Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

[kalex6251]

The fact those flat foots at the AFP didn't think the leaking of the material they retrieved off an alleged rape victims phone to a hostile press didn't warrant investigation previously says all you need to know about how rape victims are treated by the ACT police.

The 'threshold for investigation' for these clods seems to be when they are exposed for their half arsed incompetence. In this case it was by Justice Lee who made it clear in his verdict who the most likely source of the leaking was - heck there's even a photo of one of the suspected accomplices in the reflection of a screen showing one of the the leaked emails.

Time for an independent judicial review of the ACT Justice System. Err....hang on

the afp is reviewing itself ...... yeah .... righto

 

[FIGJAM]

She didn't need to be pressured, she knew the score.

That's the Dennis Denuto "it's the vibe" argument!

Wilkinson used it regularly in her testimony when she realised that her and 10 didn't investigate Higgins' claims on a cover up.

Justice Lee didn't buy it and neither do I. You need to look at each event on a case by case basis.

You need to allow for someone doing something by the book, even in an environment with "bonk bans", Barnaby and Tudge. And Brown and Reynolds did things by the book.

And everything which happened after (lying cow, glowing reference for BL, referral to NACC) confirmed that Reynolds didn't/doesn't care.

This is an even weirder argument, in that it is an "it's the vibe" only months or years after the event!

Some people have a hard time sustaining the dual points of view of being able to be supportive and empathetic of Higgins as the rape victim, as well as being pissed off with her for the mistruths that she told in The Project interview.

The fact remains that Brown and Reynolds took Higgins to the police. They did not apply pressure thereafter. They were supportive.

Higgins agreed that she had bought a bottle of champagne for Brown in June, had bought flowers for Reynolds, and had sent a text to Brown thanking her for all her support. - The Guardian

From Fiona Brown's affidavit:




Reynolds being pissed off at the Network 10 narrative of "The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career..." and justice that Justice Lee found to be "supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact.", is perfectly understandable.

Who wouldn't be upset with demonstrably false allegations? Sure, "lying cow" is a terrible turn of phrase, particularly when the target is a potential rape victim, but it was never targeted to the rape itself.

As for the NACC, $400,000 was for "...hurt, distress and humiliation suffered by Higgins arising from alleged conduct during her employment" that has now been proven to have not happened, having been paid without even speaking to Fiona Brown and Linda Reynolds. Is it not worth asking the question on this? Nobody's trying to claw back the money!

As for "glowing references" for Lehrmann, has there been new information having come to light since this statement:

 

[Brian Oblivion]

As for the NACC, $400,000 was for "...hurt, distress and humiliation suffered by Higgins arising from alleged conduct during her employment" that has now been proven to have not happened, having been paid without even speaking to Fiona Brown and Linda Reynolds. Is it not worth asking the question on this? Nobody's trying to claw back the money!

I think Senator Reynolds is .......

 

[Chief]

As for "glowing references" for Lehrmann, has there been new information having come to light since this statement:

She doesn't say if anyone else had contact or gave him references.

 

[FIGJAM]

She doesn't say if anyone else had contact or gave him references.

Both her and Fiona Brown stated unequivocally that they had zero contact with Lehrmann post sacking and neither provided employment references.

I assume Bruce got his tobacco PR gig via some Liberal contact.

 

[Chief]

I assume Bruce got his tobacco PR gig via some Liberal contact.

That's the sort of thing I meant.

He's had plenty of people give him a soft landing.

 

[FIGJAM]

That's the sort of thing I meant.

He's had plenty of people give him a soft landing.

No doubt there!

But it didn't come from Reynolds or Brown. They turfed him and gave Higgins a soft landing (despite what Higgins alleged almost 2 years later).

 

[Festerz]

Huh?

The problem is not what mess was cleaned, it was "why did somebody want the office cleaned that morning in particular?". Who ordered that, and why?

That's part 1 of the cover-up.

Reynolds and her CoS have had a long time to get their story straight and unlikely put anything into any record at the time.

They've heard everything Higgins has to say and would know how to align their story so it doesn't contradict hers.

