Jdb case

[avocado]

Yeh, nah mate. You're missing the point. If I decide to get in a car, which I do every day, and a drunk driver hits me and injures me, is it my fault for allowing myself to be on the road? Please.

Nobody is saying this is the girl's fault.

 

[Old Timer]

The reason I included the commentary on s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) is because I am only interested in matters of fact and matters of law.

Possm's comment in post #143 "Inviting a handsome celebrity and another man back to your unit for 'coffee' is not a good idea; especially if you flirt with him/them before hand" is his opinion and opinion that he is entitled to express (one may even argue that his opinion is what has colloquially become known as the public policy of 'victim blaming' - I have no interest at all in debating that public policy).

Again, I am only interested in matters of fact and matters of law, and the only way I could link Possm's opinion to either of those matters was if he, by implication, was raising the issue of the complaint's sexual reputation.

Section 293 makes clear that evidence of the sexual reputation of the complaint is inadmissible.

Furthermore, section 293 links directly to your concerns regarding decision-making and 'process' (I'm assuming by the term 'process' you are referring to procedural fairness).

I’m referring to making the decision do I know enough about these guys to go off with them?
I’m talking about I know (if she did) this guy is in a relationship with a pregnant women so why does he want me to with him now especially with some other guy who I know nothing about?
If she considered both and still came up with a “I’m ok to do this” of course she was entitled to think that way but it’s an old saying but a good one “let common sense prevail” or “far better to be safe than sorry”
They didn’t come up with these sayings for no good reason.
If people think you can abandon those sayings or thoughts in favour of “it’s 2018 not 1940 and these things shouldn’t happen” then an aweful lor of people are going to get seriously hurt.
Punishing the crime is no compensation for the disaster that befalls victims
Re procedural fairness all parties are deserving of it and I sincerely hope that occurs.

 

[Drag Queen]

The reason I included the commentary on s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) is because I am only interested in matters of fact and matters of law.

Possm's comment in post #143 "Inviting a handsome celebrity and another man back to your unit for 'coffee' is not a good idea; especially if you flirt with him/them before hand" is his opinion and opinion that he is entitled to express (one may even argue that his opinion is what has colloquially become known as the public policy of 'victim blaming' - I have no interest at all in debating that public policy).

Again, I am only interested in matters of fact and matters of law, and the only way I could link Possm's opinion to either of those matters was if he, by implication, was raising the issue of the complaint's sexual reputation.

Section 293 makes clear that evidence of the sexual reputation of the complaint is inadmissible.

Furthermore, section 293 links directly to your concerns regarding decision-making and 'process' (I'm assuming by the term 'process' you are referring to procedural fairness).

Deleted

 

[Fat Tony Kandos]

I’m referring to making the decision do I know enough about these guys to go off with them?
I’m talking about I know (if she did) this guy is in a relationship with a pregnant women so why does he want me to with him now especially with some other guy who I know nothing about?
If she considered both and still came up with a “I’m ok to do this” of course she was entitled to think that way but it’s an old saying but a good one “let common sense prevail” or “far better to be safe than sorry”
They didn’t come up with these sayings for no good reason.
If people think you can abandon those sayings or thoughts in favour of “it’s 2018 not 1940 and these things shouldn’t happen” then an aweful lor of people are going to get seriously hurt.
Punishing the crime is no compensation for the disaster that befalls victims
Re procedural fairness all parties are deserving of it and I sincerely hope that occurs.

I agree that the aphorisms "let common sense prevail" and "far better to be safe than sorry" are good aphorisms to live by - but they do not apply to matters of fact or matters of law (unfortunately).

The 19 year old female complainant and Jack de Belin have now crossed over the threshold of common sense and have now entered into the territory of the criminal law as it is applied in the state of NSW.

"Re procedural fairness all parties are deserving of it and I sincerely hope that occurs." It will.

 

[Fat Tony Kandos]

What?? How bout you f**k off. This matter is now in the hands of the police and the justice system. Sexual reputation?? Pathetic.

My commentary on s 293 was in defence of the 19 year old female complainant.

 

[Old Timer]

I agree that the aphorisms "let common sense prevail" and "far better to be safe than sorry" are good aphorisms to live by - but they do not apply to matters of fact or matters of law (unfortunately).

The 19 year old female complainant and Jack de Belin have now crossed over the threshold of common sense and have now entered into the territory of the criminal law as it is applied in the state of NSW.

"Re procedural fairness all parties are deserving of it and I sincerely hope that occurs." It will.

The facts are certainly the facts and the fact that common sense was either not used or ignored is very sad for all concerned.

 

[Drag Queen]

I agree that the aphorisms "let common sense prevail" and "far better to be safe than sorry" are good aphorisms to live by - but they do not apply to matters of fact or matters of law (unfortunately).

