australian quoted her on Thursday (before Shorten spoke) saying she was “really, really angry. This has been going on for 28 years. I think anybody who hears my story will know I am telling the truth”.

It’s hard to think some in the media won’t pursue the woman who, if she’s determined to try to damage Shorten politically, might make an appearance.

If she did offer more public statements, it would be a testing time for Shorten. But the woman – who waited a very long period to make her claims public – would also be exposed to closer scrutiny.

 
A very different – very woman-focused Michelle Grattan – has this morning analysed the Brittany Higgins rape claim which she presents as a scandal embroiling… Scott Morrison. No “closer scrutiny” today. For the record: there is as much proof Miss Higgins’ Parliament House paramour committed a sexual crime as there is that Bill Shorten did. Which is to say, none. That security personnel were aware she was wandering around dishevelled proves only that she was drunk. Who’s fault is that? Here’s a ‘cultural change’ suggestion: teach young women working in Canberra that life isn’t an ADF commercial; no, you can’t match it with the men at all things – most especially, drinking.

I have only been made aware of key elements of my own [alleged] sexual assault as a result of coming forward publicly with my story. I didn’t know that security guards let me into Minister Reynolds’ suite. I didn’t know that a security guard came into the office multiple times seeing me in a state of undress. I didn’t know that they debated calling an ambulance at the time of the incident.”

– Her statement this afternoon

 
Higgins says she has changed her mind and now wants the AFP to investigate whether she consented to sexual intercourse while drunk two years ago. But she admits she has no clear recollection of what happened the night she somehow ended up in the Parliament House office of the Minister for Defence. As you do.

Good luck with that.

Update: BrettW in comments presents an alternative analysis – a very persuasive one.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics, Hypocrisy of progressives. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to Feminist tub-thumpers to the rescue…

  1. Entropy says:

    I don’t know about some of this. I happen to remember a young Winton dentist that could drink the largest ringer under the table. Then she would do the same to his mate.

  2. Walter Plinge says:

    Two years later? Couldn’t have seemed important at the time. Higgins has now made herself unemployable and a wary bloke won’t go near her. A life of self-imposed misery beckons.

  3. Alan sivkoff says:

    Bunch & coke.

  4. Alan sivkoff says:

    Fat fingers, should be bundy & coke

  5. Tombell says:

    Has Michelle made any complaint?

  6. candy says:

    My problem with this latest case is that the security guards ushered in a drunk man and woman, and the woman so drunk almost paralytic by the sound of it, could hardly walk.

    On so many levels this is very wrong. It makes you wonder, have they done this before?
    She may or may not have been sexually abused but anything could happen to a grossly drunk young woman in these circumstances, females being so vulnerable in an intoxicated state.. Was there no-one there to think, get this dumb stupid drunk girl out of here into a cab to go home? Did they even think do this pair have drugs on them too?

    No, they usher them into the Senator’s office for privacy!

  7. Lee says:

    Grattan is far from an unbiased journalist.

  8. Rabbi Putin says:

    Every time I hear this story I’m reminded of the Pence Rule: don’t be alone with any woman who isn’t your wife.

    The women might also want to have a rule: always have a reliable male chaperone and don’t drink like a fish in public.

  9. min says:

    I will say it again personal responsibility it seems it does not matter if one has thrown it to the wind then the the other person has to take the personal responsibility . Feminists you want equality then act like it .

  10. Entropy says:

    The security guards should have, and no doubt did, get a bollocking after the event. It’s the sort of thing that could happen in a bad spy novel. Anyway, as reported, it seems it was broadly investigated at the time. It seems it didn’t go further at the time because the woman didn’t want to go to the police.

    Also, for what possible reason would a bunch of drunk kids go to the office after a piss up? No suggestion of a work need. Raid the Ministerial wine cupboard or do a Jan Brown ne Murray on the Minister’s desk perhaps?

  11. duncanm says:

    candy – agree completely.

    This chick was so maggotted she can’t even remember going into her bosses’ office, and security even wondered if she needed an ambulance. What the hell were the security guards thinking?

    What is also weird.. this event scarred her so much, she went back to work at the place again?
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/britt-h-42848814a/

  12. notafan says:

    I can’t remember any of this but this moment definitely happened.

  13. duncanm says:

    Given the festering cesspit that politics is.. I wonder what role her current boss/mentor (Michaelia Cash) has in this.

  14. candy says:

    Also, for what possible reason would a bunch of drunk kids go to the office after a piss up?<

    But not just an "office", but the office of the Defence Minister? Who let them in.

  15. Scotty says:

    Whole thing is sus. Looked sus from the start.

  16. C.L. says:

    What the hell were the security guards thinking?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a distinct class system at Parliament House according to which ‘political staffers’ treat security guards like Hillary Clinton treated the Secret Service. With contempt.

  17. duncanm says:

    notafan
    #3759893, posted on February 17, 2021 at 9:44 pm

    I can’t remember any of this but this moment definitely happened.

    no doubt she woke up in the morning with her head over the toilet bowl, some suspiciously askew clothing and other evidence of nocturnal events.

  18. Entropy says:

    Well, Minister Reynolds office. It shows how important defence is to this lot doesn’t it? As if the sub purchase isn’t enough evidence.

  19. JC says:

    now wants the AFP to investigate whether she consented to sexual intercourse while drunk two years ago. But she admits she has no clear recollection of what happened the night she somehow ended up in the Parliament House office of the Minister for Defence.

    Of course, the ADF has have a time machine and can peddle back two years.

