Darlene studied politics at the University of Queensland. She has written for various forums including On Line Opinion. Her blog can be found here.
It’s old news that Dianne Brimble died on the floor of a cruise ship cabin after ingesting a combination of booze and Fantasy.
Whether Brimble chose to take the so-called “date-rape” drug or someone else made that decision for her is yet to be ascertained, but what can be gathered from discussion regarding the case is that the need to present some females as non-sexual and almost saintly is as strong as it ever was.
Some time ago, I wrote an item about Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old who was murdered in 1913 in the factory where she worked in Atlanta, Georgia.
Instead of acknowledging that a life like Mary’s was tough and undoubtedly resulted in a girl growing up too fast, public discourse about her quickly bordered on the hagiographic.
Of course, a political agenda always accompanies the creation of victims who are deemed to be worthy of our grief.
I argued that:
It was the “Little Mary Phagan” of popular imagination that peered out at newspaper readers before ‘real’ Mary ever got the chance. With a desire to reassert a masculinity eroded by the employment of young women in the burgeoning manufacturing sector, the creation of doll-like “Little Mary Phagan” by the press, politicians and the ‘people’ might have confirmed to some that the traditional Southern patriarchy still existed.
Given the dehumanising and vile language used by some of those involved in the Brimble case, it’s unsurprising that loved ones and others with good intentions would want to fight back with words of kindness and respect.
Nevertheless, we have to wonder how much it progresses the status of women when we’re infantilised and/or desexualised.
In last month’s edition of The Monthly, Malcolm Knox’s overly subjective article “Cruising” contained the following sentence:
I am standing on the escalator where Dianne Brimble was photographed in a blue smock with her group, waving like a child on her first overnight excursion.
When The Sydney Morning Herald’s Miranda Devine joined the debate about the Brimble case with “Dignity rises in the midst of tragedy” she claimed that:
Dianne Brimble is being remembered now, not as a discarded piece of meat, or a promiscuous woman who got unlucky, but as a devoted mother, a gregarious and well-loved women, who was modest, private and shy about being overweight.
That sentence probably sums up Mrs. Brimble well, but I’m not sure what it says about “promiscuous” women or females who are sexually confident regardless of their weight.
Devine’s words suggest she’s pleased the right type of woman, particularly the right sort of plump woman, has triumphed.
At any rate, when Leo Silvestri, one of the eight “men of interest”, spewed out statements like “ugly fat dog” and “…I didn’t want to speak to her…breath, yuck, ugly dog, just go talk to someone else. Ring the RSPCA” in relation to the deceased, and by inference about women in general, it said everything about how insecure and shallow he is and nothing about Brimble.
None of this is to argue that women aren’t different sexually from men; but that recycling the sexual stereotypes of the past won’t necessarily get us any closer to the truth of what happened on the night Dianne Brimble lost her life.
Amen to that, Darlene.
Nice work.
Darlene
My impression was very much the opposite. My impression was that the guys invloved came across as shocking dirtbags, who were accidently born human beings.
The lady is question came across as a person who had a hard life and was finally able to have a fun holiday. I never got any bad impression of her.
In terms of evidence, being a public court system we obviously got to know the circumstances of her unfortunate death. I never had a bad or colored image of her.
That’s to your credit, Joe, but there was some truly appalling stuff about Brimble published, which I think is what Darlene was referring to.
Oh Ok. I actually gained this impression from the the media and didn’t realize some parts of it were actually reporting bad stuff.
Tabloid papers in particular, I believe, Joe, though I just heard about it rather than saw it for myself. Probably Darlene will be along to clarify in the morning, I imagine.
“Nevertheless, we have to wonder how much it progresses the status of women when we’re infantilised and/or desexualised.”
Where is the evidence that people were doing this?
Good point Darlene. I am writing an article in which I touch on this. Similar issues in some recent American cases, where some conservative commentators seem to argue women who drink by themselves in bars after midnight deserve what they get, see here. My definition of a saint is a good mother what that’s got to be with who people sleep with?
Last weekend I saw a car with a sticker on the back window that said:
No Fat Chicks
Shoot ‘em
Don’t root ‘em
An ordinary middle-class car – station wagon or hatchback – driven by a man, with a woman in the passenger seat, and a toddler in a child car seat in the back.
Horrifying.
Thanks, Kim.
Hi J C, certainly the blokes concerned (the eight men of interest) were bloody shockers. My perception is that there is underlying feeling of “What was she doing there?” among some (see Malcolm Knox’s article for evidence of this), along with the silly saintly stuff.
Panelbeater, I think using words like “waving like a child” and “modest” and “private” have just that impact. Look, I think a lot of women who are victimised get accused of being sluts, whores and god knows what else.
Every so often, though the press feels the need to sanctify certain female victims (eg Anita Cobby). I think this serves the same purpose as accusing others of being sluts: it maintains the traditional gender order.
Thanks for that, Laura.
I’m speechless, what a moron that bloke is. But think about the values he is passing on to his kids. This is a good point, it’s not just obvious macho loops like Silvestri who think like that.
I just don’t get it.
I mean she’s got nothing to be SANCTIFIED about.
Whereas guys might go on these cruises particularly to pull a number of different broads, well young single guys, who are into this sort of thing do pretty much EVERYTHING in order to get around pulling a variety of broads.
But if a women wants to do this sort of thing she ought to be able to find a bar pretty close by or across town or what-have-you…. If this is her inclination.
But a woman whose going to spend the money for one of these cruises is not necessarily in the top 5th percentile of promiscuous chicks when she’s on her home turf.
Maybe in fact there would be quite the proportion of them, if not nearly ALL of them, that go on such trips FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of acting differently then they ever would in their home networks.
And I believe that is the case.
British back-packers from small towns come to Sydney or travel to Ibetha or elsewhere and they are liable to bang like dunny doors for the year that they are away. Then they might go home and work to protect their reputation and mystique.
Its not good that this woman is being thought of as being a woman who always acted the way the lads described her.
This might have been the one time she came right out of her shell to try things that she would never try on terra firma.
And when and if some of you girls split from your current partners you might like to spash out in that way too. And we wouldn’t want to judge you for it.
This case always makes me cringe since the scumbags who abused her so were from Adelaide like me. I hate to think that such filth grew up in the same city but such is life.
I agree with Panelbeater – she saw the cruise not just as a holiday but as an opportunity to do something wild and just run amok. I think I read somewhere that she was really looking forward to it – “holiday of a lifetime” or something like that so she would have been so excited that first night. So she got out of control, did things she had never done before and acted out of character.
It is just such a pity that she got involved with such a toxic crowd – not just one but a whole cabin full of them. I would dearly like to think that Silvestri was a one off but not one of those guys cared to realise that she was in trouble or to at least give her some dignity.
It is such a sad story for her, her poor family and for my beloved hometown.
Brimble was administered incapacitating drugs without her knowledge.
Whatever happened after that was utterly beyond her ability to control.
She was then abused and killed.
Should she have been more aware of the danger associated with having anything to do with her companions on the fatal night?
Perhaps. But since when has naivete been a sign of immorality?
Was she grateful that some young and sexually forward young men paid her attention? Quite possibly.
Does this gratitude sometimes make one vulnerable to abuse? Regrettably, yes.
Is vulnerability a licence for abuse and manslaughter. Certainly not.
Women should learn caution and that attention from a man is often not benign.
Women should learn that there are many places to shine besides the gaze of men.
Women should learn that some men are brutes and that sometimes there are no second chances to learn.
Amen to that, Katz.
Good piece Darlene, highlighting the much broader context and implications for other women of high profile and isolated cases such as this; it’s a valuable contribution.
I would have to agree with “JC”, to the extent that I have never formed any impression other than that of an ordinary hard working single Mum, who really was going on, not just the “holiday of a lifetime”, but likely the first real holiday she’d had in years. Notably she was on the trip with relatives / friends, so had not necessarily planned on behaving entirely out of her normal character, but that’s conjecture on my part. Points made by others on that score are reasonable suggestions too, I just don’t think she planned on having a “wild” time, merely a really good time.
I agree with the examples you’ve given about how Brimble has been described by journalists and commentators, but on the other hand, I tend to believe those descriptions are pretty close to the mark, even if it may seem patronising, or worse. The picture that has emerged of Brimble is a consistent one. What if she really was much like these descriptions? Is that wrong? I can easily image her, or any number of people waving in a childlike manner, for example. She was not worldly, or sophisticated. Her excitment, by all accounts, was the real deal. But, yes, Brimble’s core qualities are the very reason for the MSM’s kindly portrayal and remembrance of her, a social reinforcement of the “right” qualities for a woman – and because she didn’t deviate from the very qualities that likely helped lead to her death, including an unwarranted trust in the friendliness and goodness of total strangers.
Thanks for that, CK.
Lovely points that have been heeded.
My impression of Ms Brimble is as the Panelbeater and JC have said – she was going to let her hair down after a number of years of being serious. She shouldn’t be judged for that, not even for getting a little ‘wild’. It certainly didn’t justify what happened after nor was it even a calculable and easily anticipated risk, the stuff that followed on. Basically she got a bit tipsy and flirty and then these cads slipped stuff into her drink and took advantage of her.
I got the impression they were trying to make up for the hideous and vile statements being made by those sub-human scumbags (they’re definitely not like any man I know) ; a sort of reverse-sexist statement if you know what I mean, to counterbalance the lies.
The statements were vile, what’s worse humiliatingly published for all to see. Dianne Brimble was dead, but she has family and friends who would have been devastated to see that mysogynist porn printed about her, tarnishing her memory.
They were, if you will, counter statements on her behalf, when she couldn’t stand up and defend herself. Or maybe I’m giving these people too much credit, but I’d like to think that was what they were doing.
All good and thoughtful comments.
I hope the truth about what happened to Mrs Brimble comes out, but I doubt it will.
You can’t expect people lacking integrity to suddenly get it, although stranger things have happened.
Only time will tell.
I’m an American woman who has been following this inquest via email and blog entries since the summer. Not an easy thing, either, as there is next to nothing about the Brimble inquest printed about it in the US press. So, I’ve been writing up the occasional piece on my blog and have even written a song in memory of this poor lady. I didn’t know her personally, and from what I can pick up from the information out there, I don’t think she is being “sanctified” at all. If anything, I applaud that coroner and Mrs. Brimble’s family for taking the courageous if not sometimes painful steps of attempting to clear the name of a person who unfortunately appeared to had cast her pearls before the swine that are the eight persons of interest.
So why would an American care about a case happening in Australia? Because the sad reality is that ANY woman (and in some cases men) living anywhere in the world can be a potential Dianne Brimble. There are evil minded people who do seek out potential victims, befriend them falsely and then take advantage of them by robberies, sexual assault or what have you…you can hear about this stuff like this happening in towns near and around military bases a lot!
Drink spiking (and in some cases food spiking) and sexual assault has long been a problem…Over the past 30 year, I known personally of people this sort of thing has happened to, and while none of them died as in the case of Mrs. Brimble, the fact remains the same that they were still violated in this manner because they were tricked into ingesting a substance they did NOT chose to consume…and I do believe Dianne was tricked by them. If she was so “ready for action” as those cretins make her out to be, then why the need for GHB? Why did those lowlifes come onto the ship armed to the teeth with drugs…if not to do nefarious things?
Also I was just appalled at the racist and sizist statements that Letterio Silvestri person made about her. It seems to me this was not some mere sexual assault…it could almost be classified a hate crime. Think about it: of all the thousands or so of people on the ship, why was Mrs. Brimble singled out? and why did some of those persons of interests talk about her as though she were some embarrasing joke? I’d say if those attitudes aren’t about sexism, sizism and racism, I don’t know what is! Nope, to me it is obvious she was innocent. Something tells me that the news in this case will get worse before it gets better because of the tendency of the persons of interest to say or do anything to save their own skins, but perhaps this case be the starting point where people are fully aware of the dangers of sexual assaualt and violence against women, so that no one else anywhere will ever have to suffer the fate of Mrs. Brimble. May she rest in peace.
Darlene
I can see where you are coming from, and I sympathize. But perhaps there is another way of looking at Diane’s portrayal (see even I’m guilty. I find the whole sordid tale so disgusting that I feel I owe this dead woman whom I never meant at least SOME warmth, and thus I recoil from the formal “Brimble.’)
Perhaps it is less “Madonna/whore” than people who court danger by consciously-seeking out high risk and illicit behaviours knowing full well the consequences might be dire versus those who don’t.
For the former, while me might grieve the loss, a nagging “well see, I told you so” will hover about how we see the incident. For the latter, we think “this is wrong; there is no way there is any justice in this outcome.
Just a thought.
Dianne Brimble was my friend. I met her at a gym in Redcliffe brisbane and became instant friends, we were a group of mothers who shared many good times and many laughs, our kids shared the same school we shared birthday parties together I can truly say Dianne was definately self concious about her body, I always remember her commenting on her weight the day we met amd I remember going swimming after the gym, she swam with bike shorts on and a t-shirt .Dianne I will never forget you.
THE TRUTH ALWAYS GOMES OUT IN THE END.
RIP
Katz said
Ain’t these the very questions the inquest is attempting to answer? Does Katz have some magic source that has enabled her to ascertain the truth of what went on during that cruise? And if she does, doesn’t this mean that the judicial inquiry that is the inquest somehow irrelevant, and that the men involved should be tried and sentenced forthwith…. Imagine the reaction if this argument came from a right wing shock jock….
Cheers…
Drink and food spiking does happen, definately, myer centre in brisbane is one place it does happen in.
Hmmm…interesting topic and case, which I have been following for quite some time.
1) If a man had died in similar circumstances what would be the reaction. Say, a man had slept with 5 women and died of a drug overdose. I don’t think there would be much sympathy for him at all. It owuld be put down as a simple accidental overdose, end of story.
2) that brings us to the next question that many of you are thikning about now. Are men and women different sexually? Well, I would say yes, form the fact that the two cases would have received completely different reactions.
3) Fantasy, is not just a “date-rape” drug. It is used as a recreational party drug, like ecstacy.
4) Dianne Brimble had obtained a prescription of morning after pilll just prior to the cruise, obviously showing intentions of having sex on board.