I'm not sure what the actual harm would be. Politician covered something up? A bit like Justice Lee saying Lehrman wouldn't get damages because he was getting the reputation he deserved from what was said about him.

Maybe just show Reynolds' Robodebt testimony and conclude that yes, indeed, she's capable of covering up Got illegal acts and being completely indifferent to the suffering of ordinary people. Accusing her of another cover-up on top of the other is just giving her the reputation she deserves.

With respect to the clean up of Reynolds office it is important to remember that both the AFP and PH security staff raised issues about it


Peter Butler was the former Director of Security at Parliament House who was in charge when the incident occurred.

But he had quit just months later, in part he claims, over how it unfolded.

A former sworn New South Wales Special Constable through his work with transit police and in the NSW Sheriff’s office, Mr Butler had raised concerns over how the March 23, 2019 incident was handled for years.

On the morning of Saturday March 23, 2019, Director of Security Peter Butler was in Wollongong after attending a concert. He was called at 7am that morning over a report that a young woman had been found naked in a ministerial suite.

By this stage, a female security officer Nikola Anderson had reported to her superiors that the woman appeared intoxicated when entering Parliament at 1:41am and did not have her pass. The incident report said the woman “stumbled” when going through the security checkpoint.

The man, according to the incident report and evidence at the trial, left around 30 minutes later “in a hurry”. When security staff noticed the woman had not left at the same time they conducted a welfare check several hours later at 4:15 am and found the woman naked on the couch.

Mr Butler told the security staff to perform another welfare check later that morning. To protect the individual(s) he spoke to, who were not found to have behaved improperly, we will recall the woman Jane Doe.

“I advised Jane Doe of my concerns of the female being left in the minister’s suite and the fact that she appeared to have come into the building, either in an intoxicated or affected state,’’ Mr Butler told police.

“I still had concerns for her welfare.”

Mr Butler claims he advised the Department to engage with AFP officers. They were on site. But documents state he was later told it was “not a police matter.” Instead, they ordered the room to be cleaned.

“I’d been away for the night before at a concert in Wollongong and I was not able to attend Parliament House directly myself,’’ Mr Butler told police.

“I was continually receiving phone calls throughout the morning, seeking advice on what actions should be undertaken and what to do in relation to the matter. During one of those later phone calls, I had asked if the AFP had been engaged and had come yet, and I was told no, they haven’t.”

Mr Butler claims he raised concerns about the cleaning of the suite.

“And again, I did reiterate to Jane Doe that they should be engaging with the AFP to handle the matter. I then received a number of phone calls requesting how to have the minister’s suite cleaned. And I advised against cleaning the suite.

“I suggested that if something’s gone wrong, without knowing what the actual circumstances were, but something just wasn’t right. That they shouldn’t touch anything in the suite, and then leave up to the AFP to make those determinations.


At 8:33am Mr Butler formally reported the matter, which was escalated to various representatives of the Department of Parliamentary Services on Saturday, 23rd of March 2019. Brittany Higgins was still asleep in the office.

At approximately 9:15am another welfare check was conducted. The security officer spoke to Ms Higgins through a closed door and said she indicated “everything was okay.”

At approximately 10:02am, Ms Higgins exited the building.

Seven minutes later, at approximately 10:09am the deputy secretary and the Department of Parliamentary Services chief of staff arrived at the Parliament House to follow up on the welfare of the staffer on the advice of the secretary.

However, Brittany Higgins had already left the building seven minutes earlier.

The room was cleaned at around 4pm that day.

On Monday, March 25, Mr Butler returned to Canberra. He spoke to a parliamentary AFP Commander Hynes who told him the AFP had no knowledge of what had happened on the weekend.

On 13 September 2019 Former AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin complained in a letter to Parliament’s most senior bureaucrat that the decision to clean the ministerial suite Brittany Higgins was found in and not inform police immediately was “unacceptable”.

https://www.news.com.au/national/former-afp-commissioner-said-decision-to-clean-room-brittany-higgins-was-found-in-was-unacceptable/news-story/e08a4c83d2fa61143bbaee7fd91deb89

None of this means there was an orchestrated cover up of course. It is also consistent with utter incompetence on behalf of Dept of Parliamentary Services executives.

 

[CM86]

Fortunately Lee took that problem away by finding that Lehrmann probably raped Higgins.

At some point, while you keep insisting you're impartial...

You need to admit that Lee stated that Lehrmann rapped Higgins. Not that he 'probably' did.


Considering you keep wrongly insisting that 'Lee proved that there was no coverup', based on his statement that not enough research was done into a small aspect of the actual coverup.

It's pretty disgusting for you to still give breathing space to the idea that Higgins wasn't raped, and that Lehrmann didn't rape her.

Please pause and revaluate your views.

You don't care that Morrison may or may not have known.
You don't care about the unspoken impacts on Higgins.
But you really should.

Lehrmann rapped Higgins.
Higgins is a rape victim.
Not enough was done. And it was hidden from the Australian public for years, until Higgins went to the media. And Higgins has had death threats every day since...

 

[CM86]

With respect to the clean up of Reynolds office it is important to remember that both the AFP and PH security staff raised issues about it


Peter Butler was the former Director of Security at Parliament House who was in charge when the incident occurred.

But he had quit just months later, in part he claims, over how it unfolded.

A former sworn New South Wales Special Constable through his work with transit police and in the NSW Sheriff’s office, Mr Butler had raised concerns over how the March 23, 2019 incident was handled for years.

On the morning of Saturday March 23, 2019, Director of Security Peter Butler was in Wollongong after attending a concert. He was called at 7am that morning over a report that a young woman had been found naked in a ministerial suite.

By this stage, a female security officer Nikola Anderson had reported to her superiors that the woman appeared intoxicated when entering Parliament at 1:41am and did not have her pass. The incident report said the woman “stumbled” when going through the security checkpoint.

The man, according to the incident report and evidence at the trial, left around 30 minutes later “in a hurry”. When security staff noticed the woman had not left at the same time they conducted a welfare check several hours later at 4:15 am and found the woman naked on the couch.

Mr Butler told the security staff to perform another welfare check later that morning. To protect the individual(s) he spoke to, who were not found to have behaved improperly, we will recall the woman Jane Doe.

“I advised Jane Doe of my concerns of the female being left in the minister’s suite and the fact that she appeared to have come into the building, either in an intoxicated or affected state,’’ Mr Butler told police.

“I still had concerns for her welfare.”

Mr Butler claims he advised the Department to engage with AFP officers. They were on site. But documents state he was later told it was “not a police matter.” Instead, they ordered the room to be cleaned.

“I’d been away for the night before at a concert in Wollongong and I was not able to attend Parliament House directly myself,’’ Mr Butler told police.

“I was continually receiving phone calls throughout the morning, seeking advice on what actions should be undertaken and what to do in relation to the matter. During one of those later phone calls, I had asked if the AFP had been engaged and had come yet, and I was told no, they haven’t.”

Mr Butler claims he raised concerns about the cleaning of the suite.

“And again, I did reiterate to Jane Doe that they should be engaging with the AFP to handle the matter. I then received a number of phone calls requesting how to have the minister’s suite cleaned. And I advised against cleaning the suite.

“I suggested that if something’s gone wrong, without knowing what the actual circumstances were, but something just wasn’t right. That they shouldn’t touch anything in the suite, and then leave up to the AFP to make those determinations.


At 8:33am Mr Butler formally reported the matter, which was escalated to various representatives of the Department of Parliamentary Services on Saturday, 23rd of March 2019. Brittany Higgins was still asleep in the office.

At approximately 9:15am another welfare check was conducted. The security officer spoke to Ms Higgins through a closed door and said she indicated “everything was okay.”

At approximately 10:02am, Ms Higgins exited the building.

Seven minutes later, at approximately 10:09am the deputy secretary and the Department of Parliamentary Services chief of staff arrived at the Parliament House to follow up on the welfare of the staffer on the advice of the secretary.

However, Brittany Higgins had already left the building seven minutes earlier.

The room was cleaned at around 4pm that day.

On Monday, March 25, Mr Butler returned to Canberra. He spoke to a parliamentary AFP Commander Hynes who told him the AFP had no knowledge of what had happened on the weekend.

On 13 September 2019 Former AFP commissioner Andrew Colvin complained in a letter to Parliament’s most senior bureaucrat that the decision to clean the ministerial suite Brittany Higgins was found in and not inform police immediately was “unacceptable”.

https://www.news.com.au/national/former-afp-commissioner-said-decision-to-clean-room-brittany-higgins-was-found-in-was-unacceptable/news-story/e08a4c83d2fa61143bbaee7fd91deb89

None of this means there was an orchestrated cover up of course. It is also consistent with utter incompetence on behalf of Dept of Parliamentary Services executives.

They fired Lehrmann for his night time entry.
But also, it's totally normal and common.

They knew Higgins was rapped.
They should have reported it. They didn't.
They put it all on Higgins, the victim.


That is suppression.

There is no reason for Reynolds not to have reported it.
There is no reason for Reynolds to create a random reason to fire Lehrmann, while insisting that it was a totally normal occurrence.
They knew. They did nothing. They put all of the pressure on Higgins, and then they prevented the investigation until she broke and dropped the case.

 

[Crankyhawk]

At some point, while you keep insisting you're impartial...

You need to admit that Lee stated that Lehrmann rapped Higgins. Not that he 'probably' did.


Considering you keep wrongly insisting that 'Lee proved that there was no coverup', based on his statement that not enough research was done into a small aspect of the actual coverup.

It's pretty disgusting for you to still give breathing space to the idea that Higgins wasn't raped, and that Lehrmann didn't rape her.

Please pause and revaluate your views.

You don't care that Morrison may or may not have known.
You don't care about the unspoken impacts on Higgins.
But you really should.

Lehrmann rapped Higgins.
Higgins is a rape victim.
Not enough was done. And it was hidden from the Australian public for years, until Higgins went to the media. And Higgins has had death threats every day since...

I think the poster is choosing to use "probably" to show that it was found to the standard of proof of balance of probabilities rather than the criminal beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm not really sure what the best way of drawing that distinction is in a post though.

 

[Saint]

Some people have a hard time sustaining the dual points of view of being able to be supportive and empathetic of Higgins as the rape victim, as well as being pissed off with her for the mistruths that she told in The Project interview.

I do actually have a lot of trouble understanding Reynolds' position. Most human adults with functioning emotions, who thought somebody was raped in their office, would not sue that person. Ever.

They would not subject that person's confidential payout to a corruption commission. This in particular is of no benefit to Reynolds. It's purely vindictive.

I'm struggling to think of a circumstance where I would subject a rape victim to that sort of vindictiveness.

Reynolds hasn't even lost anything. I'm still waiting to hear what the damage to her reputation is.

WHat did HIggins say? That Reynolds needs to leave them alone? Reynolds taking it to the NACC suggests Higgins was right in saying that Reynolds was being vindictive.

 

[FIGJAM]

At some point, while you keep insisting you're impartial...

You need to admit that Lee stated that Lehrmann rapped Higgins. Not that he 'probably' did.

You're getting worked up on one word CM86 and one which has its basis in impartial legal terminology. This is Justice Lee's conclusion:

For all of the infamous Spotlight interview's faults, there is one grab from Reynolds that rings true for you, me and every other punter in here: "...there are only two people who knew what happened that night...".

It's pretty disgusting for you to still give breathing space to the idea that Higgins wasn't raped, and that Lehrmann didn't rape her.

I'm not going back through my own posts over some years to find the earliest example of me stating that I think Lehrmann probably raped Higgins! But as above, "probable" doesn't mean anything other than only 2 people know for sure what happened.

They knew Higgins was rapped.
They should have reported it. They didn't.

Reynolds and Brown knew rape happened on Monday 1 April. Brown took took Higgins tot he AFP that very day. So they did report it when they knew she was raped.

Justice Lee disagrees on your opinion that they should have reported it even when they only started to suspect non-consensual sex may have happened.

Brown had an inkling that there was something untoward may have happened late on Thursday 26 March and spoke to Reynolds and Alex Hawke over it on the Friday. Brown fought back against Reynolds and Hawke on reporting it and was commended for it by Justice Lee, as it showed integrity and showed concern for the autonomy and welfare of Higgins.

Here Lee also further digs heavily into the bullshit cover-up / job threat narrative stating "..to be later vilified as an unfeeling apparatchik willing to throw up roadblocks in covering up criminal conduct at the behest of one’s political overlords must be worse than galling.".

Considering you keep wrongly insisting that 'Lee proved that there was no coverup', based on his statement that not enough research was done into a small aspect of the actual coverup.

It's not a "small aspect of the actual cover-up"; it is the cover-up angle that was stated by Higgins and The Project as fact.

Again, as above, Lee finds the suggestion of Brown putting roadblocks in the path of Higgins to be preposterous. He's not mincing words!

And again, on the below, not mincing words.

And there are dozens of conclusions by Lee throughout the verdict pertaining to the falsity of Higgins' claims of a threat to her job if she proceeded.

You don't care that Morrison may or may not have known.

All I care is if Morrison or anyone else put up roadblocks in preventing Higgins from reporting her rape through the usual criminal means.

Why? Because that is at the heart of The Project article in particular.

The cover-up narrative as described by Lee was the "accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice".

Without this, The Project article doesn't go (and shouldn't have gone!) to air the way it did.

You don't care about the unspoken impacts on Higgins.
But you really should.

I fully empathise with everything that Higgins has gone through as a rape victim.

If I am ever critical of her, it is from the choice by her and/or Sharaz in 2021 to engage in a trial by media with a narrative that her job was under threat, which has proven to be incorrect, was politically weaponised (Justice Lee's word) and she curated data and evidence to support her false narrative.

That she is a rape victim who has traumas that I cannot fathom is abominable. It doesn't mean however, that she's immune from criticism in perpetuity.

Not enough was done. And it was hidden from the Australian public for years, until Higgins went to the media. And Higgins has had death threats every day since...

Firstly, death threats on anyone are to be condemned to the highest degree possible.

Secondly, enough was done, but it doesn't mean that the systems can't be improved on.

Finally, the rape would not have been "hidden" had Higgins gone through with the first criminal charge, but she dropped them off her own bat.

April 8, case activated.

April 9, texted boyfriend to say that “not interested in pursuing [a police complaint]” and then deleted this text after The Project interview as it didn't fit in with her narrative.

April 13, withdrew complaint.

My question to you is you seem to want this to be not hidden from the Australian public, but who exactly is "hiding it"?

And at what point in time should it be announced and by whom?

My take is that it's a bit odd expecting someone in government, or any organisation for that matter, to publicly announce an alleged rape in the office, when there is no active police complaint. I'm not even sure when they should announce it with an active police complaint, when the alleged perpetrator hasn't even been interviewed.

Ultimately, I've never had an issue with Higgins getting her story out there. I just feel that given that she didn't give the AFP a proper chance to undertake the investigation in the first place, then why not reactivate it with the AFP first and then tell your story later? The story was worth telling and wasn't going anywhere.

I don't know if Higgins fully believed or still believes her 'threat to my job' cover-up narrative, with her 2021 statements contradicting contemporaneous evidence of satisfaction with Reynolds, Brown and the AFP. She did indeed state "My health, memory and relationships have been impacted by my rape." in her response to the latest trial. I fear her being with the political animal that is David Sharaz would have done anything other than further strengthen misconceptions and potentially even develop untruths.

At the end of the day though, the people who should take a huge responsibility in the flaring up of the omnishambles, are the alleged "investigative journalists", who should have done...wait for it...some actual investigation!

The Project "caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system.".

Justice Lee could not be more unequivocal in his criticism of The Project and Wilkinson, which is why he's not happy with 10's lawyer Quill doing the media circuit last week claiming "vindication".

Lee adjudged that The Project article should never have gone ahead in the form that it did (ie. condemnation, not vindication!), which is what I have argued for years.

 

[FIGJAM]

I do actually have a lot of trouble understanding Reynolds' position. Most human adults with functioning emotions, who thought somebody was raped in their office, would not sue that person. Ever.

