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.