Foxy,

Julia Banks was one of those Labor light candidates that Turnbull brought in and only started complaining when Turnbull was ditched. Her efforts to win her seat as an independent won her a miserable 14% of the votes and she retired to whine and complain.

Her winge fest of a book only makes vague allegations and omits any real details so as to avoid being sued for defamation and has all the believability of Pascoes discredited dank emu.

She is not missed.

As we saw in the Pell case, the Porter case, the McLachlan case and the Rush case, provable facts no longer matter in these issues. A claim of sexual assault is believed by a sector of the population irrespective of how much or how little evidence there is to support that claim.

These claims from Banks are just claims that she hasn't and can't ever prove or even offer circumstantial proof for.

Still, it'll sell some books... so all's well that ends well.

Cossomby,

Yes David O'Byrne did "admitted his past actions, said that realised his assumptions of consent were invalid, apologised in writing to the woman in question, and resigned."

But his case is hardly comparable to this one. There was hard evidence of his 'wrong-doing' which in the #metoo world is a hangable offence. That's a million miles from some women saying some bloke who she won't identify did something once at some place at some time and offering no collaborating evidence.

In the #metoo world O'Byrne had little choice but to go and pay feality to the believe-all-women mantra.

Julia Banks is just a simple case of sour grapes !

Dear Paul and Cossomby,

Thank You for your posts.

What a shame that in this discussion there seems
to be a scramble for some people
to discredit and dismiss Julia Banks and her
competency by going with their
their own political allegiances.

What about addressing the real issues raised by
her book?

But Foxy, we are addressing the real issues: being that these days a bitter rejected woman can make unsupported and unsupportable allegations of sexual assault and expect that the more gullible half of the population will immediately and credulously accept them as true.

That is a real problem for our society and should be addressed. I hope you'll also do so one day.

Dear mhaze,

Well the extension of your insipid argument is that without evidence people shouldn't be making claims about incidences which happened to them.

What utter tripe.

Why did we bother having a Royal Commission into institutional child abuse then? Why should the Commissioners have bothered sitting through the testimonies of thousands of witnesses, the vast bulk of whom had no direct evidence to back up their claims?

I found Banks' account to be completely in keeping with the actions of Morrison. His focus on the management of issues rather than their solution and his faux empathy are obvious to most Australians, it is just some forgive him.

Banks gave an impressive interview and there was little there to raise an eyebrow over, evidence of course that getting out of politics does enable a more open and truthful response to questions