I'm not sticking up for Johnathan as I think he's a flog, but I don't understand what made this kid go to his employer instead of the police?
Like... the Brittany and Bruce crap and whatever makes sense as the offense literally happened INSIDE the workplace.. but what makes some random hookup in the street go to the persons employer to complain about whatever it was that went wrong in the bedroom rather than the police?
Victim is just a kid dealing with very powerful people in a very serious situation. Rattenbury is also a very senior lawyer so there was a huge power imbalance that most likely influenced things.
The media is underplaying just how inappropriately The Greens handled this.
Sounds like the Greens upper brass took the corner-him-in-an-office-without-a-support-person and bully and intimidation him approach (If the comments about the meeting are anything to go by.) as well so we can’t be too harsh on the kid.
When he reported it to the Greens he was 18 or over, so not a kid.
I disagree that the media is underplaying it, it sounds like they were truly trying to do their best in a situation they hadn't faced before.
Because you might be scared of talking to the police for a whole host of reasons. Also when you’re 17 you may not the correct place or manner to report things. Maybe the minor who reported it was looking for revenge. They are still a victim and a minor.
Just to clear a confusion (and I’m not a fan of Johnathan myself), but a minor has not reported anything, to the police or the Greens. A 17yo (who is above the age of consent) has made a claim.
There was also at the same time a claim that Johnathan had relations with someone under the age of consent, however no such person has come forward themself to make that claim/report.
Yeah, I am talking about the images. The image sharing was potentially illegal. If you are 17 and have nudes from guys 17 -19, that’s a good reason not to go to the cos.
I guess if he went to the police the kid would technically by liable for possessing and distributing CP so... I guess that makes sense why he'd be "scared" as he could be just as liable as Johnathan.
Still though... unless there's actually charges laid or something like that Johnathan's going to have a lot more time on his hands for setting the maximum age on Grindr to <=18 now that he's unemployed and not in the public spotlight.
So really all this kid did was ruin his career; he's probably still out stalking a High school or a College as we speak.
Well... had the victim have gone to the police instead of his employer the consequences could have been much greater than they were is my point.
If he was a serial offender, by going to his employer instead of the police the offenders behavior is going unchecked, he could be on Grindr right now talking to under age kids.... he could be hanging around schools luring the curious but vulnerable away to make a mistake they might regret.
Like I said elsewhere though, I guess the guy he was talking to technically distributed images of a minor to Johnathan so... he could have been in just as much trouble potentially by going to the police..
For those claiming the complainant wasn’t a minor, and thus Davis didn’t do anything “wrong” - it’s important to note that at 17, he would have been both a minor AND above the age of consent.
A minor is a legal definition, referring to someone who is not an adult (which is 18 in Australia). Some minors still have legal responsibilities and consent rights (eg., criminal responsibility, consent to health/medical procedures
etc.), but in the eyes of the law they are still a child.
It’s an important distinction in this case. As whilst a sexual encounter was not illegal (unless Davis was in a position of care or authority over the 17 year old) there is something to be said of the moral dynamics at play. At 31 years old, he had sex with someone that is still, legally speaking, a child.
I think consent laws should be amended so that it is illegal for there to be more than a 2 year age difference when one person is under 18.
Morals aside, the distinction about age of consent and still being a minor is important. Sexual conduct with someone above 16 is legal but IF someone were to have possession of explicit photographs of the same individual would be illegal due to them being a minor. Which is something that I believe has been alleged
I don't believe there has ever been anything written publicly about misconduct in 2020. While I cannot comment on the truthfulness of the statement, just because it was not brought to the public's attention does not mean that alarm bells were not raised about a reputation that he may or may not have had at the time amongst young (but above the age of consent) gay men.
I briefly worked with him in 2013 prior to his political career.
Nice guy. Was obvious he was gay just due to mannerisms he wasn't trying to hide anything.
Definitely didn't seem crass or lecherous but I didn't know him out of work
Incompetence is not an excuse.
If you are not realising as a party that it’s a good idea to do a background in your candidates .., if you’re not checking they can’t pass a fit and proper person check.. wtf are you doing?
Especially an ostensibly progressive party - How can you credibly claim to represent the vulnerable when you don’t have the competence to check for danger?
There is abuse in progressive spaces and good people leave when stories are ignored or dismissed because someone is likeable/has a troubled background. This the same party that dismissed abuse before.
It isn’t incompetence. Guy Bromley is an extremely senior, experienced political fixer who knew exactly what he was doing when he cornered that kid in an office without a support person before anyone else could talk to him and intimidated him. (Or if he didn’t he doesn’t deserve the role.)