5) Many women go on these cruises and other such parties to have sex with men. Let’s stop pretending that women are saints. I know for a fact of many so called, “good wives” that have a secret life of sex and drugs. Its a shame, but not realy relevant to the case. Unless of course women and men are different sexually
6) The only real question should be whether she was forced to take the drugs. From the many witness accounts, she was not forced and knew fully what the drugs were. My god, if a man took these drugs and died then it would be considered his fault. So, if a women takes the drugs, then its somehow the fault of the man who gave it to him. Why are man supposed to be responsible for everything. Is she a child or an adult (42 years old) who is accountable for her own decisions.
Anyway, lets face it…women are different from men. Silvestri’s comments were disgusting, but lets be comfortable being men and women, as different as we are, instead of striving to be something we are not and then perhaps society will find that peace between men and women once again.
Nevertheles, it is still very sad and anybody who was not there really does not know the truth. Its pure specualtion. That is the purpose of the inquest and I do hope the truth is found out. I guess the purpose of this post is to discuss whether women and men are different sexually. To me the answer is plain and obvious. Of course we are. Stop trying to pretend we are not.
If these men have done wrong they should be punished. I hope the inquest ends with justice.
This was certainly a dreadfully troubling case, as much for what it said of tjhe mores of a section of the male population of Australia.
For mine, it doesn’t matter whether Dianne Brimble was slipped a drug surreptitiously or took it willingly. She deserved humanity and got none, and those who stood by and did nothing are to be condemned.
I also feel terribly for the family and friends who surely must have found the public reporting of the matters unremittingly dreadful. It is one thing to lose a family member unforeseeably, and quite another for it to become grist to the media mill in all of its foul detail. As impracticable as it would be, it’s regrettable that at least some of the most disturbing of the evidence could not be in camera.
Katz is right above too. In a world closer to the ideal than this one, women will not measure their worth by the approval and attention of men. We will be clear eyed about the things we want to improve about ourselves and why, accepting of those things that are beyond our wit to change and disinclined to allow anyone to invite us to feel the worse for our choices.
Who cares about making everything about Women Versus Men. Everyone should be judged the same way.
You completely miss the point. You apparently don’t distinguish between conflict and self-acceptance. For some women, identity and self-worth are bound up with the gaze of men, even when this gaze is non-sexual. The first step to being fully autonomous is not to be prepossessed by the gaze of others.
This has nothing to do with how people are “judged” by some notional other.
Many women go on these cruises and other such parties to have sex with men. Let’s stop pretending that women are saints. I know for a fact of many so called, “good wives” that have a secret life of sex and drugs.
So, obviously, in Gordon’s world, she deserved to die. Says it all really.
also in GordonWorld: any woman who takes the pill/morning after pill is consenting to sex with everybody.
I wonder if Gordon understands that date rape is RAPE. No one under the influence of that quantity of drugs (whether she took them willingly or not is irrelevant) is capable of informed consent.
Next stop: there is no such thing as rape within a relationship.
“Next stop: there is no such thing as rape within a relationship.”
Well, not if she’s on the pill.
Helen I don’t know if that means she deserved to die (tho the use of language like “pretending women are saints” and “so called “good wives”", is a bit sus.)
Really who cares if women go on these cruises to have sex with men tho. (Women having sex with men, ohhh quick someone tell God.) Thats their business, not mine and they should be able to do it safely. It certainly doesn’t make them less human or less deserving of respect. If they want to sex with 10 men at once who cares. Its not our business and its no reason to judge them. Its unfair to expect that people who want to do this are not able to do it in safety. (I am not inferring that Diane Brmble did want to have sex with 10 guys at once or a different bloke every night either, I don’t know, don’t care and accept that its none of my business. It has nothing to do with the wrongness of her death.
Also, whether she willingly took the drug or not is irrelevent. She did with people who, cos they were taking drugs together and partying together, have a duty of care to each other. Again its not my business to judge people who take drugs either (maybe if I was on a jury deliberating that very issue but not here and now.)
The blokes in this case filed in their duty of care (maybe they didn’t even realise they had one.) Cos of that someone’s mother died. if there was anything I had seen so far to indicate they gave a fuck. That they actually cared and were upset that she died, that they took pains to keep her alive, and actually care about her, then maybe I’d have a lot more sympathy for them
Liz rogers … I am sorry that you lost your friend. She didn’t deserve that fate nor the endless crap she has copped since.
We know a few things have changed since this post was written but we also know a few things have not.
We know, for instance, that this has moved beyond an inquest, that justice is being done, and that the jury has returned one charge of manslaughter for Mark Wilhelm and has again retired to consider the other charge that it could not reach agreement on.
We know that knowing that, Gordon is a misogynist troll who thought he could take the opportunity to slander a dead woman by inference, after the jury had returned said verdict yesterday. Why else the timing of his comment?
We know that Gordon has not read nor understood that the post is about gender stereotyping and its uselessness, by virtue of the fact that he recycles a few of his own personal favourite stereotypes. Which is why Gordon is here. To tell us about female whoredom. Well really. Why not quote the entire book of Ezekiel next time? It would at least be more complex and interesting that this rubbish.
Gordon, I know you think this is the exit ramp from which you get to climb out of the primordial soup you have been swimming in all these long lonely years. But it’s not. You have to grow a spine first. Come back when your one cell has multiplied a few trillion times.
After following instructions from the judge, the the jury has failed to reach a verdict over the second charge and was dismissed. The prosecution is expected to go for a retrial.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/jury-unable-to-reach-verdict-over-dianne-brimbles-death-20091020-h5wf.html
For Fran:
See…you see the world in gender. Its Us and them for you. Do you think that men don’t also judge their self worth based on their ability to attract women. Of course they do and of course women do too. This is because its only natural. We are human beings and part of being human is being a sexual being. So, from a psychological/biological level our ability to attract a mate would certainly have an impact on our self worth. Thats perfectly normal. The key is to balance that out with your other good qualities. Don’t try to be above being a human. Feminists are so funny. Why would even be striving to be autonomous. shouldn’t we be striving to be able to exist together more harmoniously. Wow…now its so clear why there are such problems in male/female relationships. LOL. Its cos men are trying hard to learn to get a long with women, while women are trying hard to be “autonomous”.
For Helen:
I fully agree that she didn’t deserve to die. nobody does.
Typical of women to totally blow what I said way out of proportion and than exaggerate it. LOL.
I said what I said about women having lots of sex on these cruises only because others were trying to stipulate that she was definitely raped and murdered, when the truth is we don’t know this at all. If she does choose to have group sex or whatever, that is her choice and I’m not judging her for that. but don’t try to play the same poor weak innocent girl card when it suits.
My point is that is a bloke had gone on a cruise and slept with 5 girls and then died of an overdose I doubt there would even be an inquiry. It is a very sad event, but she is not a child and IF she did take the drugs on her own accord, then no one but her is responsible. I do feel for her family a great deal.
For Elaine:
No, in gordons world taking the morning after pill with you on a cruise would imply that you planned to have unprotected sex on the cruise (exactly what i said in the first place..LOL) Whether she consented to having sex with those guys is exactyl what the enquiry is set up to investigate.
Of course date rape is still rape. You may all think I’m some kind of women hater…but thats way wrong. If I ever see a man abusing a woman in anyway, I’m the first to jump in there. But I don;t like the double standards that do exist today. If the inquiry finds that these guys drugged her, raped her and then she died then I hope they receive the maximum punishment. If however, they were engaging in so called sleazy behaviour, which she was happy to join in, then they should receive no punishment.
These guys don’t have a duty of care toward her. SHE has a duty of care towards herself. If I meet some guys and party with them, then take some drugs and die, it would only be my fault. End of story. Oh…but if I am a chick then its everyone elses fault. LOL.
From what it sounds like…these guys were low lives with pretty poor manners. It also sounds like she chose to party with them. but who knows…lets see what the verdict is.
Nah. It’s because the women refuse to accept the existence of men or cease their constant barrage of terrorist katyusha rocket attacks on our male peaceful villages. Once the women renounce political violence and accept a two-State solution on the 1967 borders we can talk about scaling back the settlements.
“I wonder if Gordon understands that date rape is RAPE. No one under the influence of that quantity of drugs (whether she took them willingly or not is irrelevant) is capable of informed consent.”
Firstly, no one knows how much quantity of drugs she had taken.
Secondly, that is complete bullshit. You don’t go to a cabin with 5 guys at 4am and take Fantasy without thinking that you are going to have sex.
Look we don’t know much of the real details and that is what the enquiry will decide. But I’m just tired of these feminist views that as soon as something happens to a woman it must be the guys fault. Lets find out what realy happened.
“Nah. It’s because the women refuse to accept the existence of men or cease their constant barrage of terrorist katyusha rocket attacks on our male peaceful villages. Once the women renounce political violence and accept a two-State solution on the 1967 borders we can talk about scaling back the settlements.”
LOL
“We know that knowing that, Gordon is a misogynist troll who thought he could take the opportunity to slander a dead woman by inference, after the jury had returned said verdict yesterday. Why else the timing of his comment?
We know that Gordon has not read nor understood that the post is about gender stereotyping and its uselessness, by virtue of the fact that he recycles a few of his own personal favourite stereotypes. Which is why Gordon is here. To tell us about female whoredom. Well really. Why not quote the entire book of Ezekiel next time? It would at least be more complex and interesting that this rubbish.
Gordon, I know you think this is the exit ramp from which you get to climb out of the primordial soup you have been swimming in all these long lonely years. But it’s not. You have to grow a spine first. Come back when your one cell has multiplied a few trillion times.”
Casey:
Firstly..LOL.
Secondly..turning to insults…hmmm typical.
Rtrd…the article you showed us did not mention anything about the jury returning one charge of manslaughter. In fact I would suspect that would be the charge they could not come up with a decision on. the other charge of supplying a drug is more likely to be found guilty.
Misogynist…LOL. that I am not..unless all women are feminist one sided haters who thikn they world owes them something for being born a woman. I had no intention to slander Dianne Brimble. As I have said a million times, nobody really knows what happened on that cruise accept those that were on the cruise. So, why is it that all the women here are suddenly jumping to their “date rape” conclusions and even hysterically enough “murder” conclusions??? That is all my beef is with.
As for my so called “stereo types”, I don’t really care how a woman decides to behave sexually. thats her own choice. All, I’m saying is that don’t try playing the “innocent mother” card when it suits you if you choose to lead a certain life. Now, I’m not saying dianne Brimble did choose a certain life. This is something that I would not know and neither would you. Oh, I forgot, you;re a feminist…you are powerful and know everything. LOL.
why don’t you stop being a feminist and spreading your fear, hatred and insults. Just learn to love yourself for what you are and try to co-exist with men.
As far as the gender stereo typing…we are different and we should just learn to understand our differences and accept it.
gordon, if you notice, I did not specify gender in my comment.
I said ‘no one’.
Of course there is a duty of care in a situation where drugs are being consumed. If your friend/acquaintance is lying unconscous from taking drugs and you know what he or she has taken then it is your responsibility to get help for them. Or you reckon he or she should just be left on the floor whilst you get your mates in to point and laugh and have sex whith him or her?
Elaine:
If you read more about the case you would have read that as soon as Wilhelm realised she was in trouble he tried to resuscitate her then he went and called for help. But, yes, at the end of the day you are responsible for your actions. YOU decided to take the drugs. It would be really good if people around helped you if you got in trouble, but the blame for taking the drugs lies solely on you. Life is about choices we make…and YOU are the only one who lives with the repercussions of your choices.
again, I will emphasize that if a guy was in the same situation there wouldn’t even be an inquest or trial. or if she had taken the drugs with some girlfriends. It would just be another sad story. This certainly is a sad story. So to me the only really question of justice would be to ask whether these guys had forced the drugs on her or raped her.
Gordon,
From yesterday.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/19/2717720.htm
Yes Casey,
It says nothing about reaching a verdict on the manslaughter charge.
Are you able to read?
Or do you have super fast reading feminist powers, that have obviously failed ;
by the way, its really interesting to see how the women in this forum have turned to nasty so quickly, considering that my posts have not been aimed at insulting or offending anyone.
Correct.
But enough of me. Did you read what the post was about? Tell me what you think of Darlene’s premise that recycling stereotypes, like you just did, fails to get us any any closer to what happened. Either the “virgin princess” ones you are rejecting or the “mother of all whores” one you are reinforcing. While disavowing your reinforcement.
Correct.
But enough of me. Did you read what the post was about? Tell me what you think of Darlene’s premise that recycling stereotypes, like you just did, fails to get us any any closer to what happened. Either the “virgin princess” ones you are rejecting or the “mother of all whores” one you are reinforcing. While disavowing your reinforcement.
Could it have been the culture of their particular martial art?!? Weren’t they mostly martial arts buddy’s?!?
“Nevertheless, we have to wonder how much it progresses the status of women when we’re infantilised and/or desexualised.
None of this is to argue that women aren’t different sexually from men; but that recycling the sexual stereotypes of the past won’t necessarily get us any closer to the truth of what happened on the night Dianne Brimble lost her life.”
I fully agree with Darlene’s second line. this is exactly what I have been saying the whole time! All that matter is the facts of whether she was drugged without choice and raped. The sexual stereo types are of no importance to reaching a verdict in this case.
At any rate, when Leo Silvestri, one of the eight “men of interest”, spewed out statements like “ugly fat dog” and “…I didn’t want to speak to her…breath, yuck, ugly dog, just go talk to someone else. Ring the RSPCA” in relation to the deceased, and by inference about women in general, it said everything about how insecure and shallow he is and nothing about Brimble.
Funnily enough Darlense is happy to mention the stereo type of the men involved.
What??
What stereotype?
I think its a fair assessment of someone based on their comments. You know specific to person and the situation, which is the opposite of a stereotype, if you actually think about it.
Quoting his words directly is not stereotyping him Gordon.
Are you sure you know what stereotyping is?
Snap.
Well, I agree with Darlene as far as she goes.
Could it not be the case that Ms Brimble was a hard working person, a loving mother, deservedly well liked by her friends, who decided to take some drugs and have some sex, may even have done so before when she didn’t have a shift the next day and the kids were taken care of, and died essentially of “misadventure”, or even “something’ll get you sooner or later”?
Allegations of drink spiking have not been taken to trial. The legal case re manslaughter seems to turn on when Wilhelm realised she needed help and how quickly he acted.
I’m sorry, I’ve just been reminded of silly stereotypes encountered in court about “drug people” (ie potentially about half the population).
Don’t do GHB kids.
“Don’t do GHB in the company of sexual predators who will use and abuse you and leave you to die kids.”
