That well loved star of Hey Dad, good old Robert Hughes had an uncomfortable time in the witness box today. The prosecutor savaged him and reminded the court that Hughes was well capable of 'acting out a part' which she accused him of doing in his testimony.

Hughes is attempting to lay a straight bat at  the allegations of child molestation.

My thoughts are he will be clean bowled.

Aren't some of the accusers also actors?

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 4:19pm:

Aren't some of the accusers also actors?

ouch!!

I would however like to put on the record that it seems rather obvious from the preponderance of testimony from so many sources that Hughes is guilty of at least some of the offences. 

That above disclaimer is for the retards that infest this place who seem to think that supporting rules of evidence, due process and fairness for all - including the accused - makes one pro-paedo.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 4:55pm:

I would however like to put on the record that it seems rather obvious from the preponderance of testimony from so many sources that Hughes is guilty of at least some of the offences.  That above disclaimer is for the retards that infest this place who seem to think that supporting rules of evidence, due process and fairness for all - including the accused - makes one pro-paedo.

hehehehehe


its a hell of a thing for anyone to prove after so many years...I guess thats why they pick on kids...who would ever tell anyone at that young age...even later it must still be hard to describe it all...I wouldnt want to do it...

I dont envy the "victims" yes it is plural..

more than one.. like with Rolf...got to be something in it..

cods wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 5:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 4:55pm: I would however like to put on the record that it seems rather obvious from the preponderance of testimony from so many sources that Hughes is guilty of at least some of the offences.  That above disclaimer is for the retards that infest this place who seem to think that supporting rules of evidence, due process and fairness for all - including the accused - makes one pro-paedo. hehehehehe its a hell of a thing for anyone to prove after so many years...I guess thats why they pick on kids...who would ever tell anyone at that young age...even later it must still be hard to describe it all...I wouldnt want to do it... I dont envy the "victims" yes it is plural.. more than one.. like with Rolf...got to be something in it..

just so long as we keep in mind the concept of evidence and proof. While I have little doubt Hughes is guilty of most of this, we recently had the case of a girl who made up a sex assault event and the supposed perpetrator was arrested and thrown in jail and denied bail for some time.  Now clearly there was zero evidence beyond the claim of a teenage girl.  So why no bail? 

If Hughes is not guilty 5 different woman who knew him have conspired to bring him down because???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:20pm:

If Hughes is not guilty 5 different woman who knew him have conspired to bring him down because??? :-? :-? :-?

So.....if I rob five banks I must be guilty of the other 20 bank robberies in Tombstone?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 4:55pm:

I would however like to put on the record that it seems rather obvious from the preponderance of testimony from so many sources that Hughes is guilty of at least some of the offences.  That above disclaimer is for the retards that infest this place who seem to think that supporting rules of evidence, due process and fairness for all - including the accused - makes one pro-paedo.

Yet you only apply this concept to paedophiles.....Just sayin!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:23pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:20pm: If Hughes is not guilty 5 different woman who knew him have conspired to bring him down because??? :-? :-? :-? So.....if I rob five banks I must be guilty of the other 20 bank robberies?

Is anyone accusing you???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:23pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:20pm: If Hughes is not guilty 5 different woman who knew him have conspired to bring him down because??? :-? :-? :-? So.....if I rob five banks I must be guilty of the other 20 bank robberies? Is anyone accusing you??? :-? :-? :-?

Gee, yer quick on the trigger.  I've never been a fan of a bloke (including Rolf Harris) being tried by one Judge in  one Court on charges from different women.  They should be dealt with separately.

Why disallow evidence of prior convictions for a similar offence when the bloke is tried, but then.....allow another bloke to defend himself against multiple charges in the same Trial?

Nah.....it leads to exactly the conclusion the weekend bloke came to.  If six (or whatever the number is) say he did them separately at different times and places, ipso facto, he is guilty of doing them all.

Nah.

