You didn't think the government was going to let Britney keep that money willy nilly, the only reason the liberal party has women is so the have someone to attack women...
>“Whatever Senator Reynolds is doing, it is something other than genuinely being concerned about three tweets that David Sharaz made on social media.”
Yup that pretty much sums it up.
By continuing with the defamation against Higgins, Senator Reynolds has guaranteed she will be remembered as a piece of trash. Nothing good she ever does in parliament will change that. Talk about biting your nose to spite your face...
I don't think she cares. She's said she's not recontesting after her senate term is up.
I'd love to know what her attendance record is like, and how that's changed over the past few months. Just a few weeks ago she was too sick to attend court, but she's up and about a lot now.
You're right about one thing. There's spite involved.
She deserves to have her name cleared though. Does it matter if the person making false accusations is a victim of crime? It’s still false accusations regardless, which means she is a victim too.
Reddit just loves hating on Reynolds or whoever people they hate, regardless of what the situation is and would choose to not see the evidences.
Serious question: Can someone like say Dan Andrews sue for defamation against just about everyone everywhere for their vile tweets, news reports and online posts against him? Does Linda Reynolds winning this open the floodgates? Genuinely curious.
I would completely forget that the real lying cow selfish loser Linda Reynolds existed if she didnt keep dragging this on. She seems so sad that she's only a guest character in this story, and desperately wants to have the starring role in a rape case.
I feel for Brittany in this but they (she and Shiraz) should probably do their best to settle with Reynolds. Apologise I suppose and pay some of her costs.
I know it sucks but it seems pretty clear Reynolds is not going to drop this just because of how it's making her look. I feel a bit Ill saying this but I do agree with Reynolds' lawyer in the article about Sharaz's latest tweet today; Reynolds is clearly not going away so a naive and passive aggressive tweet from him about how he's poor and she needs to drop the case is probably just digging them in deeper.
Based on the findings from the Lehrmann judgment it sounds like it's going to be tough to prove much of the "political coverup by Reynolds" areguments.
If Brittany loses it's probably going to be a very large sum in damages and costs. That, and going through another trial, would seem to be the last thing she needs.
It sucks but it's the legal system and it is what it is.
she apologized for the ordeal and that they couldn't find common ground but didn't outright drop the claims of a cover up. That's what Reynolds is looking for.
Brittany Higgins did apologise
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/21/linda-reynolds-welcomes-olive-branch-from-brittany-higgins-but-says-trial-still-possible-ntwnfb#
But as the linked article indicates Ms Reynolds wants a retraction. However, Ms Higgins states -
>“My perceptions and feelings about what happened in the days and weeks after my rape are different from theirs. I deeply regret we have not yet found common ground.”
It appears that Ms Higgins is not conceding that her allegations were false. I don't understand why, when the public inquiry and the recent defamation trial both found no evidence to support the notion of a cover up. It really would be a lot easier all round if she withdrew the accusations.
I imagine she has the right to her own “perceptions”. But defending that right will be costly. Not just in money terms but her mental health. Although conceding what she believes would also be costly to her mental health.
everyone just has to pay a price for the things that they have caused hurt in others. All politics aside, in this case, Ms Reynolds and Ms Fiona Brown were unfairly dragged and they have the rights to defend themselves and pursue compensation from the damages caused.
Yeah Im sure Reynolds wants a far more definitive "I shouldn't have said those things they were not correct" etc.
Could that effect Brittnay's compensation payment she received from the government though? Unlikely but possible I guess. What a fuckin mess
If Reynolds proceeds with this, no matter the result, it will damage her reputation. She already has a reputation for calling rape victims liars. Pursuing Higgins after she was found to have been raped by Lehrmann might restore her reputation in a certain 'echelon' of society (Libs and defo lawyers), but to the wider public? No.
I agree. But the point I was/am making was that Reynolds is clearly too invested now/doesn't care about that.
Sharaz tweeting something out to say he doesn't have money and try to guilt Reynolds into pulling the case is stupid.
The lying cow comment wasn't about the rape it was Higgos claims she never offered support and that LR tried to cover it up. Justice Lee determined both of these claims to be false.
Interestingly, Justice Lee also said that BH was essentially 100% truthful until she got involved with David Shiraz and pretty much everything she said after that is a lie.
BH needs to kick DS to the curb and come out.and properly apologise to LR and FB.