  20. Terry Pedersen says:

    But she admits she has no clear recollection of what happened the night she somehow ended up in the Parliament House office of the Minister for Defence. As you do.

    Yes, as you do. Especially if your drink has been spiked and a bloke who was supposed to be taking you home took you instead to a place where he could take advantage of you. I wonder why that same bloke has now admitted himself to a Sydney hospital.

  21. C.L. says:

    Do you have any evidence her drinks were spiked, Terry?
    And why would a bloke who had spiked a woman’s drinks to have sex with her take her to… Parliament House, using his security pass and being marked by security personnel and CCTV cameras?

    Drink spikers do that all the time in Canberra, do they?

  22. Scott Osmond says:

    Just in time for the election that might be happening this year. Conservatives women problem and all. But no matter what happened Scotty from marketing needing to be told by his wife that he needed to investigate just shows how useless this man is. Seriously even a marketer should have known that an investigation was needed if only for optics? Liberals a party so stupid that they can’t even be handed a win and jump on hand grenades at every opertunity.

  23. Bruce says:

    NOTHING will happen to the security slugs for being part of letting a pissed idiot into a secure area; i.e. a ministerial office, the DEFENCE ministerial office, no less. A brief sban of th eroster archives will identify exactly who was “on duty” on that occasion.

    Crickets!~

    This whole rock show is a shambles.

    See also Short Willie and his nocturnal frolics.

    More crickets.

    That dopey senior coalition chap plays “hide the sausage” with some stray “assistant” and gets nailed to the wall, briefly.

    The rest of these vermin are probably doing lines and running orgies in the Parliamentary library and NOTHING happens. Who do they think they are? French politicians?

    Well, most of them seem to be very fond of the Napoleonic Code, for starters.

    Australia is NOT a serious country; it is now barely a country at all.

  24. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    NOTHING will happen to the security slugs for being part of letting a pissed idiot into a secure area; i.e. a ministerial office, the DEFENCE ministerial office

    “Do you know who I am? I’ll have your job for this! You’ll be out on your ear!”

  25. Squirrel says:

    The feminists and others who are using Brittany Higgins to attack Morrison and his government will dump her as soon as they’re ready to move on to another issue.

    I hope she has loyal people to look after her when that time comes.

    In the meantime, the government needs to get back on to the front foot and hammer the point that the obsession about who knew what when is really about partisan politics, not about the treatment of staffers – unless it becomes demonstrably apparent that Ms Higgins did, in fact, want to the police and/or go public quite some time ago, but was dissuaded from doing so by the government or others acting on its behalf.

  26. Wyndham Dix says:

    Walter Plinge
    #3759863, posted on February 17, 2021 at 9:19 pm

    Two years later? Couldn’t have seemed important at the time. Higgins has now made herself unemployable and a wary bloke won’t go near her. A life of self-imposed misery beckons.

    Well said.

    It is difficult to believe that all involved are being other than economical with the truth.

    It is also difficult to believe that money is not now the driver. It is not for mere academic interest that Ms Higgins wants to know whether she consented to sexual intercourse while intoxicated. I suggest that not even the wisdom of Solomon could determine that at this distance in time. But “all women are to be believed” is very difficult to combat today.

    Given that they both gained access to the minister’s office, more likely than not because of Ms Higgins’ influence, I’d put my money on hormones.

  27. C.L. says:

    Indeed. Security guards’ heads should roll. In fact, that should have happened two years ago. But they’re unionised and that means they’re being protected.

    The Morrison government is being unfairly targeted by Labor and the media but only comparatively speaking. They deserve what they’re getting.

  28. duncanm says:

    I wonder why that same bloke has now admitted himself to a Sydney hospital.

    because he can see his whole life being torn down around him, maybe ?

  29. Terry Pedersen says:

    What evidence do you have that her drink was not spike, CL? The effects of alcohol or rohypnol are not dissimilar. Reports all say that neither had their security pass/ID/access key on the night. From the reported behaviour of the security staff it is surprising that it was not a case of multiple (alleged) [email protected]

    Interesting development today is the reporting as fact that steam cleaning of the Minister’s office was carried out on an urgent basis next day. You think that item of interest and the resultant disappearance of evidence of the (alleged) [email protected] wasn’t included in the subsequent discussions with the girl?

  30. BrettW says:

    There are major difference between the cases.

    Other than her word the complainant in the Shorten case would have great difficulty proving Shorten was even in the room with her never mind having sex consensual or not. There was zero evidence or witnesses to support her claim and it appears she did not tell anybody about it until 7 months later.

    In the Parliament House case there are security staff that place the guy in the office and that some sort of sexual activity took place. This nay have been backed up by video footage which would have shown her state. If she was so drunk that she could not remember what happened how could she give consent. For this aspect the security staff could have given evidence. However it seems to me the security staff have some conflict as why did they let the pair in to Ministers Office and then did not call ambulance when found her. If it was apparent consensual sex why was the issue of calling an ambulance even raised ? Security do not come out of this very well at all and I suspect that it was not in their interest for any case to go to court as their actions were far from what you would expect.

    It seems she did not know what security had observed and might have thought it was her word against his. If she had decided to pursue the case early on at least she had some corroboration whereas there is none in the Shorten case.

    The Shorten case female made her report 30 years after the alleged incident. If you think he should face trial then you also believe actor Jeff Jarret should have. He was acquitted. Call me old fashioned but I prefer the old system where a bit of corroboration was required. Michael Smith has an article explaining the law changes due to Metoo where basically the laws view is now that the female should be believed.

