I read these 'columns' with great interest.
I have noticed that some responses can be a bit 'edgy'.
To draw attention to someone's factual inaccuracies is one thing.
To do it in a way which is accusatory is quite another.
In my opinion, we, here, are not involved in a heated debate.
We are in discussion mode.
We are here trying to sift facts from fiction, and individually use those facts to bring about a fuller understanding of a particular matter.
Having an educated and knowledgeable community is a good way to enable practical control over government?
This is necessary in our democratic system.
Sadly, in practice, it is not a majority which makes the decisions.
Instead, these are made by a few representatives chosen by one person.
And this is done in a closed session.
These few then tell the rest of the government how to vote.
Hardly democratic.
But it is the best we can do it seems.
A well informed community is better able to act as a brake on the, perhaps, overly fluid enthusiasm of those few?

Oh dear Paul. You do let yourself get led down the garden path, don't you.

Firstly the parents said they didn't want her to proceed with the complaint because they thought she'd "confected or embellished" the incident. FYI 'confected' means made-up.

Secondly the girl herself said she was referred to the book about recovered memories.

‘I had not previously heard of it, nor had I read it,’ she said in the statement.

She said she had a ‘better understanding’ of her memories after reading the book.

"This therapy, which is used to target horrific memories individuals may have forgotten because they were so traumatic, has been discredited in recent years.

Van der Kolk’s [the author of the book she read] therapy method has been criticised by other psychologists, including Harvard’s Richard McNally who labelled it ‘the worst catastrophe to befall the mental health field since the lobotomy era.’"

Little wonder that the police couldn't close the case quickly enough given those facts.

There is also a suggestion from others who were at the event all those years ago that she spent the day following the night of the claimed rape, with Porter. How many rape victims spend the next day socialising with their rapist?

Paul, like so many others you fail to recognise that the ABC is not an unbiased source. They have an agenda here and that's to get the minister and help the ALP. As such they will, as they always do, suppress unhelpful facts and offer up mere claims or assertions as though they are fact. Case in point. The girls therapist is not exactly a neutral observer given that she pointed the girl toward discredited therapies.

Pray tell mhaze, where are you getting your 'facts" from, since the document in question has not been made public. I responded to your post below. I refuted it as being inaccurate, as the councillor in question had said just the opposite in her 'Four Corners' interview.

"It seems the women who claimed to have been raped, didn't even remember the incident for 28 years. It was only after being referred to a psychologist who believes in the theory of 'recovered' memories, that she suddenly remembered her 'ordeal'."

Provide your evidence that above is a true statement. Otherwise I can only conclude you are making it up.

Unfortunately Mihze is correct about the ABC.
I was a frequent listener of ABC radio and watch Ch2 news each night.
On radio ABC 0COTWO 576 Khz is about as far left wing/green as you can go.
The bias of some announcers is blatant. They no longer pretend to be unbiased.
ABC News Radio is not so biased.
Paul, did you see the ABC TV news item where Scomo replied to an ABC
interviewer by saying it is all in this report and showed the backs of
ministers abruptly departing the scene giving the impression they
would not discuss it.
In fact when run on another station he answered a couple more
questions, one from the same ABC before they departed.
Tell me that is not biased editing !

Whoops, the previous post was supposed to be addressed to Paul.

Paul writes:"Pray tell mhaze, where are you getting your 'facts" from"

Well lots of places. This information is being covered in the main-stream press as well as any number of blogs and the like. Since mny of these publications are paywalled, its difficult to know where to point you but this would be a starter....

http://morningmail.org/the-christian-porter-affair-grows/

IF you google "confected or embellished" you'll see any number of reports carrying information the ABC would prefer you didn't have. (Well actually I don't know that Google will help you but DDG certainly finds a large number of sites).

"Provide your evidence that above is a true statement. Otherwise I can only conclude you are making it up."

I feel that I've been down this road many times with Paul. Tell him something he doesn't want to be true and he'll demand evidence under penalty of being called a liar. Then after providing said evidence, suddenly Paul's nowhere to be found or has decided to move onto some other topic. We'll see what happens this time.