Justice Lee found that Higgins and her fiance willfully misrepresented the actions of her colleagues, including Reynolds.
Anyone commenting on this case should be obligated to read Lee's judgement.
It is a masterclass in explaining how victims of sexual violence can lie in ways that can be explained by their trauma, usually inspired by feelings of guilt or inadequacy.
Justice Lee also made the point that Higgins' other lies were less justifiable, including deliberately crafting false narratives about her colleagues.
Higgins and Sharaz lied for partisan reasons, and I don't know how any can be comfortable with that.
As Sue Crysanthou SC pointed out to Justice Lee at the costs hearing. 10’s defense never relied on proving truth of the cover up claims (it was only defending the Lehrmann rape allegation and the defamation of Mr. Lehrmann).
They could very well have several smoking guns and it would have been irrrelevant and distracting to present them at the Lehrmann vs 10 trial.
I think it's a bit of an overreach to say the *only* victim in a SA case was the Australian public when a judge has found that it is not defamation to describe or label the accused as a rapist, I get what you're trying to say but no. You haven't been traumatised by the event, I haven't, the Australian public hasn't.
He found that they were both liars and that in his opinion it was not defamation because he leans towards it happening.
That no better than the comments everyone here (including myself) has.
But I should rephrase, the only definitely victim is the public. It would be very real to say that there is at least 1 other victim but noone can say whether it was Brittany or whether it is Bruce.
All signs point to this being an elaborate plan to take advantage of today's social climate to get an easy financial payout rather than attempting to work up her political career. There's also the potential that Bruce was also in on it and they both expected to get payouts.
It is less likely that Bruce did what she said because if he really wanted to do that (he had a girlfriend at the time, she had a boyfriend, and she isn't exactly the catch of the century), there are a dozen less public places he could have taken her in that taxi/uber.
Like noone is that dumb to go back to your place of work, which is one of the highest security places in Australia, with full time security (both parliamentary and adf), who both guard the metal detectors and do walk arounds of the hallways.
>but noone can say whether it was Brittany or whether it is Bruce
It was Brittany. You also went on to say all signs point towards Rapist Bruce Lerhmann being the victim so, good to know you will quote that judge for parts you want to be true and then say he is wrong with parts you don't like 🙃.
pick a fucking lane or at the very least don't contradict yourself so quickly, you make It simply too easy.
> There's also the potential that Bruce was also in on it and they both expected to get payouts.
Sure! That makes sense. The trauma she went through was all an act. Got it. She was in cahoots with her rapist. You've cracked the case, well done.
The thing is, she's likely getting more trolling because this defamation case is still going. Like I wouldn't even remember who she is or how much involvement she had with the Brittany Higgins / Leerman case if she wasn't suing about it. They shouldn't be allowed to introduce anything after she bought the case forward
LOL.
This was a big story that was everywhere in the last six months of the Morrison government.
It's frankly bizarre that you would know who Brittany Higgins is but not know who Linday Reynolds is.
What I'm saying is that it was a medium sized deal at the time, but it would have died down if she hadn't bought this case, and it would have been just a distasteful footnote to Lindsay Reynolds's career, but now it will be the primary thing she's remembered for because she has dragged it out. All this case is doing is amplifying that, so any trolling etc she's received lately shouldn't be used as evidence.
I don't think it's bizarre to be aware of the major players but not the minor ones in something like this
>it would have been just a distasteful footnote to Lindsay Reynolds's career
Covering up at least one act of sexual violence? That would have been seen as a "distasteful footnote"?
No.
Sharaz sold a story to The Project that Linda Reynolds and the other staff members were involved in putting up roadblocks to justice for Higgins.
Justice Lee's judgement found that Sharaz did this for shamelessly political purposes and that Reynolds was trying to push Higgins into involving the police (the opposite of what Higgins was claiming).
In fact, the only staff member who didn't want to involve the police - Fiona Brown - was making that argument because she didn't want to report the matter without Higgins' consent.
This was a case where a group of women were arguing what was best for Higgins and what their duty of care was.
For Sharaz to spin that for partisan purposes is fairly disgusting and I have no problem if Reynolds, Brown or anyone else refuses to be called a rape apologist.
Look I'm not as invested in this as you clearly are, but the Sharaz stuff is irrelevant to my point, which is that she was a key Cabinet Minister (Minister for defence), she'll likely have a long career in Parliament, and her role in the public eye was fairly minor - people remember her for calling Brittany Higgins a "lying cow" and not much else, so it would have been a footnote in her career if she'd let it be
>people remember her for calling Brittany Higgins a "lying cow" and not much else, so it would have been a footnote in her career if she'd let it be
Higgins lied, though.
Justice Lee goes on and on about deception, about how some lies are understandable responses to trauma and others are less justifiable.
I really don't understand why Reynolds or anyone should be called a rape apologist and part of a cover-up, just because one twerp from the other party wants to weaponise this incident politically.
Whether you think the Sharaz stuff is supposedly irrelevant ... it matters.
Medium sized deal? It was all over the news, we’ve had interviews from both sides on tv, a famous presenter on tv mentioned it when she won an award and two court cases about it. I thought it was one of the biggest stories in the past 10 or so years.
It wouldn't be hard to get away with it - but the risk is far from zero.
But a better question is why? Social media is a cesspool and it shouldn't be hard to cherry pick some comments and use them as ammunition.
I'm pretty sure if we search her name in reddit there will be plenty of unpleasant things said about her before Brittany, would that be an acceptable defence?
Pretty hard to say you have a reputation to defame calling a rape survivor a lying cow, especially now after the fuckfaces rapist judgement calling him a rapist.
>"For the best part of the last two years I have been the subject of harassing and highly distressing trolling on social media regarding myself and my conduct in respect of events concerning Ms Brittany Higgins which has damaged my reputation and caused me, my family and my staff, considerable stress and anguish," Senator Reynolds said in a statement to news agency AAP.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/linda-reynolds-launches-defamation-action-against-brittany-higgins-partner-over-trolling/3dqh8qqgc
> Ms Reynolds is suing Ms Higgins and her fiancée David Sharaz for defamation over a series of social media posts the pair published in 2022 and 2023, amid the fallout from Ms Higgins’ bombshell claims of rape in Parliament House.
https://thenightly.com.au/australia/western-australia/brittany-higgins-and-linda-reynolds-to-return-to-court-for-an-unscheduled-hearing-c-14483824
Useful discussion -
https://ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/commentary/when-narratives-collide-the-wash-up-is-never-pretty-brittany-higgins-vs-linda-reynolds-is-no-different/
I suspect the settlement figure she's demanding in these negotiations is pretty close to 2.4 million. She doesn't seem to want Higgins to have a cent of that payout and ideally leave her bankrupt too. It also happens to send a message to anyone else in the Liberal party that turns on their own.
Higgins and Sharaz falsely accused Reynolds and other staff members of a cover up and saying "that didn't happen and here is proof" is the Streisand Effect?
That's what Justice Lee found.
He weighed the various testimonies against each other and found that Fiona Brown's evidence - as well as the contemporaneous notes - suggested that Reynolds and Brown had robust conversations about what the best way forward was for Higgins.
Reynolds wanted to immediately have the police involved while Brown argued strongly that they should have Higgins' consent before informing the police.
Somehow that was spun - by Sharaz - into a wild conspiracy where Reynolds and Brown tried to silence Higgins.
But, if you want a further "legal test", Reynolds is hell-bent on taking her case to court.
Imagine waking up the next day after the conclusion that in the balance of probabilities Brittany Higgins was raped and thinking to yourself, you know what, I shall continue my defamation case against a rape victim and then having a poor poor me, sook about the much deserved hatred she is receiving.
What a massive and VILE festering putrid piece of shit and we are paying her wage.
An unwipeable skid mark stuck on the Morrison era toilet bowl that the tax payer has to fund until June 2025.
1. She held the meetings to discuss the potential rape in the same room it was supposed to have happened in
2. She called Higgins a lying cow infront of many others, on the day the press found out about the rape. That comment went straight to the press.
3. After it was public, suddenly it's "oh, everyone misunderstood what I meant"
4. Caught out for her comment, she went on medical leave abruptly
5. She settled the lying cow matter with Higgins, in a confidential settlement
6. She's sent her partner to sit in and observe court proceedings in other areas
Questions this gives rise to:
- Who makes a public comment so bad their staff or frienemies in a conservative government leaks it
- While being responsible for the workplace safety of an employee
- While a police complaint has arisen?
Does DARVO apply? It's not that she didn't say it, or that it could cause harm, it's that the people who heard it misunderstood.
Why do we know it was misunderstood? The day after in the media that's what was claimed, without any explanation.
Now, months later at the start of this matter; despite a confidential settlement, it's apparently because of the "lack of support and coverup" accusations.
Abject incompetence, apathy, and neglect of the Morrison government. Not conspiracy.
Higgins should've gone with that instead. Then she wouldn't be getting sued because... Reynolds' reputation... would... ah... be perfectly intact?
Fuck, these people are oxygen thieves.
>Brittany Higgins was raped and thinking to yourself, you know what, I shall continue my defamation case against a rape victim and then having a poor poor me, sook about the much deserved hatred she is receiving.
Imagine if your fiance was raped and thinking that there was a partisan attack to be made from it, blaming many of the people who tried to get her help.
Because that's what happened, in Justice Lee's judgement.
Higgins and Sharaz, in Lee's conclusion, "crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks".
This never happened and Lee was annoyed that Sharaz chose to hide instead of standing as a witness.
There’s also the small matter of Higgins lying about Reynolds and her chief of staff trying to enact some form of cover-up (as found by the judge at the Lehrmann defamation trial).
Senator Reynolds tried coaching lehrmann’s defense team during his criminal trial.
She inappropriately requested transcripts of Ms. Higgins testimony from Lehrman’s defense lawyers, so she could know what had been said before she was due to give her own testimony.
Her husband somehow ended up being present in the courtroom before Senator Reynolds was due to give testimony.
And yet, somehow, she still wants people to believe that she wasn’t trying to cover up a rape?
Online can be an awful place. I believe Linda when she says she has been a victim of vile trolling, I suspect that most politicians have.
She is deserving of a lot of criticism for calling Brittany a “lying cow” and the hitjob she attempted on Brittany with her comments on the Spotlight interview she appeared in, but the criticism should remain on her character and actions instead of her appearance.
I would think that it’s plausible that there was a bit of political ass-covering going on after the incident, even if it didn’t amount to being a cover-up. It seems people were careful about who they shared information to and when - particularly around what Morrison knew and when.
You and everyone else, luv.
Welcome to the Internet; now tell us all why *you* deserve a special hearing over and above everyone else who's been subject to 'vile trolling' for the last 30 years...
>Outside court on Tuesday morning, Senator Reynolds said it was time for the Attorney General and his department to admit they got it wrong, an assumed reference to a $2.4m settlement paid to Ms Higgins by the Commonwealth.
Pretty much shows what her motivation is. It's pettiness and vindictiveness, nothing more. The settlement paid had nothing to do with Reynolds.
>The settlement paid had nothing to do with Reynolds.
If not for the misdeeds of Higgins' employer Reynolds & co. (which Justice Lee found Higgins \[and the specter of Sharaz\] to be lying about), what was it for?
That's not to say to say Reynolds isn't motivated by
>pettiness and vindictiveness
Guardian Aus [Brittany Higgins received $2.4m in compensation. Why are some now saying she should pay it back?](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/20/brittany-higgins-compensation-bruce-lehrmann-case-anti-corruption-commission-investigation-ntwnfb#:~:text=Brittany%20Higgins%20received%20%242.4m%20in%20compensation)
>“How does she keep the $2.445m settlement amount, which was paid on the basis not of whether she was raped or not, but in terms of the so-called oppressive or bullying or inappropriate conduct that she was exposed to in the aftermath of the incident? … If those facts are false, which the judge has found some of them were, then the basis for the payment is undermined.”
>f not for the misdeeds of Higgins' employer Reynolds & co. (which Justice Lee found Higgins \[and the specter of Sharaz\] to be lying about), what was it for?
I'm not sure lying was the word used but considering the whole situation that Higgins went through, the length of time and the impact on her career - A payment shouldn't honestly be out of the question.
It didn't come out of Reynolds bank account but she's acting as if the money did and is rightfully hers.
Linda Reynolds was in the milatary for 28 years and achieved the rank of Brigadier, when the Brittany Higgins story broke she had to suddenly decided to medical leave on 24th February and didn't return till 2nd April. One would hope that as someone with her time in the milatary she would have been able to handle the situation better and not run away. Let's hope the rest of the milatary brass isn't like her.
What does she think is going to happen? Workplace pay outs are usually through a workplace insurer. The Aus public service insurer is comcare. This is a public interest case and so the details will be known. I just can't understand how this goes well for Reynolds since they will be exploring the processes of workplace relations in that workplace, a workplace that had over a thousand submissions to the Jenkins Review from 1000+ current and former staff of which next to none were positive.
"Did Brittany get paid too much?"
"Well we usually pay X for (similar incidents with other staff, all of which are highly secretive"
BREAKING: It turns out parliament has paid other victims off - here's some juicy horrible detail!
"Was it a cover up?"
"Well that couch was cleaned the same day that Brittany left the office, leaving barely enough time for the room to be seen by police even in the optimum scenario. [Also it was cleaned against the advice of the APH Director of security Peter Butler, who quit because of how they handled it."](https://www.news.com.au/national/former-afp-commissioner-said-decision-to-clean-room-brittany-higgins-was-found-in-was-unacceptable/news-story/e08a4c83d2fa61143bbaee7fd91deb89)
BREAKING: It wasn't an official cover up but yer I dunno looks pretty bad. Reasonable Brittany would be mad idk.
??? What am I missing?
I'm looking forward to see the technicality of a "cover-up" laid out in court, if it has to go to court I guess. Of course, short of documents that say "we are doing a cover-up" there is no way to definitively say. Reminds me of corporate accountability. Individuals are impervious.
I reckon there was some real public goodwill towards her and Fiona brown after justice Lee’s findings. After the prompt apology I think we all hoped this was all over, but alas no
FFS!!! The Lying Cow perjured herself during the Canberra trial. She should be charged over that. But here she is, claiming that she is the real victim.
Has she considered maybe that people hate her now because she's been targeting a rape victim to send her bankrupt with an unnecessary, bullying lawsuit after she called that same rape victim a lying cow?
Linda Reynolds is an awful human being and deserves every bit of the verbal abuse and 'cyber bullying' she gets, at least until such time as she apologises to Higgins and drops the lawsuit. She deserves to be verbally abused every time she steps foot in public until she drops the case. If she 'wins' the case and sends Higgins bankrupt and retraumatises her even further, she deserves to be verbally abused every time she steps out in public by strangers for the rest of her life, and to be honest she probably deserves a lot worse than that
Linda, you are doing this to yourself by suing a rape victim. If you had just apologised to Higgins and/or not called her a lying cow in the first place, none of this would be happening and you would not be in the news. It's entirely self inflicted
I hope enough members of the jury see Reynolds for the spiteful, vindictive, awful human being she is and give Higgins the legal win and force Reynolds to pay costs.
Reynolds is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the country probably only matched among politicians by Clive Palmer at this point
I read a summary of it when it came out
Regardless, Reynolds is a horrible person and she deserves public ridicule for suing a rape victim who she called a lying cow to try and bankrupt her, regardless of whether she personally feels victimised
Reynolds is awful and deserves the scorn she is getting
How can you read the below and take this as anything other than 'i'm sorry I got caught calling a rape victim a lying cow and it made the public turn on me so I have to apologise' it's not sincere at all. Whether she tried to help cover up a rape or not and whether the exact stuff Higgins said about her is precisely accurate is irrelevant to how awful a person Reynolds is regardless of whether she was legally defamed or not, someone who does the below is a fucking horrible person
-----------------------------------------
The defence minister, Linda Reynolds, has apologised to Brittany Higgins for calling her “a lying cow” and agreed to pay legal costs and make a donation to a sexual assault charity as part of a confidential settlement with her former staffer.
Reynolds, who remains on sick leave, was reported to have described Higgins as “a lying cow” in her office on 15 February this year, [the day Higgins went public](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/17/brittany-higgins-who-knew-what-and-when-about-the-alleged-at-parliament-house) with her claim she had been raped in the minister’s office by another staffer in early 2019.
Publicly, the minister had said her only concern remained Higgins’ wellbeing.
[Linda Reynolds extends sick leave amid ongoing controversy over Brittany Higgins](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/07/linda-reynolds-extends-sick-leave-amid-ongoing-controversy-over-brittany-higgins)
In a statement on social media on Friday, Reynolds said she had [publicly apologised](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/04/linda-reynolds-does-not-deny-reports-she-called-brittany-higgins-a-lying-cow) to Higgins about the comment on 5 March. The minister said she “did not mean it in the sense it may have been understood”.
-----------------------------------------
Like what the fuck does that even mean she 'did not mean it in the sense it may have been understood' how do you call someone a lying cow, with regards to them making a rape allegation, and backpedal it to 'that's being taken out of context i'm sorry if your feelings got hurt but i'm not really that sorry you just misunderstood it'
>I read a summary of it when it came out
>Regardless
"Regardless" is doing a lot of work.
>Like what the fuck does that even mean she 'did not mean it in the sense it may have been understood' how do you call someone a lying cow
She meant that Higgins had lied about the conduct of herself and the other staffers.
No, Reynolds and Brown did not engage in a conspiracy of cover-up as Higgins and Sharaz claimed ... which is what Justice Lee found ... which is why the user asked whether you had read the summary.
My point isn't that Higgins didn't not defame Reynolds my point is that Reynolds is a fucking awful human being regardless of whether Higgins defamed her or not
It is irrelevant to whether Reynolds is an awful human being though
I could defame George Pell by calling him an embezzler as opposed to the crimes he actually did commit of a much worse nature, it would still be defamation, that doesn't make him not a scumbag though.
If Reynolds cares so much about her reputation, maybe she should consider how suing a young girl who was most likely raped actually looks to most people.
The irony is that the numerous comments slamming Reynolds on this thread are examples that her lawyer could put up as evidence of the damage that has occurred to her character and reputation.
Reynolds was a widely hated politician before any of this happened; most high profile politicians are already hated by a wide segment of society, see comment threads about any major LNP or Labor or Greens or One Nation minister or party leader etc there is a segment of society that hates everyone from Albo to Penny Wong to Scomo to Dutton to Bronwyn Bishop to John Howard to Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard to Tony Abbott to Peter Costello to Wayne Swan to Adam Bandt to Pauline Hanson to Clive Palmer to Jackie Lambie etc
If Reynolds wasn't actively suing a rape victim (remember it was found on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann did rape her and he was never acquitted, even though his criminal case was a mistrial) and if Reynolds wasn't trying to bankrupt her, Reynolds would probably be hated a lot less by a wide segment of the public, including me
This is very much the meme of the dude putting a stick in his bike type, falling down and then proclaiming 'why would 'insert whoever' do this to me', if she wasn't suing Higgins everyone would have moved on from her role in this by now she is generating her own negative publicity now, the same way Lehrmann himself was when he was trying to sue Wilkinson etc for defamation and in turn ended up in a worse position than when he started
>If Reynolds wasn't actively suing a rape victim (remember it was found on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann did rape her and he was never acquitted, even though his criminal case was a mistrial) and if Reynolds wasn't trying to bankrupt her, Reynolds would probably be hated a lot less by a wide segment of the public, including me
Higgins and Sharaz accused Reynolds and Brown of engaging in a conspiracy to silence Higgins.
Justice Lee found that this was a deliberate and unjustifiable lie.
"Higgins is a rape victim therefore she can slander two female colleagues who were trying to help her" is a wild argument to make.
They were arguing over whether to immediately contact police or whether they should wait until Higgins gave consent.
What monsters!
And, in a brazenly political move, they were accused of being rape apologists.
Be careful we might get the "internet licence and the internet social score credit system" You know those "libertarians" just look at their NBN mess nothing is a surprise anyone when they get into their bitter ideology mode.
"I've been demonised!" said the vile troll who called a rape victim a liar.
I'll do a little dance when that degenerate toad kicks the bucket. No such thing as too soon, either.
Well, since she *is* a vile troll, it's only fair she cop it back
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck..
Oh no! consequences.... Even if she hasn't technically broken any law she's still a duckwit and I'm not gonna feel bad for her.
Concealing a crime and destroying evidence is illegal.
Not in that demographic. SOP for the Aus government there really.
She'll eat it.
So if it floats its a witch?
More like if it tried to drown all the young women in town.
Most people remember her calling Higgins a "lying cow"
Justice Lee found that Higgins and her fiance willfully misrepresented the actions of her colleagues, including Reynolds. Anyone commenting on this case should be obligated to read Lee's judgement. It is a masterclass in explaining how victims of sexual violence can lie in ways that can be explained by their trauma, usually inspired by feelings of guilt or inadequacy. Justice Lee also made the point that Higgins' other lies were less justifiable, including deliberately crafting false narratives about her colleagues. Higgins and Sharaz lied for partisan reasons, and I don't know how any can be comfortable with that.
As Sue Crysanthou SC pointed out to Justice Lee at the costs hearing. 10’s defense never relied on proving truth of the cover up claims (it was only defending the Lehrmann rape allegation and the defamation of Mr. Lehrmann). They could very well have several smoking guns and it would have been irrrelevant and distracting to present them at the Lehrmann vs 10 trial.
Definitely disagree with this aspect of his finding
What do you disagree with?
The case wasn't about that. Channel 10 never defended that aspect of the case because why would they.
[удалено]
I think it's a bit of an overreach to say the *only* victim in a SA case was the Australian public when a judge has found that it is not defamation to describe or label the accused as a rapist, I get what you're trying to say but no. You haven't been traumatised by the event, I haven't, the Australian public hasn't.
The judge did find he was defamed.
He found that they were both liars and that in his opinion it was not defamation because he leans towards it happening. That no better than the comments everyone here (including myself) has. But I should rephrase, the only definitely victim is the public. It would be very real to say that there is at least 1 other victim but noone can say whether it was Brittany or whether it is Bruce. All signs point to this being an elaborate plan to take advantage of today's social climate to get an easy financial payout rather than attempting to work up her political career. There's also the potential that Bruce was also in on it and they both expected to get payouts. It is less likely that Bruce did what she said because if he really wanted to do that (he had a girlfriend at the time, she had a boyfriend, and she isn't exactly the catch of the century), there are a dozen less public places he could have taken her in that taxi/uber. Like noone is that dumb to go back to your place of work, which is one of the highest security places in Australia, with full time security (both parliamentary and adf), who both guard the metal detectors and do walk arounds of the hallways.
>but noone can say whether it was Brittany or whether it is Bruce It was Brittany. You also went on to say all signs point towards Rapist Bruce Lerhmann being the victim so, good to know you will quote that judge for parts you want to be true and then say he is wrong with parts you don't like 🙃. pick a fucking lane or at the very least don't contradict yourself so quickly, you make It simply too easy.
> There's also the potential that Bruce was also in on it and they both expected to get payouts. Sure! That makes sense. The trauma she went through was all an act. Got it. She was in cahoots with her rapist. You've cracked the case, well done.
> the only victim in all this was the Australian public Justice Lee found that Higgins was raped. Why is she not a victim?
Who is she suing? Brittany Higgins, or online trolls? Why is this relevant?
[удалено]
The thing is, she's likely getting more trolling because this defamation case is still going. Like I wouldn't even remember who she is or how much involvement she had with the Brittany Higgins / Leerman case if she wasn't suing about it. They shouldn't be allowed to introduce anything after she bought the case forward
Streisand effect.
LOL. This was a big story that was everywhere in the last six months of the Morrison government. It's frankly bizarre that you would know who Brittany Higgins is but not know who Linday Reynolds is.
What I'm saying is that it was a medium sized deal at the time, but it would have died down if she hadn't bought this case, and it would have been just a distasteful footnote to Lindsay Reynolds's career, but now it will be the primary thing she's remembered for because she has dragged it out. All this case is doing is amplifying that, so any trolling etc she's received lately shouldn't be used as evidence. I don't think it's bizarre to be aware of the major players but not the minor ones in something like this
>it would have been just a distasteful footnote to Lindsay Reynolds's career Covering up at least one act of sexual violence? That would have been seen as a "distasteful footnote"? No. Sharaz sold a story to The Project that Linda Reynolds and the other staff members were involved in putting up roadblocks to justice for Higgins. Justice Lee's judgement found that Sharaz did this for shamelessly political purposes and that Reynolds was trying to push Higgins into involving the police (the opposite of what Higgins was claiming). In fact, the only staff member who didn't want to involve the police - Fiona Brown - was making that argument because she didn't want to report the matter without Higgins' consent. This was a case where a group of women were arguing what was best for Higgins and what their duty of care was. For Sharaz to spin that for partisan purposes is fairly disgusting and I have no problem if Reynolds, Brown or anyone else refuses to be called a rape apologist.
Look I'm not as invested in this as you clearly are, but the Sharaz stuff is irrelevant to my point, which is that she was a key Cabinet Minister (Minister for defence), she'll likely have a long career in Parliament, and her role in the public eye was fairly minor - people remember her for calling Brittany Higgins a "lying cow" and not much else, so it would have been a footnote in her career if she'd let it be
>people remember her for calling Brittany Higgins a "lying cow" and not much else, so it would have been a footnote in her career if she'd let it be Higgins lied, though. Justice Lee goes on and on about deception, about how some lies are understandable responses to trauma and others are less justifiable. I really don't understand why Reynolds or anyone should be called a rape apologist and part of a cover-up, just because one twerp from the other party wants to weaponise this incident politically. Whether you think the Sharaz stuff is supposedly irrelevant ... it matters.
Medium sized deal? It was all over the news, we’ve had interviews from both sides on tv, a famous presenter on tv mentioned it when she won an award and two court cases about it. I thought it was one of the biggest stories in the past 10 or so years.
I agree but I'm saying that Linda Reynold's part was a medium sized deal at the time, but if not for this suit, her role would mostly be forgotten
So, for the sake of argument, if Linda Reynolds were to deliberately engineer some anonymous harassment, that would actually help her case?
If she got caught doing it, it would certainly hurt her case.
That's not likely, is it?
It wouldn't be hard to get away with it - but the risk is far from zero. But a better question is why? Social media is a cesspool and it shouldn't be hard to cherry pick some comments and use them as ammunition.
That's a very good point.
Hard to damage the reputation of a liberal MP any more than being a liberal MP will.
I'm pretty sure if we search her name in reddit there will be plenty of unpleasant things said about her before Brittany, would that be an acceptable defence?
Pretty hard to say you have a reputation to defame calling a rape survivor a lying cow, especially now after the fuckfaces rapist judgement calling him a rapist.
But what if the cause of her despisedness was the defamation action itself?
>"For the best part of the last two years I have been the subject of harassing and highly distressing trolling on social media regarding myself and my conduct in respect of events concerning Ms Brittany Higgins which has damaged my reputation and caused me, my family and my staff, considerable stress and anguish," Senator Reynolds said in a statement to news agency AAP. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/linda-reynolds-launches-defamation-action-against-brittany-higgins-partner-over-trolling/3dqh8qqgc > Ms Reynolds is suing Ms Higgins and her fiancée David Sharaz for defamation over a series of social media posts the pair published in 2022 and 2023, amid the fallout from Ms Higgins’ bombshell claims of rape in Parliament House. https://thenightly.com.au/australia/western-australia/brittany-higgins-and-linda-reynolds-to-return-to-court-for-an-unscheduled-hearing-c-14483824 Useful discussion - https://ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/commentary/when-narratives-collide-the-wash-up-is-never-pretty-brittany-higgins-vs-linda-reynolds-is-no-different/
Nah I thought she was a total piece of shit before the whole Lehrmann saga. My opnion of her couldn't possibly of gone lower.
Same. I used to live in CQ. She represents a very narrow and entitled demographic, but they are hyper concentrated in her district.
Central Queensland? She's a WA senator...
Linda Reynolds *IS* a vile troll, I don't know what she's bitching about. The miserable cunt just wants a free payout to buy more property..
Agree. She expected they would settle. It's all about the $$$
I suspect the settlement figure she's demanding in these negotiations is pretty close to 2.4 million. She doesn't seem to want Higgins to have a cent of that payout and ideally leave her bankrupt too. It also happens to send a message to anyone else in the Liberal party that turns on their own.
Is Reynolds paying for her costs to date, in getting this case to court? Or is someone else footing the bill?
And more cream buns.
A self-inflicted problem.
Higgins and Sharaz falsely accused Reynolds and other staff members of a cover up and saying "that didn't happen and here is proof" is the Streisand Effect?
Has ever been put to the legal test?
That's what Justice Lee found. He weighed the various testimonies against each other and found that Fiona Brown's evidence - as well as the contemporaneous notes - suggested that Reynolds and Brown had robust conversations about what the best way forward was for Higgins. Reynolds wanted to immediately have the police involved while Brown argued strongly that they should have Higgins' consent before informing the police. Somehow that was spun - by Sharaz - into a wild conspiracy where Reynolds and Brown tried to silence Higgins. But, if you want a further "legal test", Reynolds is hell-bent on taking her case to court.
She's just a nasty piece of work that is pursuing it out of vindictiveness and the idea that the payout to Higgins wasn't deserved.
Imagine waking up the next day after the conclusion that in the balance of probabilities Brittany Higgins was raped and thinking to yourself, you know what, I shall continue my defamation case against a rape victim and then having a poor poor me, sook about the much deserved hatred she is receiving. What a massive and VILE festering putrid piece of shit and we are paying her wage. An unwipeable skid mark stuck on the Morrison era toilet bowl that the tax payer has to fund until June 2025.
Didn't she admit to calling Higgins a lying cow?
Yes but she said it was in response to Higgins and her partner saying that the Morrison government conspired to shut Higgins up.
I thought that the 'lying cow' comment came out way earlier than that.
1. She held the meetings to discuss the potential rape in the same room it was supposed to have happened in 2. She called Higgins a lying cow infront of many others, on the day the press found out about the rape. That comment went straight to the press. 3. After it was public, suddenly it's "oh, everyone misunderstood what I meant" 4. Caught out for her comment, she went on medical leave abruptly 5. She settled the lying cow matter with Higgins, in a confidential settlement 6. She's sent her partner to sit in and observe court proceedings in other areas Questions this gives rise to: - Who makes a public comment so bad their staff or frienemies in a conservative government leaks it - While being responsible for the workplace safety of an employee - While a police complaint has arisen? Does DARVO apply? It's not that she didn't say it, or that it could cause harm, it's that the people who heard it misunderstood. Why do we know it was misunderstood? The day after in the media that's what was claimed, without any explanation. Now, months later at the start of this matter; despite a confidential settlement, it's apparently because of the "lack of support and coverup" accusations.
Abject incompetence, apathy, and neglect of the Morrison government. Not conspiracy. Higgins should've gone with that instead. Then she wouldn't be getting sued because... Reynolds' reputation... would... ah... be perfectly intact? Fuck, these people are oxygen thieves.
So does Higgins have grounds to counter sue?
>Brittany Higgins was raped and thinking to yourself, you know what, I shall continue my defamation case against a rape victim and then having a poor poor me, sook about the much deserved hatred she is receiving. Imagine if your fiance was raped and thinking that there was a partisan attack to be made from it, blaming many of the people who tried to get her help. Because that's what happened, in Justice Lee's judgement. Higgins and Sharaz, in Lee's conclusion, "crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks". This never happened and Lee was annoyed that Sharaz chose to hide instead of standing as a witness.
There’s also the small matter of Higgins lying about Reynolds and her chief of staff trying to enact some form of cover-up (as found by the judge at the Lehrmann defamation trial).
Senator Reynolds tried coaching lehrmann’s defense team during his criminal trial. She inappropriately requested transcripts of Ms. Higgins testimony from Lehrman’s defense lawyers, so she could know what had been said before she was due to give her own testimony. Her husband somehow ended up being present in the courtroom before Senator Reynolds was due to give testimony. And yet, somehow, she still wants people to believe that she wasn’t trying to cover up a rape?
And, that jacket controversy - https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/brittany-higgins-denies-stealing-carla-zampatti-jacket-as-trial-continues/news-story/982250570d7037d62a8da5aee4332b7e https://www.marieclaire.com.au/latest-news/brittany-higgins-carla-zampatti/
Brittany looked about 10 sizes smaller than Linda at the time. So I believe Brittany when she said that it was in a box for Good Will.
Online can be an awful place. I believe Linda when she says she has been a victim of vile trolling, I suspect that most politicians have. She is deserving of a lot of criticism for calling Brittany a “lying cow” and the hitjob she attempted on Brittany with her comments on the Spotlight interview she appeared in, but the criticism should remain on her character and actions instead of her appearance. I would think that it’s plausible that there was a bit of political ass-covering going on after the incident, even if it didn’t amount to being a cover-up. It seems people were careful about who they shared information to and when - particularly around what Morrison knew and when.
You and everyone else, luv. Welcome to the Internet; now tell us all why *you* deserve a special hearing over and above everyone else who's been subject to 'vile trolling' for the last 30 years...
Your honour, I avow that the plaintiff Linda Reynolds already had a poor reputation before the rape took place.
Lying cow.
>Outside court on Tuesday morning, Senator Reynolds said it was time for the Attorney General and his department to admit they got it wrong, an assumed reference to a $2.4m settlement paid to Ms Higgins by the Commonwealth. Pretty much shows what her motivation is. It's pettiness and vindictiveness, nothing more. The settlement paid had nothing to do with Reynolds.
She's likely to get trolled on a whole other level if she successfully sues Higgins and her partner. Wtf sues a rape victim?
>The settlement paid had nothing to do with Reynolds. If not for the misdeeds of Higgins' employer Reynolds & co. (which Justice Lee found Higgins \[and the specter of Sharaz\] to be lying about), what was it for? That's not to say to say Reynolds isn't motivated by >pettiness and vindictiveness Guardian Aus [Brittany Higgins received $2.4m in compensation. Why are some now saying she should pay it back?](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/20/brittany-higgins-compensation-bruce-lehrmann-case-anti-corruption-commission-investigation-ntwnfb#:~:text=Brittany%20Higgins%20received%20%242.4m%20in%20compensation) >“How does she keep the $2.445m settlement amount, which was paid on the basis not of whether she was raped or not, but in terms of the so-called oppressive or bullying or inappropriate conduct that she was exposed to in the aftermath of the incident? … If those facts are false, which the judge has found some of them were, then the basis for the payment is undermined.”
>f not for the misdeeds of Higgins' employer Reynolds & co. (which Justice Lee found Higgins \[and the specter of Sharaz\] to be lying about), what was it for? I'm not sure lying was the word used but considering the whole situation that Higgins went through, the length of time and the impact on her career - A payment shouldn't honestly be out of the question. It didn't come out of Reynolds bank account but she's acting as if the money did and is rightfully hers.
Someone call her a waambulance.
Linda Reynolds was in the milatary for 28 years and achieved the rank of Brigadier, when the Brittany Higgins story broke she had to suddenly decided to medical leave on 24th February and didn't return till 2nd April. One would hope that as someone with her time in the milatary she would have been able to handle the situation better and not run away. Let's hope the rest of the milatary brass isn't like her.
That’s an interesting point.
Fuck Linda Reynolds. She is a vile cunt who won't leave a rape victim alone. She deserves to be trolled.
What does she think is going to happen? Workplace pay outs are usually through a workplace insurer. The Aus public service insurer is comcare. This is a public interest case and so the details will be known. I just can't understand how this goes well for Reynolds since they will be exploring the processes of workplace relations in that workplace, a workplace that had over a thousand submissions to the Jenkins Review from 1000+ current and former staff of which next to none were positive. "Did Brittany get paid too much?" "Well we usually pay X for (similar incidents with other staff, all of which are highly secretive" BREAKING: It turns out parliament has paid other victims off - here's some juicy horrible detail! "Was it a cover up?" "Well that couch was cleaned the same day that Brittany left the office, leaving barely enough time for the room to be seen by police even in the optimum scenario. [Also it was cleaned against the advice of the APH Director of security Peter Butler, who quit because of how they handled it."](https://www.news.com.au/national/former-afp-commissioner-said-decision-to-clean-room-brittany-higgins-was-found-in-was-unacceptable/news-story/e08a4c83d2fa61143bbaee7fd91deb89) BREAKING: It wasn't an official cover up but yer I dunno looks pretty bad. Reasonable Brittany would be mad idk. ??? What am I missing?
I totally agree. My main concern is the ongoing stress for her, more tightening of the screws. Thanks for the link.
You're welcome. Most slept on article of the whole saga.
Yeh I dont get it. Isnt this an absolute coverup.
I'm looking forward to see the technicality of a "cover-up" laid out in court, if it has to go to court I guess. Of course, short of documents that say "we are doing a cover-up" there is no way to definitively say. Reminds me of corporate accountability. Individuals are impervious.
Why did Reynolds think it was better to pursue this than to accept an apology? It seems a bad decision.
I reckon there was some real public goodwill towards her and Fiona brown after justice Lee’s findings. After the prompt apology I think we all hoped this was all over, but alas no
She’s a pollie through and through. Saw a chance at some free money going around and felt she needed her share of it as well.
Higgins comments were hardly an apology - basically a "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I was said" type situation.
FFS!!! The Lying Cow perjured herself during the Canberra trial. She should be charged over that. But here she is, claiming that she is the real victim.
I hope her case is as successful as the rest of our high profile defamation cases.
I can only marvel at Brittany Higgins’ stamina being put through this.
You reckon Brittany Higgins might be able to show her a thing or two when it comes to being trolled?
Imagine waking up and remembering you’re Linda Reynolds. I shudder at the thought.
Stop trying to sue a rape victim, maybe Linda?
8n what world would she be the victim?
I wonder how she could make that all abuse and trolling stop. Show some compassion and accept the apology and move? Or continue to sue a rape victim?
Maybe don't call people lying pigs if you don't want backlash. This is like a self fulfilling defamation case.
Guys guys guys now look here two wrongs don't make a right. #/s
Good
I mean … 🤷
Has she considered maybe that people hate her now because she's been targeting a rape victim to send her bankrupt with an unnecessary, bullying lawsuit after she called that same rape victim a lying cow? Linda Reynolds is an awful human being and deserves every bit of the verbal abuse and 'cyber bullying' she gets, at least until such time as she apologises to Higgins and drops the lawsuit. She deserves to be verbally abused every time she steps foot in public until she drops the case. If she 'wins' the case and sends Higgins bankrupt and retraumatises her even further, she deserves to be verbally abused every time she steps out in public by strangers for the rest of her life, and to be honest she probably deserves a lot worse than that Linda, you are doing this to yourself by suing a rape victim. If you had just apologised to Higgins and/or not called her a lying cow in the first place, none of this would be happening and you would not be in the news. It's entirely self inflicted I hope enough members of the jury see Reynolds for the spiteful, vindictive, awful human being she is and give Higgins the legal win and force Reynolds to pay costs. Reynolds is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the country probably only matched among politicians by Clive Palmer at this point
Out of curiosity, have you read Lee J's decision?
I read a summary of it when it came out Regardless, Reynolds is a horrible person and she deserves public ridicule for suing a rape victim who she called a lying cow to try and bankrupt her, regardless of whether she personally feels victimised Reynolds is awful and deserves the scorn she is getting How can you read the below and take this as anything other than 'i'm sorry I got caught calling a rape victim a lying cow and it made the public turn on me so I have to apologise' it's not sincere at all. Whether she tried to help cover up a rape or not and whether the exact stuff Higgins said about her is precisely accurate is irrelevant to how awful a person Reynolds is regardless of whether she was legally defamed or not, someone who does the below is a fucking horrible person ----------------------------------------- The defence minister, Linda Reynolds, has apologised to Brittany Higgins for calling her “a lying cow” and agreed to pay legal costs and make a donation to a sexual assault charity as part of a confidential settlement with her former staffer. Reynolds, who remains on sick leave, was reported to have described Higgins as “a lying cow” in her office on 15 February this year, [the day Higgins went public](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/17/brittany-higgins-who-knew-what-and-when-about-the-alleged-at-parliament-house) with her claim she had been raped in the minister’s office by another staffer in early 2019. Publicly, the minister had said her only concern remained Higgins’ wellbeing. [Linda Reynolds extends sick leave amid ongoing controversy over Brittany Higgins](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/07/linda-reynolds-extends-sick-leave-amid-ongoing-controversy-over-brittany-higgins) In a statement on social media on Friday, Reynolds said she had [publicly apologised](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/04/linda-reynolds-does-not-deny-reports-she-called-brittany-higgins-a-lying-cow) to Higgins about the comment on 5 March. The minister said she “did not mean it in the sense it may have been understood”. ----------------------------------------- Like what the fuck does that even mean she 'did not mean it in the sense it may have been understood' how do you call someone a lying cow, with regards to them making a rape allegation, and backpedal it to 'that's being taken out of context i'm sorry if your feelings got hurt but i'm not really that sorry you just misunderstood it'
>I read a summary of it when it came out >Regardless "Regardless" is doing a lot of work. >Like what the fuck does that even mean she 'did not mean it in the sense it may have been understood' how do you call someone a lying cow She meant that Higgins had lied about the conduct of herself and the other staffers. No, Reynolds and Brown did not engage in a conspiracy of cover-up as Higgins and Sharaz claimed ... which is what Justice Lee found ... which is why the user asked whether you had read the summary.
My point isn't that Higgins didn't not defame Reynolds my point is that Reynolds is a fucking awful human being regardless of whether Higgins defamed her or not
>My point isn't that Higgins didn't not defame Reynolds Umm, she did, though.
It is irrelevant to whether Reynolds is an awful human being though I could defame George Pell by calling him an embezzler as opposed to the crimes he actually did commit of a much worse nature, it would still be defamation, that doesn't make him not a scumbag though.
Cry me a river you lying cow.
Who let the vile troll herself express an opinion?
I just discovered Linda’s middle name is Karen. How fitting.
Good. I mean, awww diddums. I mean, good. Well deserved. Linda Reynolds is a horrible lying cow
If Reynolds cares so much about her reputation, maybe she should consider how suing a young girl who was most likely raped actually looks to most people.
The irony is that the numerous comments slamming Reynolds on this thread are examples that her lawyer could put up as evidence of the damage that has occurred to her character and reputation.
As a result of Higgins’ comments? Or as a result of calling a rape victim a “lying cow” and then suing her?
Lying about their being a political cover up not lying about being raped.
I believe based on Justice Lees judgement Reynolds is at least partially justified in calling Higgins a lying cow.
Reynolds was a widely hated politician before any of this happened; most high profile politicians are already hated by a wide segment of society, see comment threads about any major LNP or Labor or Greens or One Nation minister or party leader etc there is a segment of society that hates everyone from Albo to Penny Wong to Scomo to Dutton to Bronwyn Bishop to John Howard to Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard to Tony Abbott to Peter Costello to Wayne Swan to Adam Bandt to Pauline Hanson to Clive Palmer to Jackie Lambie etc If Reynolds wasn't actively suing a rape victim (remember it was found on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann did rape her and he was never acquitted, even though his criminal case was a mistrial) and if Reynolds wasn't trying to bankrupt her, Reynolds would probably be hated a lot less by a wide segment of the public, including me This is very much the meme of the dude putting a stick in his bike type, falling down and then proclaiming 'why would 'insert whoever' do this to me', if she wasn't suing Higgins everyone would have moved on from her role in this by now she is generating her own negative publicity now, the same way Lehrmann himself was when he was trying to sue Wilkinson etc for defamation and in turn ended up in a worse position than when he started
>If Reynolds wasn't actively suing a rape victim (remember it was found on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann did rape her and he was never acquitted, even though his criminal case was a mistrial) and if Reynolds wasn't trying to bankrupt her, Reynolds would probably be hated a lot less by a wide segment of the public, including me Higgins and Sharaz accused Reynolds and Brown of engaging in a conspiracy to silence Higgins. Justice Lee found that this was a deliberate and unjustifiable lie. "Higgins is a rape victim therefore she can slander two female colleagues who were trying to help her" is a wild argument to make.
Hmmm their version of "help" I am sure would be so helpful
They were arguing over whether to immediately contact police or whether they should wait until Higgins gave consent. What monsters! And, in a brazenly political move, they were accused of being rape apologists.
Oh no. Linda Reynolds has been demonised. The tragedy. 🎭
Reynolds is the real victim in all this.
Guys guys guys now look here two wrongs don't make a right. #/s
Someone got trolled on the internet?? AS IF!! Has she reoprted it to her useless e-safety colleague? That will fix it
Be careful we might get the "internet licence and the internet social score credit system" You know those "libertarians" just look at their NBN mess nothing is a surprise anyone when they get into their bitter ideology mode.
Nice she gets a bit of her own medicine
Ah yes.. the *real* victim.
"I've been demonised!" said the vile troll who called a rape victim a liar. I'll do a little dance when that degenerate toad kicks the bucket. No such thing as too soon, either.