Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

[Crankyhawk]

FFS - this has nothing to do with the transparency of the court process - nothing.

It has to do with the unprincipled and sensationalist reporting by certain media outlets, aided in this case - as it was with the previous Lehrmann rape trial - by agents of trial process illegally leaking confidential and private information to selected outlets and politically motivated journalists opinionistas.

The Courts have the power to take action against persistent offenders and outlets but they never do.

In the case of the Independent Inquiry into the aborted ACT Bruce Lehrmann rape trial we had the Inquiry judge - Walter Sofronoff KC - providing private briefings with the Australian newspaper's Janet Sofronoff and giving her an advanced copy of his findings with select findings published on line by her and a front page spread in the Australian BEFORE the report was provided to the ACT Government.

um from what Taylor posted it appears to me she is in furious agreement on the bolded in terms of media need to be reigned in

I could have misread though.

 

[Taylor]

um from what Taylor posted it appears to me she is in furious agreement on the bolded in terms of media need to be reigned in

I could have misread though.

I'm pointing the finger clearly at the media, yes. They are the ones who profit and solicit the corruption of the rest of the machine to facilitate it then back away from all accountability for their actions when it causes harm.

A different example of this is when Israel Folau posted that content to his sparsely followed social media account which absolutely would have offended people to see it, but nobody did see it, until the media made it front page news and exposed it to an order of magnitude or two more people - under the guise of standing up for those hurt by such things.

But they made the money off it and had more people exposed to it, they objectively caused more harm to come of it.

No accountability.

Since we live in a world with that free press, the society has to protect it's higher systems from that reality - so they can't be involved in court proceedings until they are resolved lest they corrupt the process and if they can't profit from it then they won't bother, which says enough.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'm pointing the finger clearly at the media, yes. They are the ones who profit and solicit the corruption of the rest of the machine to facilitate it then back away from all accountability for their actions when it causes harm.

A different example of this is when Israel Folau posted that content to his sparsely followed social media account which absolutely would have offended people to see it, but nobody did see it, until the media made it front page news and exposed it to an order of magnitude or two more people - under the guise of standing up for those hurt by such things.

But they made the money off it and had more people exposed to it, they objectively caused more harm to come of it.

No accountability.

Since we live in a world with that free press, the society has to protect it's higher systems from that reality - so they can't be involved in court proceedings until they are resolved lest they corrupt the process and if they can't profit from it then they won't bother, which says enough.

I think we can and should regulate the press when it comes to the profit they make via breach of what their code of conduct should be, or for misjudging what is public interest. Ie not shooting them for what they say, but for how and when they choose to say it...

though others will likely have a reasonable argument about freedom of speech, for me if you are the media you have a privileged position, and abuse of that privilege should lead to sanctions

 

[Caesar]

I disagree with that. Just because someone is under the influence of alcohol does not mean they cannot consent to sexual activity. Of course, there is degrees of alcohol intoxication - from a general feeling of disinhibition, to euphoria, to passed out drunk. At a certain level of intoxication, consent cannot be provided.

My mate and his new found friend were not overly intoxicated - at least to the level of being asked to leave or being refused service - they were both definitely under the influence of alcohol - not often does a 28 year old women sits next to a 18 year old male and start tongue kissing him within a few minutes of meeting. My long lost mate wouldn't mind me saying it either, he wasn't the best looking guy getting around.

What happened back at his unit i can only guess - if he wakes up and starts kissing the women sleeping next to him, and she wakes up from said kissing and then joins in, leading to sexual activity - that on face value looks like consent has been provided.

People don't hook up, and then say, "may i kiss your ear", "may i kiss your boob", "may i perform oral sex on you", "may i perform sexual intercourse on you". Rather, things progress along a gradient that, to some extent, relies on observing social cues and your partner's body language.

That is my 2 cents.

consider that if you need four paragraphs to justify consent then maybe it's not clear cut enough

 

[Ice-Wolf]

consider that if you need four paragraphs to justify consent then maybe it's not clear cut enough

I always start with the theory that at the very least the other person needs to be fully awake before you start having sex with them.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

consider that if you need four paragraphs to justify consent then maybe it's not clear cut enough

In general the poster you quoted explained how it works. You’ll get there one day don’t stress.