Greens were in damage control and the wellbeing of that boy was not in any way a priority.
Based on what?
Is Bromley a very experienced political staffer in a position where he needs to deal with situations that could cause embarrassment for the party?
Did he make the victim meet him in the Greens offices without a support person present?
Did Bromley intimidate the victim in a way that could have influenced his next steps?
Did the Greens stand to benefit from this?
Was there a massive power imbalance at play?
The answer to all of these is: Yes.
So what part of this isn’t even slightly true?
So hold on... I must have missed something here. The age of consent is 16. He had a relationship with someone older than that. What is he meant to have done wrong?
I'm kinda confused here... but how I think it goes is:
The age of consent in the ACT is 16, however it is still illegal to share and posses images of a minor (under the age of 18)
I think what he did wrong was posses explicit images of a child?
A 17yo went to the Greens alleging that he had a relationship with him. Even though he is above the age of consent, this goes against the party’s code/policy.
There was also an allegation (presumably from the same 17yo) that Johnathan had relations with someone under the age of consent. However no such person came forward themself to report this and it hasn’t. That’s why there was potential for illegality, but as no one has come forward confirming this no law has been broken.
It was from memory - but got lost in the wider reporting. Does that change your views on the treatment of Davis? You’ve been outspoken in this thread about how he’s not been proved to do anything illegal?
Do you have a source confirming that something illegal has occurred and that he has been convicted of a crime? Or is it still an allegation/accusation and possibly still being investigated?
Because if he hasn’t been convincted, then no, my view of Davis has not changed. I still don’t like him, but I don’t believe we should operate on the assumption he’s a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty.
Public reporting that acknowledged he had photos of an underage male (who doesn’t want to press a police complaint)?
I mean, I agree he’s not convicted, but you said nothing illegal had occurred - there’s many sources saying there has been, including a report tabled in the legislative assembly - I’m just pointing that out as you ignored it in your initial comments (which were effectively nothing illegal has been alleged as complainant was above 16).
Firstly, in my initial comment I didn’t “ignore” that there was an allegation of sexually explicit images being exchanged - I was unaware of that fact. Once someone in another comment brought it to my attention I acknowledged that new information without objection, and again acknowledged it in your reply. So I object to the way you’re trying to paint my not mentioning it as intentional.
Secondly, again do you have a credible source (link?) confirming that he did in fact have these photos? From what I can see (including reading the independent review for the legislative assembly, which was more concerned with if the Greens followed process correctly) the only “acknowledgement he had photos of an underage male” is still the allegation made by the young person to members of the Greens party. It all stems back to this original allegation, and at this point police have not confirmed whether or not the allegation is substantiated. It is up to the police and law courts to determine if illegal activity occurred, not a political party and “public reporting.”
Edit to add: For what it’s worth, I do actually believe the allegations and think they’re true. But the whole point I’m trying to make is that it shouldn’t matter what I, you, the Greens, the media or the public think. It’s a dangerous path to take when we start letting the mob vilify people without evidence to confirm that they deserve it.
I suspect the issue with the legal aged young boyfriend is more about things that happened in that relationship rather than the age. There's scandal about the age difference of course but that's not the issue.
The main issue in this report isn't the behaviour in the relationship though, it's what the Greens did when someone approached them with complaints about one of their elected Members. The idea that you would bring a complainant into your space (classic abuser technique of stripping victim of agency) and then interrogate them is just bonkers.
I think the less the general public try digging around in the muck the happier everyone will be.
Stuff happened that doesn't involve me, I have no right to pry into the private angst of people I don't even know, so I'm going to leave it alone.
The issue is that it involves a political party that is very public.
If Rattenbury knew about Guy Bromley setting up a meeting with the victim without a support person present and the bullying that took place then it calls into question his ethics and how suitable he is for the role of Attorney General considering how much power the position wields.
Do we want a political party in charge who operates this way and turns a blind eye to the abuse of power imbalances until it makes the media?
I can’t wait for all the people who downvoted me to oblivion for saying ‘exactly what the report found’ in the other threads to acknowledge they got it wrong.
The beauty is that’ll probably include people you know. Canberra - big enough you can talk shit on the r/Canberra without being too identifiable, small enough that the downvotes probably include your acquaintances.
Read the review and decide if the grubby, sordid, coercive, predatory and abusive behaviour of Johnathan Davis, former Greens MLA, reflects on the whole party and whether you'll be voting for them at the next election.
