Hollings-worth

This topic contains 9 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  williamthebold 4 months ago. This post has been viewed 327 times

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #84166

    williamthebold
    Participant

    Anyone have thoughts on the Hollingworth saga?
    Anyone want to weigh-in?
    Anyone think the high monetary cost to the community is justified?
    Should common sense prevail here?
    Should the government be ‘jolted’ in to action on this matter?
    Or should we simply look the other way?

    #84167

    williamthebold
    Participant

    Ok, I will throw in a few thoughts.
    I am sure many have read or heard about the present (healthy) disagreement over pension arrangements, and other benefits, in this case.
    I think it is part of a wider discussion we should be having about parliamentary entitlements.
    As parliamentarians see it, they should be amply rewarded for their effort, both when ‘in the job’ and after they leave the job.
    The latter idea does seem somewhat unusual.
    Are they really that important to us?
    Is their effort of greater significance than say the effort of teachers, medical personnel, firemen and so on?
    Do the persons elected to parliament train for many years to become qualified to undertake their positions?
    I think not.
    I am aware of at least one politician who is almost totally a figurehead. He exhibits no leadership quality of any kind.
    That is the nicest thing I can say about him.
    He relies on the support personnel around him to get things done.
    He should be an embarrassment to his colleagues, but apparently not.
    Rightly or wrongly, his ‘electorate’ voted him in to office, so he is their collective responsibility.

    I conjecture it is not only the main-spring which is important to the functioning of a wind up clock.
    All  other parts are important too.
    All of them are needed to make the clock work, and need to have the same care and attention paid to them.
    What’s good for the goose….and so on.

    If a parliamentarian is away from work, few would notice?
    If a bus driver is absent, his role would need to be filled immediately by a suitably qualified person.
    Otherwise, the travelling public would experience disadvantage, and probably complain loudly.
    That is the difference.

    I suppose ever has it been that those who have daily control of the purse strings are willing to take a disproportionate amount of the wealth the purse contains?
    What we need to do is to make sure distribution of wealth remains relatively fair and proportionate.
    We need to ensure that it does not become something subject to ridicule, as a result of poor management.
    I think the present situation is bordering on doing just that; becoming ridiculous.

    Ongoing discussion about this matter is needed to make parliament aware that voters do notice, and that voter reaction can be healthy disagreement, leading to lack of support for them.
    Parliament can neglect the will of the people of course, but in the long term, will do so at its own peril.

    #84168

    Salina
    Participant

    Not sure what the Hollingsworth post is about.

    As far as politicians go, imo, we have the most dreadful lot that I can ever remember.   There is so much corruption and lies  being exposed at the moment.   Not just pollies, either but other groups supposedly independent, who send unsolicited emails to all and sundry, and claim the recipients as members of their group.

    I have seen the best Australia can be, and now am living in the worst.

    It’s not just the money that concerns me.   The younger generations, including right down to pre school, are being brainwashed into stupidity and the Australian way of life is slowly being eradicated.

    I’m not so sure about that line from the Desiderata anymore.

    The world is evolving as it should”   No it’s not…not in my view anyway.

    Poor fella my country is more apt

     

    #84169

    williamthebold
    Participant

    Salina, I have gleaned the following facts from various online sources.
    A bit from here and a bit from there.
    I sincerely trust these facts are accurate.
    Peter John Hollingworth is an Australian retired Anglican Archbishop.
    In april 2001, it was announced that he would be appointed as the next governor general.
    In may 2003, he became the third Australian governor-general to resign.

    Criticisms were aired over his conduct as Archbishop in Brisbane in the 1990s.
    In December 2001, allegations were raised that he had failed to deal appropriately with sex abuse allegations made against a church teacher.
    An inquiry concluded that in 1993 Hollingworth had allowed a known paedophile to continue working as a priest.
    Both the deputy prime minister and the treasurer indicated in early May (2003) that Hollingworth should consider his position.
    On 11 May, (2003) Hollingworth stood aside.

    Subsequently, he has been paid a very generous ‘pension’ with many other entitlements.
    I heard a figure of over half a million dollars mentioned as a yearly cost.
    I don’t know how accurate that is, but it seemed to me that the report I heard was being honest.
    There are those who believe it appropriate that he volunteers not to receive these payments.
    There are those who think he should not be entitled to them.
    That is what the ‘fuss’ is about.

    I have also been monitoring the Gordon Wood saga.
    Mr Wood is seeking damages from the state.
    So far he has been unsuccessful.
    I hope there is an appeal against the latest decision of the court.

    #84170
    Jen
    Jen
    Participant

    Re Peter Hollingworth.

    As a former governor-general, he receives an annual pension of $357,732, as well as a Commonwealth-funded office and staff. In the six years between 2010 and 2016, his office and travel expenses alone added up to almost $1.5 million. Source.

    In his particular circumstances, I don’t believe he should have any entitlement to taxpayer funded allowances and his generous pension.

    He is still a bishop in The Anglican church as well, despite his past history, but is not paid a salary by the diocese of Melbourne. If the church won’t pay him, I don’t see why we should.

    He had to resign after all and perhaps should have received a small salary payout (like any other community member if they’re lucky) but that’s all IMO.

    #84171
    Jen
    Jen
    Participant

    Re Gordon Wood.

    Mr Wood, the former chauffeur of flamboyant stockbroker Rene Rivkin, was found guilty of the murder of his girlfriend Caroline Byrne, but later acquitted in 2012. Ms Byrne’s body was discovered at the base of notorious Sydney suicide spot The Gap in June 1995.

    In February 2017, Mr Wood launched a civil case against the state of NSW, seeking millions of dollars plus costs, claiming he was the subject of malicious prosecution and wrongful imprisonment.

    However, Gordon Wood will not receive any compensation from the state of New South Wales, after a judge ruled he was not maliciously prosecuted for the murder of his girlfriend Caroline Byrne.

    Ms Byrne’s father, Tony Byrne, said he and his family were “very pleased with the judge’s decision”. “The men and women attached to the homicide investigation were of the highest integrity and professionalism,” he said.

    Source.

    I don’t support an appeal.

    #84176

    williamthebold
    Participant

    I read carefully, and viewed on the news, the reasons for the decision of the court.
    Justice Elizabeth Fullerton’s own words, given in her summation, in themselves provide adequate reason for an appeal.
    Not to appeal might allow a miscarriage of justice.
    That is how I see it.
    I am sorry that Mr Wood might be involved in yet more both costly and emotionally draining legal action.

    #84178
    Jen
    Jen
    Participant

    After further reading William, I agree with you.

    Justice Fullerton found Mr Tedeschi had “an absence of reasonable and probable cause” in initiating the criminal proceedings against Mr Wood. “I have concluded that Mr Tedeschi’s persisting lack of insight into the flawed approach he took to the prosecution of the plaintiff and his lack of insight into the fact that those flaws were ultimately productive of gross unfairness to the plaintiff at his trial,” she said. In quashing the conviction, the NSW Court of Appeal found there was insufficient evidence to provide beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Wood killed Ms Byrne.

    If that is what she felt, its hard to see why Justice Elizabeth Fullerton dismissed his case. She cleared Mr Tedeschi of acting maliciously as a prosecutor.

    Perhaps the decision rests on the word “maliciously”, maybe “incompetently” might have worked better for Mr Wood’s case.

    #84180

    williamthebold
    Participant

    Thank you Jen.
    I sat an wrote an alternative view to your previous one.
    Then saw your post.
    So I have suitably deleted a lot of what I wrote.
    Here is a goodly part of it anyway.
    It agrees with the ideas you have outlined above.
    In particular, Justice Fullerton’s remarks.

    The QC took liberties with the evidence.
    It is clear from the court’s remarks that the QC arranged the evidence to his liking.
    A QC should know better.
    One must ask whether this affected both the advent of a prosecution, or the outcome of the court action which followed.
    Simply put, had the ‘evidence’ not been arranged in the way it was, would a prosecution have taken place at all?
    We need to keep in mind that there was a long delay, many many years, before a charge was laid against Mr Wood.
    And might the result, the court decision that sent him to jail, have been different?
    The ‘guilty’ decision was subsequently overturned on appeal remember, so clearly it was not a strong case.
    If there is even a modest likelihood that ‘arranging’ the evidence caused either of those adverse things to happen, then Mr Wood is entitled to redress.
    An appeal should proceed.
    He is not guilty of any crime, yet he spent three years of his life in prison.
    And tellingly, the conduct of the court action that put him there is questionable.
    Think about that. Put yourself in his place.
    Legal process we must have, but when it goes wrong, innocent people must have any loss they have suffered given proper consideration.
    An innocent person should not be expected to experience gross indecencies in prison, and be asked to forget it and get on with life.
    Society around him needs to tell him they are sorry, and they should also be supportive.
    They should help him to recover some semblance of dignity.
    He is part of our very large family.
    (I don’t send birthday and xmas cards to the many millions of them by the way: the cost would be prohibitive, and the postal service wouldn’t be able to cope)
    In any case, I wish Mr Wood well with whatever he does.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 10 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15