Scott Morrison - How Long? Part 3

[Chief]

Next thread:

Scott Morrison - How Long? Part 4

This is part 4. Part 5 is here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/scott-morrison-how-long-part-5-the-stroll-out.1275975/

www.bigfooty.com

 

[NSWCROW]

Whoever ordered the cleaning needs their head on a pike

 

[Maddhew]

This.

Posters who I would otherwise respect are repugnant on this. It makes me profoundly sad, above and beyond anything else.

How can any woman feel safe if others in their place of work will ignore their claims based on their politics?

Those who are defending the accused are repugnant, particularly now that there are multiple accusations and he appears to be a serial offender. I haven't seen many examples of this here. It is important to seperate defence of the accused and defence of the Govt response.

Of the 4 cases, it would seem the LNP only knew of one. 3 women independently chose not to inform police of their sexual assault. Their reasons why are their reasons why. It is not incumbent upon a victim to proceed with criminal action against their rapist.

The point of conjecture is what involvement the government had in persuading Higgins not to proceed with a formal complaint at the time. Higgins has stated she "felt" like she had to choose between proceeding with the allegations and her job. Higgins has not provided specifics. The degree in which Higgins was persuaded is important. People are stating in this thread that she was given a direct ultimatum to withdraw the complaint or she would be sacked. Higgins has not stated this explicitly and it is wrong to jump to this conclusion.

Many are ignoring facts, exaggerating evidence and stating potential worst case scenarios (in terms of Govt coverup) to be established facts. Any attempt for someone to take a more objective view regarding the specifics are met with accusations of Partisanship or victim blaming. To suggest many of those piling on the government aren't taking a partisan view is hypocritical.

There also seems to be a theme around ignoring legal process. What we know is largely based on Higgin's statements and media speculation. This is an emotive case, believing Higgins is the right thing to do, but this doesn't escape the fact we have only some of the information.

Bill Shorten contested the last Federal Election as the leader of the opposition. A mere 5 years earlier Bill Shorten was accused by a women of rape at a young Labor camp in 1986 when she was 16. She alleges Shorten knocked on her door at 4am, pushed her into the bathroom, up against a towel rail and r*ped her. A formal complaint was made, investigated by Victorian police who didn't proceed on the basis of there being no reasonable prospect of conviction.

My question to those who refuse to look at this case with any objectivity and without nuance is this. How do you feel about Bill Shorten continuing to be in Parliament? Should we have just taken his alleged victim's accusations as gospel? Shorten was largely supported by both sides of government at the time. How can any woman feel safe if others in their place of work will ignore their claims based on their politics?

 

[Kwality]

You routinely disenfrancise or declare as not worth much those you think as barrackers. I don't have a massive problem with that; you're entitled to your own opinion, and certainly people whose views are inconsistent in either direction need be called out.

I do not see any value in declaring any position that's decrying this as having worth. This time, this is not something that can be partisan. This is not something that there are two sides of equal or differing merit. This is singular, and involves the need to hold power to account.

I would have thought that you would utterly have been across this. You read/watch more news than I do.

I do not understand how you can hold back on this, Kwality.

Disenfranchise NO, I certainly discount the views of the rusted on who dont make a decision at every election, & can be relied on to vote one way or the other. If there is disenfranchisement in play, its those voters who chose not to form Government.
Very anti PMs being knifed.

As for Ms Higgins the management ofher story is in her hands.
That the guy involved was fired following the incident on security grounds is small justice & will be addressed tomorrow.

 

[Kwality]

Just on 1), you can't really guarantee a job if it turned out she was lying

I don't think she is lying by the way

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

If people dont have faith in you, the job becomes soulless.

 

[Gethelred]

Those who are defending the accused are repugnant, particularly now that there are multiple accusations and he appears to be a serial offender. I haven't seen many examples of this here. It is important to seperate defence of the accused and defence of the Govt response.

Of the 4 cases, it would seem the LNP only knew of one. 3 women independently chose not to inform police of their sexual assault. Their reasons why are their reasons why. It is not incumbent upon a victim to proceed with criminal action against their rapist.

The point of conjecture is what involvement the government had in persuading Higgins not to proceed with a formal complaint at the time. Higgins has stated she "felt" like she had to choose between proceeding with the allegations and her job. Higgins has not provided specifics. The degree in which Higgins was persuaded is important. People are stating in this thread that she was given a direct ultimatum to withdraw the complaint or she would be sacked. Higgins has not stated this explicitly and it is wrong to jump to this conclusion.

