 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Wasn't really that far out. In his article he said the payment was "believed to be $3M" so he didn't state for a fact that it was $3M. He also noted in the article that Higgins rejected the amount but declined to provide the actual figure.
Can't see why he'd be in any trouble.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | ^ I don't see how there could be equivalence. She's not been accused of raping anyone - and certainly not in two different cities. |
No, but they're both known liars. |
I haven't paid that much attention, but gees, she isn't coming off too pretty in this now!
Thing is regardless of earlier kissing, touching whatever, you still get to say no, but if you put in a rape claim you need to tell the whole story, or once people find out those missing details all credibility is lost.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
"All credibility is lost"??? I can't say I understand that perspective at all. If she was raped – something nobody asks for and nobody deserves, and can affect your life and mental health in all sorts of negative ways – then I don't see how there's any moral equivalency between her and the person who (allegedly) did it. If it happened, she surely has the right to say it happened and who the perpetrator was. And if he turns around and denies it, going so far as to sue in response, then he doesn't leave a lot of room for grey area.
It sounds kind of like people are blaming her for being victimised and then not behaving exactly as a victim should. That seems like a pretty warped way of seeing things to me.
| stui magpie wrote: | Wasn't really that far out. In his article he said the payment was "believed to be $3M" so he didn't state for a fact that it was $3M. He also noted in the article that Higgins rejected the amount but declined to provide the actual figure.
Can't see why he'd be in any trouble. |
Oh yeah, that was what I was trying to say! When it was suggested that $3m was incorrect, people were making it sound like it was wildly exaggerated. I agree that it's not a substantial difference, and it does make me look at the article (and the kerfuffle around it) in a somewhat different light.
If he'd said $2 million instead of $3 million – and that really wouldn't have changed the essence of his argument, it's still a lot of money – would the piece still have been pulled? I understand it's a tough call for editors around stuff like this, particularly when there's defamation risk, but I think these ones could have afforded to be a bit less trigger-happy.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Agreed and I also agree with TP. In a rape case, it essentially comes down to one persons word against the other. When the person making the claim is repeatedly found out having not been truthful in their statements, it casts doubt on the credibility of their accusations.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So it seems Higgins and her partner have taken the payout and run, moving to a little village called Lunas in the south of France
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What’s become evident is that both Lehrmann and Higgins are both extremely untrustworthy.
I don’t believe a word that comes out of either of their mouths.
A good outcome would be to send them both off to jail for breaching security.
As for Wilkinson…100% ego driven.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | So it seems Higgins and her partner have taken the payout and run, moving to a little village called Lunas in the south of France |
Fair enough, too, given everything she's been through here. The Hérault valley is pretty incredible – I really wanted to visit the area when I was in France earlier this year, but didn't get around to it!
I really can't fathom this notion that they're "just as bad as each other". Think about it: either Lehrmann is innocent, in which case, whatever his failings, he really would have been dragged through the mud unjustly and would deserve at least some of our sympathy. But if that's not the case, and you suspect he really is guilty and lying about it – which I assume is what people are doing when they cast aspersions about his character – then a rapist and their victim are being put in the same moral category, and that's pretty messed up. To even begin to think that way, any suffering she's experienced has to be out of the picture.
I think some of this discourse indicates that feminists have been right all along, and that there really are some genuinely terrible aspects to how society treats rape victims. I think Higgins herself said it well when she pointed out that the media were calling it "the Brittany Higgins trial", as if she were the one in the defendant box, and it's hard to deny that that's basically how high-profile sexual assault cases can often function, both in the courtroom and in the media. It's all very well for us to recognise that, but to start changing that cultural disposition is obviously going to take a lot of work.
