Senator Reynolds
- Thread starter Kwality
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 20, 2019
- 11,664
- 33,038
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
An excellent thread that meticulously documents the trail of statements and mis-statements by Senator Reynolds both in and outside of the Lehrmann criminal trial.
A damning indictment not just of the actions and statements of Senator Reynolds but of the complicity of IPA Chair and NewsCorp writer Janet Albrechtsen and the Channel 7 Spotlight interviewer Liam Bartlett.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #253
Another one who conveniently chooses to ignore context of the specific event by referencing generalities.
In her evidence to the Supreme Court in the Lehrmann trial Senator Reynolds flatly denied being told by her Chief of Staff Fiona Brown that her former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins had alleged “I remember him on top of me” BEFORE Reynolds met with Higgins.
And on Sunday night's Spotlight program Reynold's completely changed her story saying she had a conversation with Brown before she met with Higgins where her CoS told her that Higgins remembered Lehermann being on top of her. She claimed in the Sunday interview that was the key reason why she insisted Higgins go to police when she met with her.
Why is this significant?
Brown and Reynolds were both asked when they learnt of an alleged sexual incident after Higgins was found in the office, and the latter said — under oath — she initially thought it was just a security breach involving two people in her office- that she did NOT know of Higgins claim that Lehrmann had been lying on top of her when she woke up. Brown said differently — it was one of the key moments in the aborted trial.
@hardenuppete
(from the Glen Schaefer @hardenuppete twitter feed linked by kalex6251 above)
Forgotten? FMD.
Bloody hell, where did that come from ? Brown and Reynolds have a conversation, Brown's recollection is one, Reynolds' is another, 2 years down the track. Post evidence, Reynold's talks to Brown about it. then accepts that Brown's recollections are better than hers. Happens every day. This is the trouble with the whole scenario. A couple of kids, probably pissed but not paralytic (I can't put my shoes on standing up and I''m not a bird in a cocktail dress) end up back at the office after Friday night drinks. The trouble with it is that ordinary punters, like you, invest so much in political discourse. There are no white hats or black hats in politics.Another one who conveniently chooses to ignore context of the specific event by referencing generalities.
In her evidence to the Supreme Court in the Lehrmann trial Senator Reynolds flatly denied being told by her Chief of Staff Fiona Brown that her former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins had alleged “I remember him on top of me” BEFORE Reynolds met with Higgins.
And on Sunday night's Spotlight program Reynold's completely changed her story saying she had a conversation with Brown before she met with Higgins where her CoS told her that Higgins remembered Lehermann being on top of her. She claimed in the Sunday interview that was the key reason why she insisted Higgins go to police when she met with her.
Why is this significant?
Brown and Reynolds were both asked when they learnt of an alleged sexual incident after Higgins was found in the office, and the latter said — under oath — she initially thought it was just a security breach involving two people in her office- that she did NOT know of Higgins claim that Lehrmann had been lying on top of her when she woke up. Brown said differently — it was one of the key moments in the aborted trial.
@hardenuppete
(from the Glen Schaefer @hardenuppete twitter feed linked by kalex6251 above)
Forgotten? FMD.
- Banned
- #254
So you do know. Fair enough. A pox on all their houses, well, not Tony Abbott's.
- Banned
- #255
Labels and titles. Bruce and Brittany were kids in their 20's. The word "Advisor" is almost as misused as the word "awesome"
- Thread starter
- #256
Even consultant ....
- Banned
- #257
I thought you might like that. Neither are to blame. Had it gone the way of Kilmore Grammar's Bruce and Brittany, unless Brittany included Kilmore's Constable Plod, that would have been the end of it.Interesting analogy - If that was the case they'd be costing both State and Commonwealth taxpayer dollars
My point is, when apportioning blame for the ensuing expenditure, one of them is far more responsible than the other.
Example 1: Brittany Higgins was sexually assaulted/raped by Bruce Lehrmann. Lehrmann is responsible for the costs (to a large degree) as he has committed a crime and subsequently lied about it, tying up police and government resources
Example 2: Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann have consensual sex at Parliament House. Higgins is responsible for the costs (to a large degree) as she has lied about being sexually assaulted.