Just adding some nuance.
It could be, sean, tho from where I sit the people she was with are at the very least untrustworthy, in that you couldn’t trust them to do the right thing if you OD on some drug they allegedly supply you. And who knows really what happened. People give other people GHB to asssist in getting laid sometimes. That isn’t date rape by definition, and the fact that sometimes people consent to have sex after taking drugs doesn’t mean that date rape doesn’t happen either. Taking GHB at 5 in the morning with 4 or 5 blokes isn’t automatically an invitation to a consenting gangbang, tho it might be, in some circumstances. When someone ends up dead, or simply complains about it for that matter, it deserves proper investigation.
The drug war is a factor in this too.
Is allowing Diane Brimble the expectation that she could take drugs and be looked after sending the wrong message? is that why her fmily have had to be so strident in her defense, cos they know she was a good person whether she took drugs or not, but taking drugs is obviously a sign of some character flaw? (Of course it isn’t but most media discussion of recreational drug use implies some sort of pathology or inherent evil or something else thats “bad”.)
And more importantly would she still be alive if GHB wasn’t illegal?
“And more importantly would she still be alive if GHB wasn’t illegal?”
Good question.
Food for thought, it is certainly not a good look all this talk about Ladettes who drink until they spew but the problem is a general lack of morals brought about by a society that drinks too much. Fielding is right in that we should be breaking the link between sport and alcohol: it is a no-brainer but all war-machines sell drugs so I can’t see it happening.
I hate the thought that her death would be used as some sort of rallying cry for a legalisation movement. But the question won’t go away either.
Every time someone ODs on recreational drugs, (or any illegal drug for that matter) I wonder about that. Especially in the context of Christopher Pyne’s comments about drug testing kits at raves and nightclubs sending the wrong message.
Anyway, someone claiming to be Diane Brimble’s friend is posting on this thread, so I dunno how comfortable I feel going on about this particular line of thought. I don’t think anyone should be judged on their drug use, but I also don’t know enough about what actually happened to even claim she willingly took those drugs.
Her family could read what we write here. They are probably having a hard enough time with all this. And they are the only ones who really know her.
Its not our place to judge her, or her actions before her death.
(If anything its our place to judge what happened to her.)
Could it have been the culture of their particular martial art?!? Weren’t they mostly martial arts buddy’s?!?
Keithy, that is an interesting take and I sincerely hope not. My 12-year old son goes to TKD twice a week and I am very impressed by the civil atmosphere of his dojo and the fact that boys and girls / men and women do it together (and the Olympic aspirant, who I think might make it into the next Games, is a woman.) I’m also impressed by the way they teach kids to interact. Of course there could be subcultures within Martial Arts which totally counter this. But the place does give me some hope.
Food for thought, it is certainly not a good look all this talk about Ladettes who drink until they spew but the problem is a general lack of morals brought about by a society that drinks too much. Fielding is right in that we should be breaking the link between sport and alcohol: it is a no-brainer but all war-machines sell drugs so I can’t see it happening.
Interestingly, neither you nor Gordon have condemned the men for drinking till they spewed and drug- and risk- taking.
Gordon, if you can’t pick up on the very strong Madonna/Whore theme in your description of Brimble’s death, there’s very little to be gained from dialogue with you.
Helen, @ 59, I’m sure your Tai-kwon Do class is excellent but I seem to remember there being a link to a particular martial art that was not Tai-kwon do and there are definately some immoral teachers out there who do EVERYTHING BUT teach their students the confidence to walk away! Also, as I’m sure you know, there is a difference between combat sports and traditional martial arts: then you get all the shades of the rainbow in-between! Where do the criminal set learn the skills to get out of an inconveniently occupied house?!?
Helen @ 60: I’m condemning a society that drinks until it spews! Something is very wrong and this, IMHO, is why the terrorists are coming! We had better figure it out or we will end up in flames: or worse!
Waste of Court time and money. She was not a fit person to take her daughte on board the boat. She has a husband, boyfriend and still wanted a good time on the boat. Maybe she had the drugs. Where was young daughter while her drunken mother was carrying on with strangers she certainly set no example. Jury should have dismissed the case immediately and not hung it out.
No no no. This will not do.
The world turns in an afternoon, I go to hospital and back, and this thread is still infested with persons who are intent on blaming a woman who is dead for not being the right kind of woman. And that’s the problem. An older matronly looking woman (she was not after all Brit Lapthorne who was just a girl) A woman with a daughter (and a deficient mother at that to leave her daughter and consider her own needs) A woman with an ex husband who,inexplicably, stands by her memory (even when she cuckolded him, or someone else or whatever), a woman who still had the audacity to want to have fun in whatever way she chose( pills, morning after pills, pill pills). And this is the crux of the censure. She broke out of all the stereotypes and she broke all the unwritten rules that this curious assemblage here are reinscribing in a post which sought to deconstruct them them at the inquest stage.
But there is no point to an serious rebuttal when the quality of discourse lends itself to such lunacy that a) Gordon doesn’t even get what a stereotype is. b) KeiTHY (eh? what’s with that?) thinks the terrorists are coming because of Diane Brimble’s behaviour or something and c) Taxpayer does some Howard retro jive and and tells us how Diane Brimble blew his hard earned money on too many men and a court case. (There will be a retrial Tazpayer. More of your money will burn before this is done.)
And it’s not even a full moon.
Oh I just saw your comment. You know what Gordon, you can choose whatever charge you like because that has not been made public. Me, Im sticking with manslaughter – because I want to see how many times you can say “retard” and show yourself up for the floating jellyfish you are. You do realise that is not an insult right? You get that don’t you? The politics of it all? Do not be so naive as to think that people cannot read what you are really saying about Dianne Brimble and your not so hidden agenda to defend the poor excuses for human beings that treated her like a piece of dirt. Like that isn’t disgusting.
“Interestingly, neither you nor Gordon have condemned the men for drinking till they spewed and drug- and risk- taking.
Gordon, if you can’t pick up on the very strong Madonna/Whore theme in your description of Brimble’s death, there’s very little to be gained from dialogue with you.”
Helen:
I had only simply stated the facts as they were given to the public and made no judgement on Brimble for taking drugs or having groups sex while in a relationship. Although I probably should have.
And by the way, i did not condemn either Brimble or the men she was with for drinking so much. That was someone else.
Casey:
All of your talk her is so illogical and stupid.
You think you are so smart and know it all. LOL. But you have absolutely no logic in any of the paragraphs you wirte and instead just resort to ridicule.
FDB:
Quite Right. My mistake…that was not stereo-typing.
What makes those men sexual predators and not her?
The reason why these “stereo types” about women were brought up in the case, is because they are relevant in determining whether it is likely that Brimble was sexually assaulted and forced to take the drugs or whether the sex was consensual and she took the drugs by her own choice.
Now get over it all you over sensitive one sided feminists.
The only reason I mention Brimble’s possible intention of having sex, linked to the fact that she took the morning after pill, was because that was relevant to the case of whether she was forced into sex or not. This is also the only reason that I mention that lots of women have a secret life behind their partners back. the reason is not to “judge” them, but I mentioned it because it is relevant in questioning the fact of whether the sex was consensual or not.
I had a very close friend of mine die from a drug overdose. I would love to blame the people he was with for what happened. Better yet, I would blame the people who made the drugs. But really at the end of the day…it is just a tragedy that happened and stabbed a lot of people in the heart. If you take illicit drugs you are taking a risk.
Casey:
I’m not defending the guys. I have said in my earlier posts that these guys are probably disgusting sleaze bags. But why does that not make Brimble one too if sshe chose to have sex with them? hmmmm.
Where’s your logic?
I just beleive in fairness and equality and not being one-sided based on gender of the victim.
From the inquest, apparently Wilhelm tried to resuscitate her when he found her, then he called for help.
Having sex with someone does not make someone a disgusting sleaze bag. How you treat them or how you fail in your duty of care to them which results in their death makes someone the most disgusting kind of sleaze bag. So no, Dianne Brimble and those men are they are not the same. Dianne Brimble is dead, she has not just been through a trial to find out if she was guilty of manslaughter. She will not have to go to court again just because the jury could not agree on both charges. But Mark Wilhelm will. But you don’t get a single thing.
Let’s look at your logic from your first post as an example:
1) You give a hypothetical which infers that Dianne Brimble has been given special consideration because she is a woman. And only because she is a woman.
2) Therefore, in your second point, you suggest this proves to the world at large that men and women are treated differently. And women get a better deal. Which of course they do not.
3) You say “Fantasy, is not just a “date-rape” drug. It is used as a recreational party drug, like ecstacy.” What does this have to do with anything? You are making another inference about Brimble again aren’t you?
4) You say “Dianne Brimble had obtained a prescription of morning after pilll just prior to the cruise, obviously showing intentions of having sex on board.” So fucking what? Did she want to die after she had sex?
5) You say “Many women go on these cruises and other such parties to have sex with men. Let’s stop pretending that women are saints. I know for a fact of many so called, “good wives” that have a secret life of sex and drugs. Its a shame, but not realy relevant to the case. Unless of course women and men are different sexually”
And here is your stereotype. Look at the sentence I bolded. Looks personal to me Gordon. Good wives with secret sex lives who take drugs. Could be a segment from Today Tonight really. Saints who are really whores. Now how do you say it? LOL. With your continual return to this aspect of the stereotype one wonders what demons must drive you Gordon. It is interesting isn’t it, that both her long term partner and her ex husband are standing by her her memory with such fortitude. They have both vowed to continue to fight for justice for Dianne. You should look to them for a clue as to the qualities of the woman. She was much loved and much esteemed.
Therefore your only logic, if there is any in your skewed little ideas of the relations between men and women, is to sully the name of the dead woman and to negate the behaviour of the men involved.
You are a misogynist. And misogynists are by their very nature irrational. This is why you LOL in inappropriate places. That is why you have not understood a single thing anyone has said to you. This is why you seem to think “stereotype” is spelt “stereo type”. It’s not two words. It’s not a sound system. Check the dictionary. You are not arguing from intellect at all but from some preconceived idea of woman as deficient. That is why I called you misogynist from my first comment to you. I very rarely attack first go. But I will continue to do so with you. You can say LOL all the times you like, you will still be a misogynist, albeit with a delicate IQ.
I see you’ve been on other threads spreading your happy wimmenz hating as you go.
Have fun, You won’t last too long. People will just end up ignoring you. Or moderating you for trolling.
Or worse. Just laughing at you.
Which is what you should be really scared of, little man. Cause we are about to move into that phase right about now. I see Paulus has taken the first shot. Now that’s when the real stoush begins.
The trial was a waste of money but not for the reasons cited by the oh-so-empathetic Taxpayer.
On the facts as presented the defendant Wilhelm should never have been convicted of manslaughter. The jury, collectively, arrived at the correct decision. He could have been convicted on the lesser charge but the manslaughter charge muddied the waters.
The persons in Brimble’s company when she died were more liable to prosecution than Wilhelm. Yet they were granted immunity for rolling over on Wilhelm. Mystifying.
Questions should be asked about the competency of the DPP in framing those charges.
(Who in their right minds would volunteer to go on a cruise with such persons?)
LOL…you are so funny Casey. And quite thick too. Very thick in fact.
for your info, my arrogant feminist friend, my last IQ test came in with a result of 127.
SO I will repeat myself for you, since you seem quite slow at comprehending written words.
The reason I talked about “sex-life” and the morning after pill is to simply show that it is possible that Brimble intended to have sex on the cruise ship. I mentioned this, because someone had allegated that she was raped. I’m not judging her for choosing to this, but it is relevant to know when deciding whether she did any of the things she did not of her free will.
fuck you are retared aren’t you?
The reason I mentioned fantasy is not only a date rape drug and also used as a recreational drug, is because someone here was suggesting that it is only a “date-rape” drug and therefore Brimble was raped.
See Katz is completely right. Wilhelm should never have even been in court.
My only point is that for some reason, in our society when something like this happens to a woman, society feels the need to make a big hoohah about it. Of course these guys tried to get out of it. they were in possession of illegal drugs.
Call me what you like…I’m just calling it as I see it.
YOU are the one with a huge chip on your shoulder. Perhaps you feel inferior to men, didn’t have a good male role model in your life or something. I’m talking purely from a legal and logical point of view and all you can see is “Women V Men”.
Now, I’m done talking to your stupid arrogant ass. By the way, before you quote something as a fact from a news article, learn to read properly first.
I want to see all the allegators in my office. It’s an effen’ zoo around here.
And the crocodiles too, Sean.
Gordon’s sheer idiocy has some entertainment value, however.
LOL..so I made a little grammatical error. Wow. did it make your day nerd?
did it make you feel so smart? lol.
Perhaps I should have said “someone had made the allegation”. Wow…who cares.
Unless you want to be petty, probably cos u got nothng else.
I’m not gonna respond to some nerd who wants to pick a beef with me for the way i wrote what i wrote. Cos, I’m not exactly spell checking or grammar checking what i write here, cos it doesn’t really matter, unless you are so childish and petty. the point i am making is what matters. so, if you wanna say something about that, then please do.
Should I be surprised that Gordon has arrived at this conclusion on the basis of my comments?
It did Gordon, but then I’m having a pretty crappy day so there’s not much competition. I didn’t intend to be too mean, that neologism of yours (or whatever it is) is a famous piece of senior-NCO-speak (a “WO-ism”) from the army* & thus made me laugh. You “LOL” a lot so lighten up about yourself.
As to your point, it strikes me that you are not actually far from Darlene’s original intent, except that you couch your argument in terms of men as victims and anti-feminism, which gets peoples backs up.
PS: correct usage is “alleged”.
*”There’s been allegations of bad morale in this unit and I wanna see all the allegators outside my tent at 1800.”
“for your info, my arrogant feminist friend, my last IQ test came in with a result of 127.”
Since it seems the bar has been lowered already on politeness around here, I’m just going to go right out on a limb and call bullshit on that.
A man walks into a milk bar, around lunchtime, demands of the lady behind the counter…..”Give me an alligator, sandwich, love — and make it snappy!”
Yer, all right, yours is far better and not so old, Sean. I must remember it.
Ok petty boy.
Anyway, I do feel sad for Dianne Brimble and especially have a lot of sympathy for a family. So I hope she rests in peace.
I’ve said what I think, which was not meant to be about Dianne Brimble, but more so about the legal facts of the case and social culture.