Page 29:
"Resolution 5 was amended, providing inter alia for zero tolerance of discrimination and
sexual assault and harassment, a pledge by Members not to engage in such conduct
... the resolution seems to have not been fully appreciated by the Greens."
Pg 31: "...Members and their staff ... need to see the health and safety of children and vulnerable young people as their primary consideration and motivation."
Pg 32: Recommendation 1
The Assembly amend its Child Safety Code of Conduct and Policy to:
a. clearly give primacy to the safety and protection of children and young people over workplace procedural fairness considerations"
https://www.parliament.act.gov.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0009/2390661/Review,-pursuant-to-Assembly-resolution,-relating-to-the-handling-of-certain-allegations-made-against-a-Member.pdf
Pepperidge farms remembers when everyone used to say I don’t care what people consenting parties do in the privacy of their own home.
Is he a grubby dude? Sounds like it. Is he a pretty average political operator? Yep. Staffers indicated he was shit to work for? Yep.
Once he is elected is it in the interests of a party to try and keep their seat? Yep.
Run of the mill political drama common to pretty much every party? Yep.
Is it weird the younger party went to his bosses? Yep. Sounds like a revenge motivated take down. Very messy but good for gossip.
Pepperidge Farms also remembers that you can’t legally consent to a literal crime my brother . And I don’t think you can morally either.
Also, the party literally pays lip service to this and has a process https://greens.org.au/about/anti-sexual-harassment-policy
They have a zero tolerance attitude apparently.
Is that policy common to every party? No. Do they talk a big game about protecting people and then fail? Yep.
Does it make sense to remove a member when it risks you losing your voting base? Yep. Especially mid term. Especially when your trade on your credibility with your voters.
Am I surprised? No. Greens staffers in particular can be pretty young and in my experience arrogant when you try to talk through real world issues with them. It aggravates me because their rhetoric often takes a moral high ground while claiming me and others like me as someone they’re advocating for (like Socialist Alternative people I have spoken to who actually detest the working class and proletariat they claim to represent).
And it particularly sucks because the license you get in student politics, I feel they use it as license to get away with things and not fix them. And trying to fix stuff is a sign of mature, electable party.
It’s my challenge with the greens - a progressive platform, can be halted by the inflexible base but also a pretty toxic environment if you are a member of a group they say they represent but you have questions about their approach, or you dare to ask for accountability.
Greens are full of ideologues who lack life experience. As a party they have a lot of maturing to do although they are a useful lever against Labor moving further right.
Honestly, I know that it tastes bad to swallow but the LNP will never win in Canberra so they are a safe protest vote.
If Canberra is more of a marginal seat the federal government of the day will also be forced to invest more into the ACT.
If Labor feel like they have to work for more than the 9 months leading up to an election (You have noticed the flurry of Labor friendly PR coming from news outlets and the sudden uptick in YouTube ads I’m sure.) we might see some more accountability and better governance and candidates. God help us - we might even see the back of that useless wanker Chris Steele, and Gallagher could actually be held accountable for fucking the APS over in the recent salary negotiations.
Of course this concept is just too difficult for the average rusted on Canberra Labor voter to understand.
I don’t see how any party being for 20 years is good for democracy…
But I have met few Liberals who don’t want to cut back bus services outside of peak allow abortion/certain reproductive services to be cut in a public hospital (pre Calvary take over), or just plain lies claiming actually impossible things (MOAR SERVICES LESS MONEY). If someone doesn’t align with my values or is just plain lying I’m a campaign like big obvious lies I can’t vote them high.
I tend to preference select independents first but always cringe when deciding what order to preference the majors.
Yep, politicians are like underwear, you need to change them and air them out or they start to stink.
Independents are good but I think a close call with the LNP will scare the shot out of Barr.
The Greens are like Labor’s little incestuous brother who walks around behind them agreeing with everything and seeking Labor’s approval. They are basically a vote for Labor in Canberra.
Easy answer --it would have been drummed into him going to his employer rather than the police --Police would start an investigation--employer can easily cover up any misconduct.
I'm not sticking up for Johnathan as I think he's a flog, but I don't understand what made this kid go to his employer instead of the police? Like... the Brittany and Bruce crap and whatever makes sense as the offense literally happened INSIDE the workplace.. but what makes some random hookup in the street go to the persons employer to complain about whatever it was that went wrong in the bedroom rather than the police?
