The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The Case of Craig McLachlan

The Case of Craig McLachlan

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
I watched Craig McLachlan's interview on
Channel 7 last night in its entirety.
I was torn between sympathy and puzzlement.
So many questions.

It now appears that the actor is seeking $6.5m
in defamation against Fairfax media and the ABC.
He's also suing actor Christie Whelan Browne
over reports that he bullied and indecently
assaulted cast members.

Several other women have since come forward.

A magistrate in Melbourne cleared him of the
charges at that time - and now Mr McLachlan is
suing for defamation because he claims it has
ruined his career and his life.

He has denied all the allegations.

The behaviour on the Rocky Horror Show by the cast
and crew -
has been described as being "Lewd and crude" and
perhaps that's why Mr McLachlan feels he did nothing
wrong. He was "in character" as "Frank-n-Furter."
Who knows?

I am surprised that members of the cast are coming forward.

I believe McLachlan. He's convinced he's done nothing
wrong. That it was all "part of the show" and consensual.
I believe the women also. But why wait so long to
complain?
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 17 May 2021 9:23:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Found not guilty on all counts. His lying accusers should be prosecuted and jailed. Their sort are interested in money only, and their is no point in chasing them for damages. Proven sexual predators go to jail, as they should. Lying woman should go to jail. How lucky is McLachlan to have the love and support of one of the good ones.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 17 May 2021 1:48:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bigmouth Ben Fordham needs to pull his head in too. Using his special privilege of radio announcer, he has said that he 'believes' another female who has accused the actor of something, just because he "knows her". The bloody media is a menace. Police are the people to handle any complaints, not the media.

There is to be another bucket load of claims about sexual misbehaviour at universities on Chanel 7 news tonight. It will be interesting to see if complaints were first made to police, their reaction, and if complaints were not made, why not.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 17 May 2021 4:28:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

I don't believe him for a moment I'm afraid.

I take at face value that the judge described the four witnesses against McLachlan as "brave and honest witnesses" whose testimony based on the laws which applied then was unfortunately not enough to decide a criminal conviction. The judge was quite open about the fact that the verdict may well have been quite different today.

"Magistrate Wallington did note that she had to consider the allegations under the consent laws from the time of the allegations, and the result of the case may have been different if current consent laws were applicable."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-16/magistrate-criticises-craig-mclachlan-lawyer-over-questioning/12985916

The judge also chastised the defence lawyers inappropriate questioning stating:

"On the issue of cross-examination, the court was not assisted in its task by questions put by defence counsel Mr Littlemore such as the length of the average female labia majora, or whether a complainant was proud of her figure or other troubling and outdated stereotypes of sexual assault victims,".

Hopefully the abusing community and their supporters do not take solace in this verdict.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 17 May 2021 4:54:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The misandrist Marxist-Feminists had a field day with this one and they're still crying foul ! Their dogma does not allow for male dialogue, save a plea of "guilty as charged" irrespective of the facts. I hope Mr McLachlan successfully sues the lot of these #METOO# wannabes. As one who suffered at the hands of the Rainbow Mafia and their ilk when my sons mother came into the fold of the Marcia Wimmins Refuge in Campbelltown nearly 30 years ago, I can say the truth is out there and all it takes is a brave person to come forward who knows the facts - not the concocted lies and the coached witnesses of funding driven media hacks, Hell bent on destroying another public figure. The statistics are and have been skewed for many years and why is it that despite their hue & cry about the "best interests of the children" being forefront, there are still no refuges for men suffering at the hands of their female partners ? We have a long, long way to go before equity and equality visit us. Quite simply, the funding for Mens Issues does not rate. Look what you made me write !
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Monday, 17 May 2021 5:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it troubling that the magistrate who acquited
McLachlan on all charges apparently did so because
of an old law. Because as the magistrate stated - if
McLachlan had been tried by today's law - the results
may have been different.

So what does that mean? That McLachlan would have been
found guilty?