Peace to all you guys on this forum…even the feminists
Jeez, I’m really bright and I don’t think I get to 120. Who cares, anyway.
Wilhelm, btw has got off probably. Legal experts say he’s unlikely to go to a re-trial on the manslughter charge, though he might be convicted on supplying a dangerous drug.
My fave Gordon was this wondrous imagining…..
“Say, a man had slept with 5 women and died of a drug overdose. I don’t think there would be much sympathy for him at all.”
In my mind it would be a case of ‘incredulity’ rather than ’sympathy’ for more than one reason.
Well, he shoulna used Spanish Fly.
[Runs and hides.]
You are a naughty boy P.Burns and we saw you.
Katz,
Police and CPs can get quite enthusiastic, being people. Their prejudices colour their conclusions, being people. Look up above, as people in disagreement try to find ways to be right. When the facts change (ie the evidence did not much the assumptions), people here tried to hold on to their positions anyway. Silvestri’s comments to police were sexist and racist, and Wilhelm was obviously a root-rat at the time, so people “concluded” that Wilhelm was essentially a stone cold rapist killer, devoid of shame or human feeling.
People are always asking at dinner how you can defend people in court. I can rarely be arsed answering in depth. But there’s your answer.
Taxpayers pay for professional services of prosecutors. Taxpayers are entitled expect that those professional prosecutors maximise the chances of a conviction regardless of their personal prejudices.
Without knowing all the details, it would appear from “both her long term partner and her ex husband are standing by her memory with such fortitude” that Dianne was a lovable person and they feel badly about what happened. For that reaction to come from past partners, speaks volumes about her.
Regardless of whether Dianne fully realised what was about to happen to her (one would very much doubt it), she was freely socialising with scum of the earth. However, I don’t think that gives these guys the right to dose her up, watch her die, and not take strenuous action to save her.
If it were a total accident – totally voluntary overdose and totally voluntary gang-bang – then they would be more likely horrified to be involved in the death of someone whose company they had enjoyed. They would have done everything in their power to get help for her. Their numerous revolting comments reeked of guilty “justification” of their actions.
The whole business still stinks. As does the actions of the cruise ship management in covering up a suspicious death. Regardless of fancy legal jargon, if those guys all get off with a slap on the wrist, then it would not represent natural justice.
Katz, the DPP generally do their best, know their stuff, are fair. Membership of a profession does not confer god-like mental perfection, unfortunately – you’ve some experience of me by now, and I’ve been in 2 of the 3 professions, so you know this to be true.
Most of us don’t see our prejudices as such after all, rather holding them to be common sense, worldly realism, moral rectitude or intuition. Elise for eg with the best of intentions and a good heart, has engaged all 4 of those above in 4 short paragraphs, and has completely ignored the evidence in order to do so. I wouldn’t expect a CP to be that irrational, but they remain human.
See this was my whole beef to begin with.
People just seemed to be making up their own assumptions and stories about what happened and not looking at the evidence and facts.
Why do this?? hmmmm..like i said its probably because a woman died.
The only question is whether she took the drugs of her own accord. People don’t get sent to jail simply for being seedy.
Hell yes.
On the other hand, I thought Taxpayer made Gordon look quite good for a moment or two. LOL.
Sean, reread Elise’s comment 86 para 3. It’s a perfectly dispassionate and accurate description of the case. Duty of care and lack of care. I can’t imagine how you could possibly spin that comment as “prejudice” in any way, other than, perhaps, your own prejudice against another commenter you perceive as feminist.
When it all comes down to it, we did not sit in on this case and hear all the evidence. We relied on the jury to make up their mind on the two grounds for a prosecution that the dpp had concluded were worth running.
For reasons I do not understand the whole case was to stand or fall on clear verdicts for both charges. Why would this guy not be found ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ of the one charge the jury agreed on (and we are not certain whether that was the manslaughter or drug supply charge) and at least have that matter dealt with?
Still, despite my failure to understand it ,that’s the way it is all organised. When you also add in the work of the police, judge and other agents it is in fact what “natural justice”(as mentioned @86) is all about. Things may not turn out the way we, including Elise, would like but I am not mad keen on a move to verdict via blog or shock jock to replace it.
I don’t want to sound trite but surely this is the point of the inquiries taking place, to reveal the truth. If they can.
The broader point about gender roles in the mainstream press reminds me of Anne Summers work of many moons ago, which I guess shows how hard it is to change institutionalised social attitudes when they are constantly reinforced by the mainstream media.
“Innocent” and “guilty” are used ambiguously here.
Certainly, from a moral point of view, one would hope that the persons who failed to render assistance to Brimble might feel guilty about their callous behaviour.
However, from a strictly legal point of view, which imposes a much sterner test of guilt, it is far more difficult to convict. Being a brutish sleaze is not a criminal offence.
As I suggested above, on the face of it Wilhelm would appear to have played less a role in the death of Brimble than his companions who were granted immunity in return for turning crown witnesses against Wilhelm.
In terms of legal “duty of care” it would be difficult to construct a case that two persons involved in a criminal act — voluntary ingestion of illegal substances — owed a duty of care to each other.
Such a duty of care has another legal name — conspiracy.
Helen, the third paragraph is a collection of factual errors, conclusions that don’t follow from the premise, unfounded assumptions about others’ states of mind, and is anything but dispassionate.
The evidence is that Ms Brimble was “fine” (although behaving in an uncharacteristic way) for quite some time after taking the drug. The police taped phone conversations between Wilhelm and Kuchel, and Wilhelm said that, the drug being fast acting, he therefore had no reason to think she was in trouble with it. She later went to sleep in Silvestri’s bed. Wilhelm (who was at least as wasted as the deceased, remember) assuming her to be asleep, left the room at one point. When he did become worried, he woke Silvestri and they tried to wake her up. When that didn’t work they called for medical help. It does not therefore follow that they forced the drug onto her OR stood around watching her die.
There is no legal duty to rescue, either.
“Natural justice” means that one has the right to know the case against you, to see all the evidence, to answer it in front of someone who is not interested in the outcome etc. It does not mean we can gaol Wilhelm because his mate Silvestri is apparently such a total fucknuckle.
Elise is probably right that all of the interviews show guilt – of having prohibited drugs. Silvestri’s comments are by far the worst. This is partly because of his personality, obvs. Also, though, the phone taps indicate that he scored the serious drug collection that the men took on the boat with them.
And let’s keep the personal animosity out of it shall we? It bores people. I apologised for calling you “dear” that time years ago.
Sean said: “When he did become worried, he woke Silvestri and they tried to wake her up. When that didn’t work they called for medical help.”
Sean have you forgotten that Kuchel testified to the coroner that in between trying to rouse Ms Brimble and calling for medical help, Wilhelm and Silvestri washed her body and dressed her in her clothes? The only reasonable inference to be drawn from that is that it was more important to them to cover up the fact that she’d been undressed and not clean, than to get medical attention as soon as possible.
Laura, they tried to wake her up by putting her in the shower, but yes they obviously knew they were in trouble re the drugs. Repeat observations above about prohibition.
Sean @ 96 – Similar reasons behind why they have awareness campaigns for drug users saying that calling an ambulance for a friend who has overdosed does not necessarily mean the police are involved. There have been many instances of people not calling for help in time or at all because they fear police involvement. AFAIK they don’t get charged for not helping or delaying to clean up before calling for help.
“AFAIK they don’t get charged for not helping or delaying to clean up before calling for help.”
Perhaps it’s assumed that the incredible wrongness of valuing your own reputation/liberty over someone’s life will be plain, and the guilt enough punishment.
When those (ir-)responsible display no remorse, and in this case much worse, perhaps punishment is appropriate.
It was a very public display of no remorse and lack of care, though who knows what they really feel. Kind of hard to write as a law though and most people would soon learn to just fake it. Probably not uncommon in other cases of overdoses either but they don’t get so much media publicity.
Innocent or guilty a high profile trial is a punishment as well. And very public bad reputation is what they’ve all ended up with.
@ 77, it probably did but the thing is you aren’t supposed to practise IQ tests lest they become irrelevant!
KeIThY @100, in that case are they really measuring what they claim to measure?
And let’s keep the personal animosity out of it shall we? It bores people. I apologised for calling you “dear” that time years ago.
I agree it’s boring, but can I just clarify that one. I am claiming that (in my opinion, and you and others may differ) you have an aversion to comments you perceive as feminist, and that is based on a long period of interaction on LP and on my own blog. Feminism is not a personal quality, neither is antifeminism. I am not trying to ad hominem you in just pointing out that your remarks are coloured by antifeminism. That is a comment on your ideological standpoint, much like saying that Martin FErguson is not likely to be thrilled by a comment from a Deep Green standpoint. Anythihg you may have called me years ago doesn’t really register on my consciousness.
Elise, it’s a curly one for sure! A bit like body language or employers checking your handwriting: you can read too much into these things but they obviously say something. I think practising them can do the same for you as a crossword: wharpen your own mind but the results from the person who practises them makes their results become less and less relevant when trying to compare the intelligences of a cross section of people.
All else being equal, nup.
Oh man…wanted to stay out of it..but can’t help myself.
I have an aversion to any comment that is not fair or make sense or is made up.
And it seems that many of the feminists here seem to make up stuff to make their point. then they add in a few insults to seem smarter. Stick to the trurh.
It seems the feminists keep on making up their own version of what happened and even new laws to deal with it. I call u feminists because you are so obviously out of balance with the things posted.
Duty of care is an interesting subject. Usually a provider of a service or product has a duty of care to its patron or customer. A bunch of guys sharing drugs do not have a legal duty of care to each other. Are you smarties really any smart? Or just good with your vocabulary (said in a snutty kind of voice).
Again, the only question is whether Brimble was forced to have the drugs and the sex. If thats the case I would be the first to want to give these fools a good bashing and let em cop what they deserve.
Supposedly, Wilhelm and his mate tried to resuscitate her, then they went for help. Of course they were reluctant too…they knew they would be in trouble for drugs.
Another point relating to the original poster. These “stereotypes” (OMG have to watch my spelling or the smarties will be thrilled to point out an error) were brought up for a purpose. In trying to decide whether wilhelm and crew had drugged her and raped her they needed to know whether she was the kind of person that would have been involved ina situation like this of her own accord. Besides, if she was forced to go to their cabin i’m sure they would have video evidence from the ship showing this. Wait..people are are now going to say that just because a woman goes to a cabin shared by 5 guys after 4am at night this doesnt mean she wants to have sex. Yeah, she went in for tea and scones with guys that look pretty much like city-style gangsters.
If you choose to use GHB – for fuck sake do not take it with alcohol. It is bad enough that illegal drugs on an illegal market are of an unknown purity and that lots of people take that risk. Do not mix it with any central nervous depressants really. It IS highly dangerous.
You could stop breathing. Just say KNOW.
With regards to preventing drink spiking –
1) If you go out drinking, ensuring one of your friends is sober not only saves you waiting for a taxi, but ensures there is someone there with your interests at heart to help to you make responsible decisions despite the ingestion of mind-altering substances such as alcohol. Sober people are more likely to notice the more sudden onset of the effects of a drink-spiking incident which can mimic extreme drunkeness.
2) Don’t accept drinks from strangers. Never tried it myself, but I’ve been told – by a recreational user not a drink-spiking victim; that GHB tastes “salty” and GBL (which seems to have replaced GHB for awhile on the illicit market during the early 2000’s but is metabolised into GHB) tastes “more minerally, but still salty”. This does not necessarily apply to other drugs that are used for date rape. If you suspect your drink has been spiked, do not drink it.
3) You can buy drug testing kits that test for the more common drugs used in date rape cases, that test not only for GHB, but others such as rohyphnol or ketamine. If you suspect drink spiking and date rape, it is important to seek medical attention urgently. GHB is metabolised within 24 hours, and I think impossible to detect in blood or urine after that, although I don’t know anything about hair testing.
4) Alcohol can also be a dangerous drug that gets people in unwanted situations. Drinking to excess with strangers or in an unsafe place, is a bad idea.
Disclaimer: Not a doctor of any kind. Never had GHB. Do your own research. Look out for one another.
The empty takeaway soy sauce bottles you see on the toilet floors of pubs and nightclubs (or did, I don’t know how common they are these days) most likely contained GHB. Unless the kiddies are buying LSD in bulk these days.
In trying to decide whether wilhelm and crew had drugged her and raped her they needed to know whether she was the kind of person that would have been involved ina situation like this of her own accord. Besides, if she was forced to go to their cabin i’m sure they would have video evidence from the ship showing this. Wait..people are are now going to say that just because a woman goes to a cabin shared by 5 guys after 4am at night this doesnt mean she wants to have sex. Yeah, she went in for tea and scones with guys that look pretty much like city-style gangsters.
No, drugging someone unconscious for the purpose of having sex with them is a crime.
No, because she might have intended to have sex with one or more of the people there doesn’t mean consent was given once she became unconsdcious; that was impossible.
You are using the popular meme that sexually promiscuous women are unrapeable. That is a popular myth, not a legal fact, as much as lawyers and sentencing judges allow it to corrupt the legal process.
Very true, though there’s no evidence that this happened to Ms Brimble, Helen. I don’t agree with Gordon’s ideas about ‘types of people’, and certainly not that sexually active women can’t be raped, but there’s no claim that anyone had sex with Ms Brimble while she was unconscious, nor that she was raped in any other sense.
If you want to say well, there’s no evidence, but look at what pigs they are, that’s the type of prejudice I was talking about above. Pre-judice, judgment before [the facts are considered]. You can’t judge someone guilty of a particular act based on the ‘type of person’ that they are, even if it’s your least favourite type.
Isn’t he getting acquitted or something on the most serious charge?
Helen, I don’t want to say anything about the case because I haven’t been following it close enough – I find it too sad. I see Ms Brimble’s family defending her honour like everyone else. And credit to them. She was not just the circumstances in which she died. She was a mother, a lover, a friend.
GHB is not just a date rape drug. Apart from its legal usage for treating sleeping disorders and its old discontinued use as an anaesthetic, it is used illegally in a variety of settings. It is used by weightlifters to promote muscle mass (GHB promotes REM sleep which stimulates natural production of hormones), it is used by recreational users to get high and at various times has been included in party drug surveys. It’s most likely demographic to use it are gay men who use other party drugs already. And it might be important to note at this stage, that its other reputed usage, is as an aphrodisiac. Dosage with GHB is very important and can lead to different body responses.