Many are ignoring facts, exaggerating evidence and stating potential worst case scenarios (in terms of Govt coverup) to be established facts. Any attempt for someone to take a more objective view regarding the specifics are met with accusations of Partisanship or victim blaming. To suggest many of those piling on the government aren't taking a partisan view is hypocritical.

There also seems to be a theme around ignoring legal process. What we know is largely based on Higgin's statements and media speculation. This is an emotive case, believing Higgins is the right thing to do, but this doesn't escape the fact we have only some of the information.

Bill Shorten contested the last Federal Election as the leader of the opposition. A mere 5 years earlier Bill Shorten was accused by a women of rape at a young Labor camp in 1986 when she was 16. She alleges Shorten knocked on her door at 4am, pushed her into the bathroom, up against a towel rail and r*ped her. A formal complaint was made, investigated by Victorian police who didn't proceed on the basis of there being no reasonable prospect of conviction.

My question to those who refuse to look at this case with any objectivity and without nuance is this. How do you feel about Bill Shorten continuing to be in Parliament? Should we have just taken his accused victim's accusations as gospel? Shorten was largely supported by both sides of government at the time. How can any woman feel safe if others in their place of work will ignore their claims based on their politics?

Your post is thoughtful and provoking, and while I've taken issue with how you've phrased part of your concerns in this thread I do not object to what you are saying. I certainly understand the need for crimes to be proven before sentences have been carried out.

My objection to Kwality's post stems from his desire to paint the responses to this as partisan. Rape and covering it up within a sitting government should not be a partisan issue. I did precisely as I have done here with the claims against Shorten.

My view here is very much that the process should be permitted to continue by the sitting government in terms of finding out who knew what, instead of what appears to be attempts to stymie investigation into these matters. I am more than willing to sit on my hands and allow for the course of justice to prevail, provided the course of justice isn't blocked at every turn, as has been reported to be the case.

 

[QuietB]

Those who are defending the accused are repugnant, particularly now that there are multiple accusations and he appears to be a serial offender. I haven't seen many examples of this here. It is important to seperate defence of the accused and defence of the Govt response.

Of the 4 cases, it would seem the LNP only knew of one. 3 women independently chose not to inform police of their sexual assault. Their reasons why are their reasons why. It is not incumbent upon a victim to proceed with criminal action against their rapist.

The point of conjecture is what involvement the government had in persuading Higgins not to proceed with a formal complaint at the time. Higgins has stated she "felt" like she had to choose between proceeding with the allegations and her job. Higgins has not provided specifics. The degree in which Higgins was persuaded is important. People are stating in this thread that she was given a direct ultimatum to withdraw the complaint or she would be sacked. Higgins has not stated this explicitly and it is wrong to jump to this conclusion.

Many are ignoring facts, exaggerating evidence and stating potential worst case scenarios (in terms of Govt coverup) to be established facts. Any attempt for someone to take a more objective view regarding the specifics are met with accusations of Partisanship or victim blaming. To suggest many of those piling on the government aren't taking a partisan view is hypocritical.

There also seems to be a theme around ignoring legal process. What we know is largely based on Higgin's statements and media speculation. This is an emotive case, believing Higgins is the right thing to do, but this doesn't escape the fact we have only some of the information.

Bill Shorten contested the last Federal Election as the leader of the opposition. A mere 5 years earlier Bill Shorten was accused by a women of rape at a young Labor camp in 1986 when she was 16. She alleges Shorten knocked on her door at 4am, pushed her into the bathroom, up against a towel rail and r*ped her. A formal complaint was made, investigated by Victorian police who didn't proceed on the basis of there being no reasonable prospect of conviction.

My question to those who refuse to look at this case with any objectivity and without nuance is this. How do you feel about Bill Shorten continuing to be in Parliament? Should we have just taken his accused victim's accusations as gospel? Shorten was largely supported by both sides of government at the time. How can any woman feel safe if others in their place of work will ignore their claims based on their politics?

Your question on Shortan is false equivalence.

1/ Shortan was fully investigated by the Police and DPP and it was found - as you have stated - there was no reasonable grounds to be charged.
2/ The Liberal Party accept this - LNP ministers are on the record stating as much.
3/ At no point did Shortan hide it. He didn’t cover it up at any point.

