Victoria's Attorney-General, Jill Hennessy, has taken the extraordinary step of writing to the Governor General David Hurley asking that the Council of the Order of Australia consider cancelling the Order of Australia awarded to Bettina Arndt in the Australia Day honours on the basis that Ms Arndt's public commentary brought the order into disrepute. Hennessy argues Arndt's views are "dangerous", and an insult to sexual abuse victims.

Arndt a social commentator, has been accused of sympathising with a convicted paedophile and blaming and shaming victims of abuse in public commentary and media appearances. Arndt had previously gained notoriety with her interview with convicted rapist, Nicolaas Bester, a piece she titled "Feminists persecute disgraced teacher". Arndt was also critical of the Victorian Court of Appeal's decision to uphold a guilty verdict in the rape case against Cardinal George Pell. "Never any hope of justice for George Pell," Ms Arndt wrote on Twitter.

Hennessy believes that Order of Australia members should be recognised as the "best of our nation" such people as Chrissie Foster, who campaigns against sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, and Rosie Batty, who campaigns against family violence, not Bettina Arndt who promotes division within the community. Hennessy said she felt compelled to write to the GG after being contacted by a range of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse who felt such outrage and insult to their experience. Hennessy then took the action she did, to give voice to those victims.

The GG has received a number of complaints about the award to Arndt, and has referred the matter to the Council for the Order of Australia for advice and action.

Is there any hope left for Victoria?

May be, but not while they keep voting this bunch into power.

Paul, again supporting those not upholding justice and facts, to cause open hostility toward a woman who stands for equality for men. These feminist protesters are causing the social division not Bettina. You do not hear these feminists protesting the marriage and rape of nine year old girls in a community in Australia, as it does not suit their agenda.
What Bettina is attempting to do is to give voice to abused and oppressed boys and men. Note who are committing suicide in our society for lack of understanding and justice.

Paul, If you do not believe male suicide needs attention then continue on your gross indifference.

http://www.lifeinmindaustralia.com.au/about-suicide/suicide-data/suicide-facts-and-stats

" The rate of suicide among males is more than three times greater than that for females. In 2018, the age-specific rate for males 18.7 per 100,000 (2,320 deaths by suicide) and female 5.8 per 100,000 (726 deaths by suicide).
Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death for males and the 23rd leading cause for females.
The highest proportion of suicide deaths occur among young and middle aged people, while the proportion decreases in progressively older age cohorts. More than half of all suicide deaths in 2018 (54.8%) occurred between the ages 30 and 59.
In 2018, suicide accounted for over one-third of deaths (38.4%) among people 15-24 years of age and 29.4% of deaths among people 25-34 years of age. In 2018, there were 105,730 years of life lost to suicide. On average, a person who died by suicide in 2018 lost 36.7 years of life."

Victoria's Attorney-General, Jill Hennessy, obviously has little to do, maybe she should be investigated.

Arndt says things some people don't want to hear let alone accept. Things like pointing out that 1/3 to 1/2 of all domestic violence is perpetrated by women, that aboriginal women suffer DV at vastly greater rates than other women, that false rape claims are ubiquitous and a bunch more.

So of course the Feminazis and other left-leaning censors are going to go after her. Can't have the truth getting out after all.

Josephus, you are full of IT, as per usual! Where in my opening post have I said I support the views of either Ms Hennessy or Ms Arndt. The question from me is; What has this Arndt person done to deserve an Order of Australia Award?
All I understand of her is she is some kind of Social Commentator, whatever that is, do people get paid for uttering dribble? Oh yeah, 'Beat Up' Bolt gets well paid for uttering garbage. If flapping the gums qualifies you for an O of A, then half the population should get one, including you Fr. Jose.

Paul, we can read you like a large print book. You do not have to tell us your view: "All I understand of her is she is some kind of Social Commentator, whatever that is, do people get paid for uttering dribble?"

When you do enough for men's health as Bettina, then we might dob you in for Australian recognition, but since you haven't, you get the "gong" award.

I've been the Case Officer, for over a dozen carnal knowledge assaults, including those perpetrated by a teacher on a female student. And there's no doubt in my mind, in some instances, there's clear evidence of a 'honey trap.' Does that excuse the behaviour, especially that of school teachers? Not in any way. But it does go in some way to mitigation, in terms of penalty, and it should be so. In this instance, I agree with Ms.Betinna ARNDT.

A fourteen or fifteen yo girl, when attired in provocative clothing, complete with make-up, and acting in a manner which is both provocative & suggestive in nature; It's recognised, in curia, she does have a capacity to entice a male to commit an illegal sexual act with her.

The problem being, the female victim whatever she might say to the contrary, is by law, unable to give her consent. Should she (the young person) herself, bear any culpability for the offence? Perhaps, aid & abet? Or any accessorial liability 'before' the act? The law says no. It's the male perpetrator alone that carries that burden? You might be interested to know; the offence is not limited to males? Several female teachers have been convicted of a similar crime with underage males students.

Is the law fair to all concerned? Fairness isn't the intent. The intent is to protect the young person, who's unable to (according to the law) to form proper consent at such a 'tender' young age?

Finally, should Ms ARNDT be stripped of her award, for having the temerity to articulate her opinion, whether it be right or wrong? Seems those of the 'PC Left' think so? Freedom of Speech, we lost that right years ago.

Dear Paul,

I have no problem with people saying provocative things. I certainly don't support this woman on many of the things she has said but I'm okay with people pushing boundaries.

Where I do draw the line is someone claiming to have or intimating they possess a qualification. If this charge against her can be proven, and it looks very likely it can, then she deserves to be tossed out and to lose the gong forthwith.

http://newmatilda.com/2020/01/28/psychologist-clinical-psychologist-doctor-or-none-of-the-above-will-the-real-bettina-arndt-am-please-stand-up/

Personally I think those complaining about Bettina are not fit and proper persons. Either that or they hate truth.

I agree Steele, I also have no problem with people saying provocative things that I might not agree with. Watching Bettina Arndt discuss several male sexual harassment/rape cases, including the Weinstein case with 'Beat Up' Bolt. Most of what the woman had to say, seems to me to be fair and reasonable.

Moving on, and doing a bit more reading, it does appear that Ms Arndt has misrepresented herself as both a psychologist and clinical psychologist, (on the cover of her book) also not correcting people when they referred to her as a "doctor". These are qualifications she now admits she does not possess. That deliberate professional misrepresentation is rather serious, as is defending proven sex criminals, and ridiculing victims, that also, is beyond the pale.

Yep impeachment case 5005 as the left's lies and accusations are once again exposed. Thanks Mhaze.

Dear mhaze,

Self serving rubbish from her I'm afraid.

She said "But I would expect you to also include the fact that doctors constantly continue to be referred to as doctors, even though they’re not practising as doctors…. There are dozens of them. And the media is full of them.”

The thing is Bettina, people like Bob Brown are using legacy titles even though they may not be practicing now. You aren't, you never did a PHD, and the multiple times you were attributed with that title in promotional material or interviews you did not correct the record.

This woman running around claiming she is a "doctor", among other things, when she is nothing of the sorts, is a serious charge. The Order of Australia Committee will investigate and report back to the GG. There is of course her defending a convicted paedophiles and maligning sexual assault victims in the way she has.

If she doesn't check out, then she needs to be chucked out!

Porky,

"If she doesn't check out, then she needs to be chucked out!"

Quiet agree.

Just to be pedantic there are thousands in the country who allow themselves to be called 'Doctor' who are in fact not Doctors but hold the lesser degree of Bachelor of Medicine.
Your local GP is probably one of them.

The community is satisfied and comfortable with the local GP calling himself/herself Doctor. This woman has no B of M, what is she a doctor of? Divinity!

Other that these years of "social commentary", gee got an old bunch of social commentators on this very forum, where's their gongs? What exactly has this woman done to enrich the community, chin wagged with 'Beat Up' Bolt.

I can understand how the military people like to pin medals on each other, for this and that, looks good on an otherwise drab uniform, but I though we done away with giving out titles for patronage, and throwing money at, and general sucking up to the Liberal Party some years ago when we ditched knighthoods.

We replaced the nonsense of knighthoods, with a truly egalitarian system of recognition for outstanding service to the community. I ask again what has this woman actually done to be deserving of great honour.

Porky,

"We replaced the nonsense of knighthoods, with a truly egalitarian system of recognition..."

That's your funniest one yet!!

replaced the nonsense of knighthoods,
Paul1405,
Yes, with academic titles ! Academia has become the Tories of this Century !

Stock standard SR there...when you don't like the message, when you don't have the wherewithal to argue with the message, go after the messenger.

The left have been after her for years because she says things they want unsaid. The fascistic impulses always rise to the surface although for some, censoring unwanted facts is second (first?) nature.

Dear mhaze,

Nick off mate. Firstly the topic of the thread is Is Bettina Arndt a Fit and Proper Person? so quite specifically about the person.

Secondly this is what you breathlessly announced about Bruce Pascoe;

"Well it seems two aboriginal leaders of tribes Pascoe claimed to be a member of have now come out and categorically denied that he is a member and they doubt he is aboriginal at all. But I guess they've been discredited because....reasons. One has also complained of Pascoe getting funds and funding that rightfully belongs to true aboriginals."

Still the rank hypocrite I see.

Well I wonder how many here believe the recognition should be taken from her and given to Pauline Hansen, Jaquie Lambie or Jeff Kennett, as they are also initiating issues concerning men's health.

Done some research on this woman, and I can't find anything that would earn her a free lolly-pop award, let alone an Order of Australia gong. Shameful!

""significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men" So the award said.

If you call supporting a couple of convicted paedophiles, and denigrating child victims significant, then give her all the gongs you like!

Fr.Jose, how about a run down on her great achievements?

Porky,

"We replaced the nonsense of knighthoods, with a truly egalitarian system of recognition..."

and the system recognized her; as I said, one of your funniest jokes yet.

How many others of "egalitarian recognition" are also suss?

Paul.
Seek out those that have nominated her and those that have evaluated her work for the recognition.

From what I know of her work she sees the disadvantage that young men have in single parent families without a suitable male role model. The disadvantage fathers have in equal access to their children, and the anger that it creates, and the resulting suicides.

You might just gloss over this societal problem, but Bettina feels something must be done to give equal attention to this dysfunction.

Porky,

How does community acceptance make it OK to use the title of 'Doctor' when one is not entitled, academically or legally, to do so?

Double standards?

Thank you Josephus for the reply, and I do in fact agree, many men in broken relationships, particularly those involving children, do get the rough end of the pineapple, so to speak, in relation to access etc. Women often ruthlessly use children as a weapon against the father. Courts in my view do not do enough in recognising the love that many fathers have for their children, with that failure comes injustice towards the male. Family break up is not a pleasant thing, and unfortunately good outcomes are hard to achieve. Its an unenviable task for someone to sit in judgement on these matters.

On the matter of Bettina Arndt, other than the books, and social commendatory, I can't see where she has done anything substantive in a practical way that justifies an Order of Australia award, can you?

Dear Issy, it reflect badly on your IQ level (27 when awake, 35 when asleep) that you took my word "Porky" and applied it to me. You need to think outside the square, and apply some originality. Don't use my word, get one of your own, like Wombo or Ferret Face, now there's two more names you can't use because I just thought them up. Come on lad, apply that giant brain of yours and a little imagination and come up with something original! If you like you can summit a list of funny names and I'll choose one for you to apply to me.

BTW, CONGRATULATIONS! On reaching the qualifying age of 97, and becoming a fully fledged member of the forums "Silly Old Coot's Club" well done lad, at next club meeting its your shout of the 'No Doze' pills for the membership. Only three years to go and you qualify for a gold plated 'Zimmer Frame' something to look forward to. Ah!

Ms Batty is still living with her anger and hurt and intends to damage others who seek to rectify the lives of aggrieved men. Ms Batty stands against men who use violence, but has never sought to understand why men resort to violence; as they feel solve their problems. Society is in a sick state and just ostracizing a group like violent men does not fix the problems. Bringing up boys in single mother homes does not solve the problems of male rebellion.

The answer lies in having both parents loving and caring for each other and equally loving and exampling their offspring.