    “For the record: there is as much proof Miss Higgins’ Parliament House paramour committed a sexual crime as there is that Bill Shorten did. Which is to say, none. That security personnel were aware she was wandering around dishevelled proves only that …

  31. Megan says:

    Feminists you want equality then act like it .

    They may want it but the minute they can’t cope they play several victim cards and run to tattle so someone else can fix it for them. Much feminist.

  32. Megan says:

    Interesting development today is the reporting as fact that steam cleaning of the Minister’s office was carried out on an urgent basis next day.

    Much more likely they were removing the vomit from the carpet and furniture rather than any evidence of non consensual sex.

  33. C.L. says:

    Excellent points, Brett.

    But I don’t believe – and didn’t believe at the time – that Bill Shorten should have been tried. The cases are being compared not because they are in any way alike as justiciable accusations. I agree the Higgins case is – or could have been – stronger.

    The point I’m making is that the media and Labor are habitually choosey about which untested allegations are worth getting exercised about and which aren’t.

    But your argument is solid – enough to sway me towards the complainant, actually. Bear in mind I have no brief to defend the Morrison government. I couldn’t care less about its fate. After John Jarratt, Geoffrey Rush, Craig McLachlan, George Pell etc, a degree of scepticism has set in. Maybe we have to be on guard against being too sceptical.

  34. NoFixedAddress says:

    C.L.

    It seems Terry subscribes to The Second Set of Books.

    https://freedomaustralia.freeforums.net/thread/882/second-set-books?page=1&scrollTo=2079

  35. Leigh Lowe says:

    NFA.
    Still playing the grifting game I see.
    Some things never change.

  36. BrettW says:

    Labor’s view on sex crimes is much like Kamala Harris’s. Believe the female against Biden until he appoints you as VP and then the allegation is no longer relevant and can be forgotten. It is all about the politics not the actual crime or alleged crime.

    However you can’t support Metoo and then say Shortens case can be ignored.

    Only going on what reading here but can’t work out if the Parliament House female now wants to pursue the case with Police or maintain her privacy.

  37. Damon says:

    “now wants to pursue the case ”
    Unless she’s got a Kleenex somewhere, she doesn’t have a case.

  38. dover_beach says:

    But she admits she has no clear recollection of what happened the night she somehow ended up in the Parliament House office of the Minister for Defence.

    Woow. Woow. She has no ‘recollection’! What is going on here?

  39. Rex Mango says:

    Biggest elephant in the room here is the blatant sexism in modern office environment where men get treated far worse than women. We have a young bloke fired/reputation ruined & a young woman two years later after refusing to go to the cops selling her story to the media & she is the victim.

  40. NoFixedAddress says:

    C.L.

    It seems that Leisure Suit Larry, the Louche Lounge Lizard, is a mate of Terry P.

    I guess the OT is too boring.

  41. C.L. says:

    NFA.
    Still playing the grifting game I see.
    Some things never change.

    Que?

  42. Rex Mango says:

    This scenario would be soooo different if it were two blokes who visited the Vegemite valley.

  43. Mique says:

    The Shorten matter is entirely irrelevant. This is almost a carbon copy of the ADFA scandal a few years ago. In both cases, in breach of relevant rules of her employment, a woman voluntarily placed herself in a romantic relationship with a fellow worker and the outcome was, at the very least, severely embarrassing. Both immediately complained that their employers did not take adequate steps to help or to “support” them. Immediately, the politicians took sides on partisan grounds and the cynical media sought to make political scandals out of the affairs.

    Let’s look at both cases in a different way. Let’s say that the people concerned were simply random members of the general public. A young woman voluntarily accompanies a young man of her acquaintance back to his or her flat, or to a motel, or the back seat of a car for a romantic interlude. She believes herself to have been raped. To whom does she appeal for help and support? Her employer?

    Will the media and politicians launch a witch-hunt demanding her boss do something, anything? Hah!

    Little Missy certainly did not deserve what she got, but nor does she deserve what the Opposition and the running dogs in the media are demanding. She should take it to the cops as she has always had the option to do.

  44. Rex Mango says:

    Mique, do you sign contracts before you have sex & if so how long after copulation are they void?

  45. NoFixedAddress says:

    Mique
    #3760017, posted on February 18, 2021 at 1:18 am

    I wish we could have an open investigation into why the fk we are signed up for ‘sexy’ french underwater boat anchors and when the fk will we break the so called contract.

  46. NoFixedAddress says:

    Leigh Lowe
    #3759990, posted on February 17, 2021 at 11:55 pm

    NFA.
    Still playing the grifting game I see.
    Some things never change.

    crap catholics are still running the vico justice game I see.

  47. NoFixedAddress says:

    still beat you ll

    that’s what really pisses you off

    a dumb boy from the bush beat you

  48. NoFixedAddress says:

    It was the so called catholics of the so called Victorian “justice” system that went after Cardinal Pell.

    who was ll?

  49. NoFixedAddress says:

    ll

    i guess you done be a pigford bro and will join in the billions owed

  50. Nighthawk the Elder says:

    Police concluded there was no prospect of a conviction – a very concise formula which most reporters felt obliged to re-write as cleared of.

    It’s counterintuitive to their interpretation of not guilty is not the same as innocent in a more recent well publicised case. Whatever suits their narrative.

  51. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “The Shorten case female made her report 30 years after the alleged incident. If you think he should face trial then you also believe actor Jeff Jarret should have. He was acquitted. Call me old fashioned but I prefer the old system where a bit of corroboration was required. Michael Smith has an article explaining the law changes due to Metoo where basically the laws view is now that the female should be believed.

