Another false rape allegation that put an innocent man in jail



In amazing ingratitude, the evil woman targeted someone who  helped her.  She is pretty plain-looking so maybe she was just embittered by her failure with men generally.

The police and prosecutors were very much at fault for accepting uncorroborated allegations as grounds to deny bail.  They were no doubt influenced by the "believe the woman" chant coming from feminists.  But they should not have accepted such a non-judicial policy

A young woman, whose actions led to a good Samaritan being locked up in a maximum-security jail for a week after she lied and claimed he had stalked and sexually assaulted her, has made another accusation.

Caitlyn Gray, 19 at the time of the offence, fronted Bankstown Local Court yesterday accused of lying for days over the way Sydney dad Kenan Basic behaved after he spent more than two hours helping her get her damaged car back on the road at a local BP petrol station.

Mr Basic, 36, lost his job, was served with divorce papers from his wife and spent a week in Silverwater Jail in Sydney’s west after he was accused of the horrific crime on November 22 last year.

Gray initially claimed the father-of-one lunged at her and grabbed her breast and vagina after she refused his advances as “payment” for helping with her car. She then claimed he stalked her through the streets of western Sydney before she called her boyfriend, who reported it to police.

Seven days later, Gray admitted to making the whole thing up.

In sentencing submissions, the prosecution said Gray’s lie was “an offence that strikes at the heart of the judicial system.”

“If not for CCTV footage and the follow-up investigation, Basic would’ve spent months in custody,” the prosecutor said. “There is no alternative other than a full-time custodial sentence.”

Gray’s defence lawyer Peter Kondich instead asked for the 20-year-old to be put on an intensive correction’s order.

Mr Kondich told the court Gray had been in counselling at the time of the incident and was on medication for depression. He also brought up her mental state, reminding the court the then 19-year-old had been in a car crash minutes before Mr Basic assisted her and was not in a “normal frame of mind”.

Mr Kondich also briefly touched on why Gray had made up the allegation, levelling another accusation at Mr Basic.

“The version of the accusation provided is because of a slight that was provided by Mr Basic by way of sexual innuendo,” Mr Kondich told the court. “She has taken offence to that and by that reason she has made the false and misleading statement to police.”

Magistrate Glenn Walsh adjourned Gray’s sentencing to August 9 where he said he expects to give a lengthy sentencing submission.

Following Gray’s sentence, Mr Basic plans to pursue the 20-year-old for the ordeal she put him through.

Mr Basic’s lawyer Mona Elbaba has always maintained the 36-year-old will sue Gray and NSW Police for his week in jail telling reporters in June her client “of course hoping for a jail sentence in the matter he was jailed”.

Today, Ms Elbaba doubled down, speaking about how Mr Basic was still struggling almost nine months after the accusation.

She said she expected higher damages to be laid against NSW Police considering Gray is only 20 years old and may not have many assets.

Mr Basic spent close to $20,000 on legal fees to fight the false charges, which is expected to form part of his lawsuit. He has also been unable to return to work as a handyman due to the psychological damage from his week in jail.

When asked why she lied, Gray said she “just wanted (Mr Basic) to go to jail”.

“He shouldn’t have said that to me. He was disgusting.”

Court documents did not explain what had been said to Gray.

Police then urgently worked into the late hours of November 29, calling senior police, lawyers and Parramatta court “informing them of Gray’s lies”, the statement of facts said.

An urgent bail application was scheduled for Mr Basic the next day, when he was released from custody after seven days behind bars.

SOURCE  





Anti-political correctness packs will be sent to 500 schools to stop students being brainwashed by 'radical gender activists'

Anti-political correctness packs will be sent out to at least 500 schools in a push back against 'radical gender activists' in schools.

The information packs, issued by lobby group Binary, feature a range of materials to educate parents in NSW on their rights and what they can do to keep their children separated from gender identity ideology.

The group, set up by NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham, has the support of several high profile politicians including Finance Minister Damien Tudehope and Corrective Services MP Anthony Roberts - who attended the launch of the packs.

One Nation seeks to end transgender self-identification in NSW that it says has a 'damaging impact' on school children.

'This problem is increasingly common in NSW schools, urged on by left-wing political activists,' Mr Latham told Sydney Morning Herald.

'Schools made a big mistake when they stopped being places of learning and ventured into the world of mental health assessment and radical gender theory.'

Mr Latham, who chairs the upper house's education committee, said on social media following the launch the Information Pack will be 'a great resource in the fight against radical transgender indoctrination in schools'.

'As a father, only a parent has full responsibility over the development of their child, a teacher is secondary and the state should not be interfering with the rights of parents and the family,' he said.

Former candidate for the Australian Liberty Alliance and Director of Binary, Kirralie Smith, said the kits have been funded by donations from their supporters. 

