Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?

What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding as to
whether a crime was committed against Higgins?

Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
accused's defence use this in their favour?

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany Higgins
> before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?

Corse it is if the matter wasnt dealt with properly when she made her
original complaint.

> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a findingas to
> whether a crime was committed against Higgins?

That the matter wasnt investigated properly when she made the original
complaint.

> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter

Corse not.

> and can the accused's defence use this in their favour?

Nope. The most they can manage is the usual lawyer's try on.

On 9/02/2022 8:31 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>> Higginsbefore the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?
>
> Corse it is if the matter wasnt dealt with properly when she made her
> original complaint.
>
>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a findingas
>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>
> That the matter wasnt investigated properly when she made the original
> complaint.
>

Didn't the parliament/government refer the matter to the police originally?

>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter
>
> Corse not.
>
>> and can the accused's defence use this in their favour?
>
> Nope. The most they can manage is the usual lawyer's try on.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?

>> Corse it is if the matter wasnt dealt with properly when she made her
>> original complaint.

>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a findingas
>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?

>> That the matter wasnt investigated properly when she made the original
>> complaint.

> Didn't the parliament/government refer the matter to the police
> originally?

She should have told the cops herself if she really was raped.

>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter

>> Corse not.

>>> and can the accused's defence use this in their favour?

>> Nope. The most they can manage is the usual lawyer's try on.

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>> court?

>>>> Corse it is if the matter wasn't dealt with properly when she made her
>>>> original complaint.

>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a findingas
>>>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?

>>>> That the matter wasn't investigated properly when she made the
>>>> original
>>>> complaint.
>>
>>> Didn't the parliament/government refer the matter to the police
>>> originally?
>>
>> She should have told the cops herself if she really was raped.

> Same for Prince Andrew!

Yeah, that slut clearly was a very willing participant
in whatever happened given that she kept returning
even after she knew what as involved.

> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) comes out over claimed incident 20
> years later after cash.
> She was paid a US$500,000 settlement with Epstein in 2015, as well as
> settling for an undisclosed sum with Maxwell in anothrr 2015
> defamation suit.
> Now she wants more!
> theres money in these thre hills?

Yep.

>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter

>>>> Corse not.

>>>>> and can the accused's defence use this in their favour?

>>>> Nope. The most they can manage is the usual lawyer's try on.

On 9/02/2022 8:07 am, Max wrote:
> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?
>
> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding as to
> whether a crime was committed against Higgins?

Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of it,
and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for just those
actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of complaints form
other women who have worked in parliament, then he also owes all of
those women an apology.
>
> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
> accused's defence use this in their favour?

Why would it? Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>>>> court?
>>
>>>>>> Corse it is if the matter wasn't dealt with properly when she made
>>>>>> her
>>>>>> original complaint.
>>
>>>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a
>>>>>>> findingas
>>>>>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>
>>>>>> That the matter wasn't investigated properly when she made the
>>>>>> original
>>>>>> complaint.
>>>>
>>>>> Didn't the parliament/government refer the matter to the police
>>>>> originally?
>>>>
>>>> She should have told the cops herself if she really was raped.
>>
>>> Same for Prince Andrew!
>>
>> Yeah, that slut clearly was a very willing participant
>> in whatever happened given that she kept returning
>> even after she knew what as involved.
>>
>>> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) comes out over claimed incident 20
>>> years later after cash.
>>> She was paid a US$500,000 settlement with Epstein in 2015, as well as
>>> settling for an undisclosed sum with Maxwell in anothrr 2015
>>> defamation suit.
>>> Now she wants more!
>>> theres money in these thre hills?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) was also inducting school girls for
> Epstein/Maxwell's pedophile ring,

Yep and should have been charged with doing that along with Maxwell.

> I believe she was paid US$1,000 for
> each one. Was a TV expose about it

>>>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter
>>
>>>>>> Corse not.
>>
>>>>>>> and can the accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>
>>>>>> Nope. The most they can manage is the usual lawyer's try on.