Perhaps we need to look at our laws again.
So that they are fair for all concerned.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 17 May 2021 6:11:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

I sympathise with both the men who have been badly
done by the legal system, as well as the women.
The laws need to be re-examined.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 17 May 2021 6:14:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is clearly a case of femmo-Nazism !
Posted by individual, Monday, 17 May 2021 6:32:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As suspected, the alleged offences claimed at 3 SA Universities were NOT reported to police, but merely to university authorities who can't do much about it. The reporter had copies of reports with comments like 'offered counselling', 'declined', 'closed'.

It's all about ruining male's reputations, not justice. Sheer nastiness and man-hating.

My advice to young men - avoid young females; if you want it, pay for it.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 17 May 2021 7:32:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there Folks...Some of you may know I was a former police detective until I retired, and for part of that time, I've been involved in investigating allegations of sexual assault (Rape); in fact, the whole machinations of inappropriate and unwanted sexual behaviour by males accused of these classes of offence(s). Including sexual assaults (buggery & Beastiality) occasioned by males.

However, I don't feel qualified to pass comment on this particular matter, as I don't know all the facts, so it would be quite wrong of me to make a judgement either way. After all, a man's reputation is in the balance, and as we all know, mud does invariably stick.

But something I would like to draw all your attention to is a non-fiction book titled 'Missoula' - Rape & the Justice System in a College (University) Town by Jon KRAKAUER. I was utterly amazed at the complexities of investigating sexual offences at this large Montana State University.

Accordingly, I'd like to commend you all. If you can obtain a copy of this book, it certainly enlightened me, an individual who was once formerly instructed and burdened with investigating all non-consensual and unwanted sexual offences for a particular Police Division. A real eye-opener for me, I can assure you.
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 17 May 2021 10:57:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear o sung wu,

From the report in the SMH.

“Mr McLachlan's lawyers submitted the women were unreliable witnesses whose accounts were inconsistent, fabricated, and possibly the result of collusion in the years afterwards.”

Yet the very no nonsense judge was quite clear.

“Ms Wallington said the women's accounts were credible and there was no evidence of collusion and no motive behind their decisions to contact police.”

But this part interested me:

“The magistrate said Mr McLachlan likely touched the women while they were performing, but might have believed they were consenting due to his "egotistical, self-entitled sense of humour". However, she was not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt he knew they were not consenting, which is an element of the charge.”

I would have thought the pub test would have applied here. If it were obvious to all and sundry that the conduct he engaged in was inappropriate then there should have been an expectation he knew it too. But it seems not. I get the feeling he was a lucky defendant since the judge has appeared to apply the interpretation of the law quite strictly despite being quite favourable to the witnesses.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 12:27:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps the isolation and detachment from reality caused by the overreaction to the Chinese 'flu has turned the already weak minds of some of these fantasising females. Blokes still young enough to be interested might be advised to stick to solo sex while while the knocking shops could be a problem because of the virus.

All this 'he did this or that to me' also has some roots in Leftist identity politics, affirmative action, gender obsession, and so on. Dividing people, including men and women, is all part of the Marxist's plans. Distrust. Suspicion. Hatred. It's all there and it's working.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 9:10:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig McLachlan has said that any inappropriate touching

"could have been accidental."

Stressing that "horseplay" and "pranks" happened regularly
backstage between members of the cast.

He said he often hugged and kissed fellow performers. A
practice he said was "commonplace" in show business.

He denied his words or actions ever had a sexual meaning,
connotation, or ambition.

However, staff members tell a different story, including
a male actor who claims he was bullied and intimidated
by Mr McLachlan.

The magistrate also found the witnesses believable but
stuck to the letter of the law as applicable at that
time.

McLachlan as a result was acquited of the charges.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is - what may
be considered "horseplay" "pranks" by some - can be
considered as "inappropriate" by others. And unless
given consent - there should be no excuse to indulge
in that sort of behaviour no matter how "commonplace"
it may be in the business.

For example, a young 22 year old female sound technician
on The Rocky Horror Show has told about McLachlan
asking her to fix his microphone and come to his
dressing room to do it. When she arrived McLachlan was
sitting on a chair totally naked. She walked out of the
room. Other incidents were also described.

I think that McLachlan was indeed fortunate to get
a Magistrate who stuck to the letter of the law as it
existed at that time.