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:35pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:24pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:23pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:20pm: If Hughes is not guilty 5 different woman who knew him have conspired to bring him down because??? :-? :-? :-? So.....if I rob five banks I must be guilty of the other 20 bank robberies? Is anyone accusing you??? :-? :-? :-? Gee, yer quick on the trigger.  I've never been a fan of a bloke (including Rolf Harris) being tried by one Judge in  one Court on charges from different women.  They should be dealt with separately. Why disallow evidence of prior convictions for a similar offence when the bloke is tried, but then.....allow another bloke to defend himself against multiple charges in the same Trial? Nah.....it leads to exactly the conclusion the weekend bloke came to.  If six (or whatever the number is) say he did them separately at different times and places, ipso facto, he is guilty of doing them all. Nah.

You might remember I deleted your post accusing Peter Roebuck of abusing children on the sports forum.....I was wrong for doing so and apologise.....Yet you still saw fit to lay the allegation!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Wow - so being an actor celebrity is now an offence?  and can be distorted to be used against you in a court of law?

Damn.... the best actors in these shows are the prosecutors and often their coached 'prepared' witnesses.  The whole thing is drama - so the prosecutor here may well know what he/she is talking about - but what are the FACTS?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 4:55pm:

I would however like to put on the record that it seems rather obvious from the preponderance of testimony from so many sources that Hughes is guilty of at least some of the offences.  That above disclaimer is for the retards that infest this place who seem to think that supporting rules of evidence, due process and fairness for all - including the accused - makes one pro-paedo.

Preponderance of testimony - what are the corroborating factors and please - let us ensure these are substantial.  principle is 'substantial corroborating evidence' to support primary evidence.

Note the components here - evidence of substance is required to support mere words.... mere words alone cannot suffice no matter how 'preponderant' - and must needs be supported by proven facts including a substantial measure of solid factual evidence as opposed to simple statements that 'these are the facts'.

Nothing is a Fact in law until it is proven to the proper standard required....

Testimony alone cannot convict in a real court - only here in the kangaroo courts - as Red Baron well knows.

I'm going to add a cautionary note here (again);-

In 1992, in my submission to the Law Reform commission of NSW regarding its intent to introduce 'laws' on 'domestic violence' - I raised the very real issue that such intended 'laws' carried the very real concern with them that they would, by the very fact of their possessing a zero requirement for proof positive - reduce the standard of proof perceived to be required by judges/magistrates in ALL cases.

Since these proposed 'laws' were intended to be 'civil matters' and bound by the standard of proof of civil matters - i.e. balance of probabilities - so as to ensure 'protection' of any purported 'victim' - they ran the risk - which has been proven to be the case - of influencing judges/magistrates to the view that any and all cases brought before them only required the civil standard of proof.

Meaning that the ''balance of probabilities' - ESPECIALLY in cases brought by specified groups now perceived to be victims - would become the standard of proof for ANY complaint raised by any person in any of those groups.

This has indeed come to pass, and largely by the fact of introducing and then accustoming judges/magistrates to the exercise of the civil standard in such issues.

This has lead us to the current impasse - the IMPOSSIBILITY of determining beyond reasonable doubt any accusation laid by a member of a specified social group (those with accredited victim status) - and thus the near certainty that, in view of the lack of substantial evidence and in fear of not 'upholding the rights of the victim' - a judge/magistrate will find 'guilt'  without recourse to the proper standard of proof.

This is a clear and present danger to all citizens equally - and on that basis - unless there is substantial and properly supported evidence of wrongdoing - I cannot accept any court decision in the cases of Robert Hughes, Rolf Harris and similar.

No court should be swayed by popular sentiment or falsification of the rules of evidence.

(signed)  Judge Grappler.