    “For the record: there is as much proof Miss Higgins’ Parliament House paramour committed a sexual crime as there is that Bill Shorten did. Which is to say, none. That security personnel were aware she was wandering around dishevelled proves only that …”

    Excellent comment BrettW and one that I agree with wholeheartedly. The John Jarrett case was a disgrace however it is a sign of the times that the both the NSW police and DPP proceeded with the case. Why I’ll never know…well I do know….it was a result of months of Metoo garbage…all of which clearly permeated through our justice and legal system.

    As for “corroboration”….we’ve seen more than one Catholic priest go to jail on uncorroborated allegations…including Cardinal George Pell. I’m not one for tit for tat but given we now have a situation where the left deliberately politicise sexual abuse allegations, I think it’s time the Bill Shorten allegation was revisited. I also repeat what I wrote last night that the LNP didn’t make political capital out of the Shorten allegation six and seven years ago. Perhaps they should have. Such decency would not have been reciprocated. As Andrew Bolt said last night on his programme….Labor should be careful what it wishes for.

    Believe all women except for Kathy Sheriff and Tara Reade….LOL.

  52. Dot says:

    But she admits she has no clear recollection of what happened the night she somehow ended up in the Parliament House office of the Minister for Defence.

    This is as bizarre and fanciful as the Dream/Killer case.

  53. Diogenes says:

    BrettW,
    My memory of the Shorten case is that she tried to get something done at the time with Vicplod, and got nowhere. She confided in friends at the time of what happened.

    Because of the more willingness to “believe all women” (unless they accuse a lefty) she came forward 30 years later and supplied the friends details to Vicplod, who were, (surprise surprise) unable to find any of them, despite being at the addresses they were given.

    It was precisely because of this that “no chance of conviction”. If they had looked at all, there may have been corroborating evidence

  54. notafan says:

    Claiming spiked drinks is far more common that actual spiked drinks*, it’s a way of pretending you did not drink to excess.

    And Terry maybe senior political staffer is in hospital because he knows his life is now a football and footy season has just started.

    *You have Katherine Murphy complaining about the drinking culture but hey!

  55. Rebel with cause says:

    Whatever the merits of the complaint, it is about time that Parliament is subject to the same workplace laws they subject the rest of the country to. If any other workplace allowed pissed employees entry in the middle of the night for no good reason, people would have been fired.

    If MPs don’t like being part of the zero harm, zero drugs and alcohol workplace policies that every other major employer has had to implement, then they can do something about it.

  56. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Rebel with cause
    #3760085, posted on February 18, 2021 at 7:17 am”

    Well said.

  57. notafan says:

    Without physical evidence she only has her say so that sex even took place.
    Bill shorten admitted to sex but claimed consentual irrc.
    The level of intoxication as it relates to capacity to consent may be an issue, has the law changed in the last thirty years, I think it might have but again who knows what happened.

    This like a dream stuff is *fanciful* as dot says

  58. notafan says:

    Rebel

    The senior male staffer was immediately fired for the unlawful entry.

    Why wasn’t Ms Higgins?

  59. notafan says:

    Again the cleaning issue is unclear as to urgent or routine.

    Even if it was urgent maybe it was to clean up vomit, rather than sinister cover up of a crime.

  60. Rebel with cause says:

    If as a result of Parliament being made a little less fun to be in, and cutting off the taxpayer funded booze that freely flows, we see fewer laws being drafted and fewer show inquiries, I’m ok with that.

  61. PB says:

    “What evidence do you have that her drink was not spike, CL?”

    You made the spiking claim, not CL. It is on you to provide evidence, not demand someone else prove a negative.

  62. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “You made the spiking claim, not CL. It is on you to provide evidence, not demand someone else prove a negative.”

    He has a lot of form with this.

  63. duncanm says:

    Terry Pedersen
    #3759936, posted on February 17, 2021 at 11:13 pm

    What evidence do you have that her drink was not spike, CL?

    what evidence do we have that you don’t bash your wife?

  64. Terry Pedersen says:

    PB, I see what you mean. I left the “d” off. Milligan who loved Woy Woy has been dead for a while.

  65. Albatross says:

    On the balance of probabilities, in the Pederson standard of proof, he beats his wife.

  66. Albatross says:

    Walter Plinge
    #3759863, posted on February 17, 2021 at 9:19 pm
    Two years later? Couldn’t have seemed important at the time. Higgins has now made herself unemployable and a wary bloke won’t go near her. A life of self-imposed misery beckons.

    Too right. Hope she’s making the most of this.

  67. Perfidious Albino says:

    The young lady seems to be going after ScoMo’s response very aggressively now – smacks of others pulling the strings behind the scenes?!

  68. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Perfidious Albino
    #3760121, posted on February 18, 2021 at 7:59 am
    The young lady seems to be going after ScoMo’s response very aggressively now – smacks of others pulling the strings behind the scenes?!”

    I thought so from the beginning, as soon as I saw how she gave her exclusive interest to that Cane Toad from The Project….aka Mrs Pirate……the smell was overwhelming.