There is no situation where the "responsibility" for the time and resources used up by this situation isn't a-symmetrical between these 2 parties.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #258
especially consultant.
- Banned
- #259
It was 2021, noit 1921. Friday night drinks after work. A couple of kids trying their luck in the political game, arguably without the moral compasses of previous generations. It's a real condemnation of the sort of a society we live in that it's become what it has.
You're overplaying your hand a little. I think everyone has got your point that its all he said she said and women are asking for it anyway, getting drunk at work, no morals etc.
But do you honestly think a politician told about a suspected incident of rape in a parliamentary building is going to forget that? No matter how much time passes.
She lied and got caught. It's that simple. And as usual with the monied and political class all they have to do is say I don't recall or I forgot and there are no consequences. It's like that PWC partner with his dog at my homework schtick about why there was no report that they got paid a few million for.
So clever. Putting the onus back on me as if you're not the one attempting the whataboutism.
All the false equivalences and victim blaming and straw men you're bring to this argument is what has been done right from the start of the whole affair.
Basically anything except get to the bottom of it in case there was any blowback for the lying weasel Morrison during an election.
- Thread starter
- #262
Not to mention the likes of Messrs Dillaway & Sharaz 'in the game'.
- Thread starter
- #263
100% yours
- Banned
- #264
Calm down, sport. I accept the whataboutism criticism, it pisses me off no end, too. Thanks for the "clever" bit, too. I don't understand your last sentence at all. Call out abuses whereever they occur, not jmust on those of your political non-preferreds.
- Banned
- #265
Now you venture into the realms of the real offenders. So it's Sharaz, not Shiraz ? Perhaps that says a bit about my priorities.
- Banned
- #267
Didn't you ever go out for drinks with workmates on a Friday evening in your 20s ?
Yeah sure, but I can't remember "allegedly" offering girls a lift home but instead taking them back to an empty office and "allegedly" forcing myself on them when they were asleep on the couch though.
Also cannot remember having someone steam cleaning their office because of me the next morning to remove all trace, having all the security footage deleted, transferring my victims job to the other side of the country and running a media protection racket for my benefit over the next 2/3/4 years.
But obviously this is all perfectly cool and normal in your world. Just kids being crazy kids
I guess its just me ey'
- May 20, 2019
- 11,664
- 33,038
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
That is your reshaping of events to suit your narrative.
This was not a one off conversation of zero signficance had once and then forgotten as you would have us believe.
This was a Chief of Staff (Fiona Brown) telling a Senior Federal Cabinet Minister that one of her staffers claimed that upon awaking from an alcoholic induced sleep she had awoken to find her male colleague on top of her in her Parliamentary office in the early hours of a Saturday morning in March 2019. And that conversation was had BEFORE Senator Reynolds met with Ms Higgins to discuss the matter the following week..
Ms Brown has not deviated from that statement - not once. Both in statements to the AFP and in the subsequent criminal trial of Bruce Lehrmann stating she'd informed Ms Reynolds before their meeting on April 1, 2019 that Brittany Higgins had told her she remembered waking up and Bruce Lehrmann being on top of her. “And I said, ‘Oh. Oh my god', ” Ms Brown told the court.
Ms Brown was understandably aware that a sexual assault may have been committed and contacted Laura Barons from the Dept. of Finance to seek advice on what to do next. Formal written advice was provided to Ms Brown on 29 March 2019 including a suggestion to advice Ms Higgins to pursue a complaint to police. That advice was tabled in the Lehrmann trial.
Only a fool would believe Senator Reynolds claim that this advice and the reason for seeking it was never raised with her by her Chief of Staff. It just beggars belief.
And yet, in a statement to the AFP on June 2021 Linda Reynolds confirms the numerous conversations she had with her chief of staff, Fiona Brown between March 25th and March 29th, 2019. But denies Ms Brown's claims that Higgin's claims of finding Lehrmann on top of her was ever mentioned. A statement she repeated vehemently under oath in court.
And now less than 2 years after that statement and more than four years after the event Senator Reynolds suddenly remembers (after a slip up in a TV interview) that she actually was told several times in 2019 about Higgins finding Lehrmann on top of her and that what she said both in court and to the AFP about not knowing this before she met with Higgins in 2021 was wrong.