'Barely a day goes by when we don't hear from another parent concerned about what their child is being exposed to at school ... transgender speakers, de-gendering language, pronoun police, explicit sex-education programs and inappropriate library books,' Mrs Smith said.

The kit warns parents against various uses of language such as anti-bullying to silence those raising an alternate opinion.

It also recommends that parents force school to expose their policies on Transgender students by asking them what bathrooms self-identifying students are allowed to use.

SOURCE  






Australia's High Court upholds dismissal of public servant over tweets in landmark free speech ruling

Australia does not have a First Amendment so the courts recognize only a limited right to free speech.  And in any jurisdiction, a government is entitled to impose restrictions on an employee as a condition of employment.  If you don't like the restrictions, get another job.  The High Court has ruled that no conception of free speech over-rules the Australian government's right to require certain things of an employee as a condition of employment


The High Court has upheld the sacking of a public servant who used a pseudonym to criticise government immigration policy on Twitter.

The High Court’s seven judges unanimously overturned a lower court’s decision that Michaela Banerji’s dismissal was not reasonable and that public service rules around the use of social media and making public comment “unacceptably trespassed on the implied freedom of political communication”.

The Community and Public Sector Union, which represents public servants, said the decision had serious implications for free speech and could potentially affect almost two million Australians who work for the federal, state and local governments.

Banerji used the Twitter handle “LaLegale” to send more than 9000 tweets in six years while she was employed by what was then called the Department of Immigration and Border Protection from 2006 and 2012.

The tweets were often critical of government policies, such as banishing refugees who attempt to reach Australia by boat to camps on the poor Pacific island nations of Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

A department investigation discovered that Banerji was behind the tweets and had breached the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, which demands civil servants appear to be politically impartial. Her job was terminated in September 2013.

The next month, she lodged a claim for workers’ compensation for a post-traumatic stress disorder that she blamed on her termination. The claim was refused because her termination was deemed a “reasonable administrative action”.

Banerji appealed that decision in a public service court known as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, arguing that her tweets were “entirely anonymous”, did not disclose departmental information, were sent from her personal phone and outside office hours.

The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. But the High Court has previously ruled that an implied freedom of political communication exists in Australia because that is essential in a democracy. The tribunal upheld her appeal and her right to political communication, but the High Court decision rules out the prospect of compensation.

A tearful Banerji said outside court that she pursued the case “to affirm the role of this freedom of speech for public servants and we failed”. “It’s not just a loss for me, it’s a loss for all of us and I’m very, very, very sorry,” Ms Banerji told reporters.

Her lawyer Allan Anforth said outside court that he expected the decision would entitle any employer to fire an employee for criticising the boss’s stance on a political issue. “The logic of it does not stop at the bounds of the public service,” Mr Anforth said.

The Community and Public Sector Union national secretary Nadine Flood said her union “has always defended the rights of public servants to participate in our democracy like everyone else can”. “People working in Commonwealth agencies should be allowed normal rights as citizens rather than facing Orwellian censorship because of where they work,” Ms Flood said in a statement.

SOURCE  







SA blackout blows wind farms into court

No precautions taken against interruption of supply.  They just accepted the delusory Greenie belief that "renewables" were adequate

The Australian Energy Regulator will take four South Australian wind farm operators to court accusing them of failing to perform properly during SA's statewide blackout in 2016.

The action in the Federal Court will allege AGL Energy Ltd, Neoen SA, Pacific Hydro Ltd and Tilt Renewables all breached the National Electricity Rules.

"The AER has brought these proceedings to send a strong signal to all energy businesses about the importance of compliance with performance standards to promote system security and reliability" chair Paula Conboy said.

"These alleged failures contributed to the black system event, and meant that Australian Energy Market Operator was not fully informed when responding to system-wide failure."

The allegations relate to the performance of wind farms during the severe weather event that swept across SA in September 2016 and which ultimately triggered the statewide power outage.

The storms damaged more than 20 towers in the state's mid-north, bringing down major transmission lines and causing a knock-on effect across the state's energy grid.

About 850,000 customers lost power, with some in the state's north and on the Eyre Peninsula left without electricity for several days.

A report from AEMO released about a month later found nine of 13 wind farms online at the time of the blackout switched off when the transmission lines came down.

It found the inability of the wind farms to ride through those disturbances was the result of safety settings that forced them to disconnect or reduce output.

The blackout also sparked a war of words between supporters of renewable power and those who blamed SA's high reliance on wind and solar generation as a contributing factor.

That included an infamous confrontation between former Premier Jay Weatherill and then Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg at a media conference in Adelaide, with Mr Weatherill lashing the coalition's "anti-South Australian stance" as a disgrace.

Current Energy Minister Angus Taylor said it was important for the regulator to enforce market rules. "We need to have reliable power in this country ... and that means all