bill shorten being investigated for rape...

It's a simple courtesy. Please provide link/s. You can do that once, rather than 50 people having to do it individually. It's like writing: if the people reading put more effort into doing so than the person who wrote it then it shouldn't have been written.

 

Get back to me when he's convicted.

 

Even charged would do

 

Well say it, so far nothing but insult

 

I will as soon as I sign up Facebook so I can get the most truthful and up to date information.

 

I find it interesting that this made no waves when it first came to light, which was some time ago. BUT now due to position the claims resurface to haunt the opposition leader. Yes it should be investigated (should have happened when first made) and the concerns of the ALP supporters show over these issues simply want to make a person hang their head in shame.

The ALP wants to talk about the misogyny of others but excuse that very same sentiment in their own representatives. "Get back to me with convictions" ... SO you would crucify a person because YOUR leader decided to declared them a misogynist and demand them to defend their words which are generally taken out of the context. And ignore the allegations of women who have made far worse allegations against your current leader because??? What Hypocrisy…

If you have anything to say then say it. Defend it, support it, but ignoring it shows the true shallowness of previous claims of support of women’s rights and equality. WHAT HYPOCRISY…

I don’t know if the claim is wrong or right, but it is being investigated. This gives some credit that some sort of impropriety has occurred. These current politicians claim they are upholding the values of Australian representation and this story simply demonstrates the fact they really are not. YOUR ignorance and ignoring of such actions and supporting such people only go further to degrade the office they are elected to represent. And makes clear demonstration of hypocrisy…

 

So you are ignorant too. BUT I thought you had something to say??? Apparently not. I think my previous comment would also apply to you as well, as you were one of those that would perpetuate the claims of Gillard as not being a political stunt.(if I recall correctly)

 

Not really, just poking things with astick, to see what's real and what's gammin

 

That stick is bent...

Really I wish there was more to discuss... Maybe the fact that the ALP continue to work against the current government to promote it's election promises after they received a thrashing of a magnitude that means they have it wrong and should pull their heads in??? No?? Maybe we could revert to showing the hypocrisy of the ALP and their supporters of their negativity claims(but that is simply lowing one’s self to the ALP level)??? No???

But I do find these subjects, regardless of fact or fiction shows that one insurmountable point of hypocrisy. The finger is pointed at the ALP and those great supporters, pretending to be opposing to such things want to pretend they do not exist. That also includes the ALP party itself, oh they fain innocence, but the fact remains they made claims in support of misogynistic comments against the former opposition leader and now want to ignore much worse from the public. WE DEMAND BETTER FROM ALL OF THEM.

 

Seen this bitter, twisted and deliberately ignorant behaviour often in pubs, and suspect it might be alcohol induced.

If I didn’t know better, I would swear from his behaviour, he was my alcoholic Uncle reincarnated. I know its not a nice thing to do, but I just treat him like a fool now.

 

Well not sure what you're getting at, if you're trying to make out that I drink you're off the mark, I actually can't remember the last time I had a drink.

But hey CD, don't let the truth get in the way of a good post,wellyou haven't in the past.

 

Get back to me when he's convicted. Or as DV said, when he's charged.

Hypocrisy? Not at all. I expect due process to be applied to anyone, regardless of their political persuasions and in fact any persuasions that they may happen to have. I expected due process to apply to Michael Williamson (it was); to Craig Thomson; to Eddie *choke* Obeid; to Joe *choke* *cough* Tripodi...and anyone else from my side of politics and the other side of politics and the under and over sides of politics. Once due process has been applied then go for it. But remember that the presumption of innocence (see Woolmington v DPP for the importance of that presumption) is still required in our criminal justice system.

The court of public opinion is largely bereft of the rules that normal courts have to abide by, but then the court of public opinion doesn't get to consider whether or not someone hits the slammer.

And due process doesn't recognise gender.

So I reject any allegations of hypocrisy.

 

Were was the due process when all the ALP supporters jumped on Gillard's band wagon??? Where was the fair and understanding for accusations for those NOW in opposition for the claims of misogyny??? No, clearly this smacks of Hypocrisy, Should one have simply held their tongue, and then maybe they could be considered to be fair and even minded. BUT as equally as those of the ALP want to pretend, previous comments present the truth.

So while you reject the allegations of hypocrisy, Actions show different.

 

hat utter rubbish, it really shows your hand, your trying to tell usthat raping a woman is no worse than calling a man a misogynist. You are a piece of work.

 

Clearly you have a comprehension problem.
Must go hand in hand with your ignorance.
Please do try read posts properly before responding to them, your current idea of just posting whatever comes to your mind at the time really isn't working out for you mate.