Nothing to see here according to you. Women claiming they were raped in a Minister's office on a weekend and the Minister forgetting being told about it until four years later 'happens every day'. After all...it was '2021' don't forget. (actually it was 2019 but no matter).
FMD. Pretty sure not even you believe the cr@p you write.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #270
Regretfully, not just you. Toss in Reynolds, Sharaz, O'Neill (such a fine name for one so unworthy) to whom it really matters and you have an issue that should never have occurred. You are a mere spectator, like the rest of us.Yeah sure, but I can't remember "allegedly" offering girls a lift home but instead taking them back to an empty office and "allegedly" forcing myself on them when they were asleep on the couch though.
Also cannot remember having someone steam cleaning their office because of me the next morning to remove all trace, having all the security footage deleted, transferring my victims job to the other side of the country and running a media protection racket for my benefit over the next 2/3/4 years.
But obviously this is all perfectly cool and normal in your world. Just kids being crazy kids
I guess its just me ey'
Probably not the most appropriate expression of bewilderment on this thread.
- Banned
- #272
There's no way I'm getting involved with you in a 4th - 5th hand analysis of selected extracts, whcih you say are court extracts, accurtate or not, of whatever. As for your 1921 - 2021 issue, if you are blind to the movements in social mores, no point intaking it any further. Repeating ALP lines doesn't impress.
No I am not a mere spectator.
The truth is I have no idea what happened in that office that night and neither do you or anyone else who is either posting about it, writing about it or reporting on it. There has been a criminal trial which was ultimately a mistrial and resolved nothing. I don't know if Brittany Higgins is telling the truth but I choose to believe her over Bruce Lehman, Linda Reynolds (confirmed liar) and Scott Morrison (confirmed liar).
But based on what we do know the government of the time has behaved atrociously at various times and the Murdoch and Stokes media ever since has done everything they can to victim shame Brittany Higgins and to protect Bruce Lehman.
And you think the whole thing should be dismissed as "boys being boys" and I and others should simply continue being "quiet Australians" and mere spectators.
Those days are over.
The big question for me is: Why does the media keep digging it up. Ever since the aborted trial, the media have been flat-out to try to paint Higgins in a negative light. Why are they going after somebody who believes themself to be a rape victim at all?
Why don't they just let it disappear, instead keep dragging it up? All the leaks were from Lehrman's side and he's the one appearing on breakfast television. What is the purpose (keeping in mind he's a media advisor?). Why are the media helping Lehrman with so much free publicity to attack a possible rape victim?
It stinks so badly and, if anything, reinforces what Drumgold has been saying all along (even though he overstepped his bounds to counter it), that there has been political and media pressure placed on Higgins to not pursue this any further and now it's open attacks.
It's repugnant and the fact that Reynolds has been a part of it (including husband attending every day of the trial) and her now-revealed lying doesn't say much about her as a politician or leader (these are her staff after all).
Any manager who performed as Reynolds has, in any of the organisations I've been involved in, would no longer be in a leadership position.
Why don't they just let it disappear, instead keep dragging it up? All the leaks were from Lehrman's side and he's the one appearing on breakfast television. What is the purpose (keeping in mind he's a media advisor?). Why are the media helping Lehrman with so much free publicity to attack a possible rape victim?
It stinks so badly and, if anything, reinforces what Drumgold has been saying all along (even though he overstepped his bounds to counter it), that there has been political and media pressure placed on Higgins to not pursue this any further and now it's open attacks.
It's repugnant and the fact that Reynolds has been a part of it (including husband attending every day of the trial) and her now-revealed lying doesn't say much about her as a politician or leader (these are her staff after all).
Any manager who performed as Reynolds has, in any of the organisations I've been involved in, would no longer be in a leadership position.
- Banned
- #275
First Bolded Bit. Up goes the Mitchell right hand.
Second Bolded Bit. That's the crux, isn't it. Why do you so choose ? it's your political orientation, isn't it, be honest at least with yourself.
Third bolded bit. Section 38 of the Crimes Act deals with rape.
Bruce denies, has not been found guilty, and is contemplating Defamation proceedings against clowns who wildly accusse him.