The 19 year old female complainant and Jack de Belin have now crossed over the threshold of common sense and have now entered into the territory of the criminal law as it is applied in the state of NSW.

"Re procedural fairness all parties are deserving of it and I sincerely hope that occurs." It will.

I agree that the aphorisms "let common sense prevail" and "far better to be safe than sorry" are good aphorisms to live by - but they do not apply to matters of fact or matters of law (unfortunately).

The 19 year old female complainant and Jack de Belin have now crossed over the threshold of common sense and have now entered into the territory of the criminal law as it is applied in the state of NSW.

"Re procedural fairness all parties are deserving of it and I sincerely hope that occurs." It will.

Hmm no shit.

 

[Fat Tony Kandos]

Hmm no shit.

If you have problems reading and understanding the English language the Commonwealth government has programs that can assist you, here: https://www.australia.gov.au/information-and-services/education-and-training/literacy-and-numeracy

Good luck.

This conversation is over.

 

[Drag Queen]

If you have problems reading and understanding the English language the Commonwealth government has programs that can assist you, here: https://www.australia.gov.au/information-and-services/education-and-training/literacy-and-numeracy

Good luck.

This conversation is over.[/Q

 

[Drag Queen]

English language and interpretation is not one of my weaknesses to be honest. Carry on.

 

[Fat Tony Kandos]

English language and interpretation is not one of my weaknesses to be honest. Carry on.

I will grant you the opportunity to redeem yourself and re-start my conversation with you, but only once.

"English language and interpretation is not one of my weaknesses to be honest." I find this statement hard to believe due to your response to my post #181.

What did you not understand about my post in #181? I am happy to hold your hand and walk you step-by-step through my reasoning...

 

[Willow]

 

[avocado]

Evidence of the sexual reputation of the complaint is inadmissible and

was raising the issue of the complaint's sexual reputation.

Section 293 makes clear that evidence of the sexual reputation of the complaint is inadmissible.

If you're going to portray yourself as an expert you can start by using the correct terminology.

Try "complainant".

 

[Fat Tony Kandos]

If you're going to portray yourself as an expert you can start by using the correct terminology in post #181.

Try "complainant".

How will I ever recover?

Feel free to add something productive and useful to the discussion if you wish.

 

[The Damo]

This stuff is obviously fraught, and though I disagree plenty with IT and Possm and others making the same type of point about decision making, or common sense or avoiding risk. I don’t think thinking that way signals malice, or callousness, or lack of care or sympathy. I don’t even think it’s wrong, as far as it goes. I disagree though precisely because I don’t think it continues to what is the outcome of that approach. First fact to keep in mind is that the vast majority of rapes aren’t committed by strangers, but by Men the victim knows. So straight away the advice is no help to the majority of cases.
Secondly it basically says women should assume all men are potential rapists. Now far too many men are, but the majority still are not. It also doesn’t account that women do take precautions all the time, and that precisely because they are conscious that men may be violent can make it harder to say ‘no thanks I’ll wait outside while you go get changed’. It also puts limits on women’s opportunities in life, socially, economically, in their career.
There’s plenty more to say, but I’ll leave it with one more point. This is actually well researched, so feel free to look it up. Men who do assault women believe that more men commit similar assaults than is actually the case. They think that in similar situations most men would do what they did. The reason they think that is because of the prevailing attitude that at the mild end is expressed as ‘she should have exercised common sense and shouldn’t have gone back to the unit” through to “well she was dressed provocatively” then to “she knew what she was going there for”. I’m not having a go at you. As far as I can tell from reading posts on the internet, you seem fair and decent humans. But I’d encourage you to think further down the track of where that logic goes. Cheers

 

[JohnnoMcJohnno]

How will I ever recover?

Feel free to add something productive and useful to the discussion if you wish.

Thanks for your posts Fat Tony, I've learnt something.

 

[Old Timer]

This stuff is obviously fraught, and though I disagree plenty with IT and Possm and others making the same type of point about decision making, or common sense or avoiding risk. I don’t think thinking that way signals malice, or callousness, or lack of care or sympathy. I don’t even think it’s wrong, as far as it goes. I disagree though precisely because I don’t think it continues to what is the outcome of that approach. First fact to keep in mind is that the vast majority of rapes aren’t committed by strangers, but by Men the victim knows. So straight away the advice is no help to the majority of cases.
Secondly it basically says women should assume all men are potential rapists. Now far too many men are, but the majority still are not. It also doesn’t account that women do take precautions all the time, and that precisely because they are conscious that men may be violent can make it harder to say ‘no thanks I’ll wait outside while you go get changed’. It also puts limits on women’s opportunities in life, socially, economically, in their career.
There’s plenty more to say, but I’ll leave it with one more point. This is actually well researched, so feel free to look it up. Men who do assault women believe that more men commit similar assaults than is actually the case. They think that in similar situations most men would do what they did. The reason they think that is because of the prevailing attitude that at the mild end is expressed as ‘she should have exercised common sense and shouldn’t have gone back to the unit” through to “well she was dressed provocatively” then to “she knew what she was going there for”. I’m not having a go at you. As far as I can tell from reading posts on the internet, you seem fair and decent humans. But I’d encourage you to think further down the track of where that logic goes. Cheers