These two instances are not equivalent.

Brittany Higgins will go down a similar path with police and may go down a civil law path as well.

This instance, and the relevance of the Morrison government - is that Brittany Higgins was told by Morrison government ministers, with the knowledge of the Prime Ministers office (and the Prime Minister has lied about this point) to choose between pursuing rape allegations and her career.

And Higgins chose her career and the Morrison government got their preferred outcome of covering the whole thing up.

And a rapist went on to continue committing sexual assault.

Your example is textbook false equivalence.

 

[Malifice]

Of the 4 cases, it would seem the LNP only knew of one. 3 women independently chose not to inform police of their sexual assault. Their reasons why are their reasons why.

Doesnt the fact that no fewer than 4 different female employees had kept quiet about sexual harassments and even outright rape, with every single one of them alluding to the reason for that silence being a perceived culture of sexual harassment and pressure to keep quiet being the 'norm'... tend to indicate to you the reason for that silence?

Those women are literally telling you why they kept it quiet.

They certainly seemed to perceive a culture where sexual harassment and even rape were accepted and/or tolerated, and that also fostered a perception that them filing a complaint would get them the boot, destroy their own careers, or cause a problem for the Government (or all of the above).

If it happened once, you might say it was an erroneous perception by the individual. But four separate people and on four different incidents?

Thats a cultural problem. It seems like a specific individual was allowed to largely do what he wanted within this culture for far too long.

 

[Chief]

That the guy involved was fired following the incident on security grounds is small justice & will be addressed tomorrow.

Why wasn’t Higgins fired for the same reason?

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Once again we see our so called 'leaders' telling us how to act etc whilst they live to different standards. You didn't see the ALP come to the woman's side when Bilbo Shorten was accused and you won't see the Liberals either. When it comes to ethics they are as bad as each other.

When they steal from taxpayers its a 'rort', for us its theft, and when accusations like this one are made they play the Sergent Shultz. I can assure you that many new the bloke in question was dodgy. FFS, I went to see a natropath/chiro, brilliant, fixed my knees and neck when he identified the issues just by my posture. Went home and told the wife how good he was but that she could not go as he was dodgy re women. He got 14 years for raping patients.

They knew, don't fall for that BS.

 

[Navyblues09]

Those who are defending the accused are repugnant, particularly now that there are multiple accusations and he appears to be a serial offender. I haven't seen many examples of this here. It is important to seperate defence of the accused and defence of the Govt response.

Of the 4 cases, it would seem the LNP only knew of one. 3 women independently chose not to inform police of their sexual assault. Their reasons why are their reasons why. It is not incumbent upon a victim to proceed with criminal action against their rapist.

The point of conjecture is what involvement the government had in persuading Higgins not to proceed with a formal complaint at the time. Higgins has stated she "felt" like she had to choose between proceeding with the allegations and her job. Higgins has not provided specifics. The degree in which Higgins was persuaded is important. People are stating in this thread that she was given a direct ultimatum to withdraw the complaint or she would be sacked. Higgins has not stated this explicitly and it is wrong to jump to this conclusion.

Many are ignoring facts, exaggerating evidence and stating potential worst case scenarios (in terms of Govt coverup) to be established facts. Any attempt for someone to take a more objective view regarding the specifics are met with accusations of Partisanship or victim blaming. To suggest many of those piling on the government aren't taking a partisan view is hypocritical.

There also seems to be a theme around ignoring legal process. What we know is largely based on Higgin's statements and media speculation. This is an emotive case, believing Higgins is the right thing to do, but this doesn't escape the fact we have only some of the information.

Bill Shorten contested the last Federal Election as the leader of the opposition. A mere 5 years earlier Bill Shorten was accused by a women of rape at a young Labor camp in 1986 when she was 16. She alleges Shorten knocked on her door at 4am, pushed her into the bathroom, up against a towel rail and r*ped her. A formal complaint was made, investigated by Victorian police who didn't proceed on the basis of there being no reasonable prospect of conviction.

My question to those who refuse to look at this case with any objectivity and without nuance is this. How do you feel about Bill Shorten continuing to be in Parliament? Should we have just taken his alleged victim's accusations as gospel? Shorten was largely supported by both sides of government at the time. How can any woman feel safe if others in their place of work will ignore their claims based on their politics?

Bravo It’s been very interesting reading to see any poster who dares to post anything other than condemnation of the government is said to be condoning rape and supporting a rapist.