It’s actually a fascinating drug/nutrient.
Helen:
“No, drugging someone unconscious for the purpose of having sex with them is a crime.
No, because she might have intended to have sex with one or more of the people there doesn’t mean consent was given once she became unconsdcious; that was impossible.
You are using the popular meme that sexually promiscuous women are unrapeable. That is a popular myth, not a legal fact, as much as lawyers and sentencing judges allow it to corrupt the legal process.”
Firstly, I never suggested drugging someone is fine. It it illegal and should be punished. From a personal level I despise the kind of guy who would even think about spiking a girls drink and would love nothing more than to hand them some of my own justice. What I was saying is that the jury had to decide whether she was spiked or took it of her own accord, hence they needed to investigate her personal life to see whether she was the kind of person to have taken illicit drugs. Obviously they would also have checked the camera footage from the nightclub they were in, but finding out about someones personal life to find out if they are likely to take drugs is another method.
Next, I never suggested that because shye wanted to have sex with one or more people means that she is giving consent to anyone to have sex with her. We also have no clue whether she was unconscious while she had sex with Wilhelm. there is also no evidence to say that she had sex with anyone else. However, the jury would have obviously had to decide whether she was raped or wanted to have sex with wilhelm on her own accord, hence why the moring after pills were brought into the case. Again, if she was forced to the cabin, that evidence does not exist. So, lastly, you are suggesting that if someone is unconscious she /he cannot give consent. I guess you are right. But, there is no evidence showing that she was unconscious when she had sex.
You must be completely retarded or like Sean says filled with prejudice, in my opinion due to being a feminist. Thats sad. Possibly you are still young.
PS I don’t think Helen is “full of prejudice”. I think possibly her justified revulsion at Silvestri’s attitude and comments has caused her to judge Wilhelm guilty of something with which he was not even charged.
Depersonalising the argument for a minute, what if we were discussing a group of louts that stole a car and crashed it? Their “justification” included:
- that the car was an ugly, worthless heap of crap
- that the owner left it unlocked, so was asking for them to steal it
- that they were high on drugs at the time, so are not responsible for the crash
- that they eventually called a tow truck, after first trying to remove their fingerprints, and so therefore were blameless?
“Next, I never suggested that because shye wanted to have sex with one or more people means that she is giving consent to anyone to have sex with her.”
Actually, you did imply that. And I quote below.
“Wait..people are are now going to say that just because a woman goes to a cabin shared by 5 guys after 4am at night this doesnt mean she wants to have sex. Yeah, she went in for tea and scones with guys that look pretty much like city-style gangsters.”
But, I don’t think I want to keep posting in this thread, because as Laura alluded to somewhere, dealing with you is really a very unpleasant business.
I have also been impressed that both Dianne Brimble’s ex husband and her partner have fought so hard to get justice for her. It seems that she was a lovely lady, and this case is just so sad.
I have never been so shocked by anything as Silvestri’s comments. and the fact that he thought they were appropriate at an investigation into her death? Bizarre.
On the failure to get help – i thought they waited a while, then got some girls from down the hall a bit to peek in the doorway at her body, then messed around in the shower with her body. So quite bit of delaying.
On the madonna/whore thing…I dunno. I mean it is partly just not wanting to say ill of the dead I think, rather than a massive gender injustice. Just as we remember the best of people at funerals. And I am usually quite quick to spot a gender issue.
For Dianne’s family, I wish this case had been resolved already.
Elise:
I think the comparison you have just given is a bit irrational.
Stealing a car is illegal. Having sex with a woman is not.
you are making all kinds of calls about the character of the men involved by think that anyone who judges the character of brimble is evil.
Fine:
No, I implied that by going to wilhelms cabin after 4am from a night club suggested that she was going to have sex with him. That is completely seperate to the other thing i said. But anyway, carry on twisting words however you wish to make you righteous.
Yup, def IQ of 357.
Feisty little parsnip, isn’t he.
Driving a car is not illegal. Stealing a car is.
Having sex with a woman is not illegal. Having sex against her will is.
Brett:
No shit. Thats what the trial is about to find out. There is no evidence at all that he or anyone else had sex with her without consent. Whats wrong with you people…seeing things that dont exist and making stuff up.
If she didnt die she would probably be best buddies with those guys and had the night of her life.
In fact that is not even undre question.
A woman going to a man’s cabin at 4am must be doing so to have sex. Therefore consent must be implied by going to the cabin. Therefore she couldn’t have been raped as her initial action implies consent.
Your IQ is stratospheric, Gordon.
Come on, Fine, Brett. There is no evidence of rape in this case. If you know something factual that police & the DPP don’t, you should pipe up.
As Sean has indicated, Fine, you have misstated the agreed facts of this case. The jury has found that Brimble had consensual sex with Wilhelm. When and if she withdrew consent from any of her subsequent sex partners has not been tested. And now it never will be tested in a court of law.
Brimble’s subsequent sex partner(s) were granted immunity from prosecution in return for giving evidence against the person with whom Brimble did have consensual sex.
Mystifying.
Fine:
your comprehension skills are not very good.
this is what i said:
No, I implied that by going to wilhelms cabin after 4am from a night club suggested that she was going to have sex with him.
I did not say IT MUST DEFINITELY MEAN SHE IS GOING THERE FOR SEX. My sentence means what it says. I said it suggests this. But this is the kind of things the jury would consider, since there is obviously no video evidence showing her being forced to their cabin.
Besides, this is not even under contest at all, because obviously all available evidence suggets that she had consented to whatever sex took place. Another thing, i don’t even think that it is stipulated that she had sex with Silvestri. Shit…more and more stuff just keeps getting made up.
“The jury has found that Brimble had consensual sex with Wilhelm. When and if she withdrew consent from any of her subsequent sex partners has not been tested. And now it never will be tested in a court of law.”
The jury found this? Or did Justice Howie instruct them, saying “the sexual activity had nothing to do with the charges against Mr Wilhelm and there was no suggestion it was anything but consensual” . In other words the jury was not asked to consider this at all right?
If by the way, you say that “when and if she drew consent…has not been tested” then you cannot call them “subsequent sex partners” can you, because that (the word “partners”) implies consent, and as you say it has not been tested. Indeed the whole thing is stuff up and I agree with you when you suggest the whole thing has been mishandled and that there people, curiously, with immunity who might otherwise be before the courts.
Look, people are being taken for a ride by a concern troll who has reanimated a very old thread with a very solid agenda in mind which has nothing to do with the facts of the case.
The troll came on this thread, not to clarify facts of the case, but to recycle a set of stereotypes about women and to stand up for a group of men, who – whether they legally have a case to answer or not, – on an ethical level, should be consigned to the dustbin of humanity. I don’t think that is in dispute is it? If it is, then we have reached a new low in our standards of ethical and respectful behaviour towards each other in this country.
There has been a failure to distinguish what has stirred debate and what points are being argued – this being the stereotypes the troll has raised. I think you will find that Fine might be arguing to the stereotypes the troll is attempting to reinforce all the while declaring his sympathies for Brimble.
“If she didnt die she would probably be best buddies with those guys and had the night of her life.”
Did you see this final sentence? Yes, indeed, this surely shows how the concern troll wants Dianne Brimble to “rest in peace” as he claims. How respectful is this exactly to a woman who died in a most piteous way? A woman who had the misfortune to come into contact with those same men? Its his MO. You understand why he is here right? He makes a statement and then throws in an line which is filled with sexist inference. With respect, and I do mean that, because he is doing this, I suggest you and Sean separate yourselves from his odious agenda even as you comment on the the legal aspects which are always most welcome, at least by me.
Otherwise the troll, and this is what he is, is succeeding in wedging people who would normally agree with each other by muddying the water through his strategy of mixing his misogynist agenda in with the factual aspects.
Regarding the finding of the jury:
“Mr Wilhelm is charged with manslaughter on two grounds: that he supplied her with a dangerous, illegal drug, and that he was grossly negligent by failing to call medical assistance for someone to whom he owed a duty of care.”
Suppling someone with a dangerous illegal drug was part of the manslaughter charge they found him guilty of. But it was not a separate charge. It was intertwined with the greater part of the charge which they could not reach agreement on.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/brimble-case-centres-on-call-for-help-jury-told-20090915-fo22.html
Now little troll, I want to explain to you very slowly that it is not a devastating risposte to call someone a retard or to keep on telling them they have comprehension problems. You are denigrating a whole part of the population by attempting to use the word ‘retard’ as a pejorative term. It fails miserably because of that. Capish? It makes you look silly to keep on questioning the intelligence of everyone you dislike and it makes you look particularly foolish to respond to my flaming of you, by putting up the results of your Facebook IQ test. See?
Like I said to you: do not think people are not aware of your agenda. They would be best mates would they? You are exempting the behaviour of a bunch of sociopaths who did nothing to help her, and making light of the woman’s death in the process.
The judge made that direction only because the DPP declined to attempt to prosecute Wilhelm for rape. Given that the DPP indulged in a legal frolic in attempting to convict Wilhelm of manslaughter, it would appear to me that if the DPP thought it at all possible that Wilhelm might have been convicted of rape, the DPP would have charged Wilhelm with rape.
I am pleased that you agree with me that the case has been handled badly by the DPP.
They are sex partners unless and until the alleged rapist has been found guilty. This is called “presumption of innocence”. You may have heard of the concept. FWIW, I suspect that Wilhelm’s buddies got an undeserved free ride in this case. They may indeed have had a case to answer. But as I said above, we’ll never know now.
I believe that concern trolls are best quelled by a calm statement of reason rather than by reacting immoderately to their irrational overstatements with some irrational overstatements of your own.
I’m willing to concede I may be incorrect in this matter.
Sean and Katz I wasn’t commenting on the specifics of this case. I was commenting on the idea that when a woman goes to a man’s cabin, she can only be there for one reason.
And what Casey said.
Where are the irrational overstatements Katz?
Katz, what part of Casey’s well argued response to trolly-boy can be considered an “irrational overstatement”? Please give examples.
My moral view is that if Diane Brimble had led a risque lifestyle and it was proved she was more than willing to take the drugs offered, then there would be more responsibility on her, and less on the men. However, legally, it all comes down to what the men did after she became ill.
I wouldn’t think any less of her. I know people who live so-called highly moral lives that are a pain in the neck, and I know people who have hung from the chandelier on occasion in their lives, and they are much better company. And better people.
There is no evidence that Brimble was into drugs. No evidence that she led a wild lifestyle. The fact that she had an HIV test because of a fling, and that she bought morning after pills point in the opposite direction. A HIV test means the fling was a big deal to her. Morning after pills indicate that she wasn’t using contraceptives and therefore its safe to assume she didn’t have an active singles sex life prior to the holiday.
Another fact: after all these years there has not been a person come forward to say anything about her that would suggest she was into any sort of dangerous lifestyle. The opposite in fact.
There is nothing to suggest she went to the cabin to have a drug taking orgy with multiple partners. Only their testimony. And they are a bunch of hynenas. And they went after a vulnerable woman with no mercy in their hearts.
The thing that makes me boiling mad about this is the way the charges were organized you couldn’t have planned it better to get these scumbags off if you tried.
How is it you can charged with growing a single cannabis plant in your backyard, but you can push drugs onto a enebriated person that leads to their death and get off scott free?
And one more thing. When they showered her and dressed her, that was to cover up what they did to her, it wasn’t trying to revive her. After spaying water in her face they would have known a shower would do no good. How the fuck is dressing someone in that state helping them?
Sorry, is calling them sex partners then a legal term one has to apply when innocence is presumed? Or just your choice of words?
“Sex partners” isn’t a legal term.
No doubt there are several others that could be substituted to connote the fact that no crime is being alleged.
Any suggestions?
“it would appear to me that if the DPP thought it at all possible that Wilhelm might have been convicted of rape, the DPP would have charged Wilhelm with rape.”
So after instructing us all on the facts of the case, when I point out to you the facts of the case were – that the jury was instructed by Howie rather than came to a finding as you erroneously stated, you give us an “it would appear to me”?
But that’s not the kind of hard facts you like, it is just opinion. Not that I particularly disagree with it. All I said was that the jury did not consider it and that the jury was instructed. And I was correct. And you were not.
Yes. Here is a suggestion Katz. Clean up your sexist lexicon. “Sex partners” connotes consent when consent was not considered.
I’m prepared to concede that you are correct about fact that the judge instructed the jury to ignore any implications of rape.
What conclusion (if any) do you derive from the fact that the judge issued that instruction?
I would have to look at the full transcript to answer that question Katz. All I have is excerpt from the media like the one I linked to. I don’t have access to that. Perhaps you do. You might even put it up here so we can have a look.
Consent was presumed, as you have acknowledged.
It’s not my sexist lexicon. This is how the law works. Unless Brimble was a victim (in which case someone would have to be found guilty), she was a partner (or some other synonym).
To conflate my opinions with those of the criminal law is irrational.
Consent was presumed or not considered?
Presumed.
“….you can push drugs onto a enebriated person that leads to their death and get off scott free?…”
Indeed. On that part of what you say I agree, Brendon@132. Evidence was that she was given a dose that was 3 times the norm. Suggesting that the bloke that gave it to her was either malicious or incompetant. Again it’s back to what others mentioned earlier about the stupidity of drug criminalisation. More open knowledge on these matters would lead to less mistakes and clearer responsibilities.
I’d go for incompetent. But then again I’m one of those people that holds the view that to get into that situation, apart from being an incomparably disgusting sleazebag, you also have to be very bloody stupid.Sad to say, I think the latter part of that (very bloody stupid) applies to Diane Brimble as well, unfortunately. That of course, in no way excuses or mitigate the behaviour of the low-life men involved.
The thing that really bothers me about the way this case is playing out is that if the case is thrown out or not continued, what sort of message does that send out to the community? What kind of message a young men beiung given about the consequences of behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner?
1.Katz I believe the judge called it “sexual activity” which gives no direction or presumption that sex was consensual. He just said “it was not to be considered”. How does this then become “presumed”? Of course you may have more info or the full transcripts. If so please provide. If I am missing a point of law then I am not a lawyer. At what point was sexual activity presumed to be consensual that I missed?
2. The point is moot anyway. When you used the term ’sexual partners” you were referring to the other men, not Wilhelm. When I asked you if that was a legal term, you replied in the negative, therefore it was your choice of words, not the law’s. I called you on it and you tell me I am now conflating your opinion with that of the law. I am not, as you yourself admitted. BTW, feel free to voice your opinion.