  69. min says:

    As neither case has been to court is much of what is being reported hearsay ? Re Shorten firstly the girl was 16 at the time in the 80s when many mature women did not report rape because of police and judges treatment at the time . Secondly in the Kathy Sherriff case it was alleged drugs and alcohol were handed around at camp to underage participants and this is where witnesses were ignored. Anyway as I have said I counselled rape victims , my dealings with the police at the time they demonstrated care , support to the victims, it was the court system that let them down . I had a 16 yr old victim who had not even had a boyfriend at the time who decided that she would go ahead with charges . I went to the committal hearing with her and the DPP decided not to take the case as it would be he said , she said and a waste of money . I think the perpetrator should have gone for carnal knowledge as she was 15 at time of crime .and that law had not been taken away . By the way it was a friend of the family and she did not say anything until suffering from an STD.
    Unfortunately I think since the #metoo arrived on the scene the pendulum has swung too far and I talk about personal responsibility .

  70. Albatross says:

    C.L.
    #3759948, posted on February 17, 2021 at 10:35 pm
    Indeed. Security guards’ heads should roll. In fact, that should have happened two years ago. But they’re unionised and that means they’re being protected.

    So security should have intervened to break up two adults in coitus? Or man-handled some half-naked staffer? Remind me why this story is so primarily important to our nation?

  71. Rebel with cause says:

    Parliamentary staff are a protected species. In return, they are expected to prevent MPs being exposed to this sort of unpleasentness

  72. Rebel with cause says:

    Unpleasantness – damn my spelling.

  73. shatterzzz says:

    . Anyway, as reported, it seems it was broadly investigated at the time.

    very unlikely, broadly investigated would have attracted media attention .. two years on the media awake …!

  74. Angus Black says:

    If the staffer was also drunk as a skunk, is he also absolved of responsibility?

  75. Bruce says:

    “The senior male staffer was immediately fired for the unlawful entry.”

    One or two “charrges”?

  76. Suburban Boy says:

    If she was so drunk that she could not remember what happened how could she give consent.

    BrettW (and many others) are asking the wrong question.

    The question to ask is this: “Did the accused have a reasonable belief that the complainant gave consent?” The test is not objective (whether or not she gave consent) but subjective (what did the complainant reasonably believe).

    It is entirely possible – in this case as in many others – that the complainant honestly believes that she did not give consent while the accused honestly (and reasonably) believed that she did give consent. In that situation the accused is not guilty.

  77. Suburban Boy says:

    Correction: should read “What did the accused [not “complainant”] reasonably believe”.

  78. Rafiki says:

    Min
    To determine whether what a person has said about an event is hearsay, you must imagine that they have made the statement while giving evidence in a court. If it is of the character “this happened to me”, or “I saw/heard/smelt this”, then it is not hearsay evidence of what happened, etc. In contrast, if the statement is in effect “I didn’t see anything, but X told me what did”, that is hearsay evidence of what happened only if the statement is relied upon by a party to the case as evidence towards proof that the happening occurred.

    At this point, there is no basis to think that any of the evidence relevant to proving that Miss Higgins was raped is hearsay. (The only evidence of this kind appears to be the state of her undress, although is very weak.)

  79. Rafiki says:

    Yes Suburban Boy, well said, but so far there is there evidence that sex took place? Has the hapless male staffer admitted this much?

  80. Roger says:

    I didn’t know that a security guard came into the office multiple times seeing me in a state of undress.

    A security guard entered the office several times but didn’t think to cover the woman with something?

    There really is no decency in Canberra.

  81. Roger says:

    And what exactly do these young “staffers”, with next to zero achievements or experience of life, bring to our democracy down in the fetid billabong that is Canberra?

  82. Maj says:

    ‘This doesn’t smell right’: Peta Credlin doubts Prime Minister’s claims about alleged rape

    Sky News commentator Peta Credlin says the government’s mistreatment of Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation is “sadly not a surprise”.

    In a statement, Ms Higgins has accused Prime Minister Scott Morrison of “victim-blaming”, saying his rhetoric on the matter is “personally very distressing”.

    Ms Credlin told Jim Wilson federal parliament’s “Upstairs, Downstairs” culture is an ongoing problem.

    “We’ve got to say that word ‘rape’, because it’s incredibly important we understand how severe this all is.”

    The Prime Minister has claimed he was informed about the allegations on Monday (February 15), though his office was informed the previous Friday.

    As a political insider who has worked for both a prime minister’s office and a defence minister, Ms Credlin explained Mr Morrison’s timeline “doesn’t stack up”.

    “There is no way, if I was aware of an allegation like that, that the Prime Minister wouldn’t have known.

    “Misleading the parliament is a very, very grave offence, but this doesn’t smell right to me.

    “I think there are certainly missing parts of this story.”

    Click PLAY below to hear the full interview

    https://omny.fm/shows/the-drive-program/the-influencers-peta-credlin-expresses-doubt-in-pr

  83. Des Deskperson says:

    ‘Whatever the merits of the complaint, it is about time that Parliament is subject to the same workplace laws they subject the rest of the country to. ‘

    Interesting.

    Ministerial staffers’ employment framework is contained in three basic documents:

    The Members of Parliament (Staff) Act – the MOPS Act;

    MOPS Act employees’ Enterprise Agreements.

    the statement of standards for Ministerial Staff

    https://www.smos.gov.au/statement-standards-ministerial-staff

    The first two documents contain nothing whatever about standards of behaviour or processes for enforcing them. The Statement of Standards includes the following:

    Treat with respect and courtesy all those with whom they have contact in the course of their employment.

    This is the only Standard that might apply in the Higgins case. However, the Standards are only a piece of paper for show. There is no mechanism for reporting, investigating or sanctioning breaches, and I know from experience that neither side of Parliament is interested in implementing such processes.