*** now let me hear it from the tide of fools who will say I am supporting child abusers.... by defending the rights of an accused

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 5:32pm:

cods wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 4:55pm: I would however like to put on the record that it seems rather obvious from the preponderance of testimony from so many sources that Hughes is guilty of at least some of the offences.  That above disclaimer is for the retards that infest this place who seem to think that supporting rules of evidence, due process and fairness for all - including the accused - makes one pro-paedo. hehehehehe its a hell of a thing for anyone to prove after so many years...I guess thats why they pick on kids...who would ever tell anyone at that young age...even later it must still be hard to describe it all...I wouldnt want to do it... I dont envy the "victims" yes it is plural.. more than one.. like with Rolf...got to be something in it.. just so long as we keep in mind the concept of evidence and proof. While I have little doubt Hughes is guilty of most of this, we recently had the case of a girl who made up a sex assault event and the supposed perpetrator was arrested and thrown in jail and denied bail for some time.  Now clearly there was zero evidence beyond the claim of a teenage girl.  So why no bail?

I totally agree.. women that do lie in these cases need jail or at least home detention,.. its a shocking thing to lie about.. does more harm to the real cases than anything else..


but how do you prove a man a father walking around a bedroom  naked when you were a child???? how do you prove any of that happened..

only one female came forward in the first instance...because its never talked about...we do block bad stuff out... thank god..

this always will be tough..and as time goes by it gets tougher for males..I realise that...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:14pm:

Wow - so being an actor celebrity is now an offence?  and can be distorted to be used against you in a court of law? Damn.... the best actors in these shows are the prosecutors and often their coached 'prepared' witnesses.  The whole thing is drama - so the prosecutor here may well know what he/she is talking about - but what are the FACTS?

well being an actor could mean he would well remember his lines???..maybe...

they said something about the Rolf the other day..and I think they have more on him than we know about.

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:23pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:20pm: If Hughes is not guilty 5 different woman who knew him have conspired to bring him down because??? :-? :-? :-? So.....if I rob five banks I must be guilty of the other 20 bank robberies in Tombstone?

When in Tombstone..

If you robbed ONE bank, you would go to the gallows.

So all these people from different walks of life have collaborated to gang up on a hapless Robert Hughes to sink him.

Well it would appear so if you take a line through The Grappler's point of view.

Sorry, not with you on this Grappler, doubt that there would be many out there that would.

bump

red baron wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 7:18am:

So all these people from different walks of life have collaborated to gang up on a hapless Robert Hughes to sink him. Well it would appear so if you take a line through The Grappler's point of view. Sorry, not with you on this Grappler, doubt that there would be many out there that would.

They were women, though. ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 4:55pm: I would however like to put on the record that it seems rather obvious from the preponderance of testimony from so many sources that Hughes is guilty of at least some of the offences.  That above disclaimer is for the retards that infest this place who seem to think that supporting rules of evidence, due process and fairness for all - including the accused - makes one pro-paedo. Yet you only apply this concept to paedophiles.....Just sayin!!! :-? :-? :-?

actually I apply this concept to EVERYONE regardless of background or alleged crime.  That is kind the point I am making that far too many thingk pedos deserve no right of due process.

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:35pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:24pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:23pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:20pm: If Hughes is not guilty 5 different woman who knew him have conspired to bring him down because??? :-? :-? :-? So.....if I rob five banks I must be guilty of the other 20 bank robberies? Is anyone accusing you??? :-? :-? :-? Gee, yer quick on the trigger.  I've never been a fan of a bloke (including Rolf Harris) being tried by one Judge in  one Court on charges from different women.  They should be dealt with separately. Why disallow evidence of prior convictions for a similar offence when the bloke is tried, but then.....allow another bloke to defend himself against multiple charges in the same Trial? Nah.....it leads to exactly the conclusion the weekend bloke came to.  If six (or whatever the number is) say he did them separately at different times and places, ipso facto, he is guilty of doing them all. Nah.