Attacking Ms Batty, does not justify an O of A award for Ms Arndt. As for; "The answer lies in having both parents loving and caring for each other and equally loving and exampling their offspring" An ideal, but the practical if often far from that ideal. How do you deal with the practical? If not courts and lawyers.

Paul, that is where shariah law administered by an Imam, or Christian principles as taught by Christ, or the secular likes of Bettina come in. You administer one of these.

SR,

wrote: "Nick off mate. Firstly the topic of the thread is Is Bettina Arndt a Fit and Proper Person? so quite specifically about the person."

Oh so we're just looking at her in isolation? Just picked someone at random to evaluate their character? Nothing to do with her award? Nothing to do with her decades of writing and advocacy? Struth what a dill.

As to Pascoe, I wrote extensively about his theories (well unsupported assertions really) and examined their veracity. I engaged in discussion about book(s) and his claims. I looked into those who supported and opposed him. Only when others (and he) claimed that him being aboriginal trumped all errors or opposition from non-aboriginals, did I examine his ancestry.

Do you see the difference between that and someone just asserting that they don't like what she says and will therefore attack her character? Do you see that? Probably not. And if you did you wouldn't acknowledge it because you'd be left with nothing to say.

_____________________________________________________________

Paul wrote: "On the matter of Bettina Arndt, other than the books, and social commendatory, I can't see where she has done anything substantive in a practical way that justifies an Order of Australia award, can you?"

Apart from her life's work, what has she ever done?

"Reg:
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"

Once again the morons on OLO gather in the field, complete with pitchforks and chanting something they don't even understand, in readiness to march on another misguided cause.
What is the matter with those of you who speak out against this woman?
She is one of very few voices, and women, prepared to go to battle for US, MEN!
What goes on in your minds, to even think about attacking her.
In this day and age, when the maggots abound and the neuters have turned on what few MEN are left, we don't need this needless and counter productive attitude and dissent.
What has she done to deserve recognition?
A sh!t load more than all of US put together.
Remember, before anyone has another negative crack at her, she is on our side.
Those of you worried about her title are way off track, who cares whether she is a doctor or a cleaner, you idiots have missed the boat completely.
How many NON-professional people with NO titles have, in the past dedicated their lives to a cause?
Those of you, especially the men, should be ashamed of yourselves for even thinking about slapping the hand that is trying to pull you out of this social sh!t the maggots have been allowed to put us in.
And WE MEN allowed and facilitated them, only for them to turn on us, just as two faced lying, scheming feminazi bitches would.
As for whether she is justified in defending some men who you and the courts have decided to be unfit for public consumption, well, has anybody looked into the reasons for these acts of social discord?
I'm the guy that always asks WHY!
I don't just blindly follow the plebs over the cliff because I'm too lazy to ask the hard questions.
There is always the facts, and then there is the truth.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“Oh so we're just looking at her in isolation? Just picked someone at random to evaluate their character? Nothing to do with her award? Nothing to do with her decades of writing and advocacy? Struth what a dill.

What self serving twaddle.

You lot have had thread after thread hunting after Bruce Pascoe and when one is posted asking the question of one of the right's darlings your heads explode.

“Oh so we're just looking at her in isolation?” In isolation to what. She is the topic but we have referenced Bob Brown, Brendan Nelson and Pascoe so far so what on earth are you talking about?

“Just picked someone at random to evaluate their character?” No, she has been awarded a significant Australian honour and just as you lot have questioned Pascoe winning a literary award this is many times more prestigious.

“Nothing to do with her award?” It has everything to do with her award.

“Nothing to do with her decades of writing and advocacy?” No it is about her fitness to receive an award given the numerous instances of her either misrepresenting her qualifications or permitting others to do so without correction from her.

You said; “Only when others (and he) claimed that him being aboriginal trumped all errors or opposition from non-aboriginals, did I examine his ancestry.” That is not what you did at all but leaving that aside my first post on this thread stated I had no problem with her making provocative statements so I most certainly wasn't “someone just asserting that they don't like what she says and will therefore attack her character?”

The question of her smarminess about her qualifications is indeed legitimate and I'm not sure given the abundance of evidence of many instances of such that you would put it all down to a determination to attack her character.

Why are you so defensive of this women? Just because she is supporting your view of the world doesn't mean she is untouchable.

What a dill indeed.

Porky,

You thought up the Porky Awards for those that you claim are not telling the truth, so I've awarded you the soubriquet of 'Porky' as you are an outstanding potential recipient but you can hardly award yourself your own award.

So ALTRAV, you have no problem with this woman claiming to be Aboriginal when she is clearly not! Sorry she claims to be a psychologist and clinical psychologist, happy to allow others to address her as "doctor" when she is clearly not any of those things. Happy to have the woman attack child victims of rape, and defend the guilty male adults. You seem to think much the say way, judging by your posts.

What I do agree with is the majority of her advocacy for men in what is a reasonably unjust family law situation, that exists in Australia. The falsehoods concerning her misrepresentation of her qualifications, her support for criminals, and her attacks on child victims are they alone enough to exclude her from honours, I believe so. On top of all that what has she actually done, anything of note above and beyond the "call of duty" to warrant such a prestigious and meritorious award? Diddly squat, that's what. A social commemorator, should give Bill the plumber a gong for his life long devotion to pipes and drains. The woman has done sweet FA, must have friends in high places. Ah!

Porky,

"...The woman has done sweet FA, must have friends in high places. Ah!"

Egalitarian friends?

Ms Batty is a typical protective woman of her campaign against violent men, and jealous that another woman can support men on the other side of the violence equation. Her attack on Bettina is based in jealousy. This is a female trait.

Did her husband Greg Anderson have anyone understanding him and his hurt? If there had been proper intervention, other than police, then his behaviour might have been different. It is pointless just ostracizing violent men, he needed intervention counselling. Ms Batty considered the son an unwanted accident according to Wikipedia. The son Luke was not going to be totally accepted under this situation, as she had fallen out with the violent father.

Rosemary Anne "Rosie" Batty, AO (born 1962) is an English-born Australian domestic violence campaigner and the 2015 Australian of the Year.[5] Her role as a campaigner began in 2014 after her 11-year-old son Luke Batty was murdered by his father Greg Anderson.
As a campaigner, she has spoken publicly about her experiences as a survivor of domestic violence to raise public awareness and advocate for social changes.

Batty met Anderson in 1992 when they worked together at a recruitment company and the two began a romantic relationship that lasted two years. Batty has said that Anderson showed signs of sexual violence whilst they were together, including allegedly attempting to rape a friend of Batty's, after which Batty ended the two-year relationship.

Almost eight years later she initiated contact with him and resumed a brief sexual relationship, which led to Batty's pregnancy.

She says she had never planned to have a child, given her lifelong fear of loss, and that her son was an accident.

Paul, I agree with all you say, with deference.
I don't know what she has done, other than her being an advocate for the men, against any possible wrongful indictments against men.
I don't care about her qualifications and other questionable things she may be accused of.
I only care about the fact that SOMEONE is taking up the cause for the men against a vial and vicious group of women with a very sick and twisted view about men, especially those accused of some wrong doing against a woman.
All of you who are maligning this person over semantics and pedantics, should be ashamed of yourselves.
Why would you care if the person trying to pull you out of the well is qualified to do so or not.
Just be grateful that they are there to pull you out.
Even if they don't succeed, it was better than no one trying at all.
So back off with the character assassination, you are nasty little weasels for not applauding her efforts.
Remember these guys are ACCUSED and ALLEGED to have done this or that, so according to you, even the ones who have been convicted should not be allowed to show good cause as to why or how the situation came about, which led to their conviction.
The problem with those of you crying for blood is that you believe the legal system, without question.
WRONG!
The legal system, like the people, is flawed, and the number of innocent people in jail is appalling, and it takes some special kind of people to seek out the truth.
The trouble with you lot is you don't know, so you take an emotional and subjective 'yes sir, no sir' view on these issues without an ounce of real info or the truth.

Thank God someone stood up for truth when the lying liberal media and lying women accused Kavannaugh of rape. Almost all regressives joined in trying to have an innocent man ruined. I know little about Bettina Arndt however if she has upset emasculated men and toxic feminist she must be doing something right.

Runner, why the heck would you champion emasculating men?
How do the two fall in the same category, ie; emasculated men and toxic feminists?
I can understand even killing toxic feminists, but I'm not sure why it is a good thing attacking and demeaning an already beaten man even further by attacking him.
Unlike the rest of society, I am not quick to judge, until or unless I have the truth behind any situation.
For those convicted of some wrong doing, I ask if ALL the facts were revealed and were they the truth.
Most of the time any legal action is marred by lie's and innuendo, so the person is found guilty unfairly.
Such is the situation today with the changing of laws by the feminazi's applying pressure to the govt to change the laws to accept the word of a woman even without witnesses.
Why this is an obvious error, and I mean obvious, is that women, either today or decades ago, conduct themselves like sluts, dress accordingly, then intentionally go out of an evening to conduct themselves even more slutty, by getting so drunk as to re-define the word paralytically drunk.
Then they conclude their trifecta by screwing who-ever grabs their fancy.
All this in a state of semi-consciousness.
And these are the maggots we are supposed to believe were aggrieved, and because of their belated and new found sense of virtues, send some random guy up the river, on her say so.
Anyone subscribing to this kind of kangaroo court crap, is as sick and twisted as these maggots who dare accuse guys of ANYTHING!
The laws/people in this country need a good shake up, and I hope it hits them all very hard, so they can feel the injustices being dispensed on innocent men, all in the name of justice.
Which it should be reported as INJUSTICE!

So Josephus, what is the relationship between Rosie Batty and giving Bettina Arndt an Order of Australia?

"Batty is considered to have had a significant influence on national public attitudes, philanthropy, government initiatives and funding, support services and police and legal procedures related to domestic violence in Australia."

Given the above then Batty should be rewarded in the way she has been. If Arndt had did something similar then she to should be rewarded likewise. However both are not mutually dependent on each other. I fail to see the relationship. In the case of "Doctor" Arndt, there is no evidence that shows she has done anything particularly outstanding.

The wording of the award is ""significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men"

Where is this significant service to the community? Its just not there. Add her obvious deceptions then I say count her out.

ALTRAV, do you believe the garbage you post. Claiming; "I am not quick to judge", you have predictable preconceived hard right notions in that head of yours, and you spew them out at every opportunity

Paul for a start Bettina does not use the term Doctor Arndt, that is your construction. Ms Batty only sees the problem of domestic violence solved by imprisonment. She has been hurt by men so hurting men in her view is justice.

Violent men most probably were raised in a frustrating and violent home. If we are going to deal with the problem effort must be taken to re-educate the patterns of reaction and behaviours. Isolating them in a male prison with other violent offenders is not the answer. The law is not a motivating factor to change.

Paul,

That the feminazi knitting circle has turned on one of its own for crime of using facts and statistics instead of obediently following the left whinge ideology of identity politics is not surprising given the shrill shunning of anyone that dissents from the sisterhood's dogma such as germaine greer and many others.

That the extremist GG installed by Labor is part of this knitting circle is no surprise either.

Josephus, what is the relationship between Rosie Batty and her past awards and the Australia Day awarding of an O of A to Bettina Arndt? Is it some kind of evening up of the score?

Dr James Mueke (a real doctor) was named Australian of the Year, totally based on merit. Nothing to to with Dr Mueke gender, ethnicity, age, what state he comes from, whatever. Given what you say then next year the Aussie of the Year has to be a woman etc etc, to balance things up. Is that how it works?