    So in that sense Ministerial staff are a protected species, not surprising as they are often mates or relatives of the Minister. The downside is that a Minister can terminate a MOPS staffer at any time for any reason. From the MOPS Act: :

    ‘S. !6(3): An office‑holder may at any time, by notice in writing given to a person employed by the office‑holder under this Part, terminate the person’s employment.’

    So if you fall out with your Minister, you are gone, although you may be protected by the FWA. .

  84. Rafiki says:

    Roger
    In many cases, nothing. Otherwise, appointment might be down to (1) a personal or business connection with the appointee or their patron, or (2) an advantage to the Minister supporting a person who has somehow earned points in the effort to climb the ladder to success in the relevant political party.

  85. H B Bear says:

    Des, clearly what the written rules aren’t the problem. What actually occurs, and is allowed to occur, is. The problem is when you have a lot of undergraduate politics types running around thinking they are in The West Wing. It’s like a Young Labor camp.

  86. thefrollickingmole says:

    Claiming spiked drinks is far more common that actual spiked drinks*, it’s a way of pretending you did not drink to excess.

    The figures for actual drink spiking (with anything other than alcohol) are really really small.
    I have read in the past where people presented to EDs because of “drink spiking”the prevalence is about 2%.

    Doesnt mean it cant happen, but 98% of the time it will be just grog.

  87. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    If any other workplace allowed pissed employees entry in the middle of the night for no good reason, people would have been fired.

    Starting with the “pissed employees”.

  88. Roger says:

    It was a rhetorical question, Rafiki.

    As I said, Canberra is a fetid billabong, a city cut off from the mainstream of Australian life populated by the morally dubious.

    Return income tax powers to the states, let Defence and DFAT be run from, say…Townsville and Darwin respectively, and let Canberra sink under the weight of its own irrelevance.

  89. PB says:

    “A security guard entered the office several times but didn’t think to cover the woman with something?”

    Would it surprise if the security guard feared an accusation against himself emerging out of this had he approached her? In the climate the wimminz have engendered they shouldn’t be surprised when there are no White Knights coming to their aid.

    if you don’t go near her you can’t be accused of having gone near her.

  90. areff says:

    Return income tax powers to the states

    Turnbull’s only good idea. It didn’t survive 24 hours

  91. duncanm says:

    Perfidious Albino
    #3760121, posted on February 18, 2021 at 7:59 am
    The young lady seems to be going after ScoMo’s response very aggressively now – smacks of others pulling the strings behind the scenes?!

    She’s currently employed by Michaelia Cash. I’d be looking in that direction.. then suspecting her chum, the notorious knife-wielder JB.

  92. C.L. says:

    “Misleading the parliament is a very, very grave offence, but this doesn’t smell right to me.

    Peta Credlin playing the jaded political veteran again.
    Misleading the parliament is a “very, very grave offence,” is it?

    Bullshit.

    Politicians mislead the House as a matter of course every hour it’s in session.

  93. Cassie of Sydney says:

    On hearing about the allegation I was reminded of a woman I know….I wrote this the other day on the OT…

    I know a woman who was once involved with someone well known on the centre-right here in Australia, a man who happened to be married at the time (and still is). This all happened a few years ago and she told me about the relationship at the time and I told her I didn’t approve because he was married and I didn’t want to know anything about it. Anyway, one day she rang me in hysterical tears to tell me that they had both gotten really drunk one night and they had a dreadful sexual experience….I won’t elaborate but it involved bottoms. The relationship finished after that……a few years later this woman told me it was sexual assault….and then last year she told me it was “waape”. It wasn’t sexual assault and it most certainly wasn’t waaape.

  94. BrettW says:

    The security guards and the CCTV footage are something not normally involved in a he said she said drunken sex encounter which may or may not have been consensual.

    Their evidence and the footage would be crucial in any rope allegation. However once they let her leave the building then their actions do not look that great. Somebody that night should have formed a view as to what they thought happened. Were calls made to a supervisor etc. If she was not capable of giving consent they would have known and in that case not good for them.

    Suburban Boy
    #3760156, posted on February 18, 2021 at 8:45 am
    If she was so drunk that she could not remember what happened how could she give consent.

    BrettW (and many others) are asking the wrong question.

  95. Cassie of Sydney says:

    Credlin is a sucker for this stuff……she frequently gives a platform to ghastly women such as Hetty Johnson and Nina Funnell to shill their rubbish.

  96. Roger says:

    Turnbull’s only good idea. It didn’t survive 24 hours

    The Canberra leviathan is a fraud (a Health department that runs no hospitals? an Education department that runs no schools?) that only exists in its present bloated form because income tax powers were arrogated from the states during WWII as an emergency measure.

    End the absurd vertical fiscal imbalance and return taxing powers to the entities that have to provide the services – the states.

    BIRM.

  97. candy says:

    Still mystifying why the security let a very drunk couple into the Minister for Defence’s office.

    Perhaps the man in the story is quite well connected and Libs had just won the election I think, so the guards may have thought this was permissable? Don’t upset the new government by making a scene over drunk staffers.

    Otherwise common sense would say turn these drunk idiots around and get the lady in a taxi home to someone to look out for her, for her own protection (from anything) in the state she was in, almost unconscious by the the sound of it. She could have choked on her own vomit, anything could happen. Maybe it did.

