Very vague ... the judge in a civil matter had no right to say what he did.  He has over-stepped the boundaries of his office to engage in a political movement towards removal of legal rights, and must be stood down and punished.

John Smith wrote on May 25^th, 2024 at 10:45pm:


There you go - he did not have the evidence to support such a statement.... but should instead have given equal weight to both sides given the utter lack of any other evidence.  When he clearly sides with the demand for 'guilt by accusation' and actually fuels that push to destroy legal rights, he is deserving of censure and probably dismissal.

By insinuation now he has prejudiced the outcome of a trial against Let's Call Him Bruce based on pretty much the same level of 'evidence' and has pre-disposed the minds of any jury or judge to find guilt where the evidence does not support that.

Not even you are that blind and stupid.  Oh - wait a minute...

John Smith wrote on May 25^th, 2024 at 4:19pm:


You actually need to touch water to know that it's wet. Otherwise, how would you know without the experience?

John Smith wrote on May 25^th, 2024 at 9:29pm:


You might be more flexible than others. But, you are not dumb enough to commit yourself to shoving your head up your arse. The evidence that you ignore is that Brittany does not know if intercourse took place -- consensual or otherwise. Another piece of evidence is the fact that Brittany did not go to the police to do a rape kit to show that sexual intercourse took place.

There is plenty to read up about the case against Lehrmann. But the circumstantial evidence is just not enough to say that Lehrmann is a rapist. I doubt Lehrmann's innocence, too. But, it is not about proving Lehrmann's innocence. It is about proving his guilt.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 11:45am:


His actual words were, 'Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins,' as he stared straight down the barrel of the camera.

He is paid to make findings of fact.  That's his day job.

Aussie wrote on May 26^th, 2024 at 11:51am:


So he ignored the facts that Bruce presented?  The fact that all parties were loose with the truth?  Just had to dig desperately for one factoid to hang a man's entire life on?

The New Hanging Assizes should have their first victim - the judge.

These guys are way beyond themselves making law as they go along - I read last night of a decision that said, in effect, that the people's rejection of a political move (say, the voice) was insufficient to stop a government going ahead with it!!

Astonishing .... I've been calling for a royal commission into judiciary and jurisprudence for a very long time... for many reasons but basically because of their demolition of legal rights - but that is definitely becoming more and more urgent as time goes by.  They are supposed to be independent - not tools of the party in government on the day, not sucking down to the screaming pack at the door who demand that legal protections be removed so they can get at the accused and lynch him, are most especially not supposed to engage in legal lynchings, and are supposed to uphold the right and Rights - not alter them to suit.

I hold no brief for Bruce or anyone else in this sordid matter - but the clear and present danger from the judiciary is in front of your noses.... get with it.  They are but part of the dire peril this country is in at this time.

** Thirty-two years ago I warned the NSW 'Law reform Commission' that introducing their idea of 'domestic and apprehended violence laws' would lead to a diminution in the burden on judges and magistrates to actually find on proven and provable facts - especially in any case where a woman is the accuser and a man the accused.  This has come to pass.... I also pointed out that any genuine act of genuine violence was already actionable under existing law... to the then existing standard - which standard in itself was already perilously thin in the upholding of the rights of the defendant, in the hands of clearly biased and often incompetent 'magistrates' not even remotely drawn from the general populace and knowing what simple realities are, and in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, still hopelessly tied to the idea that 'the thin blue line' could never lie.  Then came royal commission after royal commission in state after state to PROVE how very much 'the thin blue line' DID lie as a matter of course.

Now far to many in the community, who have themselves never faced this atrocity of jurisprudence out of control of the Law,  suddenly feel that Law should be abandoned to favour a woman complainant, and a conviction made purely on the basis that 'women don't lie' - even though 10% of women and 5% of men will suffer a mental disorder that renders them incapable of knowing the difference.

Again I hold zero brief for the man on policies or politics - but look at what that did to one politician in the hands of a deeply schizophrenic woman whose very family rejected her claims.

Aussie knows this full well - he claims to have successfully defended one person accused of rape - and accused on much more substantial evidence than a single statement.... so what happened to Aussie after that?  He KNOWS 'the thin blue line' still lies and formulates a 'case' by often excluding relevant evidence and so forth - yet he leaps to the hang man's rope for Bruce on the basis of one single statement by an allegedly drunken woman, and ZERO other evidence.

Bruce has piggy eyes, etc, of course.... he looks like a rapist ... he had some sort of 'power' and we all know (wink, wink) that 'power' corrupts ...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 25^th, 2024 at 11:03pm:

by Grappler / DJ Trump.