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>>>>>> court?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corse it is if the matter wasn't dealt with properly when she made
>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>> original complaint.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a
>>>>>>>>> findingas
>>>>>>>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> That the matter wasn't investigated properly when she made the
>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>> complaint.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't the parliament/government refer the matter to the police
>>>>>>> originally?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She should have told the cops herself if she really was raped.
>>>>
>>>>> Same for Prince Andrew!
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that slut clearly was a very willing participant
>>>> in whatever happened given that she kept returning
>>>> even after she knew what as involved.
>>>>
>>>>> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) comes out over claimed incident 20
>>>>> years later after cash.
>>>>> She was paid a US$500,000 settlement with Epstein in 2015, as well as
>>>>> settling for an undisclosed sum with Maxwell in anothrr 2015
>>>>> defamation suit.
>>>>> Now she wants more!
>>>>> theres money in these thre hills?
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) was also inducting school girls for
>>> Epstein/Maxwell's pedophile ring,
>>
>> Yep and should have been charged with doing that along with Maxwell.
>>
> Those pedophile customers of Epstein/Maxwell's are also not being
> mentioned?

Yeah, harder to prove with those tho.

> Believed to be high ranking Democrats (Clinton's/Obama)

They were certainly happy to associate with them but its less
clear how many of them actually fucked any of their sluts.

>>> I believe she was paid US$1,000 for
>>> each one. Was a TV expose about it
>>
>>>>>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corse not.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and can the accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. The most they can manage is the usual lawyer's try on.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to
>>>>>>>>>> Brittany
>>>>>>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>>>>>>> court?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Corse it is if the matter wasn't dealt with properly when she
>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>> original complaint.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a
>>>>>>>>>> findingas
>>>>>>>>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That the matter wasn't investigated properly when she made the
>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> complaint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't the parliament/government refer the matter to the police
>>>>>>>> originally?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She should have told the cops herself if she really was raped.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Same for Prince Andrew!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that slut clearly was a very willing participant
>>>>> in whatever happened given that she kept returning
>>>>> even after she knew what as involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) comes out over claimed incident 20
>>>>>> years later after cash.
>>>>>> She was paid a US$500,000 settlement with Epstein in 2015, as well
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> settling for an undisclosed sum with Maxwell in anothrr 2015
>>>>>> defamation suit.
>>>>>> Now she wants more!
>>>>>> theres money in these thre hills?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) was also inducting school girls for
>>>> Epstein/Maxwell's pedophile ring,
>>>
>>> Yep and should have been charged with doing that along with Maxwell.
>>>
>> Those pedophile customers of Epstein/Maxwell's are also not being
>> mentioned?
>
> Yeah, harder to prove with those tho.
>
>> Believed to be high ranking Democrats (Clinton's/Obama)
>
> They were certainly happy to associate with them but its less
> clear how many of them actually fucked any of their sluts.

Bet Clinton did given Lewinsky but I'd be surprised if Obama did.

>>>> I believe she was paid US$1,000 for
>>>> each one. Was a TV expose about it
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Corse not.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and can the accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. The most they can manage is the usual lawyer's try on.