  98. Andre Lewis says:

    Assuming the Vic police proceed to investigate this AFTER she makes a formal complaint it will turn on the usual he said/she said statements about whether the sex was consensual or not. Two years have passed so hard to see how that can be easily resolved. Guards who let them in and saw her later obviously knew what was going on and assumed it was a couple of drunks getting it on. The part about whether they should call an ambulance probably hinged on how intoxicated she was. That alone will cast doubt on her recollections about giving consent.
    The upshot is, however, what political capital the ALP and Greens can make of this with the considerable help of the MSM beating it up and trying to drag in everyone from the PM down. For a woman who did not want police involvement or publicity about this incident two years ago she is certainly making up for lost time now.

  99. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “The upshot is, however, what political capital the ALP and Greens can make of this with the considerable help of the MSM beating it up and trying to drag in everyone from the PM down. For a woman who did not want police involvement or publicity about this incident two years ago she is certainly making up for lost time now.”

    I’m not sure how much political capital can come out of it for Labor in the electorate. Most people can see it for what it is….a beat up.

  100. Brian Boru says:

    Wow! Parliament House is just like the rest of Australia. Except that goings on there get weaponised.

  101. Des Deskperson says:

    ‘As I said, Canberra is a fetid billabong, a city cut off from the mainstream of Australian life populated by the morally dubious.’

    As anyone who has ever had administrative dealings with it would tell you, Parliament House is even weirder, a cultural silo, a sort of contained village with arcane and obsolete management practices, a huge range of posh internal amenities, poor quality staff, full of personal feuds and snits and employees at all levels who, because they have ingratiated themselves with various politicians, can’t be made to perform, let alone try anything new.

    The place is run for the comfort and convenience of politicians. Any reforms that might improve efficiency, effectiveness and integrity will be opposed if they impinge in any way on that.

  102. Amortiser says:

    Rex Mango
    #3760012, posted on February 18, 2021 at 12:54 am
    This scenario would be soooo different if it were two blokes who visited the Vegemite valley.

    Is that different to the chocolate freeway?

  103. m0nty says:

    Another extremely misogynist post from the very man-focused Currency Lad.

  104. C.L. says:

    Misogynist, racist, transphobe, climate denialist, bla bla bla.
    You’re such a Huffington Post lightweight, Monty.

    But you now agree that Biden raped Tara Reade, is that right?

  105. Rebel with cause says:

    Thanks Des – agree with your points. And note the distinction between Ministerial and Parliamentary staff. Parliamentary staff are a protected species, Ministerial staff on the other hand are highly expendable (and they know it).

  106. min says:

    Rafiki thanks for explanation but how does one classify what is reported by the MSM ? Bits of information given out of context that may or not be true eg like how terrible they steam cleaned the office next day meaning what? Crime related who knows but it is making assumptions , jumping to conclusions known in my profession as cognitive distortions and giving a false picture .
    Risky behaviour by both of the participants that both chose to do . Seems neither take personal responsibility

  107. Pedro the Loafer says:

    Once again, many thanks to Des Deskperson for his very valuable insights into the Canberra political and APS scene.

    Canberra and its rather peculiar inhabitants can be a closed book to many of us who have never been submerged in the swamp.

    Great work, Des.

  108. m0nty says:

    Misogynist, racist, transphobe, climate denialist, bla bla bla.

    I do not think you are racist against blas, CL. Even when there are three of them. The others, sure.

    But you now agree that Biden raped Tara Reade, is that right?

    No, Reade has a history of lies. Unlike this Higgins lady.

  109. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Reade has a history of lies.”

    No she doesn’t fatso. Reade is actually quite credible. You’re the liar here.

  110. Rafiki says:

    Min
    Most probably any statement in the media is hearsay because the reporter would not have observed the incidents reported. Hearsay evidence is admissible in many cases, but not so likely with media reports. (Thus would require several paragraphs to explain.)

    As we saw in the Pell case, speculation about what happened, or might have, can prejudice an accused (and the complainant). I know this cuts down free speech, but once there is an accused ‘in the frame’ such speculation should be regarded as contempt of court (or some similar offence created). This might serve to protect the presumption of innocence (aka ‘the Golden Thread).

  111. Terry Pedersen says:

    Here in the interview with Brittany Higgins:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyjkjeoO2o4&feature=youtu.be

  112. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare says:

    Was any more alcohol available in the Minister’s Office? Is that why they went there?

    Really, if this woman went with this man to a secluded office when she should have gone home, what on earth did she think she was doing? Going to see some etchings?

  113. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare says:

    I would not excuse a man for making a move on a woman in such circumstances, but he may well have felt she was consenting to sexual activity by seeking a private place.

    If he did, he is a fool, but there are plenty of those around.

  114. C.L. says:

    Once again, many thanks to Des Deskperson for his very valuable insights into the Canberra political and APS scene.

    Canberra and its rather peculiar inhabitants can be a closed book to many of us who have never been submerged in the swamp.

    Great work, Des.

    Indeed, Pedro.

  115. Terry Pedersen says:

    Old lady, the answers to your questions are in the interview. If you watch it you won’t need to rely on my hearsay that:

    1. Since they both lived in the same direction he had offered to share a cab home.
    2. He said he had to pick up something on the way. Didn’t say what or that it was at Parliament House.
    3. He paid the cabbie and sent it away.
    4. She decided that it would be safer inside Parliament House than to wait outside alone.
    5. When they got to Reynolds’ office he disappeared, ostensibly to collect what he was supposed to pick up.
    6. While waiting she fell asleep on the sofa.
    7. She awoke to find him on top of her “[email protected]”.
    8. She started crying and asked him to stop, 6 times. He didn’t.
    9. He finished , stood up and left.
    10 Security staff came in later and found her in a state of distress and partial undress.

