Low Barr

This entry was posted in Left-wing hypocrisy, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Low Barr

  1. Buccaneer says:

    The assertions by Barr about the leaks are a distraction and one of no consequence, he won’t investigate Sofronoff, it’s all bluster, a story that keeps changing.

  2. Ragu Namatjira says:

    I also wonder why so few media outlets are asking him direct questions about this and instead running off with a ridiculous story about the inappropriate release of a report that was clearly in the public interest (any media outlet that sat on this leak would not be doing their job properly). 

    They’ve circled the waggons because one individual decided to kick out of their club a man who should be getting a Kinight Commander for services to The Current Thing. As we see, that’s a bit strange because the guy they are now protecting makes their club look like a bunch of crooks.

    Chrysanthou put the boot into Drummy in her submission to Mr Integrity, will the mob turn on her?

  3. Ragu Namatjira says:

    We have a new MO from Haggins

    “These police never wanted to charge [Lehrmann] despite the fact that no one, not even the defence, made an application contending that the prosecution was not properly commenced,”

    “They made a fun folder full of unfounded claims in a literal attempt to discredit me as a permissible rape victim to the office of the DPP.”

    Victim-whining in legalese with a whiff of Dunning-Kruger. She won’t reach enlightenment is she keeps lashing out at anything and everything like a mean drunk.

    Great.

    I’ll come back in another month and see what level of crazy this shïtshôw is up to, this has more lives than Keith Richards.

    Ciao, cabrones

  4. Buccaneer says:

    She got her time on the stand and needed leave because she got caught out telling porkies. Must be tough to realise the person you accused has become the victim.

  5. Christine says:

    Yes, she’s had her time on the stand. She can try tapping into all that dignity and courage that the Gullibles saw in her.

  6. C.L. says:

    The cops should sue her for defamation.

  7. SydGal says:

    CL at 9 August, 2023 at 5:06 pm
    – I agree!
    The ABC’s story has yet another “couch” reference – this piece of furniture featured so prominently in the early stories about Parliament House!
    “Superintendent Moller was asked during the inquiry if it was “inappropriate”, or confronting, for five police officers to surround Ms Higgins while she was sitting on a “low couch” at the conclusion of the interview.”

  8. Christine says:

    I’m trying to picture five officers “surrounding” the low couch.
    Perhaps a semi-circle of five officers, at worst.
    However did that woman cope.

  9. and says:

    A “smooth-over” job by the Guardian of Crap

    Mistakes, leaks and missed opportunities – the Sofronoff inquiry represents a failure in the pursuit of justice

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/08/mistakes-leaks-and-missed-opportunities-the-sofronoff-inquiry-represents-a-grave-failure-in-the-pursuit-of-justice?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

  10. Buccaneer says:

    Ando, that would be the reason ICAC is a total waste of time, anyone associated with the law who can hold their nose and pretend what Drumgold did was no biggie should never be let near any lawyerly pursuit, let alone pretend to play a role in a supposedly independent arbiter of political propriety.

  11. and says:

    From the article:

    The worst thing of all is that this inquiry represents a lost opportunity. Behind all this lay the issue of what is going wrong with our criminal justice system so far as it deals with sexual assaults. In a short statement given upon the announcement there would be no retrial, Higgins pointed to statistics that only 16% of reports of sexual offences in the ACT proceed to a charge; only half of those proceed to a conviction. But those statistics mask a bigger problem. In his resignation statement Drumgold revealed that 87% of sexual assault victims did not report their experiences, signalling a distrust in our legal institutions.

    Is there any wonder that this is so if our criminal justice system is operating so poorly?

    It’s these statistics that are at the heart of the activism. Only 16% of reports of sexual offences in the ACT proceeding to a charge may be that the quality of evidence in reports is poor and don’t warrant charges being laid. That only half of that 16% result in a conviction in jury trials also indicates that the evidence provided/presented (to a jury) is not strong. It seems in the ACT there is already a lower evidence threshold than usual in the laying of charges. The justice system has been proposing of late that just an interview with police by a complainant should be sufficient to lay charges. This makes no sense. This might produce a higher charging rate but not convictions. The DPP doesn’t seem to be concerned with the quality of evidence provided by a complainant. It’s the quality of evidence and its presentation to a jury that will be highly correlated with resulting convictions.

    As noted in the article, the “statistic” that is most flung about the media by activists as “important” is “… 87% of sexual assault victims did not report their experiences, signalling a distrust in our legal institutions.” This claim is just wild speculation based on the untested claims of respondents to a survey. This flimsy speculation is routinely promoted as factual by activists – as in the article above – and an indicator that there’s something “wrong” with the justice system in “alienating” potential complainants.
    It became clear from hearing Drumgold’s allegations during/after the trial and the VCC making herself an intermediary between the police and Brattny that both saw the police and higher up as the “problem”. Even in the article above, Brattny is taking the opportunity to take an activist swipe at police again – oh, they were so awful to me.

    Activists seem to believe that police should simply be there to type a complainant’s story into a computer. Lost in the activist derangement where the quality of evidence appears to be of no importance is that the police, while being respectful of complainants, are there to do a job. The charge of sexual assault is a serious one. The police are there to investigate the complaint. Is the information provided by a complainant plausible? Is it internally consistent? Is it corroborated by independent sources? Etc.

  12. and says:

    Flimsy/speculative/selective statistics in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.

  13. Buccaneer says:

    Also, correlation is not causation, these statistics can’t necessarily be compared meaningfully with the other states in the way the activists pretend they can. ACT is a small population with a heavy skew to public service employment attendant with the demographic skew this brings.

  14. NFA says:

    what Buccaneer says 9 August, 2023 at 9:51 pm about what,
    and says 9 August, 2023 at 8:52 pm

    and your subsequent posts.

    What Geoffrey Watson says in that Guardian propaganda diatribe is of more concern to me than anything that has gone before!

  15. Buccaneer says:

    Am I wrong to be thinking that once upon a time, the media would have savaged such a openly partisan article from a person who is supposed to have been an important cog in the ‘independent’ mechanism of probity for our system of governance?

  16. Buccaneer says:

    “These police never wanted to charge [Lehrmann] despite the fact that no one, not even the defence, made an application contending that the prosecution was not properly commenced,”

    “They made a fun folder full of unfounded claims in a literal attempt to discredit me as a permissible rape victim to the office of the DPP.”

    Never mind that small detail that the DPP withheld the evidence of the police reports and recommendations not to proceed from the defence. Never mind that small detail that Higgins did so much more to discredit herself on the stand than anyone else, she needed leave of absence before it completed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *