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

[Ice-Wolf]

As the Jenkins Report noted, Ministers and MPs must bear the ultimate responsibility for the fundamental failure to provide a safe workplace for parliamentary employees - a culture that ultimately led to the after-hours rape of a young woman by her fellow worker in Senator Reynolds office.

I'd like to add whilst rape is the most egregious thing to have come from this severely outdated culture that would/should have been unacceptable at any workplace we also had accounts of property damage and theft of valuable public property from what could probably be classed as "keggers" with no real repercussion for the offenders plus the Barnaby and Tudge affairs.

It was a culture where cover-up and obfuscation was/is the (hopefully just) unwritten policy and that would have informed how the situation was dealt with from the offset. i.e. Parliamentary cleaners etc. wouldn't have needed to be explicitly told to cover it up because they would do so as a matter of course.

 

[Chief]

As I see it this basic lack of a duty of care demonstrated that weekend towards Ms Higgins by the DPS security staff in:

a. allowing Lehrmann and Higgins into the building while one of them was clearly intoxicated in the early hours of the morning;b. allowing them unsupervised access to a high security area of the building hidden from view;c. allowing Lehrmann to exit the building without demanding a full explanation of what had happened and his reason for a hasty exit without his intoxicated work partner;d. Mr Fairweather not explicitly outlining the details of the incident in his incident report submitted to DPS, including an explicit reference to his strong suspicion that sexual activity had taken place in Linda Reynolds office and Mr Lehrmann's rapid departure from the building leaving Ms Higgins 'passed out' and substantially undressed on a Ministerial couch.e. The evidence given by both security officers about a general unwritten but accepted policy of allowing access to Parliament House for drunk members and staff, even after hours and when non-work related reasons are suspected.

This all looks like bad security practice in any case.

1. Duck in. Take some photos of sensitive info. Leave.

2. ???

3. Profit!

 

[Not Important]

The affidavits, incident reports and diaries of both security guards presented to the Lehrmann defamation trial and still available online makes it pretty clear that they DID have concerns after Brittany Higgins and Mr Lehrmann turned up at 1:41 am in the morning in March, 2019.

One of the security guards (Nikola Anderson) gave evidence that she thought Ms Higgins was very intoxicated when entering the building.

When Lehrmann departed the Parliament House without Ms Higgins, security guards wanted to know where Ms Higgins was.

“When exiting Parliament House you’re not meant to walk back through the metal detector. You were meant to walk through the electronic doors. The man walked through the metal detector,‘’ security guard Mark Fairweather states in an affidavit.

“As a man walked past me. I said... ‘Oi, Are you coming back?’ . He said ‘No’, I observed that he said this hastily.”

“He did not seem to want to stop and talk. He was looking down on his phone. He flicked his green pass onto the desk and before I could ask him any more questions. I remember the flick. I felt it was rude and I was annoyed by it.

“I wanted to ask him questions about the woman because I wanted to secure the suite.”

A female security guard was sent to do a welfare check about 90 minutes later.

“I found her naked and she had her you-know-what showing,‘’ security guard Nikola Anderson said.

Mr Fairweather said he then said, “I f**king knew it.

“I had a thought when the man and the woman were going up to the suite that they may not have been going up to the suite to work. When Anderson told me that she found her naked I thought they had had sex or had been drinking rather than working.

“I was irritated because I did not want stains left on the minister’s couch or a mess left in her office or bathroom,” he said.

“I finished work at 7am on the 28th March 23 of March 2019. I did an incident statement because I was not happy with them coming in at that time on a Saturday morning and I had my suspicions about what they’d been doing in the minister’s suite."

It was THIS incident report from a security guard of an expected sexual encounter in the Ministerial suite (where Ms Higgins being expected by at least one of them of being highly intoxicated) that led to a subsequent order being made for the suite to be thoroughly cleaned on the Sunday morning- including to look for used condoms. It was also cleaned the next day (Monday)

So it was definitely NOT a normal cleaning - but prompted by the incident report of the security guards.

Festerz your posts are always informative and this is one of your best. of course, this wasn’t a ‘normal’ clean.

the liberals have been running interference and image protection all along. aided and abetted and in close communication with their propagandists at newscorpse. as can be seen by the reynolds - albrechtsen meeting after the lee findings.

higgin’s has been treated appallingly. firstly by the grub, then by the principleless liberals, then by their ‘mates’ in the media.

 

[FIGJAM]

It was a culture where cover-up and obfuscation was/is the (hopefully just) unwritten policy and that would have informed how the situation was dealt with from the offset. i.e. Parliamentary cleaners etc. wouldn't have needed to be explicitly told to cover it up because they would do so as a matter of course.

In an office that borderline runs more like a hotel, doing out of hours cleans would be no thing.

Parliament House cleaner Carlos Ramos told the court he had been called in to do an out-of-hours clean on the same day – and was told to look for signs of a "party".

Mr Ramos said the office only appeared to require a "normal" clean, he found no evidence the bathroom had been used.

He said he used a chemical to clean the couch in Senator Reynolds's office as part of the standard cleaning procedure.

What the jury heard in court before it was discharged in the trial of Bruce Lehrmann

In the wake of what has now been declared a mistrial, remains a little over two weeks of hearings and testimony about the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins by former colleague Bruce Lehrmann.

www.abc.net.au

It is too much of a conspiratorial stretch IMHO to extend the motivation of all engaged in cleaning an office as desiring to cover everything up, particularly when you're looking through the lens of a sexual assault.

Were they trying to "cover-up" there being empty glasses or beer bottles? Well, yeah! But were they sending in Carlos with a CSI UV lamp to eradicate all bodily fluids from the office?

There is a reason that this little dead-end of a conspiracy didn't jump from the criminal trial into the civil trial.

 

[Not Important]

Of course she had some way of knowing, just that she probably didn’t.


He was the cleaner and testified under oath that it was normal.

As for toilet damage, speaking from extensive personal experience, some vomits are complete catastrophes and some are quite manageable.


Pretty sure there are photos online of the standard couch that is leather.

Higgins’ partner Sharaz said he’d get a photo of one of the standard couches from one of the other offices as a part of the politicisation (Justice Lee’s classification in the verdict) of their story.

Either way, Ramos wasn’t a steam cleaner and wasn’t asked to steam clean anything even if he was.



I’m not “apologising” for anyone. I’d have slammed Brown, Reynolds, ScoMo and anyone else if they actually covered anything up. It’s just they didn’t!

ministers are kept in the loop on all matters of importance, particularly those likely to explode. it’s the primary task of their ministerial staff. she knew.

the liberals have run interference, been the source of misinformation and used their acolytes in the media for propaganda. all to protect their interests, at the expense of someone they’ve seen as expendable.

had you been around parliament house a bit you’d know cleaners almost always work in teams. it is rare for there to be one. carlos may have been a team leader but you can bet your sweet hippy he wasn’t the only cleaner who knew what was going on.

it’s pleasing to see you’ve recognised the strong possibility that higgin’s being ill in the toilet was another red flag.

 

[Not Important]

one can only hope.

Paul Bongiorno: Reynolds doing Libs no favours pursuing Higgins

All the signs are retiring Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds is hell bent on continuing her pursuit of Brittany Higgins.

www.thenewdaily.com.au

 

[The Punter]

There is a reason that this little dead-end of a conspiracy didn't jump from the criminal trial into the civil trial.

Is it because this issue was irrelevant to the alleged defamation of Mr Lehrmann?

 

[Wallace52]

This all looks like bad security practice in any case.

1. Duck in. Take some photos of sensitive info. Leave.

2. ???

3. Profit!

And then there’s Bruce’s self-reported links with ASIO or ASIS.

Was he a mole?

 

[FIGJAM]

Is it because this issue was irrelevant to the alleged defamation of Mr Lehrmann?

No, it would have been extremely relevant to the support for Network 10 in the "cover-up" angle. Had Lee found that he couldn't state that rape had probably occurred, then the "allegation of the cover-up" would have seen 10 in a world of trouble.

1096 But even though the respondents have legally justified their imputation of rape, this does not mean their conduct was justified in any broader or colloquial sense. The contemporaneous documents and the broadcast itself demonstrate the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif.

1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination 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. To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.

Ultimately, the "after hours clean-up" portion of the cover-up conspiracy was not brought up by Network 10, as they had already flagged this as being embarrassingly weak via the criminal trial and would have further added to the insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.

People still jumping on this conspiracy is on par with arguing with a 'fake Moon landing' nutter complaining about the moving flag!

 

[FIGJAM]

the liberals have run interference, been the source of misinformation and used their acolytes in the media for propaganda. all to protect their interests, at the expense of someone they’ve seen as expendable.

I see it the way Justice Lee saw it; the employers of Higgins handled her complaint, argued about reporting it to the police immediately, then took her to the police, Higgins then dropped the charges off her own bat, then the Libs continued to employ her for almost 2 more years and then begged her to stay when she quit.

Your phrases like "running interference", "misinformation", "using their acolytes in the media for propaganda", "all to protect their interests", "at the expense of someone they’ve seen as expendable", doesn't fit in anywhere with what Lee found in the recent trial. It's frankly just conspiracy theorist guff!!

 

[Festerz]

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 Punter]

No, it would have been extremely relevant to the support for Network 10 in the "cover-up" angle. Had Lee found that he couldn't state that rape had probably occurred, then the "allegation of the cover-up" would have seen 10 in a world of trouble.



Ultimately, the "after hours clean-up" portion of the cover-up conspiracy was not brought up by Network 10, as they had already flagged this as being embarrassingly weak via the criminal trial and would have further added to the insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.

People still jumping on this conspiracy is on par with arguing with a 'fake Moon landing' nutter complaining about the moving flag!

Excuse my ignorance, but was the cover-up alleged to be protecting Mr Lehrmann, or protecting the Government? I would think that would be relevant to whether it should have been brought up in a civil trial considering a government cannot be defamed.

 

[Festerz]

One of the things that troubles me about the Lee verdict and his narrative about who knew what when is that he seems to have glossed over an inconsistency between what Fiona Brown said in her 23 December 2023 affidavit submitted to the Lehrmann defamation trial and what was in the 4th April 2019 notes of AFP Deputy Commissioner Leanne Cross from her meeting with both Fiona Brown and Linda Reynolds.

Fiona Brown said in her Federal Court affidavit on Dec 23, 2023 that it was only after she spoke with Linda Reynolds on April 5th that she knew about the formal sexual assault allegation.




Yet the notes of the 4th April meeting AFP Deputy Commissioner Leanne Cross had with Reynolds and Brown, DC Close makes it clear that she told them both Brittany Higgins had made a formal allegation of sexual assault. The AFP also confirm this in their own media statement.




Such an important detail - the date and circumstances when a Ministerial Chief of Staff finds out one of her direct reports has raped another. And yet Ms Brown's affidavit is at odds with that of the AFP Deputy Commissioner on those critical details.

Am I missing something here. Is there an explanation elsewhere that I have missed?

 

[FIGJAM]

Excuse my ignorance, but was the cover-up alleged to be protecting Mr Lehrmann, or protecting the Government? I would think that would be relevant to whether it should have been brought up in a civil trial considering a government cannot be defamed.

The cover-up refers to (as Justice Lee has stated): "the publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice".

So it's related to an alleged government cover-up.

So why would it have any bearing on a Lehrmann defamation case?

Because if Justice Lee didn't find that he could reasonably determine that a rape had probably happened, then the remainder of the article is in live play, which includes a number of claims in the "government cover-up conspiracy" that are demonstrably false.

I would ultimately cut to the core as to whether or not this story should have gone to air in the first place and would have impacted negatively on the integrity of Network 10's practices and the damages would have been higher.

Fortunately Lee took that problem away by finding that Lehrmann probably raped Higgins. But he didn't stop short of ripping into Network 10 for their dodgy practices, at trial and now after trial, with him demanding transcripts of one of 10's lawyers Quill, falsely claiming that Network 10 had been "vindicated".

1095 Mr Lehrmann is not entitled to the vindication of his reputation. The respondents, however, are entitled to vindication by the entry of judgment on the statement of claim.

1096 But even though the respondents have legally justified their imputation of rape, this does not mean their conduct was justified in any broader or colloquial sense. The contemporaneous documents and the broadcast itself demonstrate the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif.

1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination 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. To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.

 

[The Punter]

The cover-up refers to (as Justice Lee has stated): "the publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice".

So it's related to an alleged government cover-up.

So why would it have any bearing on a Lehrmann defamation case?

Because if Justice Lee didn't find that he could reasonably determine that a rape had probably happened, then the remainder of the article is in live play, which includes a number of claims in the "government cover-up conspiracy" that are demonstrably false.

I would ultimately cut to the core as to whether or not this story should have gone to air in the first place and would have impacted negatively on the integrity of Network 10's practices and the damages would have been higher.

Fortunately Lee took that problem away by finding that Lehrmann probably raped Higgins. But he didn't stop short of ripping into Network 10 for their dodgy practices, at trial and now after trial, with him demanding transcripts of one of 10's lawyers Quill, falsely claiming that Network 10 had been "vindicated".

Thank you for the explanation, but I want to be clear: was the cover up to ensure no one discovered Mr Lehrmann was accused of rape, or was it to ensure no one discovered a government staffer had raped another government staffer? If it is the second one, I'm not quite wrapping my head around how this would effect whether Mr Lehrmann has been defamed when the alleged cover up was perpetrated to protect the reputation of the Government, not Mr Lehrmann.

 

[Saint]

The cover-up refers to (as Justice Lee has stated): "the publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice".

So it's related to an alleged government cover-up.

So why would it have any bearing on a Lehrmann defamation case?

Because if Justice Lee didn't find that he could reasonably determine that a rape had probably happened, then the remainder of the article is in live play, which includes a number of claims in the "government cover-up conspiracy" that are demonstrably false.

I would ultimately cut to the core as to whether or not this story should have gone to air in the first place and would have impacted negatively on the integrity of Network 10's practices and the damages would have been higher.

Fortunately Lee took that problem away by finding that Lehrmann probably raped Higgins. But he didn't stop short of ripping into Network 10 for their dodgy practices, at trial and now after trial, with him demanding transcripts of one of 10's lawyers Quill, falsely claiming that Network 10 had been "vindicated".

My reading of this is that what was published was conjecture, but there are "perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament". With Linda Reynolds as her employer, could Higgins not consider Reynolds' upholding of the systemic issues as her participating in it?

One obvious systemic issue is that ANY allegation like this within a Government is political poison and anyone who raises it will never see their career progress. Higgins' career was over the moment the allegation became public, which it had to if she wanted to pursue it.

They typical pollie reaction is that they can't do anything without a formal allegation and due process, and one that Lehrman would have pursued is that he can't be sacked without a finding against him, which requires an allegation.

So what were Higgins' options?
1. Do nothing. Let Lehrman continue in his blackguard ways around Canberra, no doubt making life difficult for her.
2. Make an accusation and end your political career

Does anyone think there's an option where Higgins makes an allegation and keeps her career?

As soon as she was assaulted by somebody who held more sway in the party than her, her career was over. I wonder how many others this has happened to in Canberra.

Maybe the reason she's angry with Reynolds is that Reynolds offered to assist her partly, but never helped her to get her career back which might have been impossible. Maybe watching Reynolds do very little made her feel like Reynolds was part of the system which was trying to cover it up.

The party (and their media partners) appears to have acted to protect Lehrman at every turn and provide the bare minimum of support to Higgins (or outright attacking her in the media) despite allowing this one event to end her career.

 

[Saint]

It's worth noting the culture of the LNP Govt was to be the least inquisitive people of all time.

Their Robodebt testimony was basically "If you can't prove that I read it, then I didn't read it and I had no idea it existed".

They didn't delve into the details or investigate anything at all, ever. Because then they couldn't deny knowing it.

Imagine being sexually assaulted in that environment and wanting something to happen about it.

The culture of plausible deniability is not unique to that LNP Govt, but they made it an art form and Linda Reynolds' behaviour before the Commission (and everyone else who testified to defend themselves) at the Robodebt Royal Commission is proof of it.

Robo-debt inquiry wants Reynolds to face Senate if she continues to refuse to cooperate

A Senate Committee inquiring into robo-debt has labelled Reynold's refusal to unveil the legal advice Services Australia received when implementing the scheme as an erosion of public trust.

www.zdnet.com

 

[QuietB]

In an office that borderline runs more like a hotel, doing out of hours cleans would be no thing.

What the jury heard in court before it was discharged in the trial of Bruce Lehrmann

In the wake of what has now been declared a mistrial, remains a little over two weeks of hearings and testimony about the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins by former colleague Bruce Lehrmann.

www.abc.net.au

It is too much of a conspiratorial stretch IMHO to extend the motivation of all engaged in cleaning an office as desiring to cover everything up, particularly when you're looking through the lens of a sexual assault.

Were they trying to "cover-up" there being empty glasses or beer bottles? Well, yeah! But were they sending in Carlos with a CSI UV lamp to eradicate all bodily fluids from the office?

There is a reason that this little dead-end of a conspiracy didn't jump from the criminal trial into the civil trial.

Two very simple questions for you?

1. Do you believe Scott Morrison is an honest man?
2. Do you believe that Scott Morrison did not know about the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins before the 2019 election as he has stated?

Edit - election was obviously 2019

 

[QuietB]

Excuse my ignorance, but was the cover-up alleged to be protecting Mr Lehrmann, or protecting the Government? I would think that would be relevant to whether it should have been brought up in a civil trial considering a government cannot be defamed.

The cover up is in reference to who knew about the rape, when they knew and what they did in response.

Evidence suggests Reynolds wanted to report the rape to federal police and therefore she was probably not part of any initial cover up - that does not mean Reynolds was not part of silencing after that that point. But that does not answer what and when Morrison knew and how did he react (his right hand man Alex Hawke knew), and what and when did others know and how did they react.

The Gaetjens enquiry was supposed to answer these questions. But it was either simply a typical Morrison announcement, or it was cancelled when everyone associated engaged their own lawyers to protect themselves from Morrison's goons.

Either way, it has never been properly tested.

 

[FIGJAM]

Thank you for the explanation, but I want to be clear: was the cover up to ensure no one discovered Mr Lehrmann was accused of rape, or was it to ensure no one discovered a government staffer had raped another government staffer? If it is the second one, I'm not quite wrapping my head around how this would effect whether Mr Lehrmann has been defamed when the alleged cover up was perpetrated to protect the reputation of the Government, not Mr Lehrmann.

I think the general conspiracy is more geared towards the latter, in that the government just wanted Higgins' claim buried and to disappear.

All signs pointed to the very opposite of this happening, as per Justice Lee's ruling.

Lee found that The Project had identified Lehrmann, despite avoiding using his name.

As I said, had Lee have found that on the balance of probability that he couldn't be sure if sex had taken place, then the substantial truth argument would have failed.

It is at this point, in addition to a failed substantial truth claim, the cover-up angle, with all of it's false claims and shoddy journalistic practices, Lee would have had to consider the impact of these false allegations by Network 10 on Lehrmann, including the potentially broader reach than just a handful of people who knew him in the office.

It's also fair to consider that if there was no cover-up angle, the story probably wouldn't have gone to air in a manner that would have identified him in the first place.

It's a little hard to bridge that, but let me say that if it was irrelevant, Lee would have shut this side of the argument down rather than spend days on it. It was actually vitally important, which I why I feel that Lee asking for transcripts on 10's lawyer Quill's media blitz stating that "Network 10 were vindicated" is a sign that he's going to give them a clip at the costs hearing. Lee rightly slammed Network 10 and wants people to know it!

 

[FIGJAM]

Two very simple questions for you?

1. Do you believe Scott Morrison is an honest man?
2. Do you believe that Scott Morrison did not know about the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins before the 2022 election as he has stated?

1. No. And I think he's by miles the worst Prime Minister in my lifetime. And I'm including Tony Abbott in that analysis!

2. Morrison knew about Higgins' plight before the 2022 election. I do however know that you meant 2019 , so I'll make a statement that might be controversial; I don't care if he did! All I care about was did anyone in that office suppress Higgins' right to go to the police, or stand over her in any way. And I don't think they did and neither does Justice Lee.

 

[FIGJAM]

One obvious systemic issue is that ANY allegation like this within a Government is political poison and anyone who raises it will never see their career progress. Higgins' career was over the moment the allegation became public, which it had to if she wanted to pursue it.

Well, this is certainly your angle on it, but I have a slightly different take, which is:

It's 2019. Whilst Parliament House still has some culture problems (with the likes of Tudgey, Barnaby etc.), they're not completely devoid of the evolved work practices that have gone through businesses, especially the government. Having the noise around a rape in Parliament may well be a type of "political poison", but do you want to know what's worse than that? Covering it up!! Being found to have not given the requisite support.

...it is entirely at odds with the notion of an attempt being made to cover up an allegation of rape by discouraging it to be reported to the police.

667 Indeed, I am comfortably satisfied that the Minister considered it would protect her personal interests that the very opposite occur. She wanted the incident to be reported to the police and was doing what she could to encourage Ms Higgins to see the AFP, having failed in her attempt to direct Ms Brown to report the incident the previous Friday. As I said during the hearing, it is the only alleged cover-up of which I am aware where those said to be responsible for the covering up were almost insisting the complainant to go to the police.

You could mount an argument, if you're a Reynolds hater, that she went strictly by the book because it was in her political interests!

Had this have even come out before the 2019 election, which I doubt it would have given the pace of the legal system, the Libs coming forward and stating that there is an event under investigation and condemning rape would be a smart move that might not even cause a blip on the radar for the election. People were apparently more worried about their franking credits and negative gearing (I'm too poor to care about that s**t!).

If it comes out after the election, which I think it would have, then the Libs would just own it and push for systemic change. They can look like a refreshed Liberal Party who won't stand for such s**t. Labor can't exactly weaponise a rape politically, so there will be bipartisan support for change.

At the end of the day though, Higgins lodged her claim on April 8, sent a text to her then boyfriend the day after stating that she didn't want to pursue, then ended the case on April 13. It's not enough time for her to have been pressured out of it and her claims of various pressures mostly don't support that time line either.

 

[western royboy]

Well, this is certainly your angle on it, but I have a slightly different take, which is:

It's 2019. Whilst Parliament House still has some culture problems (with the likes of Tudgey, Barnaby etc.), they're not completely devoid of the evolved work practices that have gone through businesses, especially the government. Having the noise around a rape in Parliament may well be a type of "political poison", but do you want to know what's worse than that? Covering it up!! Being found to have not given the requisite support.



You could mount an argument, if you're a Reynolds hater, that she went strictly by the book because it was in her political interests!

Had this have even come out before the 2019 election, which I doubt it would have given the pace of the legal system, the Libs coming forward and stating that there is an event under investigation and condemning rape would be a smart move that might not even cause a blip on the radar for the election. People were apparently more worried about their franking credits and negative gearing (I'm too poor to care about that s**t!).

If it comes out after the election, which I think it would have, then the Libs would just own it and push for systemic change. They can look like a refreshed Liberal Party who won't stand for such s**t. Labor can't exactly weaponise a rape politically, so there will be bipartisan support for change.

At the end of the day though, Higgins lodged her claim on April 8, sent a text to her then boyfriend the day after stating that she didn't want to pursue, then ended the case on April 13. It's not enough time for her to have been pressured out of it and her claims of various pressures mostly don't support that time line either.

Ben Dillaway was an ex boyfriend but still a close friend

 

[Saint]

Well, this is certainly your angle on it, but I have a slightly different take, which is:

It's 2019. Whilst Parliament House still has some culture problems (with the likes of Tudgey, Barnaby etc.), they're not completely devoid of the evolved work practices that have gone through businesses, especially the government. Having the noise around a rape in Parliament may well be a type of "political poison", but do you want to know what's worse than that? Covering it up!! Being found to have not given the requisite support.



You could mount an argument, if you're a Reynolds hater, that she went strictly by the book because it was in her political interests!

Had this have even come out before the 2019 election, which I doubt it would have given the pace of the legal system, the Libs coming forward and stating that there is an event under investigation and condemning rape would be a smart move that might not even cause a blip on the radar for the election. People were apparently more worried about their franking credits and negative gearing (I'm too poor to care about that s**t!).

If it comes out after the election, which I think it would have, then the Libs would just own it and push for systemic change. They can look like a refreshed Liberal Party who won't stand for such s**t. Labor can't exactly weaponise a rape politically, so there will be bipartisan support for change.

At the end of the day though, Higgins lodged her claim on April 8, sent a text to her then boyfriend the day after stating that she didn't want to pursue, then ended the case on April 13. It's not enough time for her to have been pressured out of it and her claims of various pressures mostly don't support that time line either.

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

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

 

[Wallace52]

Not the right place for hilarity?

That’s not funny.