On 10/02/2022 3:37 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>>>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>>>>>>> court?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Corse it is if the matter wasn't dealt with properly when she made
>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>> original complaint.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a
>>>>>>>>>> findingas
>>>>>>>>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That the matter wasn't investigated properly when she made the
>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> complaint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't the parliament/government refer the matter to the police
>>>>>>>> originally?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She should have told the cops herself if she really was raped.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Same for Prince Andrew!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that slut clearly was a very willing participant
>>>>> in whatever happened given that she kept returning
>>>>> even after she knew what as involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) comes out over claimed incident 20
>>>>>> years later after cash.
>>>>>> She was paid a US$500,000 settlement with Epstein in 2015, as well as
>>>>>> settling for an undisclosed sum with Maxwell in anothrr 2015
>>>>>> defamation suit.
>>>>>> Now she wants more!
>>>>>> theres money in these thre hills?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) was also inducting school girls for
>>>> Epstein/Maxwell's pedophile ring,
>>>
>>> Yep and should have been charged with doing that along with Maxwell.
>>>
>> Those pedophile customers of Epstein/Maxwell's  are also not being
>> mentioned?
>
> Yeah, harder to prove with those tho.
>
>> Believed to be high ranking Democrats  (Clinton's/Obama)
>
> They were certainly happy to associate with them but its less
> clear how many of them actually fucked any of their sluts.
>

Would it be defamatory to imply that it did happen?

>>>> I believe she was paid US$1,000 for
>>>> each one. Was a TV expose about it
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Corse not.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and can the accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Nope. The most they can manage is the usual lawyer's try on.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to
>>>>>>>>>>> Brittany
>>>>>>>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> court?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Corse it is if the matter wasn't dealt with properly when she
>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>>> original complaint.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a
>>>>>>>>>>> findingas
>>>>>>>>>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That the matter wasn't investigated properly when she made the
>>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>>> complaint.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't the parliament/government refer the matter to the police
>>>>>>>>> originally?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> She should have told the cops herself if she really was raped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same for Prince Andrew!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, that slut clearly was a very willing participant
>>>>>> in whatever happened given that she kept returning
>>>>>> even after she knew what as involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) comes out over claimed incident 20
>>>>>>> years later after cash.
>>>>>>> She was paid a US$500,000 settlement with Epstein in 2015, as well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> settling for an undisclosed sum with Maxwell in anothrr 2015
>>>>>>> defamation suit.
>>>>>>> Now she wants more!
>>>>>>> theres money in these thre hills?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) was also inducting school girls for
>>>>> Epstein/Maxwell's pedophile ring,
>>>>
>>>> Yep and should have been charged with doing that along with Maxwell.
>>>>
>>> Those pedophile customers of Epstein/Maxwell's are also not being
>>> mentioned?

>> Yeah, harder to prove with those tho.

>>> Believed to be high ranking Democrats (Clinton's/Obama)

>> They were certainly happy to associate with them but its less
>> clear how many of them actually fucked any of their sluts.

> Would it be defamatory to imply that it did happen?

What matters is if it happened or not.

Clearly what that slut is attempting with Randy Andy isnt defamatory.

>>>>> I believe she was paid US$1,000 for
>>>>> each one. Was a TV expose about it
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Corse not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and can the accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The most they can manage is the usual lawyer's try on.

On 10/02/2022 8:59 am, Fran wrote:
> On 9/02/2022 8:07 am, Max wrote:
>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?
>>
>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding as
>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>
> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of it,
> and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for just those
> actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of complaints form
> other women who have worked in parliament, then he also owes all of
> those women an apology.
>>
>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>
> Why would it?  Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>

The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused. How can the
accused be assured of a fair trial?

On 12/02/2022 9:01 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max wrote:
> ================
>> Fran the Fake Feminist wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?
>>>>
>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding as
>>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>
>>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of it,
>>> and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for just those
>>> actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of complaints form
>>> other women who have worked in parliament, then he also owes all of
>>> those women an apology.
>>>>
>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>
>>> Why would it? Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>>>
>> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused. How can the
>> accused be assured of a fair trial?
>>
>
> ** His lawyers can bring this up before the case begins.
>
> That the accused has been subjected to
>
> 1. Trial by Media.
> 2. The feminist, man hating lynch mob.
> 3. The PM trying to win sympathy near an election.
>
> In a case where there is only " he said, she said " evidence, the trial should be abandoned.
>

"In a statement to news.com.au, the Director of Public Prosecutions in
the ACT has also urged the end to “all public commentary” including “by
officers of the court and public figures.”"