And please provide examples from my respectful comment to you, on irrationality.
IMO, you are wrong in your opinion that dispassionate reason quells the troll. It’s like saying that cognitive behavioral therapy will work with a schizophrenic. Especially when you say nothing to dispassionately pull apart the misogyny. Especially when you dispassionately ignore it while attending to the legal aspects of the case. Epecially when you dispassionately overlook the intertwining of his statements of fact with the recycling of sexist stereotypes about women.
You either ignore them, which people have not done. Or you moderate them, which people have not done. In which case you flame them which I have done. And if I have broken comments policy doing it, well moderate me.
ButI do not resile from one single word.
The law is quite clear on this.
A sexual act is presumed to be consensual unless the court (either a jury or a judge acting alone) finds that the act is not consensual. Then the act is rape.
Consent cannot be coerced.
An unconscious person cannot give consent. (There are some complicating issues in these circumstances. And indeed Wilhelm’s buddies may have been liable to successful prosecution. The trial judge never made any instruction or ruling on these issues. It is possible that Wilhelm was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit rape. However, unless some other party to the conspiracy is also prosecuted, that action would fail or be thrown out on appeal. And as we know, the other defendants wree given immunity from prosecution.)
A person who is conscious cannot give consent to a person who has assumed another identity.
In Victoria a person under 16 years of age is incapable of giving consent. That age may differ in other states.
Here is Wikepedia’s discussion of the term “sexual partner”:
Is Wikipedia authoritatve? No. At best it represents some sort of rough consensus. However, it does suggest that the term “sexual partner” can be used to describe a wider range of sexual activity, including perhaps illegal sexual activity.
Note especially the highlighted section.
Do you have a better definition?
To joe2,
joe opening bars 24 hours hasn’t helped educating people about alcohol, thats for sure. Where I live in Melb, particularly. I don’t know that liberalizing drug laws is going to help in situations like this case.
I can remember some professor guy a decade or so ago down here blathering on about a kind of cool urbane cafe society where alcohollaws were restricted and Melbourne was going to be the Paris of wherever the hell it is we are. And he gave some report to our government. Instead of Paris we got more crime, street bashings, drug related crime, alcoholism etc…and the liquor barons got really rich. And thats what it was all about.
Yes. You could look to Justice Howie’s term of “sexual activity” between two or more people and still maintain the integrity of presumption of innocence principle without connoting or denoting jack. Wiki does not go into a feminist analysis or even linguistic theory, which is involved in my exploration of the term. If you call someone a “sexual partner”, especially when there is, as you say, a problem with what “Wilhelm’s buddies” got up to, then you are connoting consent. You must look to what a word connotes, not only what it denotes. In this instance “partner” when linked to “sexual” both connotes and denotes consent. “Partner” is used in common and legal parlance to describe a consenting relationship of some sort.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partner
You might be interested to look at the synonyms.
You might then be interested in ceding that it just might be possible that I may well have a point here too.
And here is part of a judgement in a 1992 South Australian rape case:
Definitively, though the term “sexual partner” is not specifically a legal term, still it has been used by a judge to describe the relationship between a rapist and her victim.
QED.
“casual sex or sex with a prostitute.”
“however, it does suggest that the term “sexual partner” can be used to describe a wider range of sexual activity, including perhaps illegal sexual activity.
Note especially the highlighted section.”
Are you clutching at straws now? You can have casual sex or sex with a prostitute. But. it. still. denotes. and. connotes. consent.
See 149 above, Casey.
Could you move to the third point soon please?
You know, my irrational statements in my comment to you.
And the fourth point?
Troll management techniques. The merits of flaming in the absence of other remedies vs your representation of dispassionate reason as the optimum solution package, coming as it does, complete with its key failure to address and unravel the rampant sexism and misogyny interred within the factual statements the troll made. One might ask. What were you quelling exactly if you failed to address the troll like behavour?
Thanks for the concession on the legitimacy of my use of the term “sexual partner”, Casey.
And thanks again for the concession it is not a legal term. Can we move on now?
Please point out where I asserted it was a legal term.
You did not ever assert it. You always ceded that it was not a legal term. That the choice of words were yours rather than a legal term. Your words. That was my point. Words which should not be used as they both connote and dennote a consenting relationship of some sort. And that will never be tested.
Will you cede or not?
See #149.
A judge used the term to denote non-consensual sex. This may be regrettable, but it is undeniable.
Come on Sean, you may have a point but surely you must admit the police’s initial investigation leaves alot to be desired.
I will wait to see what the family says, but presumably they are hoping for any skerrick of justice they can get and will not say anything that could jeoapardise a retrial.
I doubt this evidence given to the inquest and reported on PM for example, was given to the jury.
You might find this surprising but I am not interested in the judge. I am only interested in you. You and your useage. Which is also regrettable but undeniable.
Now will you cede?
You cannot both say it is not a legal term, ah but a judge used it once in a case I had to quickly look up and find and thank God I found it, therefore it is okay to use it you see, because some judge used it once and thank God I found it.
Will you please bloody cede so we can move on?
I have you in a corner Katz. My sword is at your throat. Sweat drips down your brow. No more side moves Zorro. I will just corner you again. Juzt cede on this one. It’s not so very hard to say I have a point. That “sexual partner” suggests a consenting relationship and that will never be tested because the DPP made a stupid deal which will not see it tested.
I really would like to get to troll management techniques before the end of the year.
“Thanks for the concession on the legitimacy of my use of the term “sexual partner”, Casey.”
I don’t think it’s legitimate either and I can’t figure out how you think that the judge’s quote you offered is relevant. The victims ’sexual partner’ was not the alleged rapist, the judge suggests her partner aided and abetted the alleged rapist. It’s a pretty terrible indictment on the men involved, but it has no bearing at all on the point you seem to be insisting upon.
To me it’s a matter of decency where a woman can not speak to what actually happened, that no conclusion whatsoever should be drawn on whether she made a choice, I agree with Casey, the term ’sexual partner’ implies a choice.
The wiki definition you provided makes no qualification regarding consensual or non-consensual sex. By that definition hundreds of thousands of women, and men, in this country are the ’sexual partners’ of their abusers, simply by having been involved in sex acts’. Have I got that right, that’s the terminology you are trying to ‘legitimise’? Out of curiosity, do you consider the victims of paedophiles their ’sexual partners’?
The term may or may not imply consent.
The record on this cannot be any clearer.
Here is another South Australian case where the term is used in an identical way:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/sa/SASC/2001/64.html?query=%22sexual%20partner%22
Wishful thinking cannot wash away the facts.
Furious Balancing, your reading comprehension skills have failed you.
The only use of the word “sexual partner” in that case seems to be in the circumstantial evidence/testimony of the accused former girlfriend [W], it seems to me that they are indicating that the accused had in the past “……showed a particular sexual appetite of the accused of an unusual nature, namely the cutting off of clothes of a sexual partner during sexual activity”.
So, yes it is the accused former “sexual partner”, they were engaged in an open and consensual relationship. But again they are not referring to the victim in the case you linked to as his “sexual partner”.
Sorry, I should have written the former sexual partner of the accused. I’m a lousy writer.
Katz you have made your move and yet again, I’m holding you against the wall. Just like Errol Flynn. My sword slides delicately across your neck….
“The Crown proposed to lead this evidence as part of the circumstantial case against the accused in order to prove that he had previously been involved in an act of a sexual nature involving the cutting of clothes. It was claimed that the basis of admissibility of evidence of this previous incident was that it showed a particular sexual appetite of the accused of an unusual nature, namely the cutting off of clothes of a sexual partner during sexual activity”
Hellooo??? the example you give – The Crown was using the evidence of a former girlfriend, a former sexual partner. FAIL. Katz. FAIL.
Anyway what does it matter if a court uses it. Are you now saying it is a legal term and that it is ok to use it?
Now stop this frivolity and cede.
“Furious Balancing, your reading comprehension skills have failed you.”
LOL.
Katz. Please can we move on? I think I’ve made my point. You don’t have to cede. I only wanted to cut your buttons off and I’ve done that.
Now onto irrationality and troll management techniques please.
I am, after all, no monster. As if I could harm a single blue veined rise on your neck….now, please, tell me how to manage sexist trolling without even addressing once…
I am, after all, no monster. As if I could harm a single blue veined rise on your neck….now, please, tell me how to manage sexist trolling without even addressing once…
the sexism!
I thought that LP had an automatic moderating thing which stopped someone from posting the same comment twice? My apple mouse pad space thing is so touch sensitive it registers “submit” twice sometime, when I only press once. Obviously so fast it gets through moderation? Is that possible?
It’s astonishing that a lawyer would link to two criminal cases, both of which refer to “sexual partners”, but both clearly contradict Katz’s assertion about the phrase.
The first one: “complainant asserted that she mistakenly believed [P] to be her sexual partner.”
Both men were convicted in that case because, “consent to sexual intercourse includes knowledge of and consent to identity of person performing the act”
The victim was tricked in to believing she was having sex with her “partner”. Which is why the term “sexual partner” is used in this case.
And Katz faults my reading comprehension skills in that matter? He does even worse when he doesn’t even bother reading his second link.
Katz @ 163: “Wishful thinking cannot wash away the facts.”
Indeed.
“Zorro”? “Blue-veined rise”? “Cut buttons”? Are you feeling quite well?
But then, of course, if you need to imagine me as masked, blue-veined and unbuttoned…
… I confess that I hardly think of you at all.
Time for you to cede that “sexual partner” may or may not imply consent so we can move on.
This is important because unless you do you are not displaying good faith. And it is a waste of my time to deal with persons who decline to act in good faith.
LOL. Respect x 2 Furious Balancing.
I confess that I cited the second case on the fly. Well done to those who assiduously chased down the citation.
However, Furious Balancing is wrong, and specifically wrong in his interpretation of the words in the first case I cited. It is quite clear that the “sexual partner” referred to in the passage I cited was the appellant who had been found guilty in a lower court of rape.
That should be “her interpretation” – I’m female.
You may be right on your second point, Katz, but you took that quote out of context, and it’s terribly misleading, and I suspect you know it. When you read the case, it is quite apparent why the court is using the phrase “sexual partner”, and it is not in a way that lends legitimacy to the notion that you are asserting here.
I apologise for using the incorrect pronoun.
Can you be more specific?
How is the judge using the term in this case?
Katz
Please answer this: is it a legal term? no? then why are you bringing it up? if it is not a legal term, if there would be better terms one could use, (as you suggested above), why do you now defend it?
Your defense of the term “sexual partner” as appropriate is disconcerting to say the least because you operate within the legal system and it is distressing to think that you would apply a term which infers consent to a situation which could be rape or sexual assault. Your misinterpretation of the term in your own examples is case in point.
I’m feeling fine with my satirisation of your attempts to get out of admitting that obvious fact. I just do not take the stoush as seriously as you because what the term denotes and connotes is beyond dispute for me. It’s just part of the way I play the game on this site with both men and women, but mostly with people I am friendly with and respect and who understand I am just mucking around. I will cease this forthwith with you of course – given you seem to think I want a date with you. I understand if you want to continue your ‘irrational’ stratagem by pointing to that as something which it is not, but I really think you may be overreaching in your interpretation of what it means though. Was that kind enough? I hope so. But, erm, thanks for not thinking of me. I am grateful about that at least.
As to good faith, you have proven nothing other than you are determined to continue citing cases where it was used, but not the way you think. Do you understand that?
I’ve enjoyed our badinage too, Casey.
I believe that even if we haven’t subverted the ground rules of the stoush a little, I have whiled away an afternoon avoiding some irksome tasks.
Okay Katz. Good. Whenever you are ready, I will be back to discuss the terrain of the irrational, the performance of dispassionate reasoning you do so well and how that works to confer authority on you, and how you cain’t fool no one wid it, and the way you privilege your troll herding techniques over mine.
I may concede on one of those. But you will have to let go of this bone and pick up the next one.
And yet I only had to poke about in Austlii for about a minute before finding a case where the term ’sexual partner’ is used in a way that suggests it understood as incompatible with describing situations where sex has been non-consensual. (ie, understood correctly.)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QCA/2009/94.html?query=^cannell
[47] At 12.37 pm, the court reconvened because the jury asked for “clarification of the legal definition of consent”. The judge responded:
“… Consent means, ‘Consent freely and voluntarily given by a person with the cognitive capacity to give consent.’ Without limiting that subsection, ‘A person’s consent to an act is not freely and voluntarily given if it is obtained either by force or by threats or intimidation or by fear of bodily harm or by excessive exercise of authority or by false and fraudulent representations about the nature or the purpose of the act, or by any mistaken belief induced by an accused person that the accused person was the person’s sexual partner .’
So when you look at the legal definition, and this appears in section 348 of the Criminal Code, it’s really got two limbs to it. First and foremost, the consent must be freely and voluntarily given.
What I will do is I will read through it again because there are the two parts. Freely and voluntarily given, and then by a person with the cognitive capacity to give consent.
Further, when you look at the first example you present us with, Katz, you will see this:
That’s the first line. Rape takes place because one man pretends to be another who she mistakenly believe is her intended sexual partner.
If the whole proccedings begin with that, you would expect that the judge is speaking to that deception, when he says:
It could relate to the identity of Hauth or Piora/Fiora IMO. It is not at all crystal clear. The point being made here is that Hauth spoke to her in a way, so as to conceal the identity of the partner she thought she was having sex with, which was him.
Because it remains unclear, I would be inclined to suggest that the spirit of what the judge said related to the deception both men engaged in and the lack of consent the woman gave to one man, rather than calling the rapist a sexual partner period.
Do you have to find such convoluted cases about mistaken identities, intended sexual partners vs rapists? Surely there is a plain version case where the judge convicts the rapist and calls him her sexual partner?
No? Oh. Okay.
I stipulated most or all of the above at #145.
Consent isn’t the issue here between Casey and me.
At issue is what two or more persons involved in a non-consensual sexual act have been called.
They have been called “sexual partners”.
Wait, I need to reverse who she gave consent to. Sorry about that. It’s the other way round. She did not give conent to Hauth.
consent, that is.
At least Heathcliffe looks truer to the novel’s description as a child.
Oh sorry. That was not meant for here. I simply cannot converse on Facebook, watch Wuthering Heights and do this at the same time. It just can;t be done.
