-
Latest Posts
- Hamas and the Western left see rape as politics by other means
- The Suddenly Orphaned War
- Destined for sculpted immortality, legends do what they do best
- Tingle: Anti-Semitism overblown, Hamas-lovers the real victims
- Conquered
- The Cohen Admonition
- Aussie deep state still getting the hang of rigging a prosecution
-
Recent Comments
-
TCL Archive
- December 2023 (6)
- November 2023 (88)
- October 2023 (100)
- September 2023 (84)
- August 2023 (74)
- July 2023 (89)
- June 2023 (81)
- May 2023 (88)
- April 2023 (90)
- March 2023 (118)
- February 2023 (84)
- January 2023 (101)
- December 2022 (62)
- November 2022 (72)
- October 2022 (83)
- September 2022 (81)
- August 2022 (82)
- July 2022 (83)
- June 2022 (113)
- May 2022 (80)
- April 2022 (114)
- March 2022 (117)
- February 2022 (120)
- January 2022 (126)
- December 2021 (116)
- November 2021 (112)
- October 2021 (126)
- September 2021 (84)
- August 2021 (6)
-
Post Categories
- Art, music, letters
- Australian police state
- Climate hoax
- Culture
- Defence and national security
- Economics and the economy
- Education
- Elections
- Ethics and morality
- Fake conservatism
- Fake news
- Fake science
- Federal politics
- Foreign policy
- General
- History
- International
- Left-wing extremism
- Left-wing hypocrisy
- Legal affairs
- Media
- Politics
- Religion and faith
- Rule of law
- Science and technology
- Social media
- Sport
- State politics
- US politics
- War and peace
- War on Christianity
- Whatever
In today’s Oz, Janet A lets loose. One of the reasons I still sub to the Oz is because of Janet A and a few others. In today’s paper she asks questions many of us have asked and known the answers to since day one. Her piece is titled “Did Shane Drumgold succumb to #MeToo zealotry?”. The stench of political malfeasance is nauseating. Pity a young man’s life has been destroyed, just collateral damage.
Isn’t it amazing how much less interest the media has in this story now there are actual facts to report and not just self serving innuendo.
Perhaps the movie title could be Scooter, a precautionary tale of what happens when an ideological traveler is promoted beyond their means?
Scooter ‘lippy’ rides into the sunset.
Buccaneer, I am trying to get a response on Twitter from various female journalists on this inquiry and its findings. Surprisingly, not one has replied or posted anything about it!! They are totally disgraceful. So, now I am trying to get Sarah Ferguson to discuss the Durham Report.
I suspect the media are being very cautious for legal reasons. I am amazed the editors at the Oz have been giving Janet A so much free reign.
I expect Rafiki would have some interesting views of what is happening.
News of the Durham Report aired on SBS – but nothing on the ABC (that I saw).
Perhaps the media should have been more cautious before the actual trial, breathlessly covering the thing as a fact accompli and giving people a platform to marginalise the accused perhaps wasn’t such a great idea, now we know how much twisted logic scooter applied and how little he listened to the police. He still doesn’t seem concerned about the evasive behaviour and outright lies he ended up representing, shameless. His truth seemed to be the only one that mattered and the pursuit of the actual truth a minor inconvenience.
I’ve noticed that Scooter more often than not wears an Aboriginal motif tie.
Signalling to the luvvies that he’s one of them.
Read his wikipedia entry, it’s a laundry list of progressive hobby horses with the exception of his actual hobby of boxing.
https://quadrant.org.au/
Entropy: I don’t have a legal opinion, other than to say any media would be very careful to avoid giving the MeToo forces ground to sue in defamation. This would be bad for Lehrmann, as a suit would muddy the clear water he now has in his actions.
For upwards of 15 years, as the advisor to the ACT legislature’s Scrutiny of Bills committee, I dealt at second-hand with ACT Labor Ministers. Most were respectful of the effort the Committee made to have legislation impact on civil rights. Katy Gallagher was one who wasn’t. I say this because to me Albrechtson’s suggestion that Gallagher and Shiraz orchestrated the attack on Lehrmann is weighty in itself and deserving of close attention.
The very impressive Sofronnoff could get to them if he could be convinced – as I suspect is the case – that Drumgold acted as did to fulfil the MeToo agenda to make Lehrmann a prize exhibit. (I knew him well when he was young, and he is a good person.)
However, this might depend on Drumgold saying that directly or indirectly he got the message that he was a major player.
Another means might be provided by what Heidi Yates says when she is examined.
But, in the end, all others might feel that Gallagher, who has real power in the ACT, is best not offended. Drumgold will be the patsy
Oh no! Should be “impact on civil rights as little as feasible”.
Given the highly subjective reporting of the inquiry it would be wise to await the complete evidence. It seems very likely that some insights will emerge into the police behaviour and possibly into the leaking to media. Doubt that the DPP will be the only one in the stocks.