"Mr Lehrmann’s legal team have now signalled they may argue for a “stay”
of the trial which is tentatively set down for June to an unspecified
date in the future."

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/pm-apology-could-see-brittany-higgins-accused-bruce-lehrmanns-trial-delayed/news-story/e59bc7389fdfc24cd2dc3903c4c8cae7

On 12/02/2022 8:38 am, Max wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 8:59 am, Fran wrote:
>> On 9/02/2022 8:07 am, Max wrote:
>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?
>>>
>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding as
>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>
>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of
>> it, and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for just
>> those actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of complaints
>> form other women who have worked in parliament, then he also owes all
>> of those women an apology.
>>>
>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>
>> Why would it?  Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>>
>
> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused.  How can the
> accused be assured of a fair trial?
A man who often called "Liar from the Shire" is more of a threat to a
fair trial for the accused than all the the MSM reports of sleaze and
predation from multiple women and from Higgins herself.....

You might want to think about your views and what you are saying about
the importance of one liar's comments when set against comments from
multiple women.

On 12/02/2022 11:11 am, Max wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 9:01 am, Phil Allison wrote:
>> Max wrote:
>> ================
>>> Fran the Fake Feminist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>> court?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding as
>>>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>
>>>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of it,
>>>> and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for just those
>>>> actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of complaints form
>>>> other women who have worked in parliament, then he also owes all of
>>>> those women an apology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>
>>>> Why would it?  Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>>>>
>>> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused. How can the
>>> accused be assured of a fair trial?
>>>
>>
>> **  His lawyers can bring this up before the case begins.
>>
>> That the accused has been subjected to
>>
>> 1.  Trial by Media.
>> 2.  The feminist, man hating lynch mob.
>> 3.  The PM trying to win sympathy near an election.
>>
>> In a case where there is only " he said, she said " evidence, the
>> trial should be abandoned.

Except for what Protective Services officers said they saw at the
time.....

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Fran wrote
>> Max wrote

>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?

>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding as
>>> to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?

>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of
>> it, and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for just
>> those actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of complaints
>> form other women who have worked in parliament, then he also owes all
>> of those women an apology.

>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?

>> Why would it? Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.

> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused.

Nope, just apologised for her complaint not being dealt with appropriately.

> How can the accused be assured of a fair trial?

By reconising that ScoMo did nothing of the sort.

On 12/02/2022 12:28 pm, Fran wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 8:38 am, Max wrote:
>> On 10/02/2022 8:59 am, Fran wrote:
>>> On 9/02/2022 8:07 am, Max wrote:
>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in court?
>>>>
>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding
>>>> as to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>
>>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of
>>> it, and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for just
>>> those actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of
>>> complaints form other women who have worked in parliament, then he
>>> also owes all of those women an apology.
>>>>
>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>
>>> Why would it?  Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>>>
>>
>> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused.  How can the
>> accused be assured of a fair trial?
> A man who often called "Liar from the Shire" is more of a threat to a
> fair trial for the accused than all the the MSM reports of sleaze and
> predation from multiple women and from Higgins herself.....
>
> You might want to think about your views and what you are saying about
> the importance of one liar's comments when set against comments from
> multiple women.

If you are drunk and you let a guy have sex with you, why are you not
responsible for that, when if you are drunk and kill someone on the road
you are responsible for that?

It was written by Max:

/snip/
> If you are drunk and you let a guy have sex with you, why are you not
> responsible for that,

Define what you mean by drunk!

Sex even under the influence of alcohol can be non-consensual.
I.e. if a man got an otherwise not very willing women dead drunk and then
had sex with her then that is just as much of an act of rape as if he had
knocked her unconscious for the very same purpose.

> when if you are drunk and kill someone on the road
> you are responsible for that?

Your are strangely confusing the victim with the assailant. You are
therefore intentionally obtuse in order to push your not so covert
misogynist agenda or sadly you are just incredibly stupid.
I let others here decide which is the case.

