What About The Children?

[the_great_she_elephant]

I am amazed and disgusted that in all the indignation over what Gillian Triggs should or shouldn't have done or who said or didn't say what to her, not ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN  except, finally, Malcolm Turnbull, has commented in any way on the contents of her report..

She found that  over a 15-month period from January 2013 to March 2014, spanning both the Labor and Coalition governments  there were 233 recorded assaults involving children and 33 incidents of reported sexual assault. 

If these findings are true - and as far as I know nobody has so far disputed them -   then what is going to be done about it? Who had the duty of care? who is going to be held responsible. What measures are going to be put in place to stop this abuse happening in future?

Both Gillian Triggs and George Brandis are astute and comparitively wealthy adults able to instruct top  legal practitioners to protect their reputaions - but who is going to protect the safety of these children? How many more children have been abused since March 2014? Is a child perhaps being abused in a detention centre  even while you are reading this post? 

Surely to goodness after all that was learned from the Children In Care Royal Commission this report cannot simply be put in a "don't want to know" basket while both sides of Pariament try to gain political mileage out the motives of the Human Rghts Commissioner or the behaviour of the Attourney General.

At some point -though probably not in the lifetime of this government  or even  the one that follows it - there will inevitably be a Royal Commission into the treatment of children in detention centre. what do you imagine its findings are likely to be?

[vicr3000]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

When is it alleged that she said those words you've quoted her as saying?

At the time the armed guard comment was made it should have been corrected.  They knew it was a draft report which was presented to them so they could go through it and provide correct information where they found errors or didn't agree.  It is the standard procedure they go through.  They explained it very clearly, half a dozen times.

The lack of standards was demonstrated by the bullying interrogation by a couple of the senators.  

It is standard for witnesses to agree to take questions on notice when they don't have the details at hand..

When the draft is submitted they have every right to expect that it will go through the proper procedure and to expect that they'll be treated with respect in Senate hearings.

---

Glee

She said the words "armed guards" in the hearings.

They were her words.

Why does she need to take questions "on notice" when she wouldn't even acknowledge she was WRONG.

If you want her treated with respect, then people like you need to tell Sarah Useless to not be such a

disrespectful attack dog in the hearings she runs.

And to treat people like General Campbell with the respect he deserves, instead of belittling him.

He is a person 100 times better than Sarah Useless will ever be.

[Anonymous]

she either saw them or she didn't.

[gleee58]

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

No, she made a mistake and instead of correcting her the childmen bayed for her blood.

a mistake?  she was very specific:

Triggs: "...I've been there three times, you cannot get into any of the sections without going through armed guards, etc etc"
Bowles: "we do not have armed guards"
Triggs: "...I don't need to (garbled)..."
Bowles: "we do not have armed guards"
Triggs: "...to describe them as not prisons..."
Bowles: "we do not have armed guards President, I'd like you to acknowledge that"
Triggs: "I'm not sure, but I'm, I'm, um, aahhhh"
Bowles: "I'd like you to acknowledge that, we do not have armed guards"
Triggs: "I will check that with my clients then because some of those guards are armed..."
Bowles: "well I, again, again President, I would like you to check that and I would like you to retract that"

if there were no armed guards -

what made her think she had to go

through them to get to every section? 

and when she was corrected - why 

did she ignore it?

---

The interrogation your quotes refer to was from a routine hearing held before the report was final. 

Why is it so unbelievable that they'd confuse armed escorts or armed anything with armed guards?

The HRC accepted the departmental response through the correct process as was reflected in the final report.

The only reason for the Senate interrogation was to smear and discredit the President of the HRC. 

The job of the department was to correct any passges they felt were incorrect.

Instead they turned it into a stage on which to crucify a highly competent and qualified woman for political gain.

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

A person who thinks those with hyphenated names have two dads obviously has a severe lack of intelligence.

---

if you take the reason i use two dads literally, you obviously can't see why I use it but it is not the above.

I'll call her Sarah useless from now on.

---

I see it for what it is, another misogynistic slur on a woman.

[Anonymous]

Why is it so unbelievable that they'd confuse armed escorts or armed anything with armed guards?

what armed escorts did she have to 

go through to enter each section?? 

that makes no sense.

what armed personnel do you think 

were there at the entry to every section?

where are you getting your information from?

[gleee58]

---

@vicr3000 wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

When is it alleged that she said those words you've quoted her as saying?

At the time the armed guard comment was made it should have been corrected.  They knew it was a draft report which was presented to them so they could go through it and provide correct information where they found errors or didn't agree.  It is the standard procedure they go through.  They explained it very clearly, half a dozen times.

The lack of standards was demonstrated by the bullying interrogation by a couple of the senators.  

It is standard for witnesses to agree to take questions on notice when they don't have the details at hand..

When the draft is submitted they have every right to expect that it will go through the proper procedure and to expect that they'll be treated with respect in Senate hearings.

---

Glee

She said the words "armed guards" in the hearings.

---

She used the words armed guards in the draft copy of the report that goes to the department for their input before the report is released.

The department responded to that suggestion to correct the information.

There was not the need for the aggressive interrogation in a hearing over it. 

[vicr3000]

Hey Glee, I don't hate women.

I do think Sarah as a person, pollie whatever is useless.

Her being a Woman has nothing to do with it.

What is the difference between what I say about Sarah HY and you lot say about Abbott, Hockey etc.

I don't throw the sexist, he's male comment at you yet you are very quick to judge my comments as sexist

and on the basis she is a woman.

[lloydslights]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@lloydslights wrote:

Nowhere in the report, that I could find, are the words 'armed guards'.  

There were 2 statements of 'prison-like' within the report.  

And 'the bedrooms are essentially small cells'.

When Ms Triggs was faced with one of the difficult questions, after a stutter she started the don't-you-know-who-I-am routine, citing that she'd been in law for 40 years, etc. That sort of comeback really riles me and appears to be a belittling bullying tactic.

DEB

---

When is it alleged that she said those words you've quoted her as saying? You've answered this with your next sentence, thanks.

At the time the armed guard comment was made it should have been corrected.

 They knew it was a draft report which was presented to them so they could go through it and provide correct information where they found errors or didn't agree.  It is the standard procedure they go through.  They explained it very clearly, half a dozen times.

The lack of standards was demonstrated by the bullying interrogation by a couple of the senators. Senators as well, I agree.

It is standard for witnesses to agree to take questions on notice when they don't have the details at hand..

When the draft is submitted they have every right to expect that it will go through the proper procedure and to expect that they'll be treated with respect in Senate hearings.  Agree.

---

It is the statement at the presentation of the draft, that she said there were armed guards.  With that statement from her, it appeared that she was loose with her words.  And therefore, doubt about truth in anything she said could be deemed doubtful.

For the life of me I can't find it now, but there is a HRC formal response to that Draft with the amendments and confirmation of dates, and other info leading up to the presentation of the Report.

With regret, I accept and announce that my brain is tiring from all this exercise.

DEB

[gleee58]

---

@lloydslights wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@lloydslights wrote:

Nowhere in the report, that I could find, are the words 'armed guards'.  

There were 2 statements of 'prison-like' within the report.  

And 'the bedrooms are essentially small cells'.

When Ms Triggs was faced with one of the difficult questions, after a stutter she started the don't-you-know-who-I-am routine, citing that she'd been in law for 40 years, etc. That sort of comeback really riles me and appears to be a belittling bullying tactic.

DEB

---

When is it alleged that she said those words you've quoted her as saying? You've answered this with your next sentence, thanks.

No, I did not.  There is not reference to her saying to anyone anything along the lines of "don't you know who I am" as alleged by you.

At the time the armed guard comment was made it should have been corrected.

 They knew it was a draft report which was presented to them so they could go through it and provide correct information where they found errors or didn't agree.  It is the standard procedure they go through.  They explained it very clearly, half a dozen times.

The lack of standards was demonstrated by the bullying interrogation by a couple of the senators. Senators as well, I agree.

It is standard for witnesses to agree to take questions on notice when they don't have the details at hand..

When the draft is submitted they have every right to expect that it will go through the proper procedure and to expect that they'll be treated with respect in Senate hearings.  Agree.

---

It is the statement at the presentation of the draft, that she said there were armed guards.  With that statement from her, it appeared that she was loose with her words.  And therefore, doubt about truth in anything she said could be deemed doubtful.

For the life of me I can't find it now, but there is a HRC formal response to that Draft with the amendments and confirmation of dates, and other info leading up to the presentation of the Report.

With regret, I accept and announce that my brain is tiring from all this exercise.

DEB

---

[Anonymous]

this is what deb may have been referring to 

when she posted:

When Ms Triggs was faced with one of the difficult questions, after a stutter she started the don't-you-know-who-I-am routine, citing that she'd been in law for 40 years, etc. That sort of comeback really riles me and appears to be a belittling bullying tactic.

Morrison: "...and are you suggesting that Long Bay Gaol is the same as a pool fenced Alternative Place Of Detention at Phosphate Hill on Christmas Island"?
Triggs: "............um, I would like to move on but basically I have been a practicing lawyer since I was 22 years old so I know a prison when I see it"