 

[Maddhew]

Your question on Shortan is false equivalence.

1/ Shortan was fully investigated by the Police and DPP and it was found - as you have stated - there was no reasonable grounds to be charged.
2/ The Liberal Party accept this - LNP ministers are on the record stating as much.
3/ At no point did Shortan hide it. He didn’t cover it up at any point.

These two instances are not equivalent.

Brittany Higgins will go down a similar path with police and may go down a civil law path as well.

This instance, and the relevance of the Morrison government - is that Brittany Higgins was told by Morrison government ministers, with the knowledge of the Prime Ministers office (and the Prime Minister has lied about this point) to choose between pursuing rape allegations and her career.

And Higgins chose her career and the Morrison government got their preferred outcome of covering the whole thing up.

And a rapist went on to continue committing sexual assault.

Your example is textbook false equivalence.

You missed this part:
Many are ignoring facts, exaggerating evidence and stating potential worst case scenarios (in terms of Govt coverup) to be established facts.

Also,

1. Perhaps based on that point we should wait for the outcomes of these respective Investigations.
2. Decent thing for the LNP to do.
3. Although widely know at the time Shorten did not identify himself as the accused until the police had confirmed their position to not proceed.

 

[Malifice]

Why wasn’t Higgins fired for the same reason?

Smells to me like this dudes employers were implicitly aware of his prior behavior, even in the absence of any formal complaints.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Doesnt the fact that no fewer than 4 different female employees had kept quiet about sexual harassments and even outright rape, with every single one of them alluding to the reason for that silence being a perceived culture of sexual harassment and pressure to keep quiet being the 'norm'... tend to indicate to you the reason for that silence?

Those women are literally telling you why they kept it quiet.

They certainly seemed to perceive a culture where sexual harassment and even rape were accepted and/or tolerated, and that also fostered a perception that them filing a complaint would get them the boot, destroy their own careers, or cause a problem for the Government (or all of the above).

If it happened once, you might say it was an erroneous perception by the individual. But four separate people and on four different incidents?

Thats a cultural problem. It seems like a specific individual was allowed to largely do what he wanted within this culture for far too long.

Lots of rooting etc goes on in Canberra, its a surreal world where a lot of people live away from home, they live in an ivory tower and when men and women get together shit happens. When you have lose morals and ethics the lines between what is acceptable and what is not become very blurred. People learn to look the other way even when they should not, 'just a bit of fun', 'no one got hurt', 'she/he wanted it'. Its quite sickening.

When I first joined the industry I now work in I was shocked, guys in high ranking positions just running amok at the Xmas party, head of HR being groped all night, chicks lifting dresses to show tattoos on their ass with g bangers on. All sorts of shit goes on and as I said when the lines blur things can get out of hand very quickly.

 

[Maddhew]

Doesnt the fact that no fewer than 4 different female employees had kept quiet about sexual harassments and even outright rape, with every single one of them alluding to the reason for that silence being a perceived culture of sexual harassment and pressure to keep quiet being the 'norm'... tend to indicate to you the reason for that silence?

Those women are literally telling you why they kept it quiet.

They certainly seemed to perceive a culture where sexual harassment and even rape were accepted and/or tolerated, and that also fostered a perception that them filing a complaint would get them the boot, destroy their own careers, or cause a problem for the Government (or all of the above).

If it happened once, you might say it was an erroneous perception by the individual. But four separate people and on four different incidents?

Thats a cultural problem. It seems like a specific individual was allowed to largely do what he wanted within this culture for far too long.

2 of the females weren't employees and the third (whilst completely inappropriate) only had her thigh stroked at a bar. Your first paragraph has zero factual basis.

 

[Maddhew]

Why wasn’t Higgins fired for the same reason?

AFL sack two senior officials after sex scandal: Simon Lethlean and Richard Simkiss both get the axe

AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan has announced two senior AFL executives have been sacked over 'inappropriate relationships' with female staff

wwos.nine.com.au

I have made this point a few times. It is not uncommon for senior male employees and not junior female employees to be sacked for office affairs. The fact that he and not Higgins was sacked is not strong proof that at that point the government was aware that the relations were non consensual. It is also possible Higgins was about to be sacked in the second meeting with Reynolds where she first made her aware of the rape.

 

[Chief]

Smells to me like this dudes employers were implicitly aware of his prior behavior, even in the absence of any formal complaints.