However, I trust that in future he must re-think his
own behaviour.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 9:14:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A little about the magistrate, Belinda Wallington, who presided over the McLachlan trial:
* she was the same magistrate who sent Pell to trial. And we know how that finally played out. Do I need to remind of the 7 nil outcome?
* she had been on various radio shows BEFORE the Pell trial praising Milligan (who you'll recall was the journalist behind the Pell accusations) but refused to recuse herself in regards to Pell.
* she belongs to a group called SistersInCrime - a group female lawyers. A bio of her describes how she fell in love with crime fiction while "working in a feminist collective at a women’s refuge". Feminist collective!!

That MacLachlan was found not guilty by such a women demonstrates how innocent he was. But to maintain her feminist standing in the collective, she couldn't just let him go. She needed to make gratuitous remakes showing she strongly sided with the complainants. But even with that level of bias she wasn't able to find him guilty of even one charge.

We also need to remember the role of the Victoria Police in this. They interceded in the defamation case to help the ABC by laying 13 criminal charges against him. None of the charges stood. All not guilty. What sort of shoddy policing is that? This after being humiliated over Pell.
There is a section of the Victorian Police who are so anti-male that anything with a cock is endangered. As if its not bad enough that people have to live in the Socialist Republic of Victoria, they also have to deal with the Feminist Gestapo.

The MacLachlan story showed the ABC 'reporters' 'interviewing' the so-called victims. But it wasn't an interview. The reporters were actively telling the 'interviewees' what to say. The ABC is out of control and is a threat to good governance.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 9:56:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Three women complained about MacLachlan's actions during the 2014 Rocky Horror reboot. They were all so traumatised by his actions that, when he was again given the role of Frank-N-Furter in the 2017 reboot, they all applied to be on the show. Yes, obviously very traumatised! (That's sarcasm folks). None got a part. Then and only then did they start complaining of what they say happened.

This was a jihad by feminist SJWs to find Australia's Weinstein. They didn't much care about the facts or the lives destroyed and they will be protected by the collective from the consequences of their despicable crimes.

Anyone who has read Kundera's "The Joke" will see the soft totalitarianism that we are slowly, or perhaps not so slowly, descending into. It never ends well.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 9:57:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jail lying women. Jail the people who persecuted an innocent George Pell. They are still out there, plotting and planning to ruin men's lives with the aid and encouragement of the Left cancel culture.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 10:17:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
New allegations of harassment and bullying against
Craig McLachlan have been revealed in a court
document.

Two actors in The Rocky Horror Show, including a male,
(Tim Maddren, who played Brad, in The Rocky Horror Show),
and two guest stars on the Doctor Blake Mysteries have made
fresh allegations of harassment.

It will be interesting to see if McLachlan's
will continue to sue the press for defamation. A case that
is yet to be heard.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 10:19:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anne Marie Peard takes a look at the case of Craig
McLachlan from his behaviour in the workplace.

His alleged behaviour we're told included inappropriate
touching and kissing, running his finger along a
woman's inner thigh, tracing his finger over a woman's
vulva, using his tongue in a stage kiss, and pressing his
groin into a woman in an unasked for hug. All of which were
accompanied by a litany of sexual jokes and "pranks" as
McLachlan called them. Some of which apparently happened
on stage where the women were performing and couldn't
react publicly.

Peard tells us that -

All of it happened in a workplace that should have been safe
and comfortable for the women concerned.

McLachlan's legal team Peard points out - have continued
to assert that the women lied.

Except when they told the truth because the acts were
"consensual" and "de rigueur" in a theatre workplace.

The legal definition of "consent" is as Peard tells us -
essential to understanding this judgement.

We're asked - "Of all things to be angry about in 2020
is it worth getting upset over another wealthy,
middle-aged, famous bloke with very good lawyers getting
away with unprofessional behaviour in the workplace?

There's more at:

http://www.artshub.com.au/education/news-article/opinions-and-analysis/professional-development/anne-marie-peard/craig-mclachlan-and-workplace-respect-from-the-archives-262587
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 11:05:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I've no doubt 'some' of this touching is capable of being construed as inappropriate by some women if, in fact, it happened at all in this instance. However, if it did occur as alleged, what was in the mind of the alleged perpetrator? Was there an intent to sexually touch the complainant(s), or was it, in fact, an act that was common to this particular show business environment?