Paul, it's good to see you referring to my comments as garbage, it means what I write is true, for someone like yourself to challenge it.
I am extremely curious as to what I have said that you dis-agree with.
Is it the part about men being attacked by sick and twisted females?
Or is it that females of today conduct themselves like sluts, then later decide to adopt some virtues and accuse some random guy they've never met before of rape or whatever act happens to grab her fancy on the day.
If you think that all this is the doings of my "hard right notions, in my head", then you have NO idea of what you are talking about on this topic.
Since the day, stupid parents began telling their sweet little maggot daughters that they were equal to men and they could do anything a man could, these bimbo's were quick to go out and test their new found direction in life.
Unfortunately because these particular females were not given instructions on what things to do to emulate and try to equal men, the first thing their stupid brain tells them is to get as drunk as any male because they were told that they were their equal and getting drunk to the point of unconsciousness is/was a very male dominated thing.
Once back in the land of the living the full impact of what they had done hit home.
Some took it in stride, but some, not having been here before took it badly and it played on their minds, sometimes for years.
Then who knows what feminazi trigger kicked in and they suddenly decided THEY had been taken advantage of and so decide to crucify the male just to put the maggots mind at ease, that she was not to blame for being a slut, and that would then vindicate her and make her feel better by dumping the blame on the guy thereby relieving herself of any blame or guilt, which is exactly the case.
Paul, your just another sad statistic, like today's sluts.

Paul, your lack of intelligence is showing; as it is Ms Batty that is objecting to Bettina receiving an Order for her recognition for dealing with aggrieved men. Ms Batty received her recognition for speaking out against domestic violence caused by men after her experience of violence. Perhaps you do not recognise that many men have a problem with their relationship with women. Oprah Winfrey has dealt with similar problems of relationships to give more understanding. Oprah is recognised in Hall of Fame, I suppose you can laud her because she is of the Left.

Josephus, your ignorance and lack of comprehension is showing. Read my opening post on this subject. "Victoria's Attorney-General, Jill Hennessy, has taken the extraordinary step of writing to the Governor General David Hurley asking that the Council of the Order of Australia consider cancelling the Order of Australia awarded to Bettina Arndt in the Australia Day honours." There is no mention of an objection from Rosie Batty, although I believe a number of people have objected to Arndt receiving the award.

Not withstanding who objects, and who does not, its my opinion that on several grounds Arndt is not worthy of an O of A. She has misrepresented her qualifications, not of great significance, she has defended criminals, and attacked child victims of those criminals, somewhat more significant. But most impotently I do not believe Bettina Arndt meets the requirements of the award. Simply put she has not done enough to merit such an award.

Again I ask, show me her outstanding achievements that qualify her for such a prestigious award. There is nothing in her CV that qualifies her, end of story.

ALTRAV, for one who refers to those they do not agree with as "maggots" and "morons" that being you, I can only say I view your posts as nothing more than the machinations of a blithering idiot. What do I disagree with......EVERYTHING YOU SAY!

Take comfort for what it is worth, the majority of the crusty old coots on this forum would agree with YOU!

"Feminazi" a new mocking word from the deranged! ALTRAV I assume given your advanced years, and with the Itite ancestry, you were a member of the Mussolini Goon Squad in a past life? Yes!

Paul, it was Ms Batty that initiated the campaign against Bettina Arndt. Equally what has Ms Batty done to warrant the title of "Australian of the year" that Bettina has not achieved? Ms Batty has made it her mission to support women and children affected by family violence and trauma, and campaign on the issues. [Her assumption is only men are involved in causing domestic violence.] She has now closed the charity set up in Luke's name.

Both issues need attention and must be dealt with in our community. One third of domestic violence is perpetrated by women. Arndt is a champion of male victims of domestic violence who have been abused by women and she has said that the "real picture" of domestic violence is "where our official evidence shows at least a third of the victims are male".

Paul, you did it again.
You have exposed yourself and your hypocrisy.
You just wasted a whole posting attacking the messenger but not the message.
I'm sorry mate, you have again shot yourself in the foot.
I tell you what, critique my comments and tell me where I erred, and I will be happy to engage with you in debating the topic.
BUT seeing as how, I'm NOT the topic, I'm sorry, your last posting is moot, and therefore irrelevant.
Try again only this time pick on my comments and see how you go.

This is painful.

ALTRAV said; I am extremely curious as to what I have said that you dis-agree with.

sick and twisted females, sluts, stupid parents, maggot daughters,
bimbo's, stupid brain, feminazi, maggots, slut, nasty little weasels.

All from your diatribe of nonsense, it comes from your minds eye. You rant and rave calling sexual assault, and victims of domestic violence, sluts and maggots, and you expect agreement. Well buster you have another thing coming. No compassion what so ever for the victims, those really hurting, women and children who suffer at the hands of the violent, the depraved, the perverted etc. Have YOU ever done jail time? If not why not!

So, I've just read through all this and Paul, I must say that that I am disappointed not to find even one quote of what this person "Bettina" has said.

Whilst plainly on one side of the debate there are many who are offended by some of the things she has allegedly said, on the other there are those who clearly understand that the "Statue of Justice" has two arms, not one, as has unfortunately become the nature of the legal mechanism in matters of "Domestic Violence," amongst others. (I'll come back to that)

How is it that you expect anybody to form a reasonable view on this if you don't start with the facts?

If you were to present this to a court, they would most certainly not be interested in opinion, supposition, conjecture or the pejorative, but rather they want to know what you know from your own senses, at least in the first instance.

What is it that your ears heard this person say exactly that leads you to conclude that she has been unreasonably derogatory and or insensitive towards genuine victims of crime?

I am, and I expect others are too, genuinely interested to know.

We could of course go and read something of what she says online ourselves but I would suggest that any decent topic thread has to include in its basis a least some mention of the primary facts, wouldn't you agree?

And in some ways, by not doing this, you do in effect work for the so-called social commentators as a debate deficient in the facts has a greater chance of generating controversy as a whole, as the storm becomes bigger in an attempt to equalize the opposite poles, which is one arrow in the available strategies of one who seeks to generate a larger audience. As distinct from a clinical, surgical, unbiased review of the matter.

ALTRAV, hang in there mate. Whilst you may not be able to adequately describe the nature of the injustice embedded in the system to the satisfaction of all posters, you do at least have some awareness that there is injustice. And that's to your credit in my view.

And when you choose to deploy "colourful" language in the manner in which you do, it does merely suggest to me that you have strong feelings and convictions about the matter. And I have no problem with that.

However, having said that, you need to recognise that many of the poor muggles in this place (and at large) have been socialised to the extent that they turn away from anything that they consider to be inapropriate. Often times, even one swear word and they will not even consider the facts that you are attempting to convey and will turn away.

Of course, they are cut from the same mold as the many who turned a blind eye to child abuse, being more concerned that an aggrieved parent was uttering verbal abuse than allegations of some form of assault against one of their staff members.

And some of the so-called "men of violence" can rightly say,

"By our blood are your lands kept safe."

rEPRUSu, thanks for your kind words of encouragement.
You are quite right about my temperament and use of the written word.
I am a pragmatic, objective person, so I hope you can understand that I do not wear fools lightly, if at all.
I tolerate the so called left on this forum because otherwise it would be a very boring and pointless forum if everyone agreed with each other, but, having said that, because I lag in the comedy and sarcasm dept, I don't 'get' the quips and jabs and so I find the authors childish, churlish, and totally and completely out of touch, to the point of almost displaying signs of emotional and mental incompetence, somewhat similar to someone suffering from Asperger's.
But I still soldier on in the off chance that I might be able to enlighten them, if not completely, but enough for them to start questioning their mis-guided, mis-informed stance on the matter being discussed.
Before I continue, I must explain that because I have seen more than my share of injustices by the system, (the judiciary, law enforcement) and men that were innocent because the truth came out later, convicted of a wrong doing, when they should not have been, if someone had bothered to look deeper or do any background checks.
Had they bothered, the truth would have surfaced and an injustice would not have been done.
So I never take things at face value, as it appears many, mostly from the left, who are all too quick to accuse and abuse, solely based on an unsubstantiated say so of some third party/parties or mediums.
I am THAT person who says, "hang on a minute, why did it come to this, what REALLY happened"?
I hope this goes a little way to explain my actions (or words) and the reasoning behind my language and attitude.

Hopefully most of us can agree on the following:

1. It is not men who lie, or woman who lie, but rather people who lie.

2. Innocence should be assumed until appropriately proven otherwise.

In some state jurisdictions, they are making judgments and orders against people,

in absentia

(and not uncommonly completely without the accused person's knowledge)

without admission

(no plee of guilty or otherwise)

and without testing the veracity of the accusations.

The next thing that often happens, is Dad finds himself out of his own house and legally restrained from having anything to do with his family. Damage done.

And, self-representation being too much for many, you then find yourself at the mercy of what I call, "The Cult of the Wig Parasite" who will for the price of a small house attempt to have your child/ren recovered for you.

Even in the instance where one partner has quite maliciously taken the children for no other reason than to spite a former partner, the only lawful remedy becomes "A house for a kid." And in fact, this is the hook to provide the compelling push factor to make one want to pay ludicrous amounts of money.

And whilst I can readily accept that some people take their children away for entirely legitimate reasons, sadly, it is not always the case.

So, one of the fundamental problems is, is that the majority of twits in this country keep voting for the vile scum of the mainstream political establishment who have instituted "One Arm Kangaroo Courts," wherein some of the demented wig parasites who masquerade as legitimate judicial officers look like they pray to make their decisions.

eg "He struck me when I was feeding baby."

"He flopped it out at our daughter's birthday party,"

and thereafter,

"Oh yes. How terrible. I'm satisfied!"

and the hammer comes down.

How can there be a "balance of probabilities" when only one side of the story is heard pre-judgment?

It is a mockery, a travesty and as said, a bastardisation of justice that some people take great glee in abusing.

rEPRUSu, welcome to the FORUM.

This is a forum (On Line Opinion), not a courtroom, there is no judge and jury. I started the discussion with a question; "Is Bettina Arndt a Fit and Proper Person?" Then read the opening post by me which outlines what is behind the question. Its not about what Ms Arndt believes or doesn't believe. In fact many thing she has said I agree with. Its about her eligibility for such a prestigious award as an O of A, has she done enough in her career to justify such an award. I believe not, as I can't find anything in her CV that justifies the award, which read;

"significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men".

I can't find anything in her career that in my mind shows she fulfils the wording of the award.

This is one of those issues I take much offence to, then I become angry when I wonder how did this happen, and why?
Who in any sane state of mind would come up with this crap, and I am including Weinstein, Crosby and Harris in this despicable and vial injustice.
I don't care what they did.
I care about the fact that some ambitious maggot with an over active need to become a Hollywood poser, comes onto these famous celebs and decades later, out of the blue, these maggots, egged on by even bigger maggots like the 'me too' movement, suddenly and without the proper protocol accuse these guys of a wrong doing, ACCORDING TO THE MAGGOTS!
Disgusting, and I truly hope these types suffer a painful death at some time in their lying scheming low-life futures.
Think about it.
Nothing was broken.
No-one was physically attacked.
The least that happened was they were groped, big deal, not an offence back then, and that's when this should have been taken care of, but because it is a non starter the system rejected the whole thing, even if it was reported, which in most cases it wasn't, because that was the norm back then, and THEY KNEW IT!
Anyway the men know that the females hold the key to this whole thing.
If a female wants to taunt or tease a man she can.
If a man tries the same thing on, he gets charged with god knows what and treated like a pariah.
I thought women believed they were equal to men.
That being true then we must reject these current egregious and unjust laws grossly dis-favouring and stacked against the men.

Is this guy for real? The MAGGOTS are taking over. ALTRAV supports Rolf Harris as being the victim, the grub is just out of jail after serving time for 12 counts of indecent assault against four young girls, one when she was 9 years old. Another six women gave supporting evidence that Harris had abused them as children in Australia, New Zealand and Malta between 1969 and 1991.
ALTRAV you sympathise with this guy! Who is the sicko?

Paul, don't try your perverted version of virtue signalling, it doesn't work on me.
I sympathise with anyone who is convicted of anything without a fair and equitable hearing or trial.
Your're the SICKO if you are prepared to take the word of some maggots who a whole lifetime later decide to ruin a persons life, and for what?
Stupid pride or principal?
I sympathise with these guys because they have been convicted well before they got to court.
And where-as you are a childish moron who cannot see what is obvious to everyone else, that these maggots all acted obsequiously towards these men who they obsessed over, for obvious reasons.
When we begin taking the word of one person over another and then convict on that basis, we are finished as a rational race.
There is no justification, or foundation from which to justify the conviction of any person based only on the say so of the accuser.
And if you can't see that, you are worse than the maggots you claim to champion.
You don't get why you are not taken seriously, well let me enlighten you with one simple question.
Were YOU there to confirm and state under oath, to have witnessed these accusations made against these men?

Paul, you only posted half the story: "Victoria's Attorney-General, Jill Hennessy, has taken the extraordinary step of writing to the Governor General David Hurley asking that the Council of the Order of Australia consider cancelling the Order of Australia awarded to Bettina Arndt in the Australia Day honours."

The fact is because Bettina has expressed that she believes Pell has been unjustly framed, Ms Batty and those that believe Pell guilty have gone to Jill Hennessy to have Bettina's honour stripped. Note who is behind the action; Ms Batty has worked against domestic violence for three years telling her story, and got "Australian Of The Year Honours". She has now walked away from supporting the charity she founded.

On the other hand Bettina has worked all her career in an attempt to develop better relationships between men and women. She has not walked away from her campaign.

We live in a society where boys are taught to be aggressive, it is a nature of the sport and games they play. If you want to get what you want, "Fight for it". This is not appropriate in relationships of passion, which is the way movies/ Weinstein Hollywood portrays sex. That is why rape and violence are carried out by persons who play aggressive sports. Education alone is not enough to curb this behaviour, they have a few drinks and their selfish nature takes over.

However, for many females emotion is different and they can be more scheming, spiteful and jealous. It is from these we have injustices done against men, that leave men being abused.

Is Victoria's GG Jill Hennessy a fit and proper person given her vicious attempt to punish people she disagrees with?

As for Adam Bent, is this sanctimonious ponce a fit and proper person?

Josephus,

"believe Pell guilty have gone to Jill Hennessy to have Bettina's honour stripped. Note who is behind the action; Ms Batty"

Hearsay on your part, where is your evidence, or are you making it up?

ALTRAV, Your support for a pair of convicted paedophiles in Pell and Harris, blaming the victims, one as young as nine. Where do you get off.
Anyone else agree with ALTRAV that Pell and Harris are nothing more than misunderstood victims.

SM; lock up your daughters, Bonking Barney is on the prowl once more.

Paul, if you can't make the distinction or separation in understanding what I have said, ask your five your old grandchild, I'm sure they can explain it to you.
Oh and by the way, I make/made NO mention of Pell in my comments.
Seeing as how you enjoy breaking peoples stones over irrelevant and trivial drivel.
I tell you what, I believe you've heard these pathetic left whinge mates of yours go on about when you say something there are consequences, well here it is;
If you can find where I mentioned, let alone defended Pell, I will make an open apology to the forum.
BUT if you can't find any evidence of what essentially is your sick and twisted imagination or Aspergers kicking in, then YOU will stop making stupid and personal attacks and comments about the messenger and stick to the message.
Sound fair to you?
Now off you go and find this reference to Pell, there's a good lad.
Oh that's right, because you're such a wealth of information and a pillar of something, I see you haven't responded to my question; did you witness these charges and allegations being leveled at these guys, or are you just another "YES MAN" and a subscriber to the "ME TOO" maggots fraternity?

ALTRAV asks;

If you can find where I mentioned, let alone defended Pell, I will make an open apology to the forum.

"The argument that a jury of 12 convicted him (Pell), is little to no comfort to us, as it has already been said, judging by the details of the trial, this has been one heck of a judicial stuff-up.
And as has been mentioned, NO I do not have faith in the people to make the right decision."

Posted by ALTRAV, Monday, 4 March 2019 1:35:55 AM

Paul, before I submit, you make no reference to where and when or which topic I said this, because I cannot find any mention of Pell in my previous comments on this thread, which is the article I/we are commenting on.
If you are quoting some other article, then we must take all the material in context, rather than quote or highlight one passage or sentence.
My earlier posting on Pell was based on the fact that he had been convicted by the press and the public, before he even was charged, let alone gone to court.
And yes if that was the case of my posting, then I stand steadfast behind my words.
Whether he fiddled some kids or not, he was denied a fair trial because of too many jelly brains and neuters who are too emotional to be of any use even to themselves, so how can we expect them to be of maturity, stature and legally conversant to make any of life's decisions let alone legal or moral ones.
So before YOU pass judgement on anyone, know ALL the facts and truths, which is not possible to do, so one cannot/must not make a judgement, until those criteria are met.
In which case Pell should not be found guilty.
Now if you can't follow the reasoning or legality, that's your problem.

ALTRAV; a unanimous jury verdict on 11 December 2018 in Melbourne’s county court, found Pell guilty of sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16, as well as four charges of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16.

"The argument that a jury of 12 convicted him (Pell), is little to no comfort to us, as it has already been said, judging by the details of the trial, this has been one heck of a judicial stuff-up.
And as has been mentioned, NO I do not have faith in the people to make the right decision."

The above defence of Pell was posted by you on the discussion, 'Pell: Disgraceful Decision' Monday, 4 March 2019 1:35:55 AM. Approximately one week after the jury verdict was known. There was no judicial stuff-up, that was a deflection of the guilty verdict by you. BTW it was a unanimous verdict.

Now you ask; If you can find where I mentioned, let alone defended Pell, I will make an open apology to the forum.

Failing to make an apology, now you have been shown defending Pell, I would label you sir a liar.

Paul, oh no you don't.
I'm not falling for your unprincipled attempt at contriving a win and talking me into a corner.
If you don't like my answer which is the one before this, you need to take stock of your attitude on how you discuss/debate.
To elaborate on my response to the above, I made no mention of Pell in this thread or topic, so why would you even attempt to bring up a comment from another long lost thread, which has it's own criteria story line and content, which in no way relate to this one.
To knock you further out of the ring, and show everyone how twisted and desperate your mind is to win a point at any cost, and any mentality, you go and dig up a comment I made on another thread approx ONE YEAR ago!
Max your desperate.
If it makes you happy, if only to satisfy your sick sense of superiority, I admit to the Pell statement happily, BUT, as long as you admit that it had nothing to do with the thread/topic we were on.
ONE YEAR AGO!
Really?
So there you are you can go back to sucking your thumb happily in your play-pen.

From the News: Paul be fully informed! Link posted below.

"Former Australian of the Year and family violence survivor Rosie Batty, whose young son was murdered by her mentally ill ex-husband, earlier this week questioned the legitimacy of the appointment.

“I cannot help but be appalled that someone who minimised violence towards women who is part of the inevitable push-back and backlash that we all experience as we pioneer a way forward, would be awarded,” Ms Batty told news.com.au.

Upon receiving her honour, Ms Arndt told news.com.au she had been writing about men’s issues for 30 years.

She said she started off as a feminist and campaigning for women’s rights, but became “increasingly alarmed” by the movement.

“I felt in many areas, women had achieved equality,” she said. “We had a lot to celebrate. But there are many who wanted to extend women’s rights well beyond any notion of equality.

“It’s now all about male bashing, trying to advantage women over men in so many areas. I had enough of that."

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/2020/01/

ALTRAV, you said;

"I made no mention of Pell in this thread or topic"

Did I say you did, what I said was; "Your support for a pair of convicted paedophiles in Pell and Harris, blaming the victims"

You then came back with; "If you can find where I mentioned, let alone defended Pell, I will make an open apology to the forum."

I DID JUST THAT.

You tried to convolute and limit it to this thread, by later adding "in this thread or topic."

Like other Old MEN on this forum you try and paint DIRTY OLD MEN in society as the victims. As I asked previously, have you ever done time?

Well there you go Josephus, another person questioning the award to Arndt. Nothing in your above post links Batty to Hennessy, and as I said in my opening post; "The GG has received a number of complaints about the award to Arndt" one such other complaint could have been Batty. You produce no evidence that Batty conspired with Hennessy, as you contend.

Josephus, I am continually sickened by the number of people who always take a wrong stance based on politics.
I sometimes wonder if they would vote the opposite way if politics and virtue signalling were not a threat.
There is definitely politics and I believe even some personality clash between these two, and so we end up with all the slags coming out of the woodwork challenging her.
What has she done to deserve the honour?
A damn sight more than some of those bitching about her getting and keeping it.
She has been honest, which is more than I can say for some of those on here, whereby she admitted backing the females, only to find, as I have said before, that they have gone too far over the line and now need to be pushed back.
Why do you think I am so critical and abusive towards these abusive and mentally twisted maggots.
They are no more women than a rabid dog, which is apt as the word 'bitch' immediately springs to mind, which is what the GG and others opposing her receiving the honours are.
No those complaining are of no genuine substance or credibility and should not only be ignored but attacked vigorously for daring to make such egregious and unjustified comments and attacks on such a worthy recipient.
I'll bet if she was pushing women's causes she would have been instantly lauded and given all manner of praise from the same cows denigrating her now.

Paul broaden your reading

http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/batty-thrilled-with-government-call-to-remove-arndt-s-gong-calls-for-men-to-join-push-202

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/victoria/batty-thrilled-with-government-call-to-remove-arndt-s-gong-calls-for-men-to-join-push-20200130-p53w35.html

Josephus, I ask is it not reasonable to consider that there at least two sides to any story, but without personally witnessing the story, we have no choice but to try to make sense of the facts.
We know historically that at some point either one or both parties are going to embellish or deviate from the truth.
This is a problem, but it does not mean we automatically assume that the accused is completely guilty, unless they are found to be an aggressive sex predator, otherwise he is a NORMAL male.
Now the reason I err on the side of the male is because since women were encouraged or promoted that they were as good as any man or equal to any man, they changed or maybe they stopped being mild mannered and restrained or even disciplined, and threw caution to the wind in a crazed ambition to test their newfound freedom, and that of course had sex as front and centre as the main goal in their new lives.
They were given permission to act like males and they were not told exactly what and what not to do or how to conduct themselves.
It has ALWAYS been the males prerogative and birthright, to be the predator.
But now it seems that since the maggots threw caution to the wind, they have assumed the role of predator, but much more aggressively than any males ever did.
Because if a male was too aggressive he was labelled a rapist.
But not so for a female.
They can be ANY age, tart themselves up, go out for the night specifically to get "LAID".
This is not the actions of a virtuous woman but the actions of a SLUT!
So where once it was within the purview and the domain of a man to "hunt" and seduce a woman, the roles have changed.
And so it is that I have no respect for females of today, and also why I defend the men who have been found guilty of some wrong doing towards a female.
Blame the feminists and "Me TOO".

ALTRAV wisdom; although an orangutan would make more sense.

"otherwise he is a NORMAL male." HARRIS and PELL

"It has ALWAYS been the males prerogative and birthright, to be the predator." HARRIS and PELL

"They can be ANY age, tart themselves up" Nine year old girl home in her bed.

"why I defend the men who have been found guilty of some wrong doing towards a female." HARRIS and PELL.

BTW ATLRAV, do you believe HARRIS and PELL should also be given Order of Australia awards, I'm sure you do, after all they're your kinda guys!

Josephus, nothing to link Batty to Hennassy? Of course like many in the community Rosie Batty is outraged that an Order of Australia was awarded to Bettina Arndt. I have no problem with Arndt defending men in family break ups, they need defending. As I said earlier, many males get a very bad deal in these matters, particularly when it comes to access to the children. Not withstanding Arndt misrepresenting her qualifications, or her defence of a convicted paedophile in Pell, although I agree with much of what she says, I simply don't believe she has done enough to warrant her receiving a prestigious Order of Australia award

Paul you are pedantic. The TV showed Ms Batty and others had approached Ms Hennessey and requested she approach the Governor General. End of story.
Your constant claim of her lack of qualifications is spurious. I have see persons with degrees put to shame by self taught real skilled persons. Bettina did the degree but never registered.

That's fine Josephus, if Batty approached Hennassy about Arndt, well she has a right to do so. That in no way should influence the decision of the GG through the committee.

Can you provide us with what are specifically Arndt's greatest contributions to Australia. Did she do anything that changed Australia, other than a book, and her years of social commentary.

I think that it is largely understood Paul that this is not a courtroom. However, reasoned debate also has its requirements.

You have made numerous comments about alleged inappropriate statements by Ms Arndt.

But you haven't at any point written what she was supposed to have said. Thus, it detracts from the impact of what you are trying to impart, and relegates your view to that of the opinion of one disgruntled individual alone.

Conversely, if you injected some fact into your tirade, undoubtedly that would give it a measure of credibility.

May there always be a place for the "Devil's Advocate."

Now, I know virtually nothing about this person Ms Arndt. But even so, the area of "Family Law" being considered, along with its peripheral and associated matters, is clearly one of the utmost significance, for reasons from both sides of the spectrum.

And as I have already tried to demonstrate, it is recognised by those who are well informed that there has been some terrible injustice involved and the lives of more than a few good people have been significantly damaged by it.

Thus, any person who has devoted a not-insignificant portion of their lives to giving voice to the aggrieved and attempting to educate the population about the issues at play is going to be up for consideration for an accolade.

To what extent that may or may not apply to Ms Arndt I don't know as as of yet I have no basis for consideration, other than recognising she is apparently a controversial and polarising figure.

I did have a look at the links visa vi the question of her qualifications. And whilst I accept that it is a matter of conventional wisdom that public figures need to be both forthright and honest visa vi same, it is not always as "black & white" as it may initially appear.

To try and illustrate what I mean by that let me offer an example regarding myself.

I hold an unrestricted private pilots license. And unlike a car license, pilots licenses exist in perpetuity. However, in order to exercise the rights attached to the license one must also be medically current and maintain that on an annual basis.

So, whilst I flew a lot at one point it has been many years that I have done so. You could say, oh well, he did his pilot training but he hasn't flown for many years and he is not currently eligible to fly, or, he is not currently a pilot. And I accept there would be some truth to that statement.

But if we were all up in a little plane, and the pilot collapsed, and assuming no one else had any skills in the area, it is not unreasonable to think that I would quite comfortably be able to bring you all back to ground safely.

So, I trust you understand the point that I am trying to make. Sometimes an individuals skills or lack thereof are not necessarily accurately reflected by some tin pot australian educational facility.

Relevant worldly experience can get you credit at educational facilities. Thus, if Ms Arndt took up study in an associated field perhaps she would receive an amount of credit such that it obviated the need for studying certain units.

And of course, sometimes the universities will award "honorary degrees" for those who have considerable worldly experience and or have made an impact in their chosen area.

To what extent that may be relevant to Ms Arndt I don't know as I don't know the facts. What I do know is that she has alleged to have said things which to some people like yourself are quite appalling.

I myself have a passionate hatred of "rock spiders" and may well have a similar position to you visa vi Ms Arndt, but as of yet I do not, and the reason for that is I do not know what it is that she has said, because you have not supported your position by telling us

rEPRUSu, Ms Arndt made it clear that paedophiles must be imprisoned from the community. However in some cases it is a one of event, [in the case in point she was a 15 year old student in his class], and the convicted person after they have done their time Bettina felt he should be allowed to return to a normal life.

Thank you for that Josephus. Was the perpetrator only convicted for sex with a minor or was he additionally convicted of non-consensual sex? There's a big difference there in my mind.

(and I note that the rule visa vi the age of consent in many countries is reflected by the expression, "old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher.")

(and I also note that I have often heard it said that girls often mature faster than boys)

I was reading an "ethics" document pinned on the front door of a law firm recently regarding how to deal with the alleged perpetrators of domestic violence and note that the firm had attached a header visa vi bias at the front of it.

But to read this document was gobsmacking. Underpinning it all was this assumption that the alleged victim must be innocent and the alleged perpetrator must be guilty.

To the extent that the document urges "special treatment" for the "victim" at the hands of the wig parasites and pretty much relegates any form of attempted legitimate defense by the alleged perpetrator as a mechanism of attempting to minimise what they have done.

Here, as opposed to providing you with my own interpretation of same, see for yourselves:

https://www.clairskeeley.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Ethical-issues-in-representing-alleged-perpetrators-of-family-and-domestic-violence.pdf

..

This ought to give you all additional insight into how biased, demented and rabid some proponents of women's rights are.

That is not to say that everything that they say is without merit, but to the extent that they seek to tar everyone with the same brush and pre-empt judgment most certainly is in my view.

..

And your comment Paul that the statement made by the victorian a.g. won't have any effect on the g.g.'s decision could quite possibly be nonsense too, as the guvment is ripe with circular reasoning and all too often defer to one another. If you don't know that, then plainly you know far less about the guvment mechanism than you purport to.

rEPRUSu, are you on the turps?

Where did I make the comment "that the statement made by the victorian a.g. won't have any effect on the g.g.'s decision". I never said any such thing, you must be hallucinating, or drunk, or both. And I would never spell Victorian with a small "v".

The GG like you is a newbie, and prone to making mistakes, see above, like giving Arndt an O of A, when she doesn't even deserve a Lollipop Award. Anyway the GG refereed it all to the faceless committee for advice, gets him off the hook.

Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 7 February 2020 5:17:32 AM

" ... Where did I make the comment "that the statement made by the victorian a.g. won't have any effect on the g.g.'s decision". I never said any such thing, you must be hallucinating, or drunk, or both. And I would never spell Victorian with a small "v". ... "

..

Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 5 February 2020 7:52:08 AMT

" ... that's fine Josephus, if Batty approached Hennassy about Arndt, well she has a right to do so. That in no way should influence the decision of the GG through the committee. ... "

Seems quite plain to the rest of us Paul.

I rarely drink alcohol incidentally.

rEPRUSu, total lack of comprehension on your part.

As far as I am aware there was nothing contained in Ms Hennassy letter to the GG that indicated she had been approached by Ms Batty on the matter, she may have been, we don't know. Therefore the GG, and in turn the committee, would be ignorant of any approach being made by Ms Batty to Ms Hennassy. As I said; "That in no way should influence the decision of the GG through the committee."

If Ms Hennassy had wrote to the GG informing him that the complaint was being lodged following a discussion by her with Ms Batty, then what you say would be true. Can you show that Hennassy and Batty even discussed the matter together.

I expect the GG will not want further controversy over the matter, and will simply leave Ms Arndt with her undeserved award.

rEPRUSu, I think it is worth mentioning that the reason Paul is so up tight about this person getting awarded for her work with down trodden and badgered men, is that HE wasn't nominated.
Which I think is a travesty of justice because he should have, as he has excelled in being one of the greatest pains in the arse, here on OLO.
I say to him, "keep it up, you might get a look in next time".

ALTRAV you COC, being the TROLL once again, seeking a new forum friend in rEPRUSu. You might have upset others, a couple did complain about your forum stalking, they're not here, but you still are, so a sort of victory for you.

I lost all respect for you, once you became an apologist for the convicted paedophiles, PELL and HARRIS. I can tolerate your delusions of grandeur, even your hard right fascist beliefs, I can take your pompous insulting attitude, calling others "maggots" and "morons", but your support for convicted kiddie fiddlers is beyond the pale.

BTW; I'm still here, and not going anywhere.

From Bettina Arndt herself.

Everyone's got a victim story - so here's mine.
I’ve just made a video about a strange little story, an interesting side-show to the nasty bombardment I am receiving in the press. The main accusation against me from Victoria Attorney General Jill Hennessy, Rosie Batty and numerous media commentators, is that my views are an insult to victims of sexual abuse.
That’s pretty funny really because that’s exactly what I am – a victim of sexual abuse. Fifty years ago, as a nineteen-year old university student, I was one of many victims of a Canberra doctor who fiddled with me in his surgery and was eventually charged with molesting his patients.
I’ve never chosen to see myself as a victim, but I have had enough of people like Hennessy telling us how we are allowed to talk about such experiences. In 1997 I wrote a long newspaper article in the SMH talking about what that doctor did to me, outlining the complexities of his case, why a judge and then the full court determined he should not be charged, and how I felt about that. Please read the whole article which I have put up on my website.
Now selected quotes from that article are being used as part of the endless media pile-on, as feminists react to news of my Honours award. The usual suspects, particularly Nina Funnell, have spent the past fortnight dishing out dirt about me. The story of the Canberra doctor is classic of their tactics – picking unrelated phrases from my writing to try and show me in the worst possible light. Have a look at my new video and you will see this latest example of this malicious campaign against me.
Cont

It’s shocking that “our” ABC, the public broadcaster, has chosen to be a vehicle for Funnell and her mob’s attempts to silence me. Yesterday the ABC online ran with her favourite “pedo” smear story as their top news story all day and it was included in the ABC television news last night. I have given many interviews explaining that I chose to interview the former teacher, Bester, when a judge spoke out against the vigilante campaign being run against him after he served his time in prison. Read more on my website.
Blatant untruths are being told in the media stories being circulated about the Bester video. It’s a pity our captured media doesn’t do their homework and check on the facts regarding this complex court case.
Now that legal complications regarding the identity of the victim have been sorted out, I am releasing that video again. You can watch it though my website and judge it for yourself.
Many people have been contacting me asking what they can do about the smear campaign. A kind supporter from Israel has put together a simple one click link you can use to report Funnell’s unfair, unbalanced reporting to the Press Council. That's on my website too, along with another one he prepared for the health regulators AHPRA about the beat-up over my qualifications. Please get as many people as you can to send in both of these.

Josephus, I'm on board, but I see no direct link or details about her website or any other information in your comments.
I can only assume I will have to search for these exact sites referred to in her comments.

Josephus, thanks, just sent her an email telling her to hold her ground and in fact kick some heads in.
Especially these neuters and maggots who choose to be narrow minded sheep with no perception of the fact that there is always at least one other explanation and one other outcome, but if we accept the rantings of a rabid maggot, without question, then we are committing an offence, just as serious as the person being charged and persecuted, before they even get to trial, and yes I am speaking of Cosby and Pell.

What's that ALTRAV, have you dropped Wobble Board Rolf from your favourites list of innocent perverts? All I can say about Bill Crosby and American justice is; money talks and the guilty walk.

Josephus, had a look at the Arndt web site, its full of excuses, self promotion and vitriol for those she perceives as her detractors. There are things the woman says that I agree with, but as I said in the first instance, is she worthy of such a prestigious award as an Order of Australia, I believe not

Paul, I read it too, and I did not make any opinions, unlike you.
I read it in good faith and accepted what she had to say because I know of the vial maggots that she has and is having to contend with and how they think.
I find the case of the teacher to be a usual part of their day, the infatuated teenager, whether by nature or rebelling, coming onto them.
And as much as YOU and millions of other lemmings might disagree, guess what, they were willing participants, and don't forget the parents of today tell their little maggot princesses that they can do/be anything they want.
Well they only heard the words, "do what they want", and there you have it.
And before you make any smart arse response like he should know better, or it's against the law, I for one don't care, she was the one making the advances and she succeeded in achieving her goal.
Paul sometimes I wonder if your not a female using the name Paul to put us off, because your attitude is not that of a man.
If you are a man then you must be a neuter, because I can tell you if I was ever in a situation such as this teacher, I would do exactly the same thing.
Those who disagree, just put it down to one of her life's lessons.
Should today's parents administer some discipline and tell their daughters to act more 'ladylike' and less 'slutty', we would not be having these conversations and teachers would have to actually be pedophiles and wrong'ens to be accused of such acts.

Paul,

So because you disagree with Bettina's opinions, you as a member of a far left whinge party deem her to be unfit for an award in spite of all her contributions over the years.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 8 February 2020 6:47:24 PM

" ... rEPRUSu, total lack of comprehension on your part. ... "

I don't think so Pauline, and it increasingly appears as if you are in the minoirity on that one.

" ... As far as I am aware there was nothing contained in Ms Hennassy letter to the GG that indicated she had been approached by Ms Batty on the matter, she may have been, we don't know. Therefore the GG, and in turn the committee, would be ignorant of any approach being made by Ms Batty to Ms Hennassy. As I said; "That in no way should influence the decision of the GG through the committee." ... "

I think that you're letting your emotions get in the way. You start off with, "As far as I am aware .. and then you some up with "we don't know."

I think most if not all of us understand that unless you work closely with hennessy, or otherwise have a channel into her office that you would of course be largely clueless about the contents of the letter.

However, if we were to speculate we could perhaps not unreasonabley suspect that it is unlikely that hennesy would name drop, as it is not consistent with best practice legal writing and may perhaps have just indicated more broadly that she had received numerous complaints including those from well known public figures.