 

[Not Important]

He probably didn't foresee just how far these krooks would take it.

fond of keating. but he was warned than allowing the devil almost free rein wasn't going to end well.

 

[Festerz]

yep! and it was keating who relaxed 'em.

Really? What specific media regulation laws did Keating relax are you talking about that are relevant to this thread?

If you are talking about cross media ownership it was John Howard who 'relaxed 'em'

In 2007 the Howard government began the unravelling of Paul Keating's cross media regulations, which had been in place since the early 1990s and allowed media companies to own just one form of media — either TV, newspapers or radio — in the same market. The old rules weren't perfect. They didn't stop Rupert Murdoch controlling 70 per cent of the circulation of Australia's metropolitan newspapers. But they did at least stop Australia's media companies consolidating horizontally and gobbling up one another.

That changed in the final year of the Howard government, when amendments allowed media companies to own two of any medium in the same market. The one-out-of-three rule became the two-out-of-three rule. A minimum voices test was put in place so that there had to be five distinct commercial media owners in the cities and four in regional markets.

But if your talking about stricter regulation of 'content' then no side of government has been serious about that and, with the removal of cross media ownership rules under Howard the same lies and misinformation can be repeated many times in multiple outlets across multiple platforms instantaneously. A critical issue in relation to online content and social media platforms - something that was unforeseeable when Keating was PM - although you can bet that it was on the minds of media magnates when they lobbied Howard for relaxation of cross platform ownership regulation in 2007.

The history of media regulation in Australia - ABC listen

A diverse, independent media is seen as central to a functioning democracy, yet Australia now has one of the most concentrated media environments in the western world. Keri Phillips asks how we got here in the first place and whether it even matters now that we're all online.

www.abc.net.au

The sad history of Australian media reform

The big media players eventually get what they want by wearing down the government of the day and latching on to whatever opportunity comes their way. This month the government handed them the reform they've long craved while Xenophon attempted to win some concessions. We can assume Australia's...

www.eurekastreet.com.au

Edit - and as an on topic-example of why cross ownership of media outlets by Murdoch, Stokes etc. matters, take a look at what happened with the leaking of the ACT Independent Inquiry into the Bruce Lehrmann trial earlier this year. NewsCorp opinion writer Janet Albrechtsen was one of just two journalists who were provided with a confidential copy of the report before it was provided to the ACT Government. Within hours of receiving that embargoed report Albrechtsen was cutting and pasting edited and damaging selections from that report on the news.com.au website and linking to it via social media feeds including twitter. Further selected details were provided later that day on the subscriber-only Australian newspaper website and the published website and the most sensationalist parts broadcast out of context on Sky News.

Of course the key finding from the Sofronoff report - that police were right to charge Bruce Lehrmann for sexual assault- was entirely missing from those early Albrechtsen articles.


By the time the ACT Government had finally been given a copy of the report by the 'independent' chair Walter Sofronoff in following days, any chance of a considered and sensitive full consideration and response to the report had been lost and yet another chapter in the politically motivated wrecking of a sexual assault trial had been written - ironically this time by an Inquiry set up to try and help resolve it.


Sorry for the long essay - but context matters when we are talking about the intersection of politically motivated media reporting and the criminal justice system.

 

[1990crow]

So Bruce gets outted as the alleged double rapist, and his plus skynews first thought is to sue Higgins.

**** me.

 

[Not Important]

Really? What specific media regulation laws did Keating relax are you talking about that are relevant to this thread?

If you are talking about cross media ownership it was John Howard who 'relaxed 'em'

In 2007 the Howard government began the unravelling of Paul Keating's cross media regulations, which had been in place since the early 1990s and allowed media companies to own just one form of media — either TV, newspapers or radio — in the same market. The old rules weren't perfect. They didn't stop Rupert Murdoch controlling 70 per cent of the circulation of Australia's metropolitan newspapers. But they did at least stop Australia's media companies consolidating horizontally and gobbling up one another.

That changed in the final year of the Howard government, when amendments allowed media companies to own two of any medium in the same market. The one-out-of-three rule became the two-out-of-three rule. A minimum voices test was put in place so that there had to be five distinct commercial media owners in the cities and four in regional markets.