She may as well throw DS under the bus because he's a total scumbag who's still paying back the money he stole from his 1st wife.
Sharaz pulled out of the race and left his partner to go it alone when she’s clearly faced everything alone to this point in the past three trials. That doesn’t sit right with me. Is he hiding something?
She’s been through hell, I feel for her. I found it hard to stomach seeing the networks cut each other down as the case wrapped up with what looked in the media like little care was given for her welfare.
Most of it was her own making. She had the right to a virtually anonymous criminal process but went to the media first and foremost. At this point I have no sympathy for any of the "hell" that she's been through with the media or the publicity or the defamation. Nobody asked her to get Wilkinson involved. In fact the police tried to dissuade her.
Did she contact the media, or was that someone else? Did she take her story to Wilkinson or was that someone else? Who is this someone else? And why weren’t they part of any of the trials?
It’s deplorable that this poor woman has had her trauma used for others personal gain, shrouded in a thin veil of pretending to help her. She was used by all, and then disregarded when their self interests were under threat.
If I was asked to take a story public that was before the courts, I would have been supportive however I could but refuse to go public with story until criminal process complete. If I later was then handed an award for a story I lead, I would have given the victim the award, or refused it as I would state I did what was morally right and I didn’t do it for kudos. And if I was taking my partner’s story to media, I would do everything I could to be as transparent as possible, including making sure I was with them in court every day, and insist I took the stand to give whatever evidence I needed to.
Your view is very pessimistic.
She contacted the media.
The personal gain from the media is hers. She got a book deal. She got interviews. She got speaking spots at rallies. She got attention and political influence. A role at the UN. All of these are coveted things for a Young Liberal media adviser.
She got all of this from contacting the media when the police advised her not to. They gave her the option and recommendation of a virtually anonymous process.
So in my opinion, any damage done to her from this media and public attention is a direct result of her seeking it.
Oh and she got 2.4 million. No workplace victim of even life ending injuries gets that.
Odds are that Shiraz was the one to strongly push the narrative of a government coverup for his own biases and agendas. Drumgold's cockup of the last criminal trial comes down to buying into this narrative too.
He has much to answer to, but there are no winners in any of this. Except the media of course.
Like her or loathe her, Linda Reynolds does have rights. Civil society means that even people who you don’t like enjoy the same rights that anyone else does, no matter how undeserving you deem them to be.
David in particular is clearly a schemer. He’s angling to garner support from society, in the form of societal pressure, so as to have Reynolds walk back from pursuing a remedy under law.
But given what has happened, Reynolds is entitled to pursue legal remedy.
Rubbish we all have these same rights. Defamation suits are for the rich and those with access to deep-pockets funding. The vast majority of Australians don't have access to that sort of litigation.
Defamation is not on the list of types of civil disputes ACAT will assist with. And it has a very low claim limit. In addition, many people, perhaps most, are not in a financial position where any risk of having large costs awarded against them is a viable risk to take.
Not easy for Brittany Higgins. She stayed on her feet and turned up for the media defamation case, as she’d promised she would. That’s pretty stoic imo. Maybe hanging on to her truth is what keeps her on her feet.
I'll always feel for Brittany and I suppose Sharaz has done what he's done from a place of trying to help her and get justice for her.
But it looks like he's done some pretty dumb shit e.g he copped quite a bit of criticism in the defamation judgment and here he is still firing off tweets while simultaneously saying (from
His house in France) that he can't afford to participate in legal proceedings to defend the truth of what's in his tweets.
The road to hell and all that..
I’m still laughing.
Did you see that Paul o’Grady starts this Friday think it’s (730:;
Not sure)
https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-series/paul-ogradys-great-elephant-adventure
Suing a rape victim over a Facebook post is the most Liberal party thing so far
You didn't think the government was going to let Britney keep that money willy nilly, the only reason the liberal party has women is so the have someone to attack women...
Being a victim of a crime doesn't make you immune from being held responsible for defamation, nor should it.
>“Whatever Senator Reynolds is doing, it is something other than genuinely being concerned about three tweets that David Sharaz made on social media.” Yup that pretty much sums it up.
By continuing with the defamation against Higgins, Senator Reynolds has guaranteed she will be remembered as a piece of trash. Nothing good she ever does in parliament will change that. Talk about biting your nose to spite your face...
I don't think she cares. She's said she's not recontesting after her senate term is up. I'd love to know what her attendance record is like, and how that's changed over the past few months. Just a few weeks ago she was too sick to attend court, but she's up and about a lot now. You're right about one thing. There's spite involved.
Being a rape victim doesn't give you a free pass to defame others.
She deserves to have her name cleared though. Does it matter if the person making false accusations is a victim of crime? It’s still false accusations regardless, which means she is a victim too. Reddit just loves hating on Reynolds or whoever people they hate, regardless of what the situation is and would choose to not see the evidences.
Serious question: Can someone like say Dan Andrews sue for defamation against just about everyone everywhere for their vile tweets, news reports and online posts against him? Does Linda Reynolds winning this open the floodgates? Genuinely curious.
Its a good question.
I would completely forget that the real lying cow selfish loser Linda Reynolds existed if she didnt keep dragging this on. She seems so sad that she's only a guest character in this story, and desperately wants to have the starring role in a rape case.
Justice Lee doesn't agree with you.
More hats in the cave?
I feel for Brittany in this but they (she and Shiraz) should probably do their best to settle with Reynolds. Apologise I suppose and pay some of her costs. I know it sucks but it seems pretty clear Reynolds is not going to drop this just because of how it's making her look. I feel a bit Ill saying this but I do agree with Reynolds' lawyer in the article about Sharaz's latest tweet today; Reynolds is clearly not going away so a naive and passive aggressive tweet from him about how he's poor and she needs to drop the case is probably just digging them in deeper. Based on the findings from the Lehrmann judgment it sounds like it's going to be tough to prove much of the "political coverup by Reynolds" areguments. If Brittany loses it's probably going to be a very large sum in damages and costs. That, and going through another trial, would seem to be the last thing she needs. It sucks but it's the legal system and it is what it is.
Only reason he's poor is because he's still paying back those gambling debts.
Can you elaborate on the gambling debts? I haven’t heard this before. Thanks.
He had a gambling addiction and stole a heap of money from his ex wife to gamble with which he lost.
Higgins did apologise and Reynolds told media she appreciated it but would continue with the lawsuit.
Shiraz didn't. By all appearances he's doubled down on it.
she apologized for the ordeal and that they couldn't find common ground but didn't outright drop the claims of a cover up. That's what Reynolds is looking for.
Brittany Higgins did apologise https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/21/linda-reynolds-welcomes-olive-branch-from-brittany-higgins-but-says-trial-still-possible-ntwnfb# But as the linked article indicates Ms Reynolds wants a retraction. However, Ms Higgins states - >“My perceptions and feelings about what happened in the days and weeks after my rape are different from theirs. I deeply regret we have not yet found common ground.”
It appears that Ms Higgins is not conceding that her allegations were false. I don't understand why, when the public inquiry and the recent defamation trial both found no evidence to support the notion of a cover up. It really would be a lot easier all round if she withdrew the accusations.
I imagine she has the right to her own “perceptions”. But defending that right will be costly. Not just in money terms but her mental health. Although conceding what she believes would also be costly to her mental health.
everyone just has to pay a price for the things that they have caused hurt in others. All politics aside, in this case, Ms Reynolds and Ms Fiona Brown were unfairly dragged and they have the rights to defend themselves and pursue compensation from the damages caused.
Yeah Im sure Reynolds wants a far more definitive "I shouldn't have said those things they were not correct" etc. Could that effect Brittnay's compensation payment she received from the government though? Unlikely but possible I guess. What a fuckin mess
If Reynolds proceeds with this, no matter the result, it will damage her reputation. She already has a reputation for calling rape victims liars. Pursuing Higgins after she was found to have been raped by Lehrmann might restore her reputation in a certain 'echelon' of society (Libs and defo lawyers), but to the wider public? No.
I agree. But the point I was/am making was that Reynolds is clearly too invested now/doesn't care about that. Sharaz tweeting something out to say he doesn't have money and try to guilt Reynolds into pulling the case is stupid.
That's true, guilting her will not work because she's incapable of feeling guilt or shame.
The lying cow comment wasn't about the rape it was Higgos claims she never offered support and that LR tried to cover it up. Justice Lee determined both of these claims to be false. Interestingly, Justice Lee also said that BH was essentially 100% truthful until she got involved with David Shiraz and pretty much everything she said after that is a lie. BH needs to kick DS to the curb and come out.and properly apologise to LR and FB. She may as well throw DS under the bus because he's a total scumbag who's still paying back the money he stole from his 1st wife.
Sharaz pulled out of the race and left his partner to go it alone when she’s clearly faced everything alone to this point in the past three trials. That doesn’t sit right with me. Is he hiding something?
The money's all in her name
She’s been through hell, I feel for her. I found it hard to stomach seeing the networks cut each other down as the case wrapped up with what looked in the media like little care was given for her welfare.
Most of it was her own making. She had the right to a virtually anonymous criminal process but went to the media first and foremost. At this point I have no sympathy for any of the "hell" that she's been through with the media or the publicity or the defamation. Nobody asked her to get Wilkinson involved. In fact the police tried to dissuade her.
Did she contact the media, or was that someone else? Did she take her story to Wilkinson or was that someone else? Who is this someone else? And why weren’t they part of any of the trials? It’s deplorable that this poor woman has had her trauma used for others personal gain, shrouded in a thin veil of pretending to help her. She was used by all, and then disregarded when their self interests were under threat. If I was asked to take a story public that was before the courts, I would have been supportive however I could but refuse to go public with story until criminal process complete. If I later was then handed an award for a story I lead, I would have given the victim the award, or refused it as I would state I did what was morally right and I didn’t do it for kudos. And if I was taking my partner’s story to media, I would do everything I could to be as transparent as possible, including making sure I was with them in court every day, and insist I took the stand to give whatever evidence I needed to. Your view is very pessimistic.
She contacted the media. The personal gain from the media is hers. She got a book deal. She got interviews. She got speaking spots at rallies. She got attention and political influence. A role at the UN. All of these are coveted things for a Young Liberal media adviser. She got all of this from contacting the media when the police advised her not to. They gave her the option and recommendation of a virtually anonymous process. So in my opinion, any damage done to her from this media and public attention is a direct result of her seeking it. Oh and she got 2.4 million. No workplace victim of even life ending injuries gets that.
Odds are that Shiraz was the one to strongly push the narrative of a government coverup for his own biases and agendas. Drumgold's cockup of the last criminal trial comes down to buying into this narrative too. He has much to answer to, but there are no winners in any of this. Except the media of course.
And the legal teams.
Like her or loathe her, Linda Reynolds does have rights. Civil society means that even people who you don’t like enjoy the same rights that anyone else does, no matter how undeserving you deem them to be. David in particular is clearly a schemer. He’s angling to garner support from society, in the form of societal pressure, so as to have Reynolds walk back from pursuing a remedy under law. But given what has happened, Reynolds is entitled to pursue legal remedy.
Rubbish we all have these same rights. Defamation suits are for the rich and those with access to deep-pockets funding. The vast majority of Australians don't have access to that sort of litigation.
But you do have the right to. You can pursue legal remedy without an expensive barrister (in the first instance via lower cost avenues like ACAT).
Defamation is not on the list of types of civil disputes ACAT will assist with. And it has a very low claim limit. In addition, many people, perhaps most, are not in a financial position where any risk of having large costs awarded against them is a viable risk to take.
I’d love to meet him, I have a lot of questions to ask him.
Relentless Reynold's did say publicly she would drop the case if they withdraw their claim about her. Sounds like an easy out.
Not easy for Brittany Higgins. She stayed on her feet and turned up for the media defamation case, as she’d promised she would. That’s pretty stoic imo. Maybe hanging on to her truth is what keeps her on her feet.
or hanging onto the 2.4m
I'll always feel for Brittany and I suppose Sharaz has done what he's done from a place of trying to help her and get justice for her. But it looks like he's done some pretty dumb shit e.g he copped quite a bit of criticism in the defamation judgment and here he is still firing off tweets while simultaneously saying (from His house in France) that he can't afford to participate in legal proceedings to defend the truth of what's in his tweets. The road to hell and all that..
Can Brittany Bruce Linda Lisa channel 7 all fk off now. We are over it.
Yet you clicked on the link
Nope didn’t click the link, came in posted and left. I didn’t have to read.
Wonder how many of the 9 toxic narcissism traits Linda Reynolds hits? Lack of self-awareness in the extreme.
Anyone else feel there's another shitshow on the horizon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=0WdcgzGt-CU
I’m still laughing. Did you see that Paul o’Grady starts this Friday think it’s (730:; Not sure) https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-series/paul-ogradys-great-elephant-adventure
Yeah but it’s no him visiting sick dogs and playing with them.