How credulous does one need to be, Drumgold claimed police misconduct but seems to have produced nothing but smears at trial. I’d note this investigation is into Drumgold’s conduct, not the other way around. He even back tracked a claim of political interference, a better question would be was that claim designed to throw of investigation into political influence in his own actions?
Unless Shano has misled the Court, he’s in the clear.
The AFP didn’t reckon there was a case to answer before they even interviewed Lehrman, yet 11 of the 12 Jury members thought he was Guilty on the Evidence they’d heard.
I tend to think he won’t be found against too, but that has nothing to do with conjecture about how many jurors were swaying one way or another, the jury returned no finding and even if it did that is not the measure of the investigation. I think he will be in the clear because I no longer have any faith in the judiciary, that someone can think it’s ok to project their bias notonly onto this case but any action by the police with regard to similar claims suggests a serious problem, one that will be swept under the carpet.
Grandpa Ed Simpson
You keep repeating that assertion about the split in the jury, but have provided no evidence to justify it. Unless you can provide actual evidence, it is entirely possible that the split favoured acquittal.
, but that has nothing to do with conjecture about how many jurors were swaying one way or another,
Here’s how it works:
After a coupla days deliberation Jury Foreman in forms Judge they can’t reach a Verdict.
Judge inquires what the score is.
If they’re fairly evenly deadlocked, Judge calls the Trial off, since Courts always have a backlog.
If there’s only one holding out for Guilty, then that Juror is going to be booted .
If the score is 11/1 to convict, then they might as well be given more time, since it’s nearly unanimous.
That’s what happened.
Claim of 11/1 split has no evidence at all except Drumgold’s (and Ed’s) fevered imagination, which has already been shown up as away with the pixies.
Defence thought the split maybe 10/2 in favour of acquittal.
Given the lack of any concrete evidence of Lehrmann’s guilt and the multiple evidence of Higgin’s duplicity, one might assume the Defence were closer to the mark?
Ed, I’ve been on a jury and know that’s total bullshit, juries get more time decide when they are not unanimous. You got caught out spouting bullshit only a day or so ago. Do you think people think more of you when you obviously spout off with no idea? O one wants to do the whole thing again.
Unless a juror or officer of the court comes forward with the real story, we will never know. The judge would have warned them they might be found in contempt if they do. Drumgold spins a good story but even that conjecture from his reveals his bias and lack of respect for the process.
Drumgold wouldn’t know if it was 11/1 to convict?
Gimme a break, he’s been a Prosecutor 20 years, you were on a jury that convicted a bloke for 1 day.
No. I was on a jury for 7 weeks, you have no idea what you are talking about. It was a high profile case in the media too.
The unrequited love affair between Grandpa Ed and Mizzz Knickerless continues.
PS, for a prosecutor with 20™years of experience, Dumbgold really made a meal of this case.
Gee Nix, looks like the ACT government don’t share your view. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-18/act-chief-prosecutor-shane-drumgold-replaced/102356426
A report this morning that Drumgold is stood down until June 12. Maybe he asked to be relieved, as he will now be spending a lot of time with his barrister as they work out how to fill in the details of their case theory; this being that the police efforts to sabotage the prosection of Lehrmann was payback for Drumgold’s creation of a task force in the ODPP to revive historical rapes that the police had failed to prosecute.
Maybe next week Drumgold will tell his story, followed by the police version. Or maybe in some other fashion.
Or maybe the ACT Labor/Greens government decided it was time to cut Drumgold loose. It is very difficult to see him continuing as DPP.
Our contributions crossed Buccaneer.
I think the ABC RN news report 730 today said S Drumgold had been “stood aside”. This may have also been in the online news story which has just been updated to “ The ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold has been replaced in the position … til (?) 13 June …”
There has been limited reporting on Drumgold’s evidence at the Board of Inquiry last week in many of the outlets which covered the original allegations. Some attention focussed on Lisa Wilkinson’s speech which delayed the trial. She said she was not warned. But surely any reference to the complainant in the case could cause a problem. The Chair of the Inquiry observed that S Drumgold’s speech after the mistrial was similar to L Wilkinson’s speech. It’s hard to understand how the National Press Club address remained online for so long when the prosecution case was the first sentence of the speech. According to his statement, the original defence lawyer had contacted the DPP to express concern about the NPC speech.
All the hearing exhibits were linked on the BOI website but they were unlinked mid-week while further redactions took place. Some are available again, eg S Whybrow’s exhibits. It seems there was a theory that another security guard may have entered the suite at 8am and assisted with the procurement of a jacket. L Reynolds said no charity bin in her office. The videos of each day are available on the website.
*ABC now reporting S Drumgold on leave for 4 weeks at his request.
Thanks Raf, a considered contribution. It seems pretty clear to me that if Drumgold felt the police harboured animosity towards him, it might be because of the obvious animosity he held towards them. Surely, once realising the obfuscation and lies told by Higgins, he might have taken a different path, even in this investigation, any contrition on his behalf has been too little, too late. More unsubstantiated allegations from Drumgold that the police act improperly in these types of cases will just be digging a deeper hole.