    You can cross-check with the interview video.

  116. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Old lady,”

    Isn’t the resident rodent so noble? Quaint that he takes such an active interest in the testimony of “Brittany”.

    By the way rodent, I’m sure there’s another side to the story too. Ah but don’t you know…the resident rodent is a legal expert…..remember Ben Batterham.

  117. C.L. says:

    What happened to the spiked drink claim, Terry?

  118. Candy says:

    I watched the clip. She was extremely drunk at the party and fell over, “face planted” and left in a taxi with the bloke. Her memories are bits and pieces of fogginess. Basically passed out for hours. She remembers very little and it seems like a bad dream to her.

    She appears genuine and believes she was interfered with by a predatory male. One side of the story so far.

  119. Terry Pedersen says:

    For you, CL:

    Here.
    And further elucidated here.

    Still a distinct likelihood, imho. According to reports, the one who might actually know admitted himself for psychiatric evaluation at Royal North Shore Hospital yeasterday.

  120. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare says:

    There are a few ‘old ladies’ on this site, of whom I am one. I have just watched the interview in full. It is hard to assess at this stage without the CCTV results. The young woman could have waited with security at the security desk; she would need to explain why she didn’t do that for it was a secure place and the man said he would only be a few minutes. Surely she would have had concerns about entering the building without proper credentials to do so.

    As it stands, the interview is an eliciting one and the young woman seems very genuine. In my own experience as a young woman I know for certain there are men who will see being alone at night with a woman who has been drinking as a ready opportunity to press for sexual relations. Being drunk enough to pass out is a very bad idea in that case and I always kept my wits about me re that. But I have ‘fought for my honour’ on a couple of such occasions, pushing an ardent man away and very firmly making my ‘stop’ and ‘no’ statements clearly mean stop and no. Although these occasions were fifty years ago, I still recall them, and I know too that these fundamentally decent men did then accept my resistance and leave me alone.

    I do not think I would have gone beyond the sense of protection offered by two security guards if I had been very drunk and wanted to avoid a sexual confrontation. Perhaps young women today receive fewer cautions than we did then about such things, for our antennas were often poised. One of the issues in the parliamentary ‘culture’ (or lack of it) is that young women, if they must be employed in these positions so young, are not taught more about self-protection and to recognise predatory behaviour in men.

    On the balance of probabilities from what she says, I believe she was drunk and raped. Up to the courts now to find out whether any consent was given or not. Those dealing with this situation should have been more helpful to a police investigation and more aware of the psychological state of a woman distressed.

  121. Terry Pedersen says:

    Sorry, CL, first link is wrong, Should be Here.

  122. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare says:

    Just to add a note here: when two people who have both been drinking quite heavily and apparently enjoying each other’s company become for whatever reason in an isolated situation where a sofa is available, then the possibility of a mis-communication between them about sexual activity on that sofa is actually quite high.

    This woman may have consented and then forgotten that she had done so. She seems to have consented to letting the taxi go when they arrived at Parliament House. He may have misjudged a snuggle and an appreciative murmur, as he heard it him, as an invitation to continue with his drunken fumbling. She claims he went straight into another room and she collapsed awakening to be in the middle of being raped. Who knows? I don’t. I don’t discount that is exactly what happened either. He was obviously sober enough to leave and get himself a taxi. I wonder if either of them really do know as drunken memories affect all parties in this case.

    Even her bruised leg could have been due to them both collapsing in a heap for a while.

  123. Tim Neilson says:

    Doesnt mean it cant happen, but 98% of the time it will be just grog.

    I’m told it’s often grog and Red Bull – apparently often consumed in the same session. The sugar and caffeine counteracts the soporific effect of the alcohol. But sugar and caffeine get out of the system faster, so there’s often a big alcohol induced crash one the Red Bull starts fading out.
    BTW Terry you’ve still offered no evidence.

  124. PB says:

    Rex Mango
    #3760012, posted on February 18, 2021 at 12:54 am
    This scenario would be soooo different if it were two blokes who visited the Vegemite valley.

    Is that different to the chocolate freeway?

    Known also to the English as the Marmite Motorway.

  125. Roger says:

    In my own experience as a young woman I know for certain there are men who will see being alone at night with a woman who has been drinking as a ready opportunity to press for sexual relations.

    The predatory male.

    And there must be many women with unfinished business in their hearts and souls as a result of encoutners with such types, which fuels the “all men are potential ropists” fire.

  126. notafan says:

    I don’t think it all useful to speculate as to what happened inside the office that night.

  127. Dot says:

    Angus Black
    #3760144, posted on February 18, 2021 at 8:29 am
    If the staffer was also drunk as a skunk, is he also absolved of responsibility?

    Well no. They both did not consent, ergo…

  128. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    But I have ‘fought for my honour’ on a couple of such occasions, pushing an ardent man away and very firmly making my ‘stop’ and ‘no’ statements clearly mean stop and no

    Cite you the young lady, fighting for her honor, who cracked her offender over the head with a wooden platform shoe, and knocked him unconscious.

  129. H B Bear says:

    I don’t think it all useful to speculate as to what happened inside the office that night. as

    Not going to sell many papers thinking like that. Forget about clicks too.

  130. Dot says:

    I wonder if this was done to draw heat away from Jodi McKay, (AKP NSW Opposition Leader) in her support of a convicted sex offender in detention at Villawood, nearing deportation.

Comments are closed.