They would not subject that person's confidential payout to a corruption commission. This in particular is of no benefit to Reynolds. It's purely vindictive.

I'm struggling to think of a circumstance where I would subject a rape victim to that sort of vindictiveness.

Reynolds hasn't even lost anything. I'm still waiting to hear what the damage to her reputation is.

WHat did HIggins say? That Reynolds needs to leave them alone? Reynolds taking it to the NACC suggests Higgins was right in saying that Reynolds was being vindictive.

I don't know what was said specifically. I know one accused her of bullying from Sharaz.

I too would state that I wouldn't be suing them, but then it may be one of those circumstances whereby how would you really know what you would react after 2 years of false accusations? And then continued doubling down via Tweets from people who's Tweets automatically hit the front pages of all national newspapers?

If you put yourself in that position, you might just snap.

 

[Saint]

I don't know what was said specifically. I know one accused her of bullying from Sharaz.

I too would state that I wouldn't be suing them, but then it may be one of those circumstances whereby how would you really know what you would react after 2 years of false accusations? And then continued doubling down via Tweets from people who's Tweets automatically hit the front pages of all national newspapers?

If you put yourself in that position, you might just snap.

So we're ok that an Australian Senator has "just snapped" at being called a bully by the boyfriend of somebody who was raped in their office?

Still doesn't explain the 100% vindictive referral to corruption commission.

 

[blueboy25]

So we're ok that an Australian Senator has "just snapped" at being called a bully by the boyfriend of somebody who was raped in their office?

Still doesn't explain the 100% vindictive referral to corruption commission.

Its not like she sent her husband to sit in the back of the court room .......but but he didn't tell me what he saw.

Or asked for transcripts of Brittany Higgins evidence or was caught texting the defence lawyer two hours into the cross examination of Higgins.

Poor old Linda

 

[geoffjennings79]

Let's cut to the chase here.

The ideal outcome from my perspective would be Reynolds to pursue her defamation action, lose, bear the cost... and have what's left of her reputation trashed completely to boot.

But that's just me. Isn't it?

 

[FIGJAM]

So we're ok that an Australian Senator has "just snapped" at being called a bully by the boyfriend of somebody who was raped in their office?

As I said Saint, it was over 2 years years of false accusations about putting a threat on Higgins' job.

The only time that Reynolds "spoke out" was when she put her foot in her mouth and called Higgins a "lying cow" (about the false allegations on them pressuring her job and the Carla Zampatti jacket, not the rape).

Reynolds' own office threw her under a bus here, which is often overlooked within the chain of the omnishambles.

Then she basically had a breakdown and didn't say anything again until she "snapped" in 2023 and sued.

Again, we'd both like to think that we would have continued to have bitten our lip in the face of false allegations and perennial doubling down on those false allegations, but you just can't know for sure.

Further to this, the legal action stopped the continual Tweets from Higgins and Sharaz and Higgins has now apologised to Reynolds for the hurt that she's experienced.

Hopefully Reynolds doesn't channel her inner Adrian Dodoro in chasing a win / lose in the upcoming negotiations from here and that she is reasonable.

Still doesn't explain the 100% vindictive referral to corruption commission.

I actually agree with the referral to the corruption commission over the $400,000 portion of the payout "for hurt, distress and humiliation suffered by Higgins arising from alleged conduct during her employment".

This was splashed out without even speaking to Brown or Reynolds about the allegations of mistreatment.

I wouldn't say the payout was corrupt, per se, but it sure as s**t was negligent and lacking due-diligence.

I can't view the referral of this to the NACC as being "vindictive". It's not an attack on Higgins personally IMHO and she won't be giving any money back to the government.

 

[peetoo]

Non consent is one thing
Non consent between employees in an employment context. On premises or hotels during conferences. Different altogether

Throw in the context that state secrets may be openly available there. Lehman claimed he was working on defence stuff

 

[Festerz]

Its not like she sent her husband to sit in the back of the court room .......but but he didn't tell me what he saw.

Or asked for transcripts of Brittany Higgins evidence or was caught texting the defence lawyer two hours into the cross examination of Higgins.

Poor old Linda

yep.

And a reminder we are talking about Senator Linda Reynolds. A long standing Federal Senator and senior government minister here who joined the Liberal Party while at Uni and who, prior to becoming a Senator, held various senior positions in the Liberal Party including as a a campaign manager, deputy federal director, ministerial advisor, notably as chief of staff and senior adviser.

In those high profile political roles you would expect to be subject to targeted personal attacks on mainstream and social media, some of them certainly vicious and many factually wrong. Not to mention the attacks and rumour mongering made under parliamentary privilege that come to Ministers in the mad house of Parliamentary question time. A former Minister and still serving Senator who appeared on the ABC series Nemesis just a couple of months back to talk about her torrid experiences under successive Liberal PMs, including the bullying and victimisation of women MPs in her own party.

So knowing Reynolds' political background and career you would think that the social media posts from Brittany Higgins would have to be pretty bloody nasty/hateful/spiteful for her to take highly costly and public defamation action including diplomatic action in a foreign country to freeze the assets of Ms Higgins and her partner.

Especially given her target in here is a former fellow Liberal Party member and her own former staffer, who was raped in Reynolds office from a fellow Reynolds staffer after hours and went through years of humiliating highly public court and media appearances to have her rape formally acknowledged and her rapist finally called out.

Here are the two social media posts from Brittany Higgins that Linda Reynolds used to start her defamation action and which she says contributed to the 'enormous emotional cost' to her and her family:

One of them was an instagram post from Ms Higgins on 4 July last year referencing an SMH article where Reynolds accuses Federal Attorney General Mark Dreyfus of denying her government funding for legal assistance for representation during the Sofronoff Inquiry. Higgins' instagram post said:

“This is from a current Australian senator who continues to harass me through the media and in the parliament,”

There was another post from Higgins on Twitter on 20 July last year that is also the subject of Reynolds' action:



I'll leave it to others to make their own judgement.

My own view on a current serving Federal MP and former Minister taking defamation action in this way and under these circumstances has been made clear in this thread many times.

 

[FIGJAM]

There was another post from Higgins on Twitter on 20 July last year that is also the subject of Reynolds' action:

I appreciate Reynolds' frustration at all of the false allegations, but her suggestion there is preposterous!

As I've said before, this story would have been a perfect vehicle for investigative journalism if Higgins' claims about a threat to her job by her bosses was true. If Higgins was indeed blocked from going to the police.

Reynolds' criminalisation of investigative journalism would undermine gold-standard investigative journalism pieces like Roberts-Smith pieces by Nine, effectively criminalising whistle-blowers.

So yeah, * that idea!

What Nine did differently to the hatchet job by Ten, was a thorough, 'leave no stone unturned and undocumented' approach to investigative reporting.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

yep.

And a reminder we are talking about Senator Linda Reynolds. A long standing Federal Senator and senior government minister here who joined the Liberal Party while at Uni and who, prior to becoming a Senator, held various senior positions in the Liberal Party including as a a campaign manager, deputy federal director, ministerial advisor, notably as chief of staff and senior adviser.

In those high profile political roles you would expect to be subject to targeted personal attacks on mainstream and social media, some of them certainly vicious and many factually wrong. Not to mention the attacks and rumour mongering made under parliamentary privilege that come to Ministers in the mad house of Parliamentary question time. A former Minister and still serving Senator who appeared on the ABC series Nemesis just a couple of months back to talk about her torrid experiences under successive Liberal PMs, including the bullying and victimisation of women MPs in her own party.

So knowing Reynolds' political background and career you would think that the social media posts from Brittany Higgins would have to be pretty bloody nasty/hateful/spiteful for her to take highly costly and public defamation action including diplomatic action in a foreign country to freeze the assets of Ms Higgins and her partner.

Especially given her target in here is a former fellow Liberal Party member and her own former staffer, who was raped in Reynolds office from a fellow Reynolds staffer after hours and went through years of humiliating highly public court and media appearances to have her rape formally acknowledged and her rapist finally called out.

Here are the two social media posts from Brittany Higgins that Linda Reynolds used to start her defamation action and which she says contributed to the 'enormous emotional cost' to her and her family:

One of them was an instagram post from Ms Higgins on 4 July last year referencing an SMH article where Reynolds accuses Federal Attorney General Mark Dreyfus of denying her government funding for legal assistance for representation during the Sofronoff Inquiry. Higgins' instagram post said:

“This is from a current Australian senator who continues to harass me through the media and in the parliament,”

There was another post from Higgins on Twitter on 20 July last year that is also the subject of Reynolds' action:



I'll leave it to others to make their own judgement.

My own view on a current serving Federal MP and former Minister taking defamation action in this way and under these circumstances has been made clear in this thread many times.

I'd say it would have been taken by Reynolds as water off a duck's back. She's doing herself a mischief here me thinks.

 

[Saint]

What exactly were the "allegations".

Weren't the tweets mostly along the lines of "this lady is picking on me and my boyfriend".

Was there a specific tweet that was accusing Reynolds of anything near a cover-up? What was the worst language used?

In my estimation Reynolds isn't personally offended, she's professionally taking revenge. Her career also suffered the moment the rape was covered up. Whether it was by her, or by the system, she's nowhere near as much a victim as Higgins.

 

[FIGJAM]

What exactly were the "allegations".

Weren't the tweets mostly along the lines of "this lady is picking on me and my boyfriend".

Was there a specific tweet that was accusing Reynolds of anything near a cover-up? What was the worst language used?

In my estimation Reynolds isn't personally offended, she's professionally taking revenge. Her career also suffered the moment the rape was covered up. Whether it was by her, or by the system, she's nowhere near as much a victim as Higgins.

Don't know Saint. They're not readily available online.

All I know it Sharaz had one with the term "bullying" in it.

Either way, we've got a verdict that says rape probably happened and that a cover-up probably didn't. Just find some middle ground FFS!

 

[peetoo]

yep.

And a reminder we are talking about Senator Linda Reynolds. A long standing Federal Senator and senior government minister here who joined the Liberal Party while at Uni and who, prior to becoming a Senator, held various senior positions in the Liberal Party including as a a campaign manager, deputy federal director, ministerial advisor, notably as chief of staff and senior adviser.

In those high profile political roles you would expect to be subject to targeted personal attacks on mainstream and social media, some of them certainly vicious and many factually wrong. Not to mention the attacks and rumour mongering made under parliamentary privilege that come to Ministers in the mad house of Parliamentary question time. A former Minister and still serving Senator who appeared on the ABC series Nemesis just a couple of months back to talk about her torrid experiences under successive Liberal PMs, including the bullying and victimisation of women MPs in her own party.

So knowing Reynolds' political background and career you would think that the social media posts from Brittany Higgins would have to be pretty bloody nasty/hateful/spiteful for her to take highly costly and public defamation action including diplomatic action in a foreign country to freeze the assets of Ms Higgins and her partner.

Especially given her target in here is a former fellow Liberal Party member and her own former staffer, who was raped in Reynolds office from a fellow Reynolds staffer after hours and went through years of humiliating highly public court and media appearances to have her rape formally acknowledged and her rapist finally called out.

Here are the two social media posts from Brittany Higgins that Linda Reynolds used to start her defamation action and which she says contributed to the 'enormous emotional cost' to her and her family:

One of them was an instagram post from Ms Higgins on 4 July last year referencing an SMH article where Reynolds accuses Federal Attorney General Mark Dreyfus of denying her government funding for legal assistance for representation during the Sofronoff Inquiry. Higgins' instagram post said:

“This is from a current Australian senator who continues to harass me through the media and in the parliament,”

There was another post from Higgins on Twitter on 20 July last year that is also the subject of Reynolds' action:



I'll leave it to others to make their own judgement.

My own view on a current serving Federal MP and former Minister taking defamation action in this way and under these circumstances has been made clear in this thread many times.

I think the difference is they see Higgins has some cash they don’t seem to think is deserved, even thought the liberal party seems to have been happy to extort the taxpayer otherwise.
Even the fact that Reynolds will only be benefitting lawyers isn’t blinding the hate