180deg
Landed Gentry
Posts: 869
Feb 18, 2006 5:11:53 GMT -4
|
Post by 180deg on Mar 29, 2010 23:16:38 GMT -4
Can't you defend a defamation case by showing that the statements are essentially true? As much as his lawyers are crying "defamation" and "lawsuit", if there's even a shred of truth to the allegations he'd want to stay as far away from a court as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on Mar 30, 2010 0:34:25 GMT -4
For the statements to be "essentially true" he'd have to be convicted in a court of law. Until that point, it's defamation ... of the first order. Seriously, it's probably worse to be named as pedophile than it is to be named a murderer. And I'm with butterfly, how could they bring this to trial? He would have a really compelling argument that he couldn't get a fair trial due to all the publicity; all the evidence seems to be witness statements and his defense, seventeen years later, could tear them to shreds; and, given that she went to the media rather than the police her integrity is open to debate.* I'm really surprised Channel 9 went with this in this manner. * I, for one, believe her but that's neither here nor there
|
|
butterfly
Landed Gentry
Posts: 866
Jan 17, 2006 21:50:30 GMT -4
|
Post by butterfly on Mar 30, 2010 22:41:20 GMT -4
There is also a "public interest" component to the "truth defence". I imagine the public interest hurdle is passed easily. But truth is tricky. In Australia, they have to prove that all of the implications of their story are true (not just what they said). I didn't see the program but I understand that she is only alleging that he touched her inappropriately. From what I can gather from the media reporting of it, the progam probably implied much greater allegations of pedophiliia than that- Channel 9 would have to prove the truth of it all... even what they didn't intend to imply.... although it is to lesser standard than a criminal trial (balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt). It was a bold step for them. BTW, he could sue Sarah Monoghan as well. And for the record, I believe her as well.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 3, 2024 19:17:46 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2010 5:14:05 GMT -4
Does anyone else remember a documentary special shown on either SBS or the ABC that was basically an Aussie version of Child of Our Time? I'm fairly certain it was first shown in 2000 and I believe it intended to do annual follow-ups. I think it did do a follow up in either 2001 or 2002. I can't remember much about the families. I know that one of the babies was born to teen parents (about 15/16 years old) who were living independently and working relatively long hours. I think they had split up by the time of the follow-up. Another family had had financial issues and I think they had even been briefly homeless. They found housing in a rural area. Does anyone remember the title of this show? I really want to google to see if the project was scrapped entirely of if I have just missed the updates.
|
|
hal9000
Guest
Oct 3, 2024 19:17:46 GMT -4
|
Post by hal9000 on Apr 3, 2010 20:26:24 GMT -4
I agree with a great deal of what this editorial discussed: The reason that it was never taken to the police is because the whole thing came up due to a bit of (wait for it ....) investigative journalism by Women's Day. They saw a reunion several years ago and wondered why the "Dad" wasn't present. And when they started asking around, "he's a dirty old man" whispers is the very first thing they heard about from all and sundry. It took them 6 months to even get Sarah to talk them at all, let alone even discuss what went down. So it was a long process for her to even fathom talking about what happened at all, so I think that may help, explain the money situation and why she didn't go to the police first, even though in a perfect world she would have. The thing is, going to the police is much like going to a superior at work. If there is plausible deniability by the accused party and co-workers who "didn't see anything" there is very little, because nothing can(/will) be done, TPTB may coo sympathetically, but honestly would prefer if you bucked up and kept it to yourself because little to no action will be taken, and what is done will cause a tonne of paperwork. At that point, a victim is basically scared off seeing the police for that reason. Everyone was so careful not to name names, but Channel 9 did so to protect their scoop. Deeply stupid and tacky of them, but not surprising. As everyone said upthread is likely that this will affect criminal proceedings against Hughes. So maybe he be cleared by the courts but known for the rest of his life as a perv by the general public as opposed to simply those in his industry. Victims of bullying and abuse are have compressed their injuries so much that they need a great, great deal of support for a very long period of tim before taken action. Alone, it is impossible. In a lot of ways, the law has the serve the people, rather than the people serving the law. Had Sarah not gone public in the manner she did, I doubt she ever would been able to fight through the years of repression to do it herself. As it is now, whether he walks or not, she and others have told their stories and are free.
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on May 12, 2010 4:09:58 GMT -4
OMG, can Jessica Watson just sail home already so that I don't have to hear about her anymore? Or see her wonky teeth. [/mean]
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 3, 2024 19:17:46 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2010 7:20:17 GMT -4
I'm a little bit disturbed by the amount of press she's getting, mostly because the media seems (to me) to be barely suppressing its glee that she didn't do it 'properly' and won't get the record. Jebus, she's a teenage girl who sailed around the world by herself! Regardless of whether or not she gets the record she's still accomplished something great. I think a lot of the media backlash stems from the fact that she's a young girl who wouldn't listen to her elders and stay home. If she was a boy I don't think there'd be as much coverage of her supposed failure.
I never really paid attention to her teeth! I'll have to now.
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on May 12, 2010 21:21:22 GMT -4
Maybe I'm just totally grinchy but I am totally underwhelmed by what Jessica Watson is doing. Yes, yes, it's a remarkable feat and I certainly wouldn't be capable of it. But, really, what's the point? It seems kind of self-indulgent and attention seeking to me. I tend to feel this way about all "adventurers" though. Go to deep space, now that would impress me!
ETA: Hmmm, have just been in the Miley Cyrus thread and I might have to reconsider this post. I still think that adventurers are kind of wanky but given a choice between a girl who is out there showing how intrepid and strong she is versus one who thinks that strippers are her role models I'm going for the former. And I hope other young girls do too!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 3, 2024 19:17:46 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 1:22:37 GMT -4
It seems kind of self-indulgent and attention seeking to me. I tend to feel this way about all "adventurers" though. Go to deep space, now that would impress me! Actually I feel the same way, I've never really seen the point of doing something 'because it's there'.
|
|
|
Post by incognito on May 13, 2010 10:16:50 GMT -4
Maybe I'm just totally grinchy but I am totally underwhelmed by what Jessica Watson is doing. Yes, yes, it's a remarkable feat and I certainly wouldn't be capable of it. But, really, what's the point? It seems kind of self-indulgent and attention seeking to me. I tend to feel this way about all "adventurers" though. Go to deep space, now that would impress me! IA. There was a recent story about a 13-year-old boy who is making a bid to climb Mount Everest. And my reaction that is...what? Why? Just so that he can have the right to brag that he was the youngest person to climb Everest? It just seems like a lot of these 'adventures' for teenagers are so that they can have bragging rights about being the youngest person to do this or that, and that makes me roll my eyes. Maybe it's hypocritical of me to feel this way because I enjoy watching athletic competitions like the Olympics, and - no matter what the Olympic committee might say - a lot of that is also about being able to brag that you're the best at something, lol. I guess I feel this way about the Everest bid in particular because of the alleged 10% death rate for climbers and so I think it's downright irresponsible. I'm more ambivalent about the Jessica Watson expedition because I imagine the chances of death aren't as high. (Um, not that sailing around the world isn't fraught with peril, either.) I saw this quote in an article about the Everest climber and sorta agree with it: The same thing could apply to Jessica, IMO. She has her whole life to sail around the world. What is the rush? Oh wait, so that she can say she was the youngest person evah, the official record books be damned! Anytime I hear about some kid making a bid to be the youngest person ever to do something adventurous/dangerous, I have flashbacks to Jessica Dubroff.
|
|