--
Ördög - 👹️ - The newsgroup Devil at your service.

Want to see the most spiteful nasties of Australian politics?
Here I show you:

Just look no farther than the Liberal Party of Australia and
its dumb coalition partner:

This is their fundamental ideology (if one can call it that):
Capitalist neo-liberal/libertarian lies and alternate reality,
Lack of compassion for the already downtrodden,
Sociopathic greed & envy,
Endemic nepotistic and plutocratic corruption,
Vicious hunger for power and "born to rule mentality",
Xtian fundamentalism
Never ending misogyny & homophobia
Undeniable Anglo-Celtic racism and supremacy,
Unbridled hate for the underclasses,
Unrelenting vengeance seeking against political opponents...

On 12/02/2022 2:23 pm, Max wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 12:28 pm, Fran wrote:
>> On 12/02/2022 8:38 am, Max wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2022 8:59 am, Fran wrote:
>>>> On 9/02/2022 8:07 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>> court?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding
>>>>> as to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>
>>>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of
>>>> it, and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for
>>>> just those actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of
>>>> complaints form other women who have worked in parliament, then he
>>>> also owes all of those women an apology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>
>>>> Why would it?  Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused.  How can the
>>> accused be assured of a fair trial?
>> A man who often called "Liar from the Shire" is more of a threat to a
>> fair trial for the accused than all the the MSM reports of sleaze and
>> predation from multiple women and from Higgins herself.....
>>
>> You might want to think about your views and what you are saying about
>> the importance of one liar's comments when set against comments from
>> multiple women.
>
> If you are drunk and you let a guy have sex with you, why are you not
> responsible for that, when if you are drunk and kill someone on the road
> you are responsible for that?

WTF is wrong with you?

In saying that, you are saying that it's quite OK for a male to have sex
with a woman who has not given consent.

On 12/02/2022 3:12 pm, *Ördög* wrote:
> It was written by Max:
>
> /snip/
>> If you are drunk and you let a guy have sex with you, why are you not
>> responsible for that,
>
> Define what you mean by drunk!
>
> Sex even under the influence of alcohol can be non-consensual.
> I.e. if a man got an otherwise not very willing women dead drunk and then
> had sex with her then that is just as much of an act of rape as if he had
> knocked her unconscious for the very same purpose.

Precisely.

>> when if you are drunk and kill someone on the road
>> you are responsible for that?
>
> Your are strangely confusing the victim with the assailant.

Yep.

You are
> therefore intentionally obtuse in order to push your not so covert
> misogynist agenda or sadly you are just incredibly stupid.
> I let others here decide which is the case.

Fran <LNPtrollbust1@loonynutters.com> wrote
> On 12/02/2022 2:23 pm, Max wrote:
>> On 12/02/2022 12:28 pm, Fran wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2022 8:38 am, Max wrote:
>>>> On 10/02/2022 8:59 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>> On 9/02/2022 8:07 am, Max wrote:
>>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>>> court?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding
>>>>>> as to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>>
>>>>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of
>>>>> it, and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for
>>>>> just those actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of
>>>>> complaints form other women who have worked in parliament, then he
>>>>> also owes all of those women an apology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>>>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would it? Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused. How can the
>>>> accused be assured of a fair trial?
>>> A man who often called "Liar from the Shire" is more of a threat to a
>>> fair trial for the accused than all the the MSM reports of sleaze and
>>> predation from multiple women and from Higgins herself.....
>>>
>>> You might want to think about your views and what you are saying about
>>> the importance of one liar's comments when set against comments from
>>> multiple women.
>> If you are drunk and you let a guy have sex with you, why are you not
>> responsible for that, when if you are drunk and kill someone on the
>> road you are responsible for that?

> WTF is wrong with you?

Nothing viable between the ears.