But if your talking about stricter regulation of 'content' then no side of government has been serious about that and, with the removal of cross media ownership rules under Howard the same lies and misinformation can be repeated many times in multiple outlets across multiple platforms instantaneously. A critical issue in relation to online content and social media platforms - something that was unforeseeable when Keating was PM - although you can bet that it was on the minds of media magnates when they lobbied Howard for relaxation of cross platform ownership regulation in 2007.

The history of media regulation in Australia - ABC listen

A diverse, independent media is seen as central to a functioning democracy, yet Australia now has one of the most concentrated media environments in the western world. Keri Phillips asks how we got here in the first place and whether it even matters now that we're all online.

www.abc.net.au

The sad history of Australian media reform

The big media players eventually get what they want by wearing down the government of the day and latching on to whatever opportunity comes their way. This month the government handed them the reform they've long craved while Xenophon attempted to win some concessions. We can assume Australia's...

www.eurekastreet.com.au

Edit - and as an on topic-example of why cross ownership of media outlets by Murdoch, Stokes etc. matters, take a look at what happened with the leaking of the ACT Independent Inquiry into the Bruce Lehrmann trial earlier this year. NewsCorp opinion writer Janet Albrechtsen was one of just two journalists who were provided with a confidential copy of the report before it was provided to the ACT Government. Within hours of receiving that embargoed report Albrechtsen was cutting and pasting edited and damaging selections from that report on the news.com.au website and linking to it via social media feeds including twitter. Further selected details were provided later that day on the subscriber-only Australian newspaper website and the published website and the most sensationalist parts broadcast out of context on Sky News.

Of course the key finding from the Sofronoff report - that police were right to charge Bruce Lehrmann for sexual assault- was entirely missing from those early Albrechtsen articles.


By the time the ACT Government had finally been given a copy of the report by the 'independent' chair Walter Sofronoff in following days, any chance of a considered and sensitive full consideration and response to the report had been lost and yet another chapter in the politically motivated wrecking of a sexual assault trial had been written - ironically this time by an Inquiry set up to try and help resolve it.


Sorry for the long essay - but context matters when we are talking about the intersection of politically motivated media reporting and the criminal justice system.

okay, so it was labor, and keating was part of it.

Hawke cabinet’s media changes paved the way for News Corporation

Labor’s decisions allowed Rupert Murdoch to dominate the Australian press, a consequence felt keenly by the Rudd and Gillard governments

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ice-Wolf]

So Bruce gets outted as the alleged double rapist, and his plus skynews first thought is to sue Higgins.

* me.

Well if Higgins hadn't accused him this other woman wouldn't have thought that maybe it's a pattern and she shouldn't just let what he did with her slide.

FYI she should not have let what he is accused to have done slide regardless but it was always up to her if she wanted to take it further.

But yeah absolutely no self-reflection on how his own behaviour is the root cause of his problems. Next he'll be blaming pr0n.

 

[Pie eyed]

Will Higgins ever receive justice.

Will Skynews, The HUN, The Australian, Reynolds, the former PMO and the LNP ever face an inquiry or consequences for their hounding of an alleged rape victim or conduct surrounding the alleged assault?

Bruce Lehrmann revealed as high-profile man charged with Toowoomba rape

Changes to Queensland law allow for naming of Lehrmann, who was thrust into national spotlight after being accused of raping Brittany Higgins, a claim he strenuously denied

www.theguardian.com

The Juror who deliberately sabotaged the Original Lehrman - Higgins Rape trial should be publicly named and charged with perverting the course of Justice, an offence which is available to the ACT courts despite claims there is no mechanism.
He should, if found guilty, then pay the cost of both the courts and both parties at the very least.


Then there should be a public enquiry into the illegal cleansing of a crime scene and the entire LNP response.

 

[Pie eyed]

Reminder that this campaigner was on 180k a year with zero qualifications or experience.

Clearly has some kind of family/party connections.

And also lobbying on behalf of British American Tobacco, on salary to them.
The former Minister who covered up should be sacked and prosecuted simply on the fact Lehrmann was working on the side..

