topic Re: Hmmm. This does not add up in Community Spirit

Hmmm. This does not add up

donnashuggy — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:15:46 GMT

http://www.smh.com.au/national/how-rosie-battys-discovery-of-expartners-childporn-charges-traumatised-her-20170227-gum0qi

Re: Hmmm. This does not add up

davidc4430 — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:01:48 GMT

what do you mean?

Re: Hmmm. This does not add up

springyzone — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:58:28 GMT

I'm surprised the father was allowed access to his son when he already had those charges against him.

Re: Hmmm. This does not add up

village_person — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:15:46 GMT

@springyzone wrote:
I'm surprised the father was allowed access to his son when he already had those charges against him.

"He was in front of a magistrate wanting greater access to Luke and it was actually his lawyer that told the magistrate there were other charges pending, which none of us knew about," she said.

There it is; a magistrate saw fit to allow him access to Luke. Don't forget that in Australia we have professional idiots donning the robes. We had a judge who saw fit to lend his car to a dead person who not only drove it but incurred a traffic infringement in the process.

I have no respect for Rosie Batty because of her silence recently over the 'OK to beat your wife' issue. This woman is supposed to be the champion of the White Ribbon Day movement. What a useless ambassador she is.

Re: Hmmm. This does not add up

imastawka — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:41:29 GMT

"He was in front of a magistrate wanting greater access to Luke and it was actually his lawyer that told the magistrate there were other charges pending, which none of us knew about," she said.

I'm totally surprised his lawyer was stupid enough to raise the issue with the magistrate,

when there was no need.

It could easily have stopped his client from seeing his son. The magistrate would

not have been aware of the charges, why bring them up?

I don't condone any of it, just saying the lawyer was an idiot.

Must have been Legal Aid, from my experience of them.

Re: Hmmm. This does not add up

ambercat16 — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:52:32 GMT

@imastawka wrote:
"He was in front of a magistrate wanting greater access to Luke and it was actually his lawyer that told the magistrate there were other charges pending, which none of us knew about," she said.

I'm totally surprised his lawyer was stupid enough to raise the issue with the magistrate,
when there was no need.

It could easily have stopped his client from seeing his son. The magistrate would
not have been aware of the charges, why bring them up?

I don't condone any of it, just saying the lawyer was an idiot.

Must have been Legal Aid, from my experience of them.

or maybe the lawyer was a decent human being who naively thought that the magistrate would do the right thing if appraised of all the facts. Shame he was wrong

Re: Hmmm. This does not add up

imastawka — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:23:22 GMT

or maybe the lawyer was a decent human being

PMSL. No such animal exists

Re: Hmmm. This does not add up

ambercat16 — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:45:07 GMT

Yeah, you could be right. I'm just an incurable optimist

Re: Hmmm. This does not add up

lyndal1838 — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:16:21 GMT

@imastawka wrote:
"He was in front of a magistrate wanting greater access to Luke and it was actually his lawyer that told the magistrate there were other charges pending, which none of us knew about," she said.

I'm totally surprised his lawyer was stupid enough to raise the issue with the magistrate,
when there was no need.

It could easily have stopped his client from seeing his son. The magistrate would
not have been aware of the charges, why bring them up?

I don't condone any of it, just saying the lawyer was an idiot.

Must have been Legal Aid, from my experience of them.

Do you think perhaps the lawyer may have believed in his heart that his client should not have access to his son?

It was certainly a way to prevent it.....pity the magistrate did not think so too.

Re: Hmmm. This does not add up

springyzone — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 13:24:28 GMT

@lyndal1838 wrote:
@imastawka wrote:
"He was in front of a magistrate wanting greater access to Luke and it was actually his lawyer that told the magistrate there were other charges pending, which none of us knew about," she said.

I'm totally surprised his lawyer was stupid enough to raise the issue with the magistrate,
when there was no need.

It could easily have stopped his client from seeing his son. The magistrate would
not have been aware of the charges, why bring them up?

I don't condone any of it, just saying the lawyer was an idiot.

Must have been Legal Aid, from my experience of them.

Do you think perhaps the lawyer may have believed in his heart that his client should not have access to his son?
It was certainly a way to prevent it.....pity the magistrate did not think so too.

Yes, I was taken aback that his lawyer brought it up but maybe the lawyer did think the magistrate should know.

But.. I see it as a worry, in this age of computers, that a person could be facing charges and any magistrate having to make a legal decision about something would not have up to date information about that person.

No one should have had to tell him, in a sensible world he should have known, had the history at his fingertips.

Okay, a person facing charges is innocent till proven guilty but there should be provision for a magistrate to put other legal decisions on hold till an outcome is known, or else put a temporary ban on contact till the case was resolved.

That's what happens in the real world. If you were eg teaching, and facing child porn charges, you would not be able to keep on working till the case had been heard.

Anyone asking for bail or facing fines or wanting access etc should have all the known history available to the magistrate, in my opinion.