I will be back later.
The case is very unusual. I think the judge in this case is using the term “sexual partner” to acknowledge that the complainant consented to have sex with one man, and because of the [alleged] deception, uses it in to refer to the person the claimant believes she is having sex with.
This is from the QLD police Sexual Assault Information website:
What is Consent?
* Consent is freely and voluntarily given by a person with the cognitive capacity to do so.
Consent is not freely and voluntarily given if you:
* Are under force
* Are unconscious or asleep
* Are under the influence of drugs or alcohol
* Are under threat or intimidation
* Are in fear of bodily harm; or
* Have a mistaken belief that the offender was your sexual partner.
Note the last point….consent is not freely and voluntarily given when a person has the mistaken belief that the offender is his/her sexual partner.
Does this not draw a distinction between ‘offender’ and ’sexual partner’, with informed consent [ie: the sexual partner is who you believe him to be] being the thing that separates the two descriptions??
Well said and may God save the Queen.
Yes they have. To date, and so far as I can make out from your two examples of court transcripts, only by you. One was a mistake and the other is too confusing to make out, because of the two identities involved and the issue of mistaken identity.
Now you say it is not a legal term. Indeed you are not too fussed about the term at first. You say:
You yourself state that “Wilhelm’s buddy’s” may have had a case to answer in regards to consent, but that we will never know. Indeed. But unfortunately that very salient point you made has been lost. What you have foregrounded with an obstinance which is quite astounding, is your decision to bog in with this term, which carries no legal definition by your own admission and has no legal precedence as far as you have provided by your examples.
What is the problem here? You have not adequately proven your case that it is a term devoid of inference regarding consent. Which was my initial complaint. And certainly the dictionary definition suggests a consenting relationship is necessary to use the word partner, in any way – whether legally, in business dealings or in intimate relationships.
As far as I can see, and in good faith on my part, I say that you have failed in your quest. My original point holds.
Unless you intend to examine every criminal court case of rape, I suggest that you cede that the term sex partner, or sexual partner infers consent. It is not an empty term becaue of the word ‘partner’. “Sexual activity” simply suggest that intercourse occurred and makes no inference of consent or otherwise. Therefore both the presumption of innocence is maintained while the other party is not implicated by a term which suggests she gave her consent as a partner in the act.
Let it go.
First thank you for correcting your misunderstanding of the identities connected with that South Australian case.
Second, most rapists are known to the victim and a large proportion of them are or have been the sexual partners of the victim. There is nothing unusual about the South Australian case in this regard. And the Brimble case also shares those characteristics. She was the sexual partner of Wilhelm on the night in question.
And it has been stipulated that at some time in the evening she was in the bunk of at least one of Wilhelm’s buddies. It is and will remain untested in a court of law how she got into that bunk. Perhaps she was hoisted into it while she was utterly unconscious, perhaps even dead. Perhaps she climbed into that bunk willingly. If the latter is the case, then the term “sexual partner” may not be an inappropriate term to describe her relationship with at least one of Wilhelm’s buddies.
“Sexual activity” doesn’t identify the nature of the individuals concerned.
Would you prefer “sexual activist”?
Was Brimble a “sexual activist” at some time during the evening in question?
Wow…a lot has happened in one day. a lot that really didn’t seem to do much.
Why am I called a troll?
Casey:
By the way Casey, it was you who instantly replied to my initial post with aggression and insults, instead of actually responding to what i said. You may use fancy words and all, but basically you heard something you didn’t like and attacked me personally.
how is it sexist to say that if she hadn’t died they would probably be best buddies. the same would apply to a man.
another point…is it even alleged that any of the others had sex with her? or is this made up too?
Quote from Casey: “Now little troll, I want to explain to you very slowly that it is not a devastating risposte to call someone a retard or to keep on telling them they have comprehension problems.”
there you go again with your offensive tone. Well done. Now you are arguing with someone about the meaning of a word. And you wonder why i use the word retard in reference to you.
How is it sexist to say that if a womman goes back to mans cabin she just met ata night club aboard a boat where she has her own cabin at 4am at night this would suggest she wanted to have sex with him? I would say exactly the same about a man. If a man went back to a womans cabin at 4AM at night it would suggest he wanted to have sex with her.
My initial post was a response to statements I had seen from other posters, where events were made up to make the situation seem so dire. Someone had stated point blank that dianne brimble was raped. Others had stated point blank that brimble was slipped a dtae rape drug. So, i questioned statements. How is it that you have taken the liberty to label me a troll. I gather from your responses that you are a feminist and it is you whois a man hater. I despise men that drug women and take advantage of them or even those that are disrespectful towards women. But, I am also about the truth and I also despise double standards and favouritism. I can’ understand why else people would go to the lengths of making up evidence and staements.
I suppose you also reacted this strongly when Lorena Bobbit cut off her husbands penis and received no sentence?
I did not come out and say anything personal (as in the way you have responded to me).
the reason i posted here is simple. I read through some posts and I wanted to speak out against irrational feminist behaviour. NOT to hate women or put down Brimble, but to talk about the truth and why some people seem to be leaning towards one way so much. Stop trying to turn everything i say into something sexist and trying to say I am a mysoginist. Usually those who point their finger are guilty of what they accuse.
I am in favour of justice for all, male or female, black, white or purple. I also can’t standard when the truth is bent for another agenda, in your case, a male bashing field day.
you are also the playing on typical stereo types. Accept that your stereo types are all about the poor innocent woman. Wilhelm and Brimble had sex…so you assume that he is bad and somehow made her do it. Wilheml gave her drugs, so u assume that he is bad and forced it on her. These are things we just dont know.
The only fact to be questioned is whether wilhelm owed her a duty of care and whether he breached this. That is all.
Yes, well Gordon. The way I flamed you is yet to be discussed unfortunately. I would have hoped we may have reached it before you came on but alas, Katz is sticking to his guns on very flimsy arguments. My apologies for the delay. I will get back to you as soon as possible. Indeed, perhaps the ferocity of my initial response to you is one of the things I may well cede as an inappropriate way to handle the things you said.
Which are still disgusting by the way. Don’t play the innocent wounded one with me Gordon.
But where was I? Oh yes. Who knows? I will have to get back to you once Katz and I are through with the implications of “sexual partner” and move onto irrationality and then hopefully, we can discuss this herding business. I know this is preposterous. But unfortunately it depends on Katz and as you may have gathered by now, arguing with Katz is like being stuck in the second circle of the Inferno, watching your sin’s inversion replay itself over and over again – without any mercy, without any pity.
I will get back to you as soon a practicable.
Do u like my new gravatar Casey?
Also, why were my initial comments disgusting?
Also, why do u not answer my questions to you.
I thikn arguing with you is like being an an inferno and thats maybe why Katz has not bothered to respond. You just go round and round in circles.
Anyways, I have nothing against you personally Casey. So, i hope theres no ill feelings there. all the best to you
Well your gravatar is certainly powerful looking Gordon. I do like the rainbow colours though. Good choice Gordon.
it means power for all people
Have a good night Casey..you evil feminist
Only kidding
“Second, most rapists are known to the victim and a large proportion of them are or have been the sexual partners of the victim.”
Are you are beginning to flail? This proves my point and not yours. There are many rapists and many victims who may know each other but there are many who do not. If they have been previous sexual partners, or if up until the incident they were sexual partners, there would be no problem in saying that. This is where that descriptor would belong. Describing what it denotes and connotes – a consenting sexual partnership – past or present. But there are many who have not been in a previous relationship with the rapist. And in this respect to use the term “sexual partners” prior to verdict is completely inappropriate. Because it connotes and denotes consent, where the claimant is saying there was none. It does not signify here in this instance what it does where there has been an actual consenting sexual partnership prior to the allegation before the court. Because there was no consent. You have just used the conventional and pretty much universally accepted understanding of “sexual partner” to demolish your own position.
Thanks and good night.
Tomorrow we go to Purgatory right?
Flail fail Casey.
Yet again you are forgetting the presumption of innocence.
Any sexual congress that may have taken place is presumed to be legal until it is proven to be illegal. A rapist is not a rapist until s/he is convicted of rape.
Until that moment any sexual congress is under law deemed to be a partnership — a sexual partnership.
Why is this simple concept so difficult for you to grasp?
Well we are talking about whether it is appropriate to use when it has not been tested in a court of law right? That was its original context right?
Don’t start sounding like Gordon now when you have won nothing yet.It’s about your choice of words, not the judge’s, not the court’s. Yours. No Fail Katz. You really need to argue how your choice of words carries no meaning of consent – here on this blog, rather than in a court of law for it was here that you used it and you used it to explain how Silvestri and his mates’ sexual activity with Brimble would never be tested. So no need to start sounding like Gordon yet. You need to explain how that general understanding of “sexual partner” is emptied of a consensual meaning in general public discourse.
But as an aside, that is that quite extraordinary. Any alleged rapist is presumed to have had consensual sex with the victim – rather than just presumed to be innocent of the charge until proven guilty? How revolting. No wonder women choose not to go to court when it comes to rape.
But why did you not say this 25,000 comments ago when you were throwing up all those terrible examples?
Oh. I see what you did. We have returned to point one again. I accepted your point one and deferred to your legal knowledge in the matter. So now can we move back to point two please? Being how your choice of “sexual partner” is emptied of the suggestion of consent outside of a court of law (and even in one given you’ve provided no examples of merit)?
Thank you. I am going to work now. Later.
Gordon: “Wilheml gave her drugs, so u assume that he is bad and forced it on her. These are things we just dont know.
The only fact to be questioned is whether wilhelm owed her a duty of care and whether he breached this. That is all.”
Gordon, don’t you see more to it than a duty of care after she becomes ill re Willhelm? That she may have had a part in her demise is beside the point to his culpability.
The elephant in the room to me is that a Willhelm gives her a large quantity of the ILLEGAL drug, she dies, and walks off scott free.
He gets off the hook if it can’t be proved he spiked her drink and she took it willingly. He supplied a large dose of illegal drugs to her, she dies, and he walks. If that is common law, then why can’t drug dealers use this as a precedent to get off? All the dealer has to prove is that the addict he supplied drugs to took it willingly.
Its legal now! Or maybe they just forgot to charge him with supplying an illegal narcotic that resulted in a death. Amazing.
BTW, some of the arguments used to get him off were ludicous. He isn’t a chemist, so how would he know it was dangerous. Gimme a break. He didn’t know she had a breathing problem. Then if he didn’t know anything about her why was he pushing drugs to her? Hey! How about I drive at 160kmh put on on the brakes and slam sideways in to a group of people. My defence: I’m not a formula one driver so I didn’t know what would happen at those speeds. In South Australia, I’d get off.
Brendon @ 204 – there’s quite a difference between someone who buys/sells drugs for profit and a recreational drug user who shares what they have with people they meet.
Is it your position that the law of rape is a masculinist plot?
Whoops, Katz above.
Don’t get like that. As I said below that, I accepted your point one. It was early, now lets move one.
No let’s not actually. I have said what I have to regarding Point 2 and you have had a great time going over hill and dale in your quest to get away from my original point. It still stands. Gordon will be disappointed but then he has been all along.
And thank you for yielding and choosing another term other than your previous “sexual partners”, “sexual partnership”, “sex partners” and therefore ceding in practice, if not in word.
It’s been as always, a pleasure.
Whoops?
Oh I don’t think so. But never mind, if you wanna let slip and go all Gordon on me, well go right ahead. Does fracture that performance of dispassionate reason you do so well though.
No Casey. That is the nub of your problem.
You want a tripartite classification of sexual activity, viz:
1. Consensual
2.”Presumed innocent”
3. Criminal
The law insists that there is a bipartite classification of sexual activity, viz:
1. Consensual (i.e., with a sexual partner)
2. Criminal (i.e., with a witness for the prosecution who only after the guilty verdict can properly be called the victim. Until that finding of guilty s/he is deemed to be a sexual partner of the defendant.)
No it’s not.
But thank you for using the term “sexual activity” up there, rather than “sexual partnership”. Good on you Katz.
I think we can all go home now.
Note that I also used “sexual partner”. And correctly too.
In terms of going home, of course you are free to make your own arrangements.
Chris: “there’s quite a difference between someone who buys/sells drugs for profit and a recreational drug user who shares what they have with people they meet.”
People shouldn’t kill people they meet.
A person supplies someone with drugs and they die as a result of that. Thats what I’m talking about.
I don’t care if they are on a committed career path or a fun loving amatuer. I don’t care if there was no intent to kill; just as there isn’t when a drunk or speeding driver runs over a pedestrian and goes to jail for culpable driving. Even if the pedestrian themselves had been drinking.
If it is legal to do this, then the law sucks. I could care less that he is using recreationally or dealing. I don’t see the point in bringing that up. I’m not at him for taking it himself. If he buys it himself for his own use and ends up drowning on his own vomit that nite, I don’t care. But he gave it to another person and they died. So he should pay a price.
Some class-A quibbling there Casey and Katz.
Don’t stop.
Oh okay. Let’s youtube then. Gordon this one’s for you
But just kidding, nothing personal, love that rainbow flag thing you got goin’ on that hand, etc, etc.
Brendon the main problem with your argument about going harder on drug abuse is that it will make the situation worse.
It will not help to increase the dragnet to include people who share substances. It would be advantageous to educate those, who will use anyway, about safe doses and possible dangerous quality issues. And that is not possible if this matter is treated as criminal problem rather than a health one.
Joe@218
Why not extend that to drunk driving as well. We are all complete morons who need to be educated. No, I don’t think so. Consequences are what educate people. Thats why we don’t drink battery acid. If Willhelm got 5 years, now that would would be an educating thing.
Joe, if you need to be educated that giving drugs – that were probably made in someone’s backyard – to a virtual stranger who is already inebriated to understand its dangerous, then it doesn’t matter. The guy would be so dumb he wouldn’t know he was going to prison anyway.
She has paid for the consequences of her actions. But he gets off scot free. He supplied her the drugs that killed her and he walks. How is that educating society?
Brendon:
“Gordon, don’t you see more to it than a duty of care after she becomes ill re Willhelm? That she may have had a part in her demise is beside the point to his culpability.”
“The elephant in the room to me is that a Willhelm gives her a large quantity of the ILLEGAL drug, she dies, and walks off scott free.”