Nice response and well researched by the look of it but for the life of me I can't understand why "common sense" is being rendered almost irrelevant by some people.
I sure as hell didn't get to my age without relying on common sense and plenty of it because without it I could have well and truly ended up in all sorts of shit just like many of the kids I grew up with.
Old saying if it smells like shit it probably is and that is the value of common sense and being able to understand potential outcomes.
For all we know if the charges are true it could well be that some other female dodged a bullet by using common sense on that night and no doubt if the men are guilty that this behaviour could be in fact repetitive on their part and in fact many other women might have dodged a bullet as well.
If that is the case you have to ask why that might be.

 

[Belta]

FTK said;

Section 193 of the Evidence Act states that evidence of the sexual reputation of the complainant is inadmissible

I’m not in any way an intellect or expert with the NSW legal system. I’d say most today would agree we’ve progressed from the convict days to a much ‘fairer’ judicial system. Obviously if there is direct evidence ie video footage, fingerprints or DNA at for example a break and enter or possibly independent witnesses than this evidence if correct procedures are followed will result in the perpetrator being convicted of the crime he/she has committed.

FTKs extract from the Evidence Act is an example of restrictions placed on the prosecution, (and I’m not sure where I heard this) but it is something like; “100 men should go free less one innocent man be convicted” In this system this we can’t hide from the fact (and I’m not making any assumptions in this case) that if a charge against someone is dismissed, it does not mean they are always 100% innocent.

So for me the real point in these matters is responsibility. With great power comes great responsibility. If the Prime Minister does something really stupid and puts himself in a position where his morals are questioned he will commit career suicide. I’m not equating the status of our Prime Minister to that of a rugby league player, but the modern day player is definitely a public figure. Todays players aren’t working class men who play and drink hard. Today’s top players are paid close to a million a season to play and represent the game. If they bight the hand that feeds them I have zero sympathy towards them, regardless of the court outcome they have damaged the reputation of the game, the very thing that makes them super wealthy.

 

[possm]

This stuff is obviously fraught, and though I disagree plenty with IT and Possm and others making the same type of point about decision making, or common sense or avoiding risk. I don’t think thinking that way signals malice, or callousness, or lack of care or sympathy. I don’t even think it’s wrong, as far as it goes. I disagree though precisely because I don’t think it continues to what is the outcome of that approach. First fact to keep in mind is that the vast majority of rapes aren’t committed by strangers, but by Men the victim knows. So straight away the advice is no help to the majority of cases.
Secondly it basically says women should assume all men are potential rapists. Now far too many men are, but the majority still are not. It also doesn’t account that women do take precautions all the time, and that precisely because they are conscious that men may be violent can make it harder to say ‘no thanks I’ll wait outside while you go get changed’. It also puts limits on women’s opportunities in life, socially, economically, in their career.
There’s plenty more to say, but I’ll leave it with one more point. This is actually well researched, so feel free to look it up. Men who do assault women believe that more men commit similar assaults than is actually the case. They think that in similar situations most men would do what they did. The reason they think that is because of the prevailing attitude that at the mild end is expressed as ‘she should have exercised common sense and shouldn’t have gone back to the unit” through to “well she was dressed provocatively” then to “she knew what she was going there for”. I’m not having a go at you. As far as I can tell from reading posts on the internet, you seem fair and decent humans. But I’d encourage you to think further down the track of where that logic goes. Cheers

If a blind man has valuable possessions in his home out in the open for any visitor to see, it would be risky for him to invite strangers into his home without first taking percussions - in this case putting these items away out of sight.

This does not mean that if he did not hide his valuables, he is at fault or negate any guilt from the thief if these items are stolen.

Another example would be if you left your wallet on the front seat of your locked car. It would be no lessor crime if a thief smashed the window and stoll the wallet however, I am sure the investigating police would tell you that you were very careless and this carelessness contributed towards the crime.

 

[muzby]

If a blind man has valuable possessions in his home out in the open for any visitor to see, it would be risky for him to invite strangers into his home without first taking percussions - in this case putting these items away out of sight.

This does not mean that if he did not hide his valuables, he is at fault or negate any guilt from the thief if these items are stolen.

Another example would be if you left your wallet on the front seat of your locked car. It would be no lessor crime if a thief smashed the window and stoll the wallet however, I am sure the investigating police would tell you that you were very careless and this carelessness contributed towards the crime.

Just stop.