 

And you make my point extremely well. It is obvious if you have followed what I have said that this allegation is far worse and yet YOU and Diuretic have simply passed off as nothing. As stated, I do not know if he is innocent or guilty, BUT it is being investigated. The fact you want to simply brush it aside because it was an ALP member while in a far less circumstance you would condemn a man simply for party politics is disgusting.

Just to put you stupidity to show...

So further demonstrating the point of hypocrisy, Do you have any other stupidity to add to your complete lack of judgement on this issue???

 

N
o, I'll leave that to you, you're doing it well enough.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'll leave that to you, you're doing it well enough.

 

So in other words you have nothing and simply want to remain in the ignorance you portray...

 

Exactly ... That is exactly what I am doing, Gary.

 

How interesting, wanting to remain ignorant yet still trying to sound important. It does amaze me to the extent one would go about the world with only their own agenda informing them.

 

There is no minimisation of the allegations. These are criminal allegations - regardless of age - and need to be investigated as such. I have no problem with that, in fact for me it would be abhorrent if they were minimised for whatever reasons. Let's get that straight.

But in terms of newsworthiness, they have momentary value. If Shorten were to be charged with rape then the newsworthiness would be in the stratosphere. And the political dynamics would change. At present these are basically rumours, at least in the public arena. As rumours they can be disregarded after a few days of limited discussion in the MSM. Unless and until there are further developments the allegations can be left to police to investigate.

As for the connection with misogyny - I don't see any connection. If you mean the reference to Gillard's speech attacking Abbott - it's politics and we play it rough in Australia as we are seeing right now with the new federal government. I'd appreciate a bit more information on this because I'd very much like to deal with the allegations of hypocrisy against me.

 

However, your comment minimises the actions of one politician over another who you wanted to crucify, apparently due to party politics. You could have remained silent until further information was provided, or until investigations were complete. YET you commented to minimise the actions and presumptions of a politician

Sorry, when police are investigating such, they have moved above RUMOURS. If the police consider that there is some reason they need to be investigated then there is some impropriety that warrants such investigations. Again, this does not suppose that innocence or guilt is considered but the fact is action has been taken moving the issue from simple rumour to actual issue regardless of who or what is at fault. That is news worthy and the fact that this issue, when first reported some time ago, NOW fronts to some action then impropriety can be looked too. Again, you’re trying to minimise actions of one politician.

The connection is that you want to crucify a politician over a label made by a member of parliament of your particular persuasion and yet minimise the actions and allegations (again FAR WORSE). THIS IS CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF HYPOCRISY.

 

I thought there was a principle of "innocent until proven guilty"

Well gathering by the numbers of members who are comfortable with the draconian Bikie laws - obviously not

 

garry - a political blue is not akin to allegations of serious criminal behaviour.

As for investigations - they're usually carried out fairly quietly. The best form of investigation unfolds in such a way that when a suspect has been identified they are not warned about it, police may speak to them as part of the broader investigation but when they get to the business end things change rapidly. Rumours can get around the suspect's particular circle, say at work, but for most people that circle is going to be fairly small. For high profile figures such as politicians that circle is obviously larger. But rumours are still just rumours.

An investigation will continue regardless of rumours (hopefully) and if and when any positive action is taken, such as an arrest (but allowing for the fact that police only need reasonable suspicion to make an arrest), then the rumours of an investigation will be confirmed. The guilt of the suspect has still to be determined though.

 

Never said it was. I only stated that when a person politically claimed misogyny it was like the sky was falling and thus marked many to chastise the character of a man who has shown far better character than the person labelling him.

BUT when something of worse magnitude and greater significance happens you simply want to ignore it all simply because of the side of politics these particular people stand on... Hypocrisy, if you consider crucifying somebody over something of which is used to taint the character of a politician you should stand to chastise anybody regardless of party or preference. YOU AND DV clearly show you don't.

So what you are saying is that investigations are not rumours and that investigations create rumours. So in essence the fact the police are investigating is a RUMOUR??? Or is it a RUMOUR that the incident did occur and the police are investigating the RUMOUR??? Even your own comment points to the fact this is far more than a rumour and that the police consider it to be of something of concern.

The fact that there is an investigation does not indicate innocence of guilt, but it does indicate there is something in the complaint that warrants investigating. This indicates that some impropriety is possibly in play, regardless of innocence or guilt. So it is no longer a Rumour.

So you claim the investigation is a rumour??? Yet you say it will go on regardless??? It matters nothing of rumours at this point, AS STATED you did not need to comment but you did to minimise the topic. CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF HYPOCRISY, when you wanted to crucify another for the claims of the party of your persuasion and marginalise FAR WORSE claims of your own members.