So far as I know, nothing (legally). She wasn’t on trial. Something may have happened to her later, but I don’t think so. I think I’d have heard if it had.

Of course: everyone who knew her knew about the whole case and its outcome. It would be an inaccurate statement to say she faced no consequences at all. Everyone - male and female alike, was furious with her. And I expect the story follows her around 20 years later whenever anyone Googles her.

The full paper would give better context of that statement. It’s quite accessible and worth reading. The thing that is consistent across all studies, nations and decades is that false accusations are rare.

It turns out this is actually a fairly difficult topic to accurately measure if for no other reason that a lot of cases (Particularly earlier ones) boil down to ‘he said, she said’. Then there is the matter that lots of sexual assault cases go unreported - or are dropped for assorted reasons. Unreported assaults are a huge factor among certain cultural groups.

I usually hate when mods delete popular threads, but this post does break Rule 1.4: “Not United States Internal News”.

Holy engagement bait, Batman! What a terrible headline.

Yes, it is a fact that women lie about domestic and sexual violence. I’ve seen first-hand a family seriously impacted by a false accusation. The son was detained in prison for a year, the parents took out a mortgage on their home to defend the case and finally the girl admitted in court that she fabricated the whole thing. The son was acquitted. These cases happen. Here’s a fairly broad paper on the matter discussing several deeper studies spanning several countries including Australia, Canada and the UK.

Among the seven studies that attempted some degree of scrutiny of police classifications and/or applied a definition of false reporting at least similar to that of the IACP, the rate of false reporting, given the many sources of potential variation in findings, is relatively consistent:

• 2.1% (Heenan & Murray, 2006)
• 2.5% (Kelly et al., 2005)
• 3.0% (McCahill et al., 1979)
• 5.9% (the present study)
• 6.8% (Lonsway & Archambault, 2008)
• 8.3% (Grace et al., 1992)
• 10.3% (Clark & Lewis, 1977)
• 10.9% (Harris & Grace, 1999)

With that out of the way, let’s move on to the elephant in the room:

IN OVER 90% OF CASES, THE RAPES WERE CREDIBLE! FALSE ACCUSATIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION!!

I met him once. He came into the office I was working at sometime around 1996/1997. He was one of the first celebrities I ever spoke more than two words with. I was surprised that he was just this chill dude, there to pick up something for his daughter. I recognised him of course, but yeah - other than the fact that he happened to be mildly famous, you’d never spot the difference between him and any of the other assorted parents who came by.

He has so many iconic lines. You could make the best soundboard from stuff he came out with.

Let’s hear from an actual expert on this topic:

“I think some of the surge in One Nation support is in response to a generic polling question. Many disenchanted voters already have high profile Independent members and candidates in their local seat. It is Independents who are a bigger threat to the Liberal Party, but complex four cornered contests increase the importance of the order candidates finish on primary votes, and affect whose preferences get distributed.”

No, One Nation are in no position to win elections.

No, but I’m closer than I expected to be (within $20k for my age bracket). I can probably make that much up in my remaining work years.

My wife’s super on the other hand is going to suck. She took about a decade off to be a stay at home mother when the kids were little and is going to put her well behind. The system doesn’t treat parents who do this well. Let’s face it: 90% of the time, it’s women who are career hobbled by parenthood and super pauses.

$500 million purely in sales of software he wrote alone? That would be a feat for sure.

Initially, it was him and his wife, yes. Though they now have a decent sized company with a few hundred employees. I didn’t realise his venture had gotten so big until this thread and I googled him today. Before you get all angry that he’s “profiting off those people’s work”, ask whether those people are better off for working for him or if he should keep all the work and wealth to himself.

The part that’s wrong isn’t doing well and making money, it’s advocating against taxing corporations way more than we are, lobbying for loopholes, and engaging in rent seeking behaviour. Which is extremely, extremely common. Having some kind of cap on how much wealth you can amass seems sensible to me.

I haven’t heard of him doing any of those things. Of course I moved to the other side of the country and no longer move in the same circles as he does. He still has a reputation in IT circles for being a chill bloke, though.