“He gets off the hook if it can’t be proved he spiked her drink and she took it willingly. He supplied a large dose of illegal drugs to her, she dies, and he walks. If that is common law, then why can’t drug dealers use this as a precedent to get off? All the dealer has to prove is that the addict he supplied drugs to took it willingly.”
She is a grown adult. IF she made the decision to take the drugs from someone she had just met, then she in my mind she is responsible for the consequences. Again, i suggest right here that this is another stereo type. IF this were two men who shared the drugs and one died it would be a simple case of a sad overdose, and shown to be a lessen of playing with illicit drugs. Of course, this is unless it can be shown that one party forced the drugs on her. However, supposedly the case revolves around the idea that wilhelm may not have gone for help in time, thus breaching his duty of care. Maybe if wilhelm knew the drugs could kill her, eg. badly made pills laced with poisonous material, I’d be with you. If it was a tragic accident, then let it be that, no matter how much people loathe these guys.
I can’t take drugs and blame anyone else if I die from them. Life is about choices when you are an adult.
Also, big difference between drug dealers and recreational users who share drugs. Drug dealers ar not charged with manslaughter, but are charged with trafficking. Drug dealers receive payment (a benefit) for the drugs.
“BTW, some of the arguments used to get him off were ludicous. He isn’t a chemist, so how would he know it was dangerous. Gimme a break. He didn’t know she had a breathing problem. Then if he didn’t know anything about her why was he pushing drugs to her? Hey! How about I drive at 160kmh put on on the brakes and slam sideways in to a group of people. My defence: I’m not a formula one driver so I didn’t know what would happen at those speeds. In South Australia, I’d get off.”
again, you have made something up. You said again that he was pushing the drugs on her. It is not known whether she took the drugs of her own accord or was forced the drugs. Obviously there is no evidence showing that she was forced the drugs, or they would have used it. Also, when he stated in defence that he wasn’t a chemist, it meant that he did not know that the size of the DOSE he gave her, in combination with the amount of alcohol she had drank and also her breathing problems was dangerous. This seems stupid, but still quite resonable when you think about it in the scenario that they were in, partying, drinking and getting probably horny. So, your example is not rational.
Brendon you sound like a copper conjuring up any charge, that might do the job, to put someone behind bars. As unattractive a character as this bloke might be, it is not much use trying to nail someone for a crime that presently does not exist.
And the truth of the matter is, our jails are already overflowing with drug related crime and it not going to help to increase the numbers by stricter laws.
Brendon:
“I don’t care if they are on a committed career path or a fun loving amatuer. I don’t care if there was no intent to kill; just as there isn’t when a drunk or speeding driver runs over a pedestrian and goes to jail for culpable driving. Even if the pedestrian themselves had been drinking.”
When a drunk driver or speeding driver runs over a pedestrian they are doing something dangerous that killed the person involved. the person involved had no control over this situation. From a legal and moral point of view, I see it like this: when YOU choose to take drugs, this is YOUR decision as an adult that YOU are responsible for. She could have chosen not to take the drugs. This is all obviously assuming that she was not forced the drugs, because this cannot be shown. What you are saying is that when a drunk driver dies in a car accident, perhaps his family can sue the bottle shop that supplied him the alcohol. come on, we are adults, not children, passing responsibility around.
“We are all complete morons who need to be educated. No, I don’t think so. Consequences are what educate people. That’s why we don’t drink battery acid.”
Wait, you don’t drink battery acid because you tried it and didn’t like it? Geez, I hope you’re okay mate.
Me, I heard people saying it would cause a slow and painful death, and on that basis chose not to try it.
There is a message that could be made public, to the effect that you should:
>know your dealer
>know the recommended dose
>try a little bit first if you’re in any doubt at all about potency
>do not ever give drugs to someone you don’t care about enough to put their safety ahead of your own reputation if something goes wrong
But it’s all too nuanced, and tries to take into account the real world, so it’ll probably never happen at the level it should.
Casey:
“Any alleged rapist is presumed to have had consensual sex with the victim – rather than just presumed to be innocent of the charge until proven guilty? How revolting. No wonder women choose not to go to court when it comes to rape.”
So, do you propose we throw out the principle of innocent until proven guilty when a woman alleges a man raped her? If we presume the accused to be innocent, then obviously we also have to presume that the sex of consensual.
Yes, rape is a very tough matter becuase it is complicated and relies heavily on the word of one party against the other, but the law has to treat it like any other charge.
For once I agree with you FDB. I bet you hate that mate.
I can think of situations where presumption of innocence needn’t entail consent in a rape case.
1) the accused denies having sex with the plaintiff
2) the accused maintains that he/she was actually the victim of rape
3)the accused pleads mitigation due to mental illness
4)the accused pleads mitigation due to mental incapacity
Of course, in the majority of cases 1 is beyond question, and 2 would be pretty rare, but 3 and 4 would be relatively commonplace.
Casey:
Since we are going to youtube heres one for you Casey. again, nothing personal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNQ5V740LDY&feature=related
Gordon – not at all.
I’m perfectly capable of agreeing with someone on one topic and not another.
And without calling their sexuality into question or anything!
It’s nice being an adult sometimes.
Only sometimes though – there’s a whole lot of fun to be had taking the piss out of people who haven’t thought things through very well, but I’ll admit it’s a guilty pleasure.
Oi Gordon! Dianne Brimble’s family is probably reading this. Stay on topic. The same applies to Katz and Casey. This is not about you, but the deceased.
It may be a day or two until I can get to a database, but I’m pretty sure there are other instances of drug users being charged and found guilty of manslaughter due to shared social drug use and unintended consequences. In even more tragic circumstances than this.
joe2 re @222
Its illegal to be in possession of the drugs. It would be illegal to hand them out, free or not. He still walks.
I’m not a cop, but I hate druggies. Know all, know-nothing, manipulative, lying, lazy, selfish arseholes.
@223
FDB: “We are all complete morons who need to be educated. No, I don’t think so. Consequences are what educate people. That’s why we don’t drink battery acid.”
Wait, you don’t drink battery acid because you tried it and didn’t like it? Geez, I hope you’re okay mate.
Me, I heard people saying it would cause a slow and painful death, and on that basis chose not to try it.
Glad to hear that the government doesn’t need an education program on that one. I’ve also heard that concoctions made up in someone’s kitchen (who nobody seems to know) can also be dangerous. Especially when the prime motivation for said production is money. I wouldn’t be a complete arsehole and hand that stuff around to people, especially since I wouldn’t even know the safe dosage for a complete stranger. Hell, I could kill someone.
rumbellious:
You are right. there have been other cases, where in fact the accused was found guilty of manslaughter for not getting help for the victim.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/04/18/mother-of-drug-overdose-girl-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-91466-20782361/
I think the charge of manslaughter is a little to harsh, when in reality they did not contribute to the death, but instead prevented her from possible being saved. This is what is being examined in the Brimble case. Whether she may have been saved if it were possible for wilhelm to have gotten help for her sooner. apparently, when wilheml found her and try to resuscitate her she had already been dead for 3 hours and could not have been helped. thats from his defence team.
I do thikn that someone who finds a drug user in a bad way should try to get help. Its a very fine line though, because quite often drug users are out of it and competely wrecked, but dont overdose. So, for the friend, they may not be sure whether to get help (which may lead them to trouble or just leave them). My personal choice would be to get help.
Gordon re: @222
Your analogy means if a drunk driver killed their passenger – who maybe was also inebriated and who had willingly got into the car – then the driver would not be charged with the death of the passenger. Because of said passenger’s decision to get in the car. Interesting.
Also, you seem to be stuck on Brimble’s responsibility. You can’t see past that to Willhelm’s part. Its like because Brimble played a part in her own demise, Willhelm is invisible to you.
Of course Wilhelm played a part.
I do see your point…but i wouldn’t call it manslaughter.
I think its a little different, but I also feel that we need to take responsibilty for ourselves ands stop looking for blame elsewhere. You’re preety dumb to get into a car with a drunk driver, unless of course you are drunk and not thinking properly. so, that would also mean the drunk driver is drunk and not thinking preoperly. hmmmm.
Point taken though.
“I’ve also heard that concoctions made up in someone’s kitchen (who nobody seems to know) can also be dangerous.”
That’s fine, and in perfect agreement with my advice above, but it does seem like that’s the only information you’ve got.
Me, I’ve taken lots of different drugs – and with the exception of weed, always following my own advice given above. Hence, I know drugs to be fun and safe when taken sensibly, almost all of the time, if those precautions are observed.
How likely is a kid to observe those precautions when all they know is that they’ll get an absolute bollocking if they’re caught, their parents and teachers want them to “just say no”, and the kids they look up to are already doing it with no major ill-effects?
FDB,
Kids can’t take drugs sensibly. Psych wards are full of teenagers who take drugs. I’m guessing you have not bought up kids yourself. The only education for teenagers on drugs is don’t. Its an imperfect world and some will. But there are no safe drugs for an adolescent mind.
You think its a coincidence we got Beyond Blue nowadays? You can’t educate that away.
The amount of young people I know that suffer depression that took drugs when younger is quite a few. Too many. A real shame to see an unfullfilled life. One of my boys just said the other day “Remember so-and-so? (his age 23). He is just walking the streets like a zombie. Too much dope when he was at school.” I was shocked because I remember him being a bright kid. There aren’t any safe recreational drugs for teenagers. Adults, yeah. Some adults can handle it. I’m 53 and in my time I have never met anyone who could handle it all the time.
If you want to rely on you dealer for your health, thats your lookout. Like most druggies, I’m sure you know everything. Willhelm did too, I bet, before this.
“Kids can’t take drugs sensibly”
I did.
“Psych wards are full of teenagers who take drugs”
Correlation does not equal causation. I’m sure the causation does exist in plenty of cases – I wonder how many such cases are the result of a careful and informed approach to drug-taking. Not many, I’d think.
“I’m guessing you have not bought up kids yourself.”
Correct.
“The only education for teenagers on drugs is don’t.”
Incorrect. There is a lot else teenagers should know.
“Its an imperfect world and some will.”
Correct. Do you want them to have no information, or good information, about how to proceed safely?
“But there are no safe drugs for an adolescent mind.”
Arguable, I guess. So make the argument. Just asserting the conclusion smacks of dogma.
“You think its a coincidence we got Beyond Blue nowadays? You can’t educate that away.”
I think we’ve got Beyond Blue and similar largely because of an increasing awareness of the prevalence and treatability of depression. Perhaps there’s more depression around, and perhaps it’s due to drug-taking in adolescence. But again, you need to make that argument, not just wave your hands around.
“The amount of young people I know that suffer depression that took drugs when younger is quite a few. Too many.”
Your stats are pretty vague. Anyone suffering depression for any reason is “too many”. Anyway, considering the majority of young people take drugs, it would be unsurprising that a majority of depression sufferers have done so.
Another thing – self-medication. Ponder that.
“A real shame to see an unfullfilled life. One of my boys just said the other day “Remember so-and-so? (his age 23). He is just walking the streets like a zombie. Too much dope when he was at school.” I was shocked because I remember him being a bright kid.”
Again, with the correlation vs causation.
“There aren’t any safe recreational drugs for teenagers.”
True. But then, the is no safe anything really, is there? Footy, riding a bike, drinking alcohol, crossing the road, wearing shoes without socks in cold weather…
“Adults, yeah.”
Err… no. Not safe for adults either. Most adults know what they’re doing though, for better or worse. The main difference is experience, which is a great companion to, but a poor substitute for, education.
“Some adults can handle it. I’m 53 and in my time I have never met anyone who could handle it all the time.”
Have you ever met anyone who could handle anything “all the time”?
“If you want to rely on you dealer for your health, thats your lookout.”
I’m gonna stick with my doctor.
“Like most druggies, I’m sure you know everything.”
Nope. Always willing to learn more.
“Willhelm did too, I bet, before this.”
No, and that’s why he’s in lots of trouble. He gave drugs to someone he just wanted to have sex with then never see again. So when she got into trouble, he cut and ran like a cowardly scumbag.
FDB @237: ““The amount of young people I know that suffer depression that took drugs when younger is quite a few. Too many.”
Your stats are pretty vague. Anyone suffering depression for any reason is “too many”. Anyway, considering the majority of young people take drugs, it would be unsurprising that a majority of depression sufferers have done so.”
I guess you are arguing that there is no particular connection between drug-taking and depression – that the two items are more or less independent variables?
There is a growing body of neurological research that indicates drug-taking can have a long-term effect on your neurotransmitter concentrations in the brain. It can indeed affect your thinking and behaviour.
An interesting read for non-medical people is “Mapping the Mind” by Rita Carter. I temporarily can’t find my copy of a more medical book, written by a neuroscientist, but there is at least one good book on this topic out there. He goes into the effects of legal and illegal drugs, and the effects of different anti-depressants, with summaries of the experimental tests they used to deduce the relationships. Absolutely fascinating book – makes you think twice about mind-altering substances.
I’m guessing you have not bought up kids yourself.
No, I got two for free and I don’t believe in stockpiling.
Drugs cause your brain to produce chemicals and your body to release endorhpins that make you feel good. You are basically artificially playing with the bodies chemical production. I don’t need proof to know that this will affect your mind and also your state of depression. You are damaging the bodies ability to create endorphins naturally. Thats why you see those you have taken too manyecstacy pills in constant state of boredom and dullness. Same goes for the types of foods we are eating these days. Too many additives, preservatives and chemicals that are unbalancing our bodies and minds.
I myslef have taken drugs when i was younger and seen others taking drugs. I’ve seen its effects first hand and would most defnitely not be allowing my kids to play with ANY kind of drug, especially at such a young age when their brains and bodies are not fully developed. I’ve seen people lose the plot and end up being nothing because they have fried their brains on drugs or killed their bodies. I would not recommend taking drugs to anyone who wishes to have a healthy body or mind.
Classic. That quote is going straight to the pool room!
Um, yes. They are prescribed. Usually a major tranquilliser, a mood stabiliser, an anti-depressant, an anxiolytic and possibly a stimulant.
Emma,
that is cold.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/mental-illness-ravaging-nations-youth-20090403-9mvp.html
Brendon: “Kids can’t take drugs sensibly”
FDB: “I did.”
Classic. That quote is going straight to the pool room!
LOL…explains a lot about FDB.
I am writing about this case – if you knew Dianne, or know any of the men, I would love to hear from you.
I amtrying to find out what these people were really like – away from the spotlight of this inquest.
thediannebrimblestory@gmail.com