On top of that, this matter has now received a not insignificant amout of public attention and whilst it is not a certainty, it is likely that the g.g.'s office would have some awareness of that fact. At least, in considering matters of public controversy, it stands to reason that some consideration of the wide array of public views on this would be taken into consideration, regardless of what amount of weight was given to same in their ongoing deliberations.

Thereafter your attempt to refute what I have written about what you wrote yourself has degenerated into a state of incoherence. You'll have to do better.

SM

"... Sounds like sour grapes to me ... "

Whilst Pauline may not be religious, he is, after all, a "believer" of sorts. And as is not uncommon we see "believers" at their frothing at the mouth best when they have their most cherished beliefs are challenged.

And whilst it does not apply to all feminist supporters, the prevailing majority, as many of us have started to show, want to tar all those accused with the same brush by seeking to have the accused seen to be guilty pre-judgment.

("contempt" of judicial process)

Further, they wish for all of the alleged victims to be seen as entirely innocent and have "special consideration" given to them above and beyond how everyone else is treated in such actions.

Worse still, even after, for right or for wrong, a person has been convicted and done their time, these people want for the person to be made into a second class citizen and reviled for all time.

Whilst a person may be released conditionally, I think that it is safe to assume that in this case that there is no prohibition on the offender in question doing interviews, and no prohibition on the likes of Bettina interviewing them.

But as is common with some "believers," they wish to inflict their views on everyone regardless, above and beyond the stipulates of the law, and it is at that point that the likes of Ms Arndt are quite right to go after them.

This is a multicultural country. We do not all share the same culture, believes and values but are rather bound together by common rules and regs. Thus, suffice to say those people who want to insist that we all converse, in the same manner, disgust me.

..

Our resident Father may wish to provide instruction to Pauline on the nature of redemption and why that is important to societies partly founded in Judeo-Christian morality etc etc

Shadow,

You totally misunderstand where I am coming from. You say; "because you (paul1405) disagree with Bettina's opinions"

This is what I said;

"Not withstanding who objects, and who does not, its my opinion that on several grounds Arndt is not worthy of an O of A. She has misrepresented her qualifications, not of great significance, she has defended criminals, and attacked child victims of those criminals, somewhat more significant. But most impotently I do not believe Bettina Arndt meets the requirements of the award. Simply put she has not done enough to merit such an award."

"Again I ask, show me her outstanding achievements that qualify her for such a prestigious award. There is nothing in her CV that qualifies her, end of story."
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 3 February 2020 5:40:05 PM

I also posted "Most of what the woman (Arndt) had to say, seems to me to be fair and reasonable." I have posted that on some things I agree with her.

If there was some minor award to be handed out, I would have no objection to Arndt receiving some small token, but an Order of Australia, I think not.

Paul, I have several friends who have received O of A, one for writing a discipline and fitness program for the Air Force, another a school principal for his long service to the community. If you were awarding the awards they might register in your award list equal to Gough or Paul but they have added much to the areas in which they have served.

Josephus, without a lot of detail, got an O of A for doing their job, so does Bill the plumber. I actually don't agree with many of these awards, tend to be who you know, how high profile you are, rather than what you have actually done. No need to be sarcastic, Gough and Paul nonsense.

Paul, you are quite within your rights to ask or question anything regarding the public agenda.
This includes your questioning this one, BUT, we must understand that firstly she has been a positive influence in society, through her helping men, for one reason or another.
Those of us who accept the decision of her getting the award don't have any problem with it because we see in her, as a ray of hope, and comfort for those who would otherwise probably die a very acrimonious and lonely death.
She is a unique form of social worker.
What has she done to deserve the award, you ask?
Well the only answer I can come up with is: Whatever she has done.
Which even though she might say, "I've done nothing to deserve this award", those who dish out the awards, would disagree and if not for this other bitch spewing and ranting to have her stripped of her award, she would not have wondered why she was overlooked, had she not received it in the first place.
Paul she hasn't lied or mis-represented herself or her qualifications, it's only because she didn't do things the traditional way, just like her choice of career, that she was not in the public arena.
She is now.

ALTRAV, I like your above post, not a maggot in site. I stress I don't disagree with what Arndt has to say. In fact as I've said numerous times on this thread I believe some men get a very raw deal when it comes to relationship break ups, particularly where children are involved. I don't see this a political issue, but rather a social one, regardless of a persons political persuasion they can be as nasty and vindictive as each other, men as well as women. A recent case here in Brisbane, known to my wife;

A Maori girl with one little boy, her man, a violent bloke, drugs, other women etc. The black eyes, the mistreatment, the promises of reform, all worthless at the end of the day. It was too much, she managed to kick him out. He's made her life hell, "someone" slashed her tyres and damaged her car, reported to the police but they could do nothing, no evidence to incriminate anyone.

She was allowing him to come over and see his son, seems it always degenerated into an argument. She wants her son to see his father, but now she denies this bloke access, as he has threatened to "take the kid where you wont find him!" What is she to do? My wife and other Maori elders have got involved following a request from his mother in NZ. Unfortunate the wife's brother who is now 4 years dead, and he was very much the leader of the community in Brisbane, not a man to mess with, he would have sorted this bloke out quick smart, and I don't mean violently. He would have packed him off back to NZ, into the hand of whanau over there to look after. The "aunties" have tried talking, they have tried to persuade him to "go home", as his mother wants, but he refuses, they don't have the same influence to order as brother once had.

Paul, even though I have mentored and helped the 'odd' person/ friend in my day, I was suddenly drawn in to your story with thoughts of how I would attempt to help this situation.
It does not always turn out well for EVERYONE involved, but we have to begin with the welfare of the child/children first, then we can consider the mother.
I feel a little frustrated that I can't even offer suggestions, because I have not been privy to the situation, so I can only sympathise, which is of itself a useless gesture, especially when someone needs 'actual' help, not more useless words, as they see it.
He seems, set in his ways and not prepared to compromise.
Paul, maybe this is one of those times when physical intervention and a clear message, maybe in the way of a threat, need to be used.
He sounds like he won't comply, so if it were me, and I had the human resources, or manpower, I would be tempted to use whatever means possible, because if you care about this woman, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think you know where this is going.
We have lived long enough to have at least heard about these tragedies where men get given a VRO and the obvious ends up happening by the hand of the guy in question.
Good luck with this one, but I feel someone is going to have to get tough with this guy and make the situation very clear, OR ELSE!

Paul,

If you take the same stance virtually every OA recipient will be stripped of it.

Take Tim Flannery for example, what has he actually done? Why is the Aus of the year?

Terrible incident in Brisbane yesterday, an estranged father Rowan Baxter set alight his three children and their mother Hannah Baxter in Ms Baxter's car. The three children died at the seen from burns, and their mother passed away in hospital later. The father died at the scene from self inflicted stab wounds. A shocking tragedy at anytime.

In some un-explainable moment of madness the chief copper investigating Inspector Mark Thompson, came on TV and had the gall to suggest killer Rowan Baxter may have been "driven too far". Of course Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll removed this unthinking flat foot Thompson from the investigation immediately. What a bloody stupid thing to say.

Paul, now, now.
No-one knows what really happened.
the only thing wrong about this report is that PC has contaminated everything.
As A police officer or any member of a govt department, like even the ABC, should only report the facts.
This cop obviously knows a little more about the case than he let on, and so the PC brigade stepped in and quoted him the riot act.
I don't mind him saying what he said, because I believe there is a reason.
What I'm seriously pissed off about, is the bloody ABC, and that maggot reporter continually referring to him as the 'murderer'.
NO not right.
She should be stood down as well and charged with making a false accusation and whatever else code of conduct she has breached.
Typical of these stupid arrogant know-nothing posers, they think they are in a position of entitlement.
Entitled to accuse people of something, THEY assume to be the case.
No-one knows what went on in that car, and until the investigation is complete, no-one has the right to accuse anyone of any assumed wrong doing.
The cop, I don't care about what he said, he has inside information, and he's a cop, he does have certain entitlements.
But the ABC maggot, had absolutely no right to say what she said, yet I don't hear anyone arcing up about her.
Just shows you what a sick lot Aussies are.

I just read the background to this incident and it appears Baxter was a jealous man, and controlling of his wife with regard to dress and money. He had no previous record of physical violence before they separated, and was considered a model father. It appears it was his jealousy that drove him to destroy the whole family including himself. For him his life had ended, being separated from his family. Jealousy is a powerful emotion and creates rage in protecting one's pride.

I always ask what led him to do what he, and others like him, did?
I don't think him expecting his wife to conduct herself in a fit and proper manner, especially where there are children involved, is too much to ask, and being anal about such things is not a bad thing.
Who knows what she was getting up to and with whom, especially with children in the mix.
I'm not condoning what ever it is he is alleged to have done.
I'm sure we will eventually get to know, but what if she had the knife as protection, he throws petrol over everyone, at the right moment, she lunges at him and stabs him furiously whilst he is focused on throwing the petrol around the inside of the car.
He manages to set it alight, then staggers back, only to fall on the verge where he died from his wounds.
Meanwhile onlookers attempt to extract the family from the now well alight vehicle, complete with them inside.
Like the cop said, who knows what happened for him to go ferrel, as he did.
Remember there are always other angles to consider and not to jump to conclusions.
This is why some people are innocently convicted, because they were pre-judged by the media and the public, through misinformation and lies.
I don't doubt what he is being accused of is possibly correct, BUT, until it is proven, it is an evil person who calls someone a murderer, with absolutely no idea of what they are saying and no right to say it.
I call on the ABC to sack the smart arse know-nothing news reader, A NEWS READER no less, to give her the biggest slap down and arse kicking in the history of the media, then give her the boot.
I and millions of people are sick of "trial by media".

Firstly, I simply dismiss the ALTRAV assertion that this copper, Inspector Mark Thompson "knows a little more about the case than he let on". Totally inappropriate for the copper in charge of the investigation, in less than 24 hours of the incident, to be making a public statement that offers mitigation for the actions of the perpetrator. I am surprised an officer of such seniority as an Inspector would do that. It might be appropriate for Thompson to return to the 'ranks' for education in proper modern police procedure in such matters.

Inspector Thompson's inappropriate words once more highlight what is suspected of the far to often police attitude when it comes to matters involving women and domestic violence, and abuse of women in general. There seems to be this underlying outdated "machoism" in the police force which is dismissive of women and violence perpetrated against them by males. A senior copper saying "driven too far" in a high profile matter such as this reinforces that general perception of the negative police attitude towards vulnerable women.

ALTRAV, that Rowan Baxter, now deceased, was the murderer of Hannah Baxter and their three children is not in dispute, Rowan Baxter will never have to face justice for the crimes he has committed. For an ABC reporter to refer to him as a murderer is totally in order.

This article shows the background of such cases:

http://7news.com.au/news/social/an-open-letter-in-the-wake-of-brisbane-tragedy-we-must-end-the-myth-of-the-good-man-c-709498?fbclid=IwAR2S5aPMWv6ZWyuJiym-7TbyKNViAI4jxoanEZu27VnBWCeD4lvO3wCYCwY

Paul, I am comforted by the fact that what you have written is YOUR opinion, and holds no sway in the greater scheme of things, and thank God it doesn't, because it is comments like yours that are the problem today.
Words like divisive, presumptuous, mis-leading and a lot more.
Just to really put some sanity back in this one, firstly the cop was well within his rights to say what he said, if not for the PC soft cocks and jelly brains, who love to jump to the obvious conclusion and say the obvious, as if they, like you, know what went on and what REALLY happened, and know what you're on about.
He knows something WE don't, and the reason he has been 'chatted', is because he was not PC, and for that I applaud him, and so do most anti PC people in Australia.
For you to be saying what you have said or believe, either you are a psychic, or you have witnessed something that you should be telling the police about or be charged with withholding information.
So which is it?

Paul, for the record and for the sake of truth and the opposition to exaggeration for the sake of impressing and point scoring or posing as in the "look at moi" category of morons, I must correct you and the maggot from the ABC.
When it is a crime of passion or mental incompetence due to such factors as emotional or mental instability, even if it is an acute or solitary case and completely out of character, (such as under the influence of drugs) it is considered and called, a 'killing' and not murder, until or unless it is deemed so by a court of law.
Precedent is already in hand and on the record, where someone was charged with murder, but due to his emotional and mental state which in that case he killed a homeless man because he thought he was stealing or was going to steal his bike.
Hah, go figure, but that is another example that the law is based on rules beyond that which 'normal' people will NEVER catch on.
Anyone calling someone a murderer based on NO actual evidence or the truth is actually guilty of an offence, compared with the person they have just illegally maligned or misrepresented by referring to them in a manner as to imply they are something they have not been convicted of.
The correct word is "killing", but that doesn't sound quite as dramatic as "MURDER", so it is not even considered.
So everyone, should say he 'killed' his family, or he is a 'killer'.
Yeah, I know, it sounds boring, doesn't it?
Just consider this; had the husband survived, because of this precedent case of the homeless man, this guy MIGHT have actually got off.
It has happened, I'm all about highlighting the long-shots, the impossible and unbelievable outcomes.
This could have been one such story.
We do not, nor will we EVER know, the truth!

ALTRAV, your posts are full of supposition and opinion. You say "He knows something WE don't," Does he really! Where is your evidence for that claim. Same with your scenario about events surrounding the incident, it was rubbish that popped out of your head. You, like the dumb arse copper are looking for mitigation when there is none. How do you mitigate the actions of a man pouring petrol over three young children and a woman and setting them alight. YOU ARE FULL OF IT!

I would like a couple of the decent female posters from the past to return and argue this one with you. Unfortunately they quit in disgust with blokes like you. Friends, on reading this please return, this bloke needs a real serve!

Paul you and your "friends" or anyone returning to "give me a real serve" are as narrow minded and biased, as you.
If you actually read these comments without your pre-conceived bias and prejudices, you will find my explanation and reasoning to be of a much deeper and broader nature than apparently you can or want to comprehend.
In earlier times, you and your ilk were the ones calling for the burning of a woman because you got it into your sick and narrow minded heads that she was a witch!
We NOW know, you were wrong then, and your still wrong today!
I think we can also throw in the blame for the killing of Jesus Christ as another of your like minded people's achievements.
Please do muster your cronies, I can't wait to read more innuendo and thoughtless opinions.
I need more humour and people saying the obvious, through lack of thought, in my life, and you and your mates certainly provide plenty of fodder to that effect.

ALTRAV SAID; "you will find my explanation and reasoning to be of a much deeper and broader nature than apparently you can or want to comprehend."
No its not, its all supposition you make up on the run. Just as you look for meaningless justification of the actions of the paedophiles Pell and Harris, you now look for justification for a demented monster. Go for it son, go for it!

"In earlier times, you and your ilk were the ones calling for the burning of a woman because you got it into your sick and narrow minded heads that she was a witch!"...."I think we can also throw in the blame for the killing of Jesus Christ as another of your like minded people's achievements."

THE RAVINGS OF A DEMENTED TOSSER!

Help for battered Men: http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/help-for-battered-men?fbclid=IwAR13hzgyJOz33LPXwgIduGCjw2Z1vxanPmjQAC_RJy7o52VjlUV8kqZOepU#1

Accommodation for battered men is usually under a bridge somewhere.

Josephus, there are those on OLO who are so self absorbed and full of themselves that they refuse to believe the unbelievable.
I'm a "man's man", and I don't want to believe that there is a male, (I won't say MAN) out there who can't/wont take control of a situation.
Man was created as a force to be reckoned with.
The last option.
The one in control.
The leader.
And so on.
These snags and neuters who allow themselves to be tested and provoked.
I care not that the gender is female, especially today, where these maggots reckon their equal to any man, as good as any man, capable of even bettering any man.
Well they have set the challenge/standard and those F$(kwits at the 'Me Too' camp, can come forward and try their hand as well.
But when they get back better than what they dish out, I don't want to hear one single word about running to the authorities screaming for help and accusing the guy of ANYTHING!
You smart arses pushed and pushed, without a single clue as to what you were pushing for.
Well here is your day of reckoning, as the saying goes, "be careful what you wish for, it just might come true".
So here we are now where we MEN have had to tolerate you pathetic maggots and your annoying mantra of equality till the message has been well and truly gone way beyond it's 'use by day'.
Now what is going to happen is that when the maggots start up at a guy, I insist that the guy give them a good dose of what they dish out to the guy, and then just maybe they will learn to get back in the box and stop trying to be something they are not and NEVER will be.
EQUAL TO MAN!

ALTRAV is the above diatribe some kind of mitigation and justification for the action of Rowan Baxter pouring petrol over three children and their mother and setting them alight? There are a number of forumites who have similar opinions to you, being far more moderate than you, yet none are rushing in to back you up.
BTW; A relative of the murderer, has spoken about his deep dark history of violence and how he was raised to believe women were house cleaners and used for sex.

BBTW; Your pin up gal Bettina Arndt has spoken out, claiming feminism is to blame for the father’s actions (she thinks like ALTRAV with more mitigation and justification). Quicker they strip her of that O of A the better. I have written to the GG telling him her latest comments are the last straw, and expressing my disappointment in the woman being awarded an O of A. I expect I will not be the only one to write.

Here is the link for those who want to do likewise, or ALTRAV could put in his opinion.

http://www.gg.gov.au/office-official-secretary-governor-general/email-contacts

Paul, unlike some on OLO, I stand on my own two feet, not seeking validation or affirmation.
You seem to always be at the forefront of any opportunity to sh!tstir.
I on the other hand always look for any other angles and possibilities which have kept me in good stead and ahead of the pack over the years, and not like you who simply always backs the favourite, a bad decision, not just in racing terms.
After all these years have you not learned anything about life and people?
Say what you like about me, but I will not accuse anyone of ANY wrong doing without real and truthful proof, instead of unsubstantiated, unconfirmed, allegations and public opinions, which are the worst things to ever rely on.
They are based on second or third hand hearsay and most of the time are completely incorrect.
How many people have been wrongly jailed or convicted of a crime they did not commit, simply because of the BS media and the BS public, quick to become one of the accusers because they are too gutless, ignorant and lazy to actually try to find the truth or speculate as to what ELSE may have taken place.
No Paul, don't bother commenting about me and what I say, because you will never attain a level of understanding required to be taken seriously as a THINKING man.
So let's just say that I am too hard for you to get, so just ignore me in the future, and t least, if nothing else, it will save you the time and effort to malign me, and me the time and effort to exonerate, vindicate and explain myself, unnecessarily.

ALTRAV, you leave yourself open to a charge of exercising conceited exaggeration with what you say. Take this nonsense from you;

"what if she had the knife as protection, he throws petrol over everyone, at the right moment, she lunges at him and stabs him furiously whilst he is focused on throwing the petrol around the inside of the car. He manages to set it alight, then staggers back, only to fall on the verge where he died from his wounds."

Nothing in fact, just superstition on your part, as you look for mitigation and justification for the actions of Rowan Baxter. You want to blame women, You can't understand that this guy was totally at fault in causing the deaths of his three children and their mother. There may well have been issues caused by their relationship, and what I have read that very much seems the case. However the actions of Baxter in murdering four people, is crossing a line of which he is the only one on that side, no mitigation, no justification. Wake up sunshine!

Dear Josephus,

Your earlier link to the story of Toby was a good read, thanks for posting it. Your latest about battered men when the discussion is around the incinerating of three little children and their mother is really not.

Paul, I hate to correct people, but the word is not superstition, but speculation.
No offence, it's just that I'm a bit of an OCD, or more precisely, pedantic, possibly even anal about some silly little insignificant things, like this one.
Sorry, it just plays on my mind.
I wasn't going to say anything when I read it originally on the day you posted, as you can see by the time and date of this posting, I sat on it but it just would not go away, usually until I do something about it.
Carry on.

What should play on your mind ALTRAV is the fact that on this matter you are a scum bucket! Not a real man, but an apologists for a monster. Just as you were an apologists for the paedophiles Pell and Harris previously. Trumpet what you like but the fact is you are a weak snivelling coward who fears women.

BTW; the correct word I wanted to use was "supposition" on your part. meaning "a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis." That's what you were doing creating a nonsense to mitigate and justify the murderous actions of Rowan Baxter.

Saying "You (Paul1405) seem to always be at the forefront of any opportunity to sh!tstir." That's correct, anytime a grub comes on this forum with the pompous BS you espouse, I'll take them on with everything I've got. I actually see you as one of the larva of a Calliphoridae.(look it up!)

Paul, Should we do anything to curb the behaviour of angry men; beside class them as monsters and criminals? What would you do to change their attitudes?

Josephus, here's another question we should also be asking people who suffer from the same dillusions as Paul, and that is:
Should we do anything to curb the behaviour of angry WOMEN; Beside class them as monsters and criminals? What would YOU do to change their attitudes?

Altrav,

That mongrel murdered his three small children and his wife. His wife seems to have done nothing - no lunging with a knife, no stabbing, no provocations at all - and he murdered her and their beautiful kids.

Isn't that so ? So what's the point of your 'alternative hypothesis' if it clearly wasn't going to happen that way ?

Yes, of course, Josephus, there have to be much earlier warnings within domestic relationships, perhaps an encouragement on both parties to seek confidential advice, or at least someone to talk to, and supportive programs such as anger management (perhaps called something else less direct) for both partners, programs with no blame inferred n either party, but which can bring a relationship back to how it is supposed to be, loving and mutually understanding.

Particularly in those early, stressful years, when a woman necessarily has to take time out to raise young kids (and the combined income falls just at a time when it is needed), relationships counselling or whatever it may be called, is vital.

Joe

Hi Joe, thanks for that, I've said several times on this thread there are instances of fathers being treated unfairly by the family court, particularly in relation to child access.

That has nothing to do with this particular instance. ALTRAV despite his often claimed "fountain of knowledge" rubbish, is simply looking for mitigation, and then in a perverted way justification for the actions of Rowan Baxter. I wont have a bar of that nonsense. Regardless of the prior circumstance, courts AVO's, access, what his wife was or wasn't, Baxter crossed a line, and he put himself firmly and solely on the other side of that line. There is no mitigation, and certainly no justification for what he done. ALTRAV and his "what if" nonsense speaks for what kind of perverted thinker he is more than anything.

Hi Josephus, you ask; "Should we do anything to curb the behaviour of angry men; beside class them as monsters and criminals? What would you do to change their attitudes?"

Many men/people are angry with a system that tries to impose a legal solution to what is a social problem, family breakup. In the narrow context of Rowan Baxter no one could see what was coming. In broader terms the system is, if not completely broken, then in need of some kind of overhaul. Its a fact that more than one woman a week dies because of domestic violence, much of it related to family breakup. A national summit, involving all stake holders to firstly identify where the system is failing, and come up with solutions for a better way.

Hi ALTRAV, you ask; "Should we do anything to curb the behaviour of angry WOMEN; Beside class them as monsters and criminals? What would YOU do to change their attitudes?"

Put blokes like you in a cage and let in the angry women.

Loudmouth, with respect, please don't join in the chorus of people who follow the crowd and state the obvious.
I know what he did is a vial and despicable act of cowardice and absolutely criminal.
Like Ms Andt, I always look at WHY.
Why did it come to this, for what was regarded as a nice guy, this was a shock and beyond extreme!
WHY?
I don't dwell on the obvious, because it tells me nothing of what led to this situation.
You see what EVERYONE fails to understand is, that by knowing what really led to this awful tragedy, just might in fact lead us to the answer on how to curb or eliminate it altogether.
So people like myself, or even Arndt for that matter, become vilified and abused for being the only ones trying to find the reasons why and ask the hard, awful, distasteful, hurtful questions.
When police are trying to solve a murder, they are not interested in being careful about what questions they ask, no matter how hurtful and provocative they may be, they have to ask those questions otherwise they will never uncover the TRUTH, which lead them to the answers and solving the crime.
I hope this goes some way to describing why I am not of the same mindset or psyche as everyone else.
So please when next you read something you find offensive, please stop and think, what am I thinking about.
If not please ask me, without any tone of malice or aggression, and I will be more than happy and willing to explain.

ALTRAV,

"You see what EVERYONE fails to understand is, that by knowing what really led to this awful tragedy, just might in fact lead us to the answer on how to curb or eliminate it altogether."

No, you would rather invent a nonsense, a fabrication, which you did looking for mitigation and justification of the actions of Rowan Baxter. This is what you said;

"I don't think him expecting his wife to conduct herself in a fit and proper manner, especially where there are children involved, is too much to ask, and being anal about such things is not a bad thing.
Who knows what she was getting up to and with whom, especially with children in the mix." NICE BIT OF MITAGATION.

Then this gem; "I'm sure we will eventually get to know, but what if she had the knife as protection, he throws petrol over everyone, at the right moment, she lunges at him and stabs him furiously whilst he is focused on throwing the petrol around the inside of the car.
He manages to set it alight, then staggers back, only to fall on the verge where he died from his wounds." Straight out of Agatha Christie fiction! Try to CREATE FALSE JUSTIFICATION. You are so full of it!

A fool, you want to read and listen to what people who knew Rowan Baxter, his deep dark history of controlling, of violence etc! You are the one who knows nothing.

It became obvious that Paul is on some pretty heavy meds, and that he's incapable of understanding anything which has too many factors to process, so I will respond to the forum.
My position is clear, firstly I do NOT condone what this guy did, but Paul does not want to hear that.
He also does not want to hear that unlike him people like me and Andt look into WHY and HOW this kind of thing happens.
Now any of you who have been on OLO for as long as I have know my ways are unorthodox and controversial, as is my language, and I have explained many times why.
So I see people ask, how can we stop this kind of thing happening again?
Well I can tell how it will keep happening again, and that is because of nasty little anti-Christs like Paul, who keep insulting, provoking, and generally making nuisances of themselves, instead of shutting the hell up, and coming up with solutions, suggestions, ideas that may go towards an eventual answer to stopping these things from happening.
I may not be smart enough to accomplish that but even Paul might be, if he would just stop his incessant jibing and anti-ism carry-on, it is counter productive and distracting to say the least, but most of all it's childish.
As I have said before, in trying to find answers, even the cops have to speculate to try to figure out what was behind it.
What are the markers that lead up to these atrocious and painful results.
So I would say to Paul, either come up with some suggestions, or shut up and pull your head in.
I'm doing my bit, even though it threatens your sensitivities, what are you doing other than being just another yes man and following the pack, saying the obvious.
As for her stabbing him goes, I don't know, do any of you know what happened in that car?
The info I got on her arming herself for protection was mentioned early in the investigation and has not been mentioned since.

"I (ALTRAV) do NOT condone what this guy did" how magnanimous of you ALTRAV, a round of applause for dear old ALTRAV. Sorry no applause because you are falsely searching for mitigation and justification for the actions of Rowan Baxtex, read what I posted before this.

Rowan Baxtex was not to blame for his actions, no siree its the fault of "nasty little anti-Christs like Paul". There we have it from the prize woman hating fool himself, its not the fault of ROWAN BAXTEX.

Unlike you ALTRAV I don't have to appeal to the Forum for support, I am satisfied with the support of the other 25 million Australians. Forumits can comment on this one way or the other.

BTW keep digging that hole of yours, you will reach China very soon, you are in so deep!

Paul, a word.
You do realise that there are moderators reading this stuff, don't you?
I don't mind you slagging off at me except for the fact it does get a little tiresome and it's not actually doing much for the topic or the respectability and reputation of the forum to an outsider or new observer.
Not to mention the patience and tolerance of the current OLO'ens.
Your kind of attitude is tolerated, up to a point, but I wonder how long the adjudicators are going to let you carry on playing the man and not the ball?
Graham, are you following this?

Paul,

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you.

The detective investigating the murder said that he would be investigating everything about the case including the possibility that the husband had been aggravated. When the left whinge attacked him BA defended his duty to garner all the facts of the case.

The woman and her 3 children are dead as is the monster that did it. The investigation is not going to punish the man nor exonerate him and largely the main facts of the case are clear.

Any investigation into this case is pointless unless it is thorough and uninhibited by political correctness.

BA was correct but politically incorrect.

Shadow,

Obviously you did not see the press conference with Inspector Mark Thompson, but rely on third hand reports from far right commentators such as 'Beat Up' Bolt. Well hopefully Constable Mark Thompson is now carrying out police duties more inline with his abilities, such as counting police paperclips in the storeroom down at the watch house.

The Queensland Police Commissioner had no other option than to remover this particular copper from the investigation. End of that story.

ALTRAV a word,

Yes indeed other people do read this stuff, I in fact send a link now and then to a couple of people, who themselves would not "contribute" to this forum for fear they might say things here that could land them in hot water, and not just on this little forum. I did send this topic by text to two people and one has come back to me with private comments from a political perspective on what you and I have discussed.

An appeal to the forum at large, now an appeal to the Moderator. There is a button in the shape of an "X" recommending comment deletion, at the bottom of each comment, go for it son, nothing for me to be concerned about. I note in your History you have had several comments deleted. That's life.

Paul,

Inspector Mark Thompson must have been terribly naive to state "Our job as investigators is to keep a completely open mind,"

Obviously this was something that Labor and the greens couldn't tolerate, and Mark was removed at the behest of QSL labor.

"Mark (a friend on a first name basis) was removed at the behest of QSL labor." You would say that SHADOW, want to post evidence of that evil Labor doings? Maybe MORRISON had a quick chat to the Queensland Police Commissioner, he likes to chin wag over the phone with police commissioners about on going investigations, particularly if it involves LIBERAL PARTY people whose heads are on the chopping block, tried to get Angus Taylor off, and that's what he did. WELL DONE SCUMO'!

Paul, BOY! You must be a very important and influential person to be part of the conversation between a PM and a police Commissioner, to be able to tell us what they discussed and the reason for the outcome.
OR, is this just another of your obsessive speculations?
Have you forgotten to take your meds again?

Al,

That's just the voices in Paul's head.

P.S. Angus Taylor was not charged due to a complete lack of evidence.

Shorten was not charged for rape because of insufficient evidence. Apparently the word of the victim was insufficient.

Jane Caro should then also be stripped of her OA.

SM, I am confused,about your comment where-by Shorten was not charged with rape, even though the victim accused him?
I thought, the law had changed, stupidly, but never-the-less, changed in favour of the victim.
I thought the new laws said that it was sufficient for someone to just accuse someone of a sexual mis-conduct, and that was it, no need for a trial.
Ian't that what has been happening to people like Cosby, Pell and so on?
How come Shorten can get away with it and some others can't?
What's going on?

A,

You should know that #MeToo only applies to conservatives.

ALTRAV, you could ask your mate Harvey Weinstein, but unfortunately for him, but good for his victims, Harvey's gone off to the slammer. Still think he's innocent? If you think Pell and Harris are the poor victims of nasty little children, then Weinstein is just another misunderstood victim as well.

Shadow, you are full of it! One third of reported sexual assault complaints in Australia are not proceed with. Mate being a man of claimed "legal letters" or some such crap, you should know that Mr Shadow Minister QC.

Paul, so let me get this straight.
According to you if some sheila accused you of some sexual depravity, which in your case with a misguided and depraved attitude like yours, you will at some stage either said something abhorrent to some woman, or have yet to, even though you did not intend any harm or compromise, and she reports you, and you get charged with an offence under one of the many stupid female biased laws, are you going to be screaming; "but I didn't do anything", as they drag you off kicking and screaming that your innocent?
So imagine then the number of men who have been accused, wrongly, because of some bent and twisted bitch with mental, social and emotional issues, which we know are part of a woman's psyche.
Paul I think you had better check your membership to the "Me Too" maggots club, you would not want to let the misguided maggots down, they need more soft cocks, neuters and jelly brains to help them keep up their egregious and unsavoury movement, if for no other reason than they are just plain sick and twisted and looks to match, and can't 'pull' a guy even if they paid them.

ALTRAV, how does one respond to the ravings of a lunatic, one cannot. I thought you were concerned that those of some importance may well be reading your "words of wisdom". I see the maggots, soft cocks, neuters and jelly brains, are getting a good airing from you once more. Now who needs medication I ask?

ALTRAV, let me make this observation, I believe some months of confinement in a trusted sanatorium, with treatment for the ague both physical and mental that obviously beset you could be most beneficial to your health in the longer term. May I recommend the 'Fairy Fruitcake Sanatorium' in Dillsville as a worthy establishment for the treatment of a case as severe as yours.

Good Tidings Old Chap.

Some consideration needs to be given to the psychiatric perspective on all of this.

During one of the earlier middle east conflicts, an american pilot flying escort for a convoy of poms, whilst under the influence of amphetamine snapped and attacked and "crispy crittered" the lot of them.

Some peoples physiology, upon exposure to traumatic levels of stress, and or substance for example, cannot cope and their minds shatter and they are plunged into an altered state of consciousness.

Do not underestimate the power of altered states to compel otherwise good people to do horrific things.

A truly evil person would kill and then walk.

Sane people only very rarely and in the most challenging of circumstances take their own lives - e.g. in cases where they reckon that, and to quote Spock, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

In this most horrific of cases, and if I am not mistaken, in the lead up to this it was reported that this persons behaviour and the things he was saying were becoming increasingly erratic and giving the people around him cause for concern. But not a one of them had the nous to call the P.E.T. team.

It's all very well to have this service or that but if people don't know what to do during the lead up to crisis then you may as well not have any services at all.

Considering the gun problems in n.america, my view is that one of the conversations that has to be had over and over, so that everyone understands clearly, is when is it ok to shoot someone? When is it ok to be violent? As plainly, part of the problem is is that a lot of people have their own view on that, and plainly not everyones' view accords with the law.

But as long as you do not practice outreach, how can we hope that we will all achieve appropriate understanding

Paul, why thank you for your heart felt recommendations.
If I may ask you, some time soon, so as to give fair and due consideration to your suggestions, that as you speak so highly of the place, you must have stayed there for a time, so I am curious to know what it's like.
No need to answer right now, at your leisure will be fine.

Paul,

What in particular can you recommend from your stay at the 'Fairy Fruitcake Sanatorium' in Dillsville?

ALTRAV and SHADOW

The 'Fairy Fruitcake Sanatorium' in Dillsville is an establishment of world renown, not familiar, how odd. A world leader in the treatment of the affliction that poor ALTRAV suffers, the medical term being "Hallucination-Delusion", poor ALTRAV suffers most severely from that particular form of apoplexy, thus his continual references to maggots, soft cocks, neuters and jelly brains

Shadow, I though you would be most familiar with The Fairy Fruitcake Sanatorium, having had occasion to check yourself in more than once, checking in when your own delusional state of mind has beset your good self. Do not recall, that is understandable it is the much needed sedatory drugs that causes such forgetfulness on your part.

Paul,

I have never been to dillsville as it is infested with greens.

Now, now, for those that don't know, "repeated derogatory taunts" is a legislated form of violence, and if we're not all careful "Pauline" will get her "knickers in a twist" and "her titties in a tangle" and have us all "V.R.O.'ed" by the magistrates kangaroo court.

LOL

ROFL

HaHaHa

And we musn't say that "Pauline" provoked us, because that would just be us trying to minimise "our guilt."

HaHaHa

And because she's got nought but a "goat's beard" between her legs, we musn't say anything adverse about "Pauline" at all, because that would be "victim blaming." Tsk, tsk!

LOL

It's not like a car crash after all where a portion of blame most often goes both ways

(except say in cases such as "rear-ending" ;-) )

<snicker, snicker>

But no, no, gentlemen, be not deluded by such notions of "natural justice" as women do not lie. If they accuse someone, they must be guilty.

ROFL

In fact, one wonders why we have women's prisons at all?

Clearly something is wrong!

Pauline! Pauline!!

I think the "hairy-backed host" will have to be summoned to do better on that one.

HaHaHa

What a ...ing joke this country is.

rEPRUSu, hear, hear!
Good to see there's someone else with a sense of humour, living in this country, amongst people who refuse to see what is in plain sight.
Oh well, we can at least try to mitigate in hoping that one day they might all grab a brain and catch on.