Senior Labor figure in rape probe

Remove this Banner Ad

Call me synical, but when something surfaces for the first time 27 years later when the alleged offender obtain an extremely high public profile, it general says to me one of two things, either they want to destroy their career or they want money.

Or they are upset that a life altering event for them is nothing to their attacker who seemingly is being rewarded in life and they feel that the true nature of that person needs to see the light of day.
 
Will still damage his reputation.
Abbott was charged with indecent assault in 1978
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/17/1089694611809.html
A 27-year-old court case in which Health Minister Tony Abbott was charged with indecent assault is about to be revived.

The case involved an allegation that Mr Abbott, then a 20-year-old student leader in the heady days of campus politics, groped a woman activist on stage before an audience of 200.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

If the pro coalition media or the coalition try to use this against Shorten

since the police has ruled no further action is being taken , shorten should go after them
 
If the pro coalition media or the coalition try to use this against Shorten

since the police has ruled no further action is being taken , shorten should go after them

He should keep it out of the media as much as possible or else she might get a six figure motivation to do a thirty minute special on Today Tonight and that will bury him with muck.
 
Call me synical, but when something surfaces for the first time 27 years later when the alleged offender obtain an extremely high public profile, it general says to me one of two things, either they want to destroy their career or they want money.

If it happened, I don't think I'd blame them for either of those motivations.

I'd also add in that it's entirely possible that a person would not report something at the time for any number of reasons, and that seeing a person rise to a position of prominance and power would be agonising, constantly bringing back the memories which have been kept private for so many years. Bringing things into the open would help manage that.
 
Will still damage his reputation.

Why? The allegations have no currency whatsoever. Any person repeating the allegation would be a self-admitting dickhead and the collective memory of the great Australian Public, with all due respect to goldfish, is like that of a goldfish.
 
Why? The allegations have no currency whatsoever. Any person repeating the allegation would be a self-admitting dickhead and the collective memory of the great Australian Public, with all due respect to goldfish, is like that of a goldfish.

I'm not sure the great Australian public's memory is that short. I'm not saying it should damage his reputation but it will to some degree. Rape is one thing that really sticks in peoples minds, even if the claims are found to be completely baseless. I'd rather be investigated for murder.
 
Surprised he decided to make that statement. Cannot see the net gain for him in doing so. Maybe letting of some steam.
No brainer. He has made it clear he fully co-operated with police, they do not intend charging him, he states on the record his innocence, the media ask a whole heap of stupid questions and the caravan now moves on.
 
No brainer. He has made it clear he fully co-operated with police, they do not intend charging him, he states on the record his innocence, the media ask a whole heap of stupid questions and the caravan now moves on.
Same could have been communicated without his name being mentioned and the caravan would have moved on. His decision.
 
No brainer. He has made it clear he fully co-operated with police, they do not intend charging him, he states on the record his innocence, the media ask a whole heap of stupid questions and the caravan now moves on.
Not for 'The Australian' though, they have asked for the other person to comment.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not for 'The Australian' though, they have asked for the other person to comment.
It shows how desperate this newsltd/abbott coalition is

They defended Abbott when he lied about the wall punching incident , in fact they smeared the victim
 
It shows how desperate this newsltd/abbott coalition is

They defended Abbott when he lied about the wall punching incident , in fact they smeared the victim
I don't bother reading Murdoch press and haven't for many years.
Really glad to read about their losses though. Good on 'Crickey' for reporting the story on them, big sooks, they went to court to stop them from publishing report but too late as they already had. Hypocrite mob, okay for them to print lies and dirt but when another news oganisation does it, they squeal like a pig.
 
Never let former diplomats at our Chinese embassy who speak mandarin back into our country, let alone leader of a party. They don't go easily.
 
Sorry you cant assume that. Too many times things come out later. people originally too afraid or feel self guilt/shame. Look at the kids molested by priests etc. Its not about money. Its about help, recognition & justice. Kids dont often know how to deal with such issues, it comes out later as teenagers & young adults. It ends in suicide more often than most people appreciate. We see then in the Hospital/medical system, its awful.
I'm not denying that things often take time to come out, what I am referring to is how it just happens to coincide with when he took over as ALP leader is a bit perculiar.
 
I'm not denying that things often take time to come out, what I am referring to is how it just happens to coincide with when he took over as ALP leader is a bit perculiar.

Perhaps Gillard knew about it and wanted revenge, perhaps all of Labor knew and that's why he was a powerful backroom figure and not the leader for so long?
 
Surprised he decided to make that statement. Cannot see the net gain for him in doing so. Maybe letting of some steam.
100% it was to stay ahead of the " curve "
Would've looked / sounded much worse had anyone on the Right broke the story.

Was in the car listening to 2GB as this broke yesterday , cue 38 different people calling and saying how it was a " bad move "..........:rolleyes:
Ben Fordham then went on to explain how " no sufficient evidence to convict " really meant " not cleared "......:rolleyes:
 
There is no right to anonymity is there?

For the complainant there is, even without a criminal proceeding as I recall. For the accused there isn't necessarily, although high-profile people accused of crimes such as these often aren't named in the media. A certain jockey comes to mind.
 
For the complainant there is, even without a criminal proceeding as I recall. For the accused there isn't necessarily, although high-profile people accused of crimes such as these often aren't named in the media. A certain jockey comes to mind.

Seems a bit odd to me that high profile figures should be afforded such protection not necessarily available to others.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top