Sorry, I’m missing some context here. Who’s voting at the moment?

A former work colleague of mine might. He’s well over half-way there at least and still gaining.

He quit his job and wrote some software that is used all over the world. If you make a thing and enough people buy it, you get rich. In his case, very rich. He didn’t inherit his wealth. He didn’t start out already a millionaire. His wealth is not coming from being a parasite on society. He isn’t taking resources or hoarding land. He’ll be the first to tell you he is monumentally lucky, but I also can’t see anything he’s doing that’s wrong.

That was called the “Mining tax” and it’s mere proposal killed the Kevin07 movement before Mr Rudd finished his first term. All for the measly cost of a ~$20 Million smear campaign blitz. Bargain!

Frankly, because Australia has things that the USA does not have and really needs. Australia is a stable and reliable political friend in a region of the globe that is close enough to the antipode of mainland USA. Our proximity and unused land affords our US allies with space and privacy to operate with relative comfort. Their bases in Australia also have much shorter logistic chains to operate compared with other remote locales like islands as well.

The USA would be impacted militarily if they lost Australia as an ally. Not irrevocably, they’d get by. But it would cost them a lot more than the simple civility and respect it takes to maintain their relationship with Australia.

Neither nations really needs the other. Our partnership has been convenient for both of us, and it really would be a shame for both nations if that partnership were to lapse.

Apologies all. That user is not representative of Aussie.Zone users. We’re generally a chill bunch.

Does anyone remember the early 90’s? 17% interest rates. Imagine that on a $1,000,000 mortgage. $170k per year interest. That’d certainly be one way to bring house prices down. It’d destroy the economy and probably cause a pile of social issues as well, but yeah - it’d bring house prices down.

You need one of these, ikt. Dr Ned is not a man and the surname “Bible” likely means that one of her ancestors liked to drink (imbibe) booze - nothing to do with religion.

Would you dismiss her so flippantly if the article had said she was from Australian Marine Conservation Society?

I’m struggling to believe there’s such a thing as an “anti-vax doctor”. That’s a classic oxymoron.

I grew up on the Gold Coast in the 80s. I have no memory of such a place, sorry.

I’ll grant that we were poor and not exactly visiting the theme parks every week, but I’m fairly certain I got to them all at least once.

When atheists shoot up Bondi killing 15, take hostages in the lindt cafe

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jan/27/invasion-day-rally-perth-man-charged-alleged-homemade-bomb-device-ntwnfb

Incompetence/luck is the only reason this type of scenario didn’t play out in Perth yesterday.

Morons are going to Moron. They come in all shapes and sizes, all nationalities and religions (or no religion). Lumping them all together with people who aren’t morons is just silly.

His mission was to observe the transit of Venus. The expedition was scientific in nature first and foremost.

You’re speaking of the secret instructions issued to him by the Admiralty to locate the fabled southern continent and hopefully claim it for England. Tasman by this stage had found NZ and I think Van Diemans Land. Yes he found the east coast of Australia and “claimed” it for England. It was all in vain though, the distances were way too far for anything to come of it. To Cook at the time, it was a side trip.

There were two parliamentary inquiries submitted to the British parliament in 1779 and 1785 recommending colonisation of New Holland, but even then: well after Cook’s death, such an expedition was seen as too expensive.

Then the English learned that the French were preparing to colonise and it was suddenly a British priority to get to Australia.

I don’t see how anything to do with the colonisation had anything to do with Captain Cook. You could swap Cook out for any other ship’s captain who was taking the scientists to see Venus and the rest of the expedition plays out much the same. Cook didn’t colonise Australia. He encountered the Guugu Yimithirr people in Northern Queensland and tried to treat with the peacefully - mostly succeeding. He certainly didn’t set about killing them all.

Arthur Philip should be the person people direct their ire at. But he doesn’t have a statue in Melbourne. King George III would be another candidate that made sense. Only George III also doesn’t have a statue in Melbourne.

Captain Cook had nothing to do with the colony. He died in 1779 - years before the settlers arrived. While agreeing with the sentiment that the arrival of Europeans is not cause for celebration, Cook had always been a dumb target for protesting Jan 26.