Edit: I actually posted this before seeing Slangman's post above, which, in suggesting Higgins be jailed, is kind of saying the quite part out loud. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^^What's been exposed in all this is the lack of Police access to Parliament House along with obtaining CCTV. It's ridiculous but not surprising that the Federal Police can't access the information. In saying that, what goes comes around and like many, I am waiting for the next court case to take place in Toowoomba. |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Edit: I actually posted this before seeing Slangman's post above, which, in suggesting Higgins be jailed, is kind of saying the quite part out loud. |
I’m not quite sure which part “is kind of saying the quiet part out loud”.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I wrote a post saying that people were acting as if Higgins was guilty for being raped. You went one step further and actually said she should be thrown in prison for being coaxed into Parliament House, while she was off her face, by a guy who may have allegedly had the intention of taking advantage of her there and then may have allegedly done just that. I guess no-one could accuse you of being a softie.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Living rent free
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| slangman wrote: | What’s become evident is that both Lehrmann and Higgins are both extremely untrustworthy.
I don’t believe a word that comes out of either of their mouths.
A good outcome would be to send them both off to jail for breaching security.
As for Wilkinson…100% ego driven. |
add Sharaz to that list.
_________________
Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I wrote a post saying that people were acting as if Higgins was guilty for being raped. You went one step further and actually said she should be thrown in prison for being coaxed into Parliament House, while she was off her face, by a guy who may have allegedly had the intention of taking advantage of her. Who ever said chivalry was dead? |
I think you are putting words in my mouth by suggesting that “she be thrown in prison for being coaxed into Parliament House”.
No security passes but then are permitted to enter both Parliament House and
Minister Reynolds office at 2am.
There are as many holes in her story (and the role of David Sharaz) as there are with Lehrmann.
I have trouble believing either side.
P.S I know someone who was wrongly accused of sexual assault.
Luckily it didn’t get reported to police as the woman years later admitted to fabricating the story as revenge for being dumped.
Sadly not all mud can be washed off.
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| slangman wrote: | | I have trouble believing either side. |
But that’s the thing – they can’t both be lying. She says he raped her, and he says he didn’t. There’s no real middle ground there.
It’s fine to say we don’t know what happened and to withhold judgement on both parties. I actually wish people did that far more often. But it’s odd to do the exact opposite by casting aspersions on her character and having trouble believing the guy who says he didn’t rape her.
I just think a little empathy wouldn’t hurt if we can countenance the possibility that she was, in fact, a victim of a serious crime (for which anything else she might be accused of doing since surely pales in comparison). But what it sounds to me like people are implying here when they castigate both parties more or less equally is something like "yeah he probably raped her, but she’s an untrustworthy bitch anyway". It’s not quite "she had it coming", but it’s not a great deal better than that.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I just had a thought, Grundle may have been even closer to the truth with his $3M than first thought.
IIRC, the payment was broken up into amounts for different things, including an amount for potential future earnings. Some of that is taxable, particularly the future earnings bit.
It's not unusual in settlements to refer to "net" amounts when making payments, so if you agree to pay $1M in lieu of potential earnings, you have to gross that up to around $1.6M to pay $1M net and $600k to the ATO.
In that case, if the court documents were Net amounts and Grundle was talking Gross amounts, he may well have been spot on.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
slangman
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | slangman wrote: | | I have trouble believing either side. |
But that’s the thing – they can’t both be lying. She says he raped her, and he says he didn’t. There’s no real middle ground there.
It’s fine to say we don’t know what happened and to withhold judgement on both parties. I actually wish people did that far more often. But it’s odd to do the exact opposite by casting aspersions on her character and having trouble believing the guy who says he didn’t rape her.
I just think a little empathy wouldn’t hurt if we can countenance the possibility that she was, in fact, a victim of a serious crime (for which anything else she might be accused of doing since surely pales in comparison). But what it sounds to me like people are implying here when they castigate both parties more or less equally is something like "yeah he probably raped her, but she’s an untrustworthy bitch anyway". It’s not quite "she had it coming", but it’s not a great deal better than that. |
Do you think that both Lehrmann and Higgins have been transparent, honest and consistent with their stories?
_________________
- Side By Side - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