I understand your argument but reject it.  disallowing previous convictions is not the same as not allowing multiple charges to be heard in the same trial.  While I don't reject the possibility of Hughes being innocent I certainly reject the probability.  The preponderance of evidence from disparate sources over a period of time is precisely the argument that is being made. The more complainants there are, the less likely that it is made up.

and BTW that is the argument that the law and courts also use despite your apparent discomfort with it.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 4:55pm: I would however like to put on the record that it seems rather obvious from the preponderance of testimony from so many sources that Hughes is guilty of at least some of the offences.  That above disclaimer is for the retards that infest this place who seem to think that supporting rules of evidence, due process and fairness for all - including the accused - makes one pro-paedo. Preponderance of testimony - what are the corroborating factors and please - let us ensure these are substantial.  principle is 'substantial corroborating evidence' to support primary evidence. Note the components here - evidence of substance is required to support mere words.... mere words alone cannot suffice no matter how 'preponderant' - and must needs be supported by proven facts including a substantial measure of solid factual evidence as opposed to simple statements that 'these are the facts'. Nothing is a Fact in law until it is proven to the proper standard required.... Testimony alone cannot convict in a real court - only here in the kangaroo courts - as Red Baron well knows.

what drivel are you going on about now?  It is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' not absolute proof that is used to convict since absolute proof is almost an impossible standard.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 8:42am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 4:55pm: I would however like to put on the record that it seems rather obvious from the preponderance of testimony from so many sources that Hughes is guilty of at least some of the offences.  That above disclaimer is for the retards that infest this place who seem to think that supporting rules of evidence, due process and fairness for all - including the accused - makes one pro-paedo. Preponderance of testimony - what are the corroborating factors and please - let us ensure these are substantial.  principle is 'substantial corroborating evidence' to support primary evidence. Note the components here - evidence of substance is required to support mere words.... mere words alone cannot suffice no matter how 'preponderant' - and must needs be supported by proven facts including a substantial measure of solid factual evidence as opposed to simple statements that 'these are the facts'. Nothing is a Fact in law until it is proven to the proper standard required.... Testimony alone cannot convict in a real court - only here in the kangaroo courts - as Red Baron well knows. what drivel are you going on about now?  It is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' not absolute proof that is used to convict since absolute proof is almost an impossible standard.

'preponderance of testimony' does not equate to 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.

What part of 'must be supported by substantial corroborating evidence' do you not understand?

In order to arrive at proof beyond ANY reasonable doubt - there is a need for verbal evidence to be supported by fact - the High Court of Australia says so.

Sorry about that - it is the way it is.

Red Baron knows that from being a copper - he has undoubtedly 'convicted' many people on uncorroborated verbal evidence - that is one reason why very many are not cops now - they find it insulting to their integrity to do such things.

No amount of emotionally laden testimony can replace the requirement for solid evidence.  Get used to it.

So....having been found guilty on 7 out of 9 charges, Robert Hughes spent his first night in prison at Silverwater Prison.

The Jury is still considering the final 2 charges.

Apparently the Court finally got to see Hughes animated as he tub thumped and shouted that "he was innocent!"

Yeah sure Robert, it was a bum rap.  The scales of justice finally tipped a load all over you and just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.

Funny thing Karma isn't it.

red baron wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

Apparently the Court finally got to see Hughes animated as he tub thumped and shouted that "he was innocent!"

Why couldnt he have been animated in Hey Dad

red baron wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 7:18am:

So all these people from different walks of life have collaborated to gang up on a hapless Robert Hughes to sink him. Well it would appear so if you take a line through The Grappler's point of view. Sorry, not with you on this Grappler, doubt that there would be many out there that would.

Just upholding the rule of Law, Red - ignore Winston and his 'misogyny' delusions.  I said not one word about women as a group - he  did, though there have been cases of women lying about rape etc and even causing false imprisonment

(** differentiates carefully between 'false' imprisonment' and  'wrongful imprisonment', a simple extension of mine to the studies on 'wrongful conviction'**)

As a copper you may well consider it fair and reasonable that every accused be convicted - how many of your 'mates' have made fanciful accusations of being 'assaulted' to cover up misdeed of their own in the full expectation that the 'courts' will support their 'version of events' regardless of hard evidence?  Why the long face over countless Royal Commissions and PIC findings?  An honest police force is one i which every officer knows he is safe from punishment unnecessarily over suspicion of doing wrong, and every officer should make it a rule not to support corrupt or illegal behaviour in order to uphold the morale and integrity of the Force.

