Sorry Foxy but you've missed my point...(I write that so often I should create a Word macro for it!).

The point was that Laming was bought down by false accusations. That is no longer in doubt. When you find a female politician whose career was equally destroyed by false accusations, then you'll have something to discuss.

Might I also point out that most of the false accusers were female, among them Lisa Wilkinson and Sarah Hanson-(Sea Patrol *) Young. To their credit they both raced to apologise when they found out Laming could prove them wrong and intended to do so. Perhaps they were worried about how much it'd cost them if they didn't apologise, unlike Milligan who had no such worries.

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d6Dm0kqcuc

Dear mhaze,

"Guilty of being a male"?

These facts are not in dispute.

Laming took a photo of Ms White while she was bending over restocking a fridge in a workplace.

Laming was approached by Ms White and her manager and asked to delete the image. He chose not to.

Ms White did get a brief look at the image and after some deliberation and in the face of Laming's refusal to delete it made a police report backed up by her male manager. She did not discuss it in any detail with any media.

What you would have us believe is that both people were just out to get Laming because he is a male. How utterly absurd.

Laming is regarded by some as a litigious tosser.

He went after the Australian Medical Board for not renewing his specialist registration after he had received numerous extensions on the time limit for providing the relevant documentation. Finally after nearly two years they rejected his application. So he sued them.

http://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qcat/2013/102?mview=laming%7C

Your willingness to turn a blind eye to what this bloke is and to the facts just to make your point is telling.

Again SR, if the actual photos were so deplorable, why did they have to make up stories to make them seem worse?

Why did so many people then make claims which were demonstrably false such that they were forced to apologise with alacrity.

Oh and by the way, SR wrote "[when] asked to delete the image. He chose not to."

That's false. He deleted them prior to leaving the store. More falsehoods. More attempts to make things worse than they were. When others got things wrong they apologised. I doubt SR will have that much integrity.

SR,

Laming probably kept the photo as proof that he did nothing wrong. This proved fortuitous as the ABC as usual took the opportunity to defame a coalition MP. The photo proved his innocence and forced ABC to apologize and cough up $200 000 in penalties plus the costs of the court case.

The tossers would appear to be Louis (louse) Milligan and the morons that let her print lies.

Dea mhaze,

It appears I was incorrect. The twitter source I read has obviously assumed the "material" was the photo itself, which therefore incorrectly indicated he had not deleted it.

I did not research this more fully and was wrong to repeat the assumption.

It appears the photo, though upsetting to the subject, was not taken at an angle which would have seen it designated as an 'upskirting' act therefore could not be legally construed as "lewd".

So inappropriate enough to have been told to delete it but not criminally liable as it was done in a public place were there is no expectation of privacy. Also mitigating was the fact that Ms White's underwear was showing above her pants thus, as the police told her "the incident doesn't fit legislation criteria".

(2) A person who observes or visually records another person’s genital or anal region, in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy in relation to that region—
(a) without the other person’s consent; and
(b) when the observation or visual recording is made for the purpose of observing or visually recording the other person’s genital or anal region;
commits a misdemeanour.
Penalty—
Maximum penalty—3 years imprisonment.
Example—
using a mobile phone in a public place to take photos of women’s underwear under their skirts without their consent

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s227a.html

This would have been off behaviour for anyone to have engaged in much less an MP. And I think most people will take the facts of the story and make up their own minds about what his motivations for taking such an inappropriate image. But in the end he doesn't have a legal case to answer therefore free to sue whomever he pleases.

What sort of 55 year old deviant takes pictures of a young girl, a third of his age, a stranger no less, from behind when she was bending down? A Liberal National Party sicko from Queensland that's who. Should ask his wife what she thinks of her husband, poor woman. Then he's not alone, there are plenty of other sickos who have been documented in the Coalition as well.