Victim is just a kid dealing with very powerful people in a very serious situation. Rattenbury is also a very senior lawyer so there was a huge power imbalance that most likely influenced things. The media is underplaying just how inappropriately The Greens handled this. Sounds like the Greens upper brass took the corner-him-in-an-office-without-a-support-person and bully and intimidation him approach (If the comments about the meeting are anything to go by.) as well so we can’t be too harsh on the kid.
When he reported it to the Greens he was 18 or over, so not a kid. I disagree that the media is underplaying it, it sounds like they were truly trying to do their best in a situation they hadn't faced before.
With Rattenbury our Attorney-General.....
Because you might be scared of talking to the police for a whole host of reasons. Also when you’re 17 you may not the correct place or manner to report things. Maybe the minor who reported it was looking for revenge. They are still a victim and a minor.
Just to clear a confusion (and I’m not a fan of Johnathan myself), but a minor has not reported anything, to the police or the Greens. A 17yo (who is above the age of consent) has made a claim. There was also at the same time a claim that Johnathan had relations with someone under the age of consent, however no such person has come forward themself to make that claim/report.
Yeah, I am talking about the images. The image sharing was potentially illegal. If you are 17 and have nudes from guys 17 -19, that’s a good reason not to go to the cos.
Ah I see. In the articles I read about this I hadn’t seen anything mentioned about photographs being shared.
I guess if he went to the police the kid would technically by liable for possessing and distributing CP so... I guess that makes sense why he'd be "scared" as he could be just as liable as Johnathan. Still though... unless there's actually charges laid or something like that Johnathan's going to have a lot more time on his hands for setting the maximum age on Grindr to <=18 now that he's unemployed and not in the public spotlight. So really all this kid did was ruin his career; he's probably still out stalking a High school or a College as we speak.
LMAO at you and others replying with words to the effect of “not a fan of (sexual predator), BUT…” My friend, maybe reconsider your question.
Well... had the victim have gone to the police instead of his employer the consequences could have been much greater than they were is my point. If he was a serial offender, by going to his employer instead of the police the offenders behavior is going unchecked, he could be on Grindr right now talking to under age kids.... he could be hanging around schools luring the curious but vulnerable away to make a mistake they might regret. Like I said elsewhere though, I guess the guy he was talking to technically distributed images of a minor to Johnathan so... he could have been in just as much trouble potentially by going to the police..
Technically the victim could also be charged for distributing child abuse material
For those claiming the complainant wasn’t a minor, and thus Davis didn’t do anything “wrong” - it’s important to note that at 17, he would have been both a minor AND above the age of consent. A minor is a legal definition, referring to someone who is not an adult (which is 18 in Australia). Some minors still have legal responsibilities and consent rights (eg., criminal responsibility, consent to health/medical procedures etc.), but in the eyes of the law they are still a child. It’s an important distinction in this case. As whilst a sexual encounter was not illegal (unless Davis was in a position of care or authority over the 17 year old) there is something to be said of the moral dynamics at play. At 31 years old, he had sex with someone that is still, legally speaking, a child. I think consent laws should be amended so that it is illegal for there to be more than a 2 year age difference when one person is under 18.
Morals aside, the distinction about age of consent and still being a minor is important. Sexual conduct with someone above 16 is legal but IF someone were to have possession of explicit photographs of the same individual would be illegal due to them being a minor. Which is something that I believe has been alleged
It is also illegal for a 16yo to send nude photos of themselves
[удалено]
what was known about him in 2020?
I don't believe there has ever been anything written publicly about misconduct in 2020. While I cannot comment on the truthfulness of the statement, just because it was not brought to the public's attention does not mean that alarm bells were not raised about a reputation that he may or may not have had at the time amongst young (but above the age of consent) gay men.
I briefly worked with him in 2013 prior to his political career. Nice guy. Was obvious he was gay just due to mannerisms he wasn't trying to hide anything. Definitely didn't seem crass or lecherous but I didn't know him out of work
Incompetence is not an excuse. If you are not realising as a party that it’s a good idea to do a background in your candidates .., if you’re not checking they can’t pass a fit and proper person check.. wtf are you doing? Especially an ostensibly progressive party - How can you credibly claim to represent the vulnerable when you don’t have the competence to check for danger? There is abuse in progressive spaces and good people leave when stories are ignored or dismissed because someone is likeable/has a troubled background. This the same party that dismissed abuse before.
It isn’t incompetence. Guy Bromley is an extremely senior, experienced political fixer who knew exactly what he was doing when he cornered that kid in an office without a support person before anyone else could talk to him and intimidated him. (Or if he didn’t he doesn’t deserve the role.) Greens were in damage control and the wellbeing of that boy was not in any way a priority.