On 12/02/2022 3:30 pm, Fran wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 2:23 pm, Max wrote:
>> On 12/02/2022 12:28 pm, Fran wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2022 8:38 am, Max wrote:
>>>> On 10/02/2022 8:59 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>> On 9/02/2022 8:07 am, Max wrote:
>>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>>> court?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding
>>>>>> as to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>>
>>>>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of
>>>>> it, and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for
>>>>> just those actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of
>>>>> complaints form other women who have worked in parliament, then he
>>>>> also owes all of those women an apology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>>>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would it?  Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused.  How can the
>>>> accused be assured of a fair trial?
>>> A man who often called "Liar from the Shire" is more of a threat to a
>>> fair trial for the accused than all the the MSM reports of sleaze and
>>> predation from multiple women and from Higgins herself.....
>>>
>>> You might want to think about your views and what you are saying
>>> about the importance of one liar's comments when set against comments
>>> from multiple women.
>>
>> If you are drunk and you let a guy have sex with you, why are you not
>> responsible for that, when if you are drunk and kill someone on the
>> road you are responsible for that?
>
> WTF is wrong with you?
>
> In saying that, you are saying that it's quite OK for a male to have sex
> with a woman who has not given consent.
>

I think you have misunderstood the point.

The point is that if a person is drunk they do not have the capacity to
be responsible for their actions.

However, out current law holds drunk drivers responsible for their
actions while driving. But it doesn't hold a drunk woman responsible
for allowing a man to have sex with her.

Consent for sex in most cases won't involve verbal or written consent.
It will just be the failure to resist the physical advances of a man.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> On 12/02/2022 3:30 pm, Fran wrote:
>> On 12/02/2022 2:23 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2022 12:28 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/2022 8:38 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 10/02/2022 8:59 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/02/2022 8:07 am, Max wrote:

>>>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>>>> court?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a finding
>>>>>>> as to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard of
>>>>>> it, and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology for
>>>>>> just those actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx of
>>>>>> complaints form other women who have worked in parliament, then he
>>>>>> also owes all of those women an apology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>>>>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would it? Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused. How can the
>>>>> accused be assured of a fair trial?
>>>> A man who often called "Liar from the Shire" is more of a threat to a
>>>> fair trial for the accused than all the the MSM reports of sleaze and
>>>> predation from multiple women and from Higgins herself.....
>>>>
>>>> You might want to think about your views and what you are saying
>>>> about the importance of one liar's comments when set against comments
>>>> from multiple women.
>>>
>>> If you are drunk and you let a guy have sex with you, why are you not
>>> responsible for that, when if you are drunk and kill someone on the
>>> road you are responsible for that?
>> WTF is wrong with you?
>> In saying that, you are saying that it's quite OK for a male to have
>> sex with a woman who has not given consent.

> I think you have misunderstood the point.

You never had a point.

> The point is that if a person is drunk they do not havethe capacity to
> be responsible for their actions.

Complete and utter mindless bullshit.

Once they have had a few drinks, they are clearly quite
capable of deciding that if they are caught driving over
the limit, they get to lose their license for a while, fuckwit.

> However, out current law holds drunk drivers responsible for their
> actions while driving.

Responsible for the choice they made to drive
with a blood alcohol level over the limit, yes.

> But it doesn't hold a drunk woman responsible for allowing a man to have
> sex with her.

We arent talking about ALLOW with rape, fuckwit.

> Consent for sex in most cases won't involve verbal or written consent.

But saying no does involve saying she doesnt want to fuck.

> It will just be the failure to resist the physical advances of a man.

Even more mindless bullshit from you.

No surprise that you never got qualified in law.

It was written by Max:

/snip/
> The point is that if a person is drunk they do not have the capacity to
> be responsible for their actions.

Nice conjob. But that was NOT the actual point you wanted to drive home,
was it?

> However, out current law holds drunk drivers responsible for their
> actions while driving.