At the very point they fired him and not her, they knew.

The text message evidence shows the PM knew or ought to have known.

But we still have the “hey wait until all the evidence is out” attempts to sweep this aside so the LNP/Murdoch partnership can fire as many distracting headlines out as possible.

 

[NSWCROW]

Bravo It’s been very interesting reading to see any poster who dares to post anything other than condemnation of the government is said to be condoning rape and supporting a rapist.

moment of silence for the true victims here.......


Pretty sure you posted similar back when ya boy ****ed off to Hawaii too


Yeah i see ya

 

[Neese]

Well fancy that, eh ?.....




After midday and STILL no one's been sacked

Don't think anyone is surprised at that

 

[Navyblues09]

moment of silence for the true victims here.......


Pretty sure you posted similar back when ya boy f’ed off to Hawaii too


Yeah i see ya

Yeah you wanted him sacked over that as well? But if you want to compare your complete hysteria over the PM taking a holiday during summer just because there was a fire in NSW that didn’t need the PM to keep making daily visits for a photo op to this then go ahead.

Isn’t it funny people are now complaining about him doing photo ops and yet last summer you were complaining he wasn’t doing enough of them?

 

[NSWCROW]

Yeah you wanted him sacked over that as well? But if you want to compare your complete hysteria over the PM taking a holiday during summer just because there was a fire in NSW that didn’t need the PM to keep making daily visits for a photo op to this then go ahead.

Isn’t it funny people are now complaining about him doing photo ops and yet last summer you were complaining he wasn’t doing enough of them?

Show me the post where i said " Shirko needs to do more photo shoots "

Wager

Produce that , you do and i'll **** off from this thread for good.
Fail to produce - you **** off instead


Fair ?....

 

[NSWCROW]

How long should i allow ?

 

[pjcrows]

Yeah you wanted him sacked over that as well? But if you want to compare your complete hysteria over the PM taking a holiday during summer just because there was a fire in NSW that didn’t need the PM to keep making daily visits for a photo op to this then go ahead.

Isn’t it funny people are now complaining about him doing photo ops and yet last summer you were complaining he wasn’t doing enough of them?

One of the better strawman arguments I've seen on here to be honest.

 

[Suspense]

The point of conjecture is what involvement the government had in persuading Higgins not to proceed with a formal complaint at the time. Higgins has stated she "felt" like she had to choose between proceeding with the allegations and her job. Higgins has not provided specifics. The degree in which Higgins was persuaded is important. People are stating in this thread that she was given a direct ultimatum to withdraw the complaint or she would be sacked. Higgins has not stated this explicitly and it is wrong to jump to this conclusion.

Many are ignoring facts, exaggerating evidence and stating potential worst case scenarios (in terms of Govt coverup) to be established facts. Any attempt for someone to take a more objective view regarding the specifics are met with accusations of Partisanship or victim blaming. To suggest many of those piling on the government aren't taking a partisan view is hypocritical.

There also seems to be a theme around ignoring legal process. What we know is largely based on Higgin's statements and media speculation. This is an emotive case, believing Higgins is the right thing to do, but this doesn't escape the fact we have only some of the information.

This was the entire premise of the 'me too' movement - it's not about whether 'direct ultimatums' were issued or not - it is whether there was an implied threat or pressure, from those with greater power and control, not to proceed with a formal complaint. Higgens has provided evidence of the pressures she was under and her feelings at the time.

This kind of pressure is even more insidious than 'direct ultimatums' because it allows the rape defence squad to hide behind legalese and "well, they never directly threatened to sack her - maybe she's just a bit hysterical?". Weinstein got cancelled before any legal action took place if you recall.

Also, our shitposting on BigFooty is not subject to the legal process - we a merely trying them in the court of public opinion - which, based on the facts as they stand, in a post-me too world, appears to be an insidious culture of covering up sexual assaults in the highest office in the country. Neato.

 

[NSWCROW]

You've got an hour Navyblues09

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Yeah you wanted him sacked over that as well? But if you want to compare your complete hysteria over the PM taking a holiday during summer just because there was a fire in NSW that didn’t need the PM to keep making daily visits for a photo op to this then go ahead.

Isn’t it funny people are now complaining about him doing photo ops and yet last summer you were complaining he wasn’t doing enough of them?

Watching you complain about it is even funnier. Do you feel like a dickhead?