Thread: Roberts-Smith

Try to be a little respectful please. What crimes occurred should be exposed and dealt with by our legal systems. It is clear many who fight/defend us get damaged, injured or worse. EDIT- that extends to our family, friends and community. Cut from my ANZAC day notes
"It was clearly and correctly stated at the Melbourne Dawn service that impacts of service is on Service men and women as well as family and friends of those who served"

This includes you.

Injuries are not an excuse for crimes and accountability is required.

The impacts on those who serve now and those who have served our country by comments can be very nasty. Not that any here have been. It is a wild world outside so I will add thanks for being respectful to you all.

I always assume the cross fires is not intended. Some of my injured mates would not be able to do that in the social media frenzy occurring now.

Have a nice day

Originally Posted by drivesafe

Just wondering how many of the enemies "solders" are being investigated for their war atrocities???

So that is justification that allows us to lower the standards we work to and have signed up too - we are better than that.

This case had a much lower burden of proof and relied on verbal accounts not evidence.

It is clear that the press were after him as well as others with vested interests - "Tall Poppy Syndrome".

Dont know about these defamation laws seems it is ok to be called a woman basher even if you arent, because you have been accused of murder or war crimes.

Spent 6 years in the Army and some of the tactics we were taught were chilling even in peacetime.

Hi,
In the 60s it seemed to me that there was a culture in the ADF overseas of regarding the locals as second class. Whether that extended beyond the locale of my experience and time, I can't say. I have never experienced anything to contradict that impression.
I was not in a hostile area either, so add a chance of being injured or killed by a random local, surely the feelings of mutual admiration would diminish rapidly.
Cheers

Originally Posted by 101RRS

So that is justification that allows us to lower the standards we work to and have signed up too - we are better than that.

And furthermore, I can point to any number of international war crimes trials over the last 30 years where the international community has stepped in.

Originally Posted by chuck

This case had a much lower burden of proof and relied on verbal accounts not evidence.

It is clear that the press were after him as well as others with vested interests - "Tall Poppy Syndrome".

Dont know about these defamation laws seems it is ok to be called a woman basher even if you arent, because you have been accused of murder or war crimes.

Spent 6 years in the Army and some of the tactics we were taught were chilling even in peacetime.

"The press" weren't "after him", which suggests that they made it all up or there's some uniform media out there harassing him - did you notice that his expenses, over $25m, were paid for by Channel 7, who he worked for until this afternoon? That'd be the company that owns Channel 7 (98% coverage of the Australia market), has 33% of Sky News Australia and also owns Pacific Media which sells 20% of all magazines in Australia. So, a big chunk of "the press" in Australia was bankrolling him.

And it was witnesses who were in Afghanistan with him who went to Channel 9/Fairfax with their stories about his behaviour, Channel 9/Fairfax investigated and decided, no doubt after taking very, very good legal advice, that they had grounds to publish and the court found, on the basis of evidence presented to them by soldiers in-country at the time, that the stories that Channel 9/Fairfax published were correct, that is that he was in fact a murderer.

I'm not sure why you think that verbal accounts don't count as evidence, but they do.

Originally Posted by Arapiles

"The press" weren't "after him", which suggests that they made it all up or there's some uniform media out there harassing him - did you notice that his expenses, over $25m, were paid for by Channel 7, who he worked for until this afternoon? That'd be the company that owns Channel 7 (98% coverage of the Australia market), has 33% of Sky News Australia and also owns Pacific Media which sells 20% of all magazines in Australia. So, a big chunk of "the press" in Australia was bankrolling him.

And it was witnesses who were in Afghanistan with him who went to Channel 9/Fairfax with their stories about his behaviour, Channel 9/Fairfax investigated and decided, no doubt after taking very, very good legal advice, that they had grounds to publish and the court found, on the basis of evidence presented to them by soldiers in-country at the time, that the stories that Channel 9/Fairfax published were correct, that is that he was in fact a murderer.

I'm not sure why you think that verbal accounts don't count as evidence, but they do.

He has not been convicted of a single crime and you are doing nothing more than justifying the "Trial by Media" that the press is running.

Again, no one is going after the enemies war crimes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geez, surprised this thread has stayed up…..

Have always thought from day dot it wasn’t looking good for Benny boy…..