When passed over for a plumb acting or performing job, some women in that particular industry, even when she's given the employer the 'vertical smile' we used to say in the coppers, can and do become vengeful and lay spurious complaints against casting directors and co-stars etc.

As you rightly point out in the pub test STEELE. Would, in ordinary circumstance, people act in this manner? Probably not. But apparently, in Show Business, it's infected with 'darling this 'n that' and kisses and hugs all round, all freely given as a result of a fine piece of acting, singing, or in some other way, entertaining.

It seems to me those who professionally engage in the Theatre or other elements of Show Business act and behave in ways that would ordinarily not be acceptable in other vocations. There again, I'm right out of touch with regular society these days, given my age?
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 1:45:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you've ever seen the Rocky Horror Show live, you'll know its a bawdy, highly sexualised romp. I've seen it many times over the years from the mid 1970's with Reg Livermore on. I saw the mid 1990s version with MacLachlan and Red Symons as narrator. As an example of the type of things in the show, Symons comments on MacLachlan/Frank-N-Furter's looks and opines that all the women in the audience probably had a wide-on!! The audience was both shocked and amused.

I also saw the 2014 version which was even more outrageous.

Anyone who worked on the show and yet thought the environment would be like working in an accounting office is a moron or on the make...or both.

Again, the people who the ABC coached didn't complain in 2014. They complained in 2018 AFTER they'd been rejected for the next reboot of the show.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 3:03:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've seen The Rocky Horror Show multiple times.
I loved the show! However the fantasy of the show
should not have been allowed to creep into reality
on the excuse that "Hey, that's showbiz!
"Everyone does it!"

And why did the actors delay in coming forward?

Well, it's not brain surgery!

Isn't it possible that they delayed in coming forward
because they feared for their own careers?
That they didn't complain until afterwards because
McLachlan played the lead role of Dr Frank-N-Furter
and was an influential figure.

There was a real power inbalance between the accused
bloke and each of the complainants. The women were
McLachlan's juniors in the show and would have
worried about repercussions for their own careers.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 3:56:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
worried about repercussions for their own careers.
Foxxy,
Doesn't that have hypocrites written all over ? Play along with the wrong till it's safe ? That of course is assuming they're telling the truth. Somehow that whole shambles smells of lack of integrity !
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 6:14:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Foxy,

Haven't seen Mr McLachlan in anything, never a fan of "soapies" etc, so can't really comment on his acting ability. We must remember if found innocent in court, it doesn't mean the prosecution witnesses are lying, that's perjury, and the court can take action.

Its guilt beyond reasonable doubt that's required, and so it should be. The Forums 'Usual Suspects' because of their misogynistic attitudes assume the women are lying and should be prosecuted themselves. Well, there is no evidence they are lying, its the case that the prosecution couldn't establish "beyond reasonable doubt".

Just something, seen the 2002 movie 'The Tracker' recently with David Gulpilil and Gary Sweet, seen it before, better than a first view of most "soapies". "T" had never seen it, and was wrapped. She cannot believe the colonial attitude to Aboriginal people, well she can from her own people. Now there's some people who never fronted a court for their crimes. Please listen to DG's speech at the end. A real Australian, black or white.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLNg6a6k1h4&ab_channel=MIFF
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 18 May 2021 7:39:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

Thanks for the link.

As I said at the beginning of this discussion - there
are so many sides to this entire saga - and so many
questions as to who to believe.

The fact remains the Magistrate found
the witnesses credible, but legally went with the letter
of the law as it applied at that time.

I don't think that any one's behaviour can be excused
with the old stereotyping of - "She asked for it,"
or "That's showbiz" "We all do it!" and "I meant no
harm," That's not good enough. Behaviour and jokes
and pranks at someone else's expense is wrong. We all
should know that and speak up when it happens, and not
allow it to happen whether it's at school, in the workplace,
in the home, or anywhere else.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 May 2021 8:48:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

Thanks for "The Tracker," I've seen it several times.
Brutal film. Very moving. Speaks for itself.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 May 2021 9:00:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Senator Mick Dodson, Australian of the Year, has been accused of threatening to assault a woman (aboriginal) and using sexually degrading language towards her.

