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.