Hence the requirement under a proper Rule of Law for a 'version of events' to be supported by substantial corroboration, as required by the Supreme Court with regard to 'expert opinion', and thus, by extension, to any 'version of events' - especially in an emotive issue such as child abuse.

Winston - you really need to get your head out of feminist mythology and into the real world.  I deal only in factual matters - not emotive issues such as yours, and again - I said nothing about women as a group.

If feminist women find it too hard to sustain and support the Rule of Law - they are quite welcome to do without it...

Robert Hughes was found guilty by a Jury of his peers in accordance of everything that is holy under the law.

Now that child molesting turd is in gaol and I hope he rots in it for a long, long time.

PS One can only hope against hope, that Robert Hughes will be placed into the general population of the gaol.

Then he will acquaint himself with a whole new dimension to the word's 'copping it'. ;)

red baron wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

Robert Hughes was found guilty by a Jury of his peers in accordance of everything that is holy under the law. Now that child molesting turd is in gaol and I hope he rots in it for a long, long time. PS One can only hope against hope, that Robert Hughes will be placed into the general population of the gaol. Then he will acquaint himself with a whole new dimension to the word's 'copping it'. ;)

I see where the lawyer was pleading he didnt get a fair go because of all the publicity...

funny if they win they never complain about the publicity being unfair to the victim do they?>

Yeah well that's where you lose me Baron.

No scumbags in prison should have the right to be Judge, Jury or executioner.

I've seen a bloke falsely accused of interfering with his step daughters(13 & 11 yrs old)... after he tried to reign them in from running amok around the streets(discipline). He was not the sharpest tool in the shed & was convicted on their testimony... was sent to Etna Creek ... he wasn't there more than 3 hrs & he was dead/murdered.

The girls later admitted they had lied to get him off their backs.

If Hughes & Rolf are guilty fine ....send em to jail ... but they shouldn't have any further justice meted out by prison scum who have probably committed more heinous crimes ....& just because they haven't molested a child.

If harsher penalties are to be given to them i.e. capital punishment then our laws/sentencing should decide that.   

Thing is Gnads, I have seen in my lifetime, too many innocent young lives destroyed by predators of the Robert Hughes variety.

They will carry those burdens like boulders the rest of their lives..

Whatever comes that bastard's way he deserves, ten fold over  and I couldn't give a continental about his so called rights. He threw them away when he starting violating innocent young children.

He is the most vile form of bottom feeder on this planet. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

red baron wrote on Apr 8^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

Thing is Gnads, I have seen in my lifetime, too many innocent young lives destroyed by predators of the Robert Hughes variety. They will carry those burdens like boulders the rest of their lives.. Whatever comes that bastard's way he deserves, ten fold over  and I couldn't give a continental about his so called rights. He threw them away when he starting violating innocent young children. He is the most vile form of bottom feeder on this planet. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

No .. there are worse animals than them .... they're the scum I don't want dishing out justice. They have no right.

I have no truck with kiddy fiddlers getting their just deserts.... but there are many more just as deserving.

Red - prison is as punishment, not for punishment.  as an ex-copper you know that,and you know that, like coppers, prisons have a duty of care to prevent such things happening.

As a copper you would not mete out terminal summary justice, would you?

Nor could you stand by and allow it to happen.

You are better than that.

As a Cop  my 'Duty of Care' finished at the prison  gates.

I have no sympathy for whatever happens to him beyond those gates.

People who steal children's innocence are the worst type of scum on this  Earth.

I couldn't care less what happens to them and that is my private point of view, not a Copper's P.O.V.