Rafiki
Did you know Drumgold when he was young or Lehrmann?
Metoo was all about changing the rules so we must always ‘believe all victims’.
Was Drumgold was trampling on everything to make that the defacto ‘rule of law’?
Buccaneer: as ever your reading comprehension lets you down. As I said, I doubt the DPP will be alone in the stocks.
Nix, as ever, your bias lets you down. And your lack of intellect shows when you repeat the same dross over and over just wrapped in an insult. You might need to base your fatuous assertion on a bit more than repetition to be taken seriously.
Rafiki – in relation to “Drumgold’s creation of a task force in the ODPP to revive historical rapes that the police had failed to prosecute.“,was that related to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse?
No, it was brought to Drumgold’s attention that the ACT had been prosecuting an abysmal percentage of Sexual Assault complaints, because the AFP tended to recommend against Prosecution for the vast majority.
The alternatives were: #1. A.C.T. rapists are diabolically clever and leave no clues
#2. A.C.T. females lie about Sexual Assault an order of magnitude more than women outside the A.C.T.
#3. The AFP runs dead on a lotta Sexual Assault claims
Did you know Drumgold when he was young or Lehrmann?
I think he’s referring to Sofronoff.
Since Sofronoff is at least 70, that would make Rafiki in his early 80s at least.
Buccaneer: if you had bothered to read the court record you’d know that all of your comments are both wrong and verging idiotic. You’d also know the inquiry judge has described media reporting of the case as yellow journalism. (Though I suspect that’s your preferred kind.)
Given the low rate of accurate posts from you Ed, forgive me if I ask you to post some evidence that backs up your assertion that there is an abysmal percentage of complaints being prosecuted in ACT. The stats being bandied around online are that only 1.5% are being prosecuted in Australia overall. Yet it looks like 5% in ACT. I’d add that it’s hard to identify how these numbers are compiled and that there are activists who use estimated numbers of people who don’t lodge a complaint.
None of this takes away the point that Drumgold never worked out that pushing ahead with a case where the complainant lied to police, was disastrously obstructive, went to the media rather than the police and considered creating a scandal beforehand whether joking or not would place more jeopardy on any program to change a culture in the police rather than reinforce it.
Stop reading Crikey, Nix, it’s not journalism
None of this takes away the point that Drumgold never worked out that pushing ahead with a case where the complainant lied to police,
Examples?
was disastrously obstructive,
Examples?
went to the media rather than the police
Not true, the AFP didn’t take Higgins seriously.
Surely you’re not disputing that?
and considered creating a scandal beforehand whether joking or not would place more jeopardy on any program to change a culture in the police rather than reinforce it.
Huh?
You’re just trolling.
No Ed it’s you that is trolling, as usual. Your record of posting here and at New Cat is abysmal, little research and ignorant comment you double down on.
Evidence below, now justify your stats, or did you just regurgitate an assertion from Drumgold? Given how he backtracked on the political interference bs, you might be careful to take the rest of his assertions as fact.
Why Britnah Deleted her Phone
Prove the AFP didn’t take her seriously. She abandoned the complaint. From what we now know, that is no surprise. https://thewest.com.au/politics/timeline-of-higgins-incident-and-response-c-8673851
#4. Majority of assaults are committed by Labor people (thus #3).
Rosie – i knew Drumgold at the outset of his career in the ODPP, but in his capacity as a tutor in the subject (Evidence law) I taught in the ANU Law School. He was reliable, competent and honest. Like very many in the ACT executive arm, ( and indeed in the ANU,) he would have noted that the ACT was in effect one-party state, and critical theory a dominant way of thinking. I suspect that, most probably unconsciously, he, like many others, trimmed his sail to the prevailing winds. They didn’t need to be told to do, they did it by instinct. He may end up more of a tragic figure that Lehrmann.
Syd Gal- I don’t know.
Raf, a few years ago I wrote a post at the Old Cat when this Higgins business began. Realising the matter seemed to revolve around whether or not the DPP would choose to move to a prosecution of Lehrmann, I did some background research on Drumgold.
There was a lot to admire. He fought his way out of difficult and disadvantaged circumstances – quite literally, as a fair dinkum pugilist. However, when I read a year or two of his Tweets, I was immediately alarmed.
I made screen shots of several Tweets and included links to these in my post. They were virulently, viscerally hostile to the Liberal Party, Donald Trump etc. This was amazing to me given the office he held. I recall one re-tweet of somebody implying that Tony Abbott was indifferent to child molestation.
As the case proceeded to trial, his Twitter page went private. I knew why. Nobody in the media noticed. It was my impression that he would make a ‘right side of history’ decision which, in his mind, would be ethically laundered by a jury either way. But he was certainly not going to ‘wrong’ Higgins by dropping the case. We now know that dropping it is precisely what he should have done.
Thank you Rafiki