Our current law prohibits drivers driving while under the influence, full
stop. They commit a serious offence even without actually causing damage
to life and/or property.
Nice try!

> But it doesn't hold a drunk woman responsible
> for allowing a man to have sex with her.

You are desperate!
But comparing apples to oranges or worse switching the positions of
victim with the assailant won't work in this case.

> Consent for sex in most cases won't involve verbal or written consent.

Wrong. In the court of law it does.

> It will just be the failure to resist the physical advances of a man.

Failure to resist forced sex is NOT the same as consent. Specially if
one's ability to resist is negated by ones physical and/or psychological
state to do so strongly diminished by coercive factors.
For instance, according to your logic if an employers coerced an employee
into a sex act by threatening to end his/her employment then that person
could undeniably have diminished capacity to physically resist the
perpetrator. Similarly if a physically fragile person is cornered by a
body builder holding a knife putting up physical resistance could be
considered as possibly suicidal.

Your argument is studded with major flaws and it inevitably leads to
absurd conclusions.

--
Ördög - 👹️ - The newsgroup Devil at your service.

On 13/02/2022 11:10 am, Max wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 3:30 pm, Fran wrote:
>> On 12/02/2022 2:23 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2022 12:28 pm, Fran wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/2022 8:38 am, Max wrote:
>>>>> On 10/02/2022 8:59 am, Fran wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/02/2022 8:07 am, Max wrote:
>>>>>>> Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to Brittany
>>>>>>> Higgins before the criminal matter has been heard and decided in
>>>>>>> court?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the PM apologising for if there has not yet been a
>>>>>>> finding as to whether a crime was committed against Higgins?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given how his chief of staff is said to have acted when he heard
>>>>>> of it, and how Reynolds behaved, then Higgins is due an apology
>>>>>> for just those actions alone. Given how it then spawned an influx
>>>>>> of complaints form other women who have worked in parliament, then
>>>>>> he also owes all of those women an apology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will this potentially prejudice the criminal matter and can the
>>>>>>> accused's defence use this in their favour?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would it?  Morrison probably won't be called on to testify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The PM has publicly prejudged the guilt of the accused.  How can
>>>>> the accused be assured of a fair trial?
>>>> A man who often called "Liar from the Shire" is more of a threat to
>>>> a fair trial for the accused than all the the MSM reports of sleaze
>>>> and predation from multiple women and from Higgins herself.....
>>>>
>>>> You might want to think about your views and what you are saying
>>>> about the importance of one liar's comments when set against
>>>> comments from multiple women.
>>>
>>> If you are drunk and you let a guy have sex with you, why are you not
>>> responsible for that, when if you are drunk and kill someone on the
>>> road you are responsible for that?
>>
>> WTF is wrong with you?
>>
>> In saying that, you are saying that it's quite OK for a male to have
>> sex with a woman who has not given consent.
>>
>
> I think you have misunderstood the point.

No, I have not. But you have certainly failed to get the point.

> The point is that if a person is drunk they do not have the capacity to
> be responsible for their actions.

It wasn't a drunk who did the raping. And regardless of whether someone
is drunk or any otherwise incompetent and incapable, or even if they are
stolling down the street as naked as a jay bird, those circumstances are
not an open invitation to be screwed without concent.

> However, out current law holds drunk drivers responsible for their
> actions while driving.  But it doesn't hold a drunk woman responsible
> for allowing a man to have sex with her.

"Allowing"???????? The point is that she did NOT "allow" it. Nor was
her agreement given orher consent sought.

> Consent for sex in most cases won't involve verbal or written consent.

Jesus wept!

> It will just be the failure to resist the physical advances of a man.

Bullshit.

In effect you are saying that men are so lacking in any form of self
control or any capacity to pick up social signals that they can just
fuck anything that doesn't say no or physically try to maim them when
they do their unrestrained, uninvited and unwelcome fucking.

You have an exceptionally low opinion of men.