 

[Festerz]

But yeah absolutely no self-reflection on how his own behaviour is the root cause of his problems. Next he'll be blaming pr0n.

Bruce Lehrmann’s legal team gets access to alleged Toowoomba rape victim’s phone messages

Committal proceedings adjourned for six weeks while Lehrmann’s solicitor reviews 400-500 files sent by Queensland police last week

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ice-Wolf]

View attachment 1843780

Bruce Lehrmann’s legal team gets access to alleged Toowoomba rape victim’s phone messages

Committal proceedings adjourned for six weeks while Lehrmann’s solicitor reviews 400-500 files sent by Queensland police last week

www.theguardian.com

Wow that seems like an unnecessary and incredible invasion of the victims privacy.

Are they trying to paint it as some sort of honey trap?

 

[Festerz]

Wow that seems like an unnecessary and incredible invasion of the victims privacy.

Are they trying to paint it as some sort of honey trap?

Won't add to speculation on that.

But what I will say is that Lehrmann was first charged with this offence of rape in December last year. That it is likely a full twelve months will pass before the allegations are finally heard and tested in court is a bloody disgrace.

 

[Pie eyed]

Glad he is exposed now.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Wow that seems like an unnecessary and incredible invasion of the victims privacy.

Are they trying to paint it as some sort of honey trap?

While I don't believe that this is why his legal team has requested access to her phone (my gut tells me their reasons are far more nefarious, particularly given that Brittany Higgins' messages ended up in the public domain), there would be legitimate reasons for defence requesting access to this sort of information. There may be messages that either corroborate, or contradict, the alleged victim's story.

 

[Rotayjay]

Isn't it a gross violation of client-lawyer privilege and professional standards to leak such documents to the media?

 

[Harro59]

So Bruce gets outted as the alleged double rapist, and his plus skynews first thought is to sue Higgins.

* me.

It makes the interviews he did even more baffling now. Considering he had this pending in the back ground from last December and he's on TV saying brash statements in regards to the Higgins case.

 

[Chief]

It makes the interviews he did even more baffling now. Considering he had this pending in the back ground from last December and he's on TV saying brash statements in regards to the Higgins case.

You look and think "Isn't this what an entitled narcissist would do? Like... clinically diagnosable, danger to other people, narcissist?"

 

[Festerz]

Won't add to speculation on that.

Nah feck it....I will.

Wow that seems like an unnecessary and incredible invasion of the victims privacy.

Knowing what we all know about what happened in the Lehrmann trial for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins - especially with regard to the leaking to the press of the personal details contained on Ms Higgins phone...

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, Lehrmann requesting to access six months of data from the phone of his latest alleged rape victim might have been used as a tactic by his legal team to act as a deterrent to take her allegations against Lehrmann any further?

 

[western royboy]

Nah feck it....I will.


Knowing what we all know about what happened in the Lehrmann trial for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins - especially with regard to the leaking to the press of the personal details contained on Ms Higgins phone...

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, Lehrmann requesting to access six months of data from the phone of his latest alleged rape victim might have been used as a tactic by his legal team to act as a deterrent to take her allegations against Lehrmann any further?

There are more ? Than answers with this grub - it’s a conspiracy theorists picnic

 

[Satan]

abc settles with bruce re the other defamation case

ABC and Bruce Lehrmann settle defamation case over broadcast of Brittany Higgins's Press Club speech

Before settling, Bruce Lehrmann was due to take on the ABC in the Federal Court in Sydney today. The former Liberal staffer's defamation action against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson continues.

www.abc.net.au

 

[geoffjennings79]

abc settles with bruce re the other defamation case

ABC and Bruce Lehrmann settle defamation case over broadcast of Brittany Higgins's Press Club speech

Before settling, Bruce Lehrmann was due to take on the ABC in the Federal Court in Sydney today. The former Liberal staffer's defamation action against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson continues.

www.abc.net.au

So ABC settled with BOTH parties not admitting liability - I suspect Brucey didn't get quite what he was after in that one.

Also Wilkinson looking a lot more upbeat than Lehrmann - of course neither will probably be dipping into their own pockets for legal fees, and those photos are just a moment in time, but think young Bruce is pushing sh1t uphill.

Then there's the small matter in Toowoomba...