Senator Dodson has "no recall of the incident".

There's one for you racial, feminist, lefty busy bodies to get stuck into before people - unlike you - who know what they are doing deal with it; just like another politician recently, before the Senator gets to defend himself. Treat him the same as a white man, and believe the woman. Would love to see that, but won't, of course.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 19 May 2021 10:34:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In this country we have the law and people
have a right to have their cases heard by
the court and the accused have the right to
defend themselves.

In the case of Craig McLachlan - he was a man
who only saw himself as a victim and that was
made clear in the TV interview. He thought it
outrageous he should be put through the
court process and instead of feeling vindicated
attacked those who dared to question him.

McLachlan did not come out looking like a hero.
He came out as someone who has certainly been
through the wringer, but also as someone who is a
narcissist and not able to see the other side
of the story.

McLachlan missed the whole point. Instead of
learning lessons he saw himself as the victim.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 May 2021 10:48:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Well, it's not brain surgery!"

Well apparently, for some, it is.

Let's assume the women were traumatised. Let's assume they didn't say anything because they feared for their jobs. Let's assume.

So in 2014 they get viciously assaulted by receiving a peak on the lips. But they remain quiet because they fear they'll lose their jobs on the show.

Then in 2015 the show finishes. So they no longer have a job to lose. So they remain traumatised but say nothing even though there's no longer anything to lose.

Ditto in 2016. There is no show. So they no longer have a job to lose. So they remain traumatised but say nothing even though there's no longer anything to lose.

Then in 2017 there is a show and the person they fear is in the show. And what do these poor traumatised, sexually assaulted women do? They apply for a job in the show. They apply for a job working with their rapist. Perfectly understandable? Yeah, sure.


Then in 2017 they don't get the job. Boy, I bet they were relieved they didn't get the job they wanted.

Then in 2018 one of the women chases their rapist and his partner down the streets of Melbourne to gush over how much she misses him etc etc.

Then in 2018 the ABC comes a-knocking. And the women suddenly decide they need to talk. Although when they talk they are required by the ABC to say what the ABC tells them to say. But they all agree the aim is to get MacLachlin sacked. Does that sound like unhinged revenge seeking for failing to get hired?

You're right Foxy. Its not brain surgery. Although those who fall for these stories could probably use some.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 19 May 2021 1:20:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McLachlan's behaviour included inappropriate
touching and kissing, running his finger along
a woman's inner thigh, tracing his finger over
a woman's vulva, using his tongue in a stage
kiss, and pressing his groin into a woman in an
unasked for hug. All of which were accompanied by a
litany of sexual jokes and "pranks" as McLachlan
called them, some of which apparently happened on stage
where the women were performing and could not react
publicly. All of this happened in a workplace that should
have been safe and comfortable for the women concerned.

And if you don't understand this mhaze - then you have a
serious problem.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 May 2021 1:30:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was later claimed that "McLachlan's behaviour included ....."

There you go - fixed it for you.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 19 May 2021 3:53:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually it wasn't "later claimed."

It was common knowledge.

Erika Heynatz explained, "the women were
previously afraid no one would believe them
if they were to go public."

It wasn't until the story of legendary
Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein broke
(October 2017) -
that the women felt strong enough to share
their stories.

Heynatz said:

The women decided
"now was the time for the truth to be revealed
and to help prevent similar behaviour from
happening in the future."
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 May 2021 6:13:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

Apparently we do have "long term offenders" in
Australia's media and entertainment industry.
Long term veteran journalist Tracey
Spicer has done investigations on this issue and
has urged women to come forward with their stories.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 May 2021 6:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McLachlan is seeking $6.5m in damages.
His trial has been referred to the courts
for a trial date likely to be later this
year unless he decides not to proceed.

No trial is cheap. Common sense dictates that
given what's happened the parties should
explore a resolution.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 May 2021 9:59:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It was common knowledge."