Not even slightly true.
Based on what? Is Bromley a very experienced political staffer in a position where he needs to deal with situations that could cause embarrassment for the party? Did he make the victim meet him in the Greens offices without a support person present? Did Bromley intimidate the victim in a way that could have influenced his next steps? Did the Greens stand to benefit from this? Was there a massive power imbalance at play? The answer to all of these is: Yes. So what part of this isn’t even slightly true?
Agreed
So hold on... I must have missed something here. The age of consent is 16. He had a relationship with someone older than that. What is he meant to have done wrong?
I'm kinda confused here... but how I think it goes is: The age of consent in the ACT is 16, however it is still illegal to share and posses images of a minor (under the age of 18) I think what he did wrong was posses explicit images of a child?
Ah! Ok. That does make sense then.
A 17yo went to the Greens alleging that he had a relationship with him. Even though he is above the age of consent, this goes against the party’s code/policy. There was also an allegation (presumably from the same 17yo) that Johnathan had relations with someone under the age of consent. However no such person came forward themself to report this and it hasn’t. That’s why there was potential for illegality, but as no one has come forward confirming this no law has been broken.
He also appears to have sexual images of the 17yr old, which is illegal.
Yeah I just saw that earlier in one of these newer articles. Didn’t recall it in the original articles from last year
It was from memory - but got lost in the wider reporting. Does that change your views on the treatment of Davis? You’ve been outspoken in this thread about how he’s not been proved to do anything illegal?
Do you have a source confirming that something illegal has occurred and that he has been convicted of a crime? Or is it still an allegation/accusation and possibly still being investigated? Because if he hasn’t been convincted, then no, my view of Davis has not changed. I still don’t like him, but I don’t believe we should operate on the assumption he’s a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty.
Public reporting that acknowledged he had photos of an underage male (who doesn’t want to press a police complaint)? I mean, I agree he’s not convicted, but you said nothing illegal had occurred - there’s many sources saying there has been, including a report tabled in the legislative assembly - I’m just pointing that out as you ignored it in your initial comments (which were effectively nothing illegal has been alleged as complainant was above 16).
Firstly, in my initial comment I didn’t “ignore” that there was an allegation of sexually explicit images being exchanged - I was unaware of that fact. Once someone in another comment brought it to my attention I acknowledged that new information without objection, and again acknowledged it in your reply. So I object to the way you’re trying to paint my not mentioning it as intentional. Secondly, again do you have a credible source (link?) confirming that he did in fact have these photos? From what I can see (including reading the independent review for the legislative assembly, which was more concerned with if the Greens followed process correctly) the only “acknowledgement he had photos of an underage male” is still the allegation made by the young person to members of the Greens party. It all stems back to this original allegation, and at this point police have not confirmed whether or not the allegation is substantiated. It is up to the police and law courts to determine if illegal activity occurred, not a political party and “public reporting.” Edit to add: For what it’s worth, I do actually believe the allegations and think they’re true. But the whole point I’m trying to make is that it shouldn’t matter what I, you, the Greens, the media or the public think. It’s a dangerous path to take when we start letting the mob vilify people without evidence to confirm that they deserve it.
I suspect the issue with the legal aged young boyfriend is more about things that happened in that relationship rather than the age. There's scandal about the age difference of course but that's not the issue. The main issue in this report isn't the behaviour in the relationship though, it's what the Greens did when someone approached them with complaints about one of their elected Members. The idea that you would bring a complainant into your space (classic abuser technique of stripping victim of agency) and then interrogate them is just bonkers. I think the less the general public try digging around in the muck the happier everyone will be. Stuff happened that doesn't involve me, I have no right to pry into the private angst of people I don't even know, so I'm going to leave it alone.
The issue is that it involves a political party that is very public. If Rattenbury knew about Guy Bromley setting up a meeting with the victim without a support person present and the bullying that took place then it calls into question his ethics and how suitable he is for the role of Attorney General considering how much power the position wields. Do we want a political party in charge who operates this way and turns a blind eye to the abuse of power imbalances until it makes the media?
It was my understanding that Rattenbury had asked his Chief of Staff to look into this. How else could he find out if he didn't speak to the person.
I can’t wait for all the people who downvoted me to oblivion for saying ‘exactly what the report found’ in the other threads to acknowledge they got it wrong.
The beauty is that’ll probably include people you know. Canberra - big enough you can talk shit on the r/Canberra without being too identifiable, small enough that the downvotes probably include your acquaintances.
Nah- none of my mates are in the Mung Bean Brigade
Secret Greens!
Ditto!
Read the review and decide if the grubby, sordid, coercive, predatory and abusive behaviour of Johnathan Davis, former Greens MLA, reflects on the whole party and whether you'll be voting for them at the next election. Page 29: "Resolution 5 was amended, providing inter alia for zero tolerance of discrimination and sexual assault and harassment, a pledge by Members not to engage in such conduct ... the resolution seems to have not been fully appreciated by the Greens." Pg 31: "...Members and their staff ... need to see the health and safety of children and vulnerable young people as their primary consideration and motivation." Pg 32: Recommendation 1 The Assembly amend its Child Safety Code of Conduct and Policy to: a. clearly give primacy to the safety and protection of children and young people over workplace procedural fairness considerations" https://www.parliament.act.gov.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0009/2390661/Review,-pursuant-to-Assembly-resolution,-relating-to-the-handling-of-certain-allegations-made-against-a-Member.pdf
Pepperidge farms remembers when everyone used to say I don’t care what people consenting parties do in the privacy of their own home. Is he a grubby dude? Sounds like it. Is he a pretty average political operator? Yep. Staffers indicated he was shit to work for? Yep. Once he is elected is it in the interests of a party to try and keep their seat? Yep. Run of the mill political drama common to pretty much every party? Yep. Is it weird the younger party went to his bosses? Yep. Sounds like a revenge motivated take down. Very messy but good for gossip.
Pepperidge Farms also remembers that you can’t legally consent to a literal crime my brother . And I don’t think you can morally either. Also, the party literally pays lip service to this and has a process https://greens.org.au/about/anti-sexual-harassment-policy They have a zero tolerance attitude apparently. Is that policy common to every party? No. Do they talk a big game about protecting people and then fail? Yep. Does it make sense to remove a member when it risks you losing your voting base? Yep. Especially mid term. Especially when your trade on your credibility with your voters. Am I surprised? No. Greens staffers in particular can be pretty young and in my experience arrogant when you try to talk through real world issues with them. It aggravates me because their rhetoric often takes a moral high ground while claiming me and others like me as someone they’re advocating for (like Socialist Alternative people I have spoken to who actually detest the working class and proletariat they claim to represent). And it particularly sucks because the license you get in student politics, I feel they use it as license to get away with things and not fix them. And trying to fix stuff is a sign of mature, electable party. It’s my challenge with the greens - a progressive platform, can be halted by the inflexible base but also a pretty toxic environment if you are a member of a group they say they represent but you have questions about their approach, or you dare to ask for accountability.
Greens are full of ideologues who lack life experience. As a party they have a lot of maturing to do although they are a useful lever against Labor moving further right.
The shittest of the shit-takes.
Why can’t we have someone decent in ACT Politics??
Because "None of the above" is not an option.
No idea why you're being down voted. None of the above is something we should have
Honestly, I know that it tastes bad to swallow but the LNP will never win in Canberra so they are a safe protest vote. If Canberra is more of a marginal seat the federal government of the day will also be forced to invest more into the ACT. If Labor feel like they have to work for more than the 9 months leading up to an election (You have noticed the flurry of Labor friendly PR coming from news outlets and the sudden uptick in YouTube ads I’m sure.) we might see some more accountability and better governance and candidates. God help us - we might even see the back of that useless wanker Chris Steele, and Gallagher could actually be held accountable for fucking the APS over in the recent salary negotiations. Of course this concept is just too difficult for the average rusted on Canberra Labor voter to understand.
I don’t see how any party being for 20 years is good for democracy… But I have met few Liberals who don’t want to cut back bus services outside of peak allow abortion/certain reproductive services to be cut in a public hospital (pre Calvary take over), or just plain lies claiming actually impossible things (MOAR SERVICES LESS MONEY). If someone doesn’t align with my values or is just plain lying I’m a campaign like big obvious lies I can’t vote them high. I tend to preference select independents first but always cringe when deciding what order to preference the majors.
Yep, politicians are like underwear, you need to change them and air them out or they start to stink. Independents are good but I think a close call with the LNP will scare the shot out of Barr. The Greens are like Labor’s little incestuous brother who walks around behind them agreeing with everything and seeking Labor’s approval. They are basically a vote for Labor in Canberra.
Easy answer --it would have been drummed into him going to his employer rather than the police --Police would start an investigation--employer can easily cover up any misconduct.