Oh dear Foxy...now you're just making stuff up.

Do you understand the sheer illogicality of believing that the women didn't talk about it because of fear and yet it was "common knowledge". I suspect that level of doublethink goes over your head.

Read the reports of the trial. Nowhere is it suggested the women were talking about this prior to the time the ABC came a-knocking. Indeed it is suggested that the woman's story "evolved" over time. Read "evolved" as 'embellished'.

"Tracey Spicer has done investigations on this issue".

Yes. The best she came up with was Don Burke who was accused by a woman who also didn't get the job. Not accused of any assault...just accused of make vague suggestions. Oh, the humanity!
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 20 May 2021 10:02:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

Do your research.

I did.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 May 2021 10:13:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

For you:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5248721/Actress-says-allegations-Craig-McLachlan-open-secret.html

I don't make stuff up!
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 May 2021 10:37:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

One woman saying it was common knowledge doesn't make it common knowledge. If it was common knowledge it would have been described at the trial as such since it would have gone to bolstering the complainant's assertions.

It wasn't described as common knowledgnge at the trial because it wasn't common knowledge.

And it wasn't common knowledge because it wasn't common. It was just a few malcontents responding to the ABC's search for 'victims', saying what the ABC told them to say and then relying on the thoroughly corrupt Victorian Police to save them from the defamation lawsuit.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 20 May 2021 5:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

There's more than just one actress involved.
And it was common knowledge - in the industry.
A document released by the Supreme Court gives
more details - It will be used by the
Defence.

In any case, we shall see what pans out in the
future with this case.

Interesting times ahead.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 May 2021 6:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again I think that this discussion has run
its course so as is my usual habit - I'd like to
Thank the contributors for taking the time and
trouble to participate. Discussions should make
us think and hopefully learn and benefit from them.
This one has certainly made me do that.

I read somewhere that "all personal breakthroughs
begin with a change in beliefs..."

Hopefully the interactions between men and women
in our society will improve and that men won't
need the love of a "good woman" to keep them in
check.

Women today are trying to tell men
they're sick of being their moral compass.
Women in workplaces around the country
should not be expected to tell men when they've gone
to far. Men need to stop constantly testing the
boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

Have a nice day.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 May 2021 9:03:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women in workplaces around the country should not be expected to tell men when they've gone
too far.

Foxy,
isn't that the crux of the problem ? Women change the boundaries like a Gerrymander, it's time they put their cards on table for all to see, particularly for men with money !
How can women expect men to gauge the limits when the limits of women are limitless ?
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 26 May 2021 4:43:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual,

It's common for men to be wild in their younger days
to claim their wives now "keep them in check"
implying that it's only the love of a "good woman"
that can keep a man from becoming a marouding
idiot. This is not so much a compliment as an
added responsibility for the woman.

The celebrity - Kyle Sandilands has Jackie O, to tell
him "Oh, I think you've gone too far, Kyle."
Johnny Cash sand to June Carter, "Because you're
mine. I walk the line." He passed the responsibility
onto her for his behaviour.

Women today are trying to tell men - we're sick of
being your moral compass. You're not toddlers.
You're mother does not work here anymore - wash
your own dishes.

Hillary Clinto famously said - "Bill is
philandering. He was a hard dog to keep on the
porch."

So women in workplaces around the country have had
enough. They are sick and tired of playing the
mummy role.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 27 May 2021 7:51:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual,

McLachlan is seeking $6.5m in damages. His
defamation trial has been referred to the court for
a trial date likely to be late this year. In the
interview McLachlan did not come out looking like
a hero. He came out as someone who is a narcissist
with his partner playing the mummy role and trying
to calm him down. McClachlan was not able to see
the other side of the story. How his behaviour was
not acceptable.

He missed the whole point instead of learning
lessons he saw himself as a victim = and that was
made clear in the interview.

He thought it outrageous that he should be put
through the court process and instead of feeling
vindicated attacked those who dared to question him.

No trial is cheap. Common sense dictates that given
what's happened - the parties should explore a
resolution. But of course McLachlan is not likely
to do that. His ego stand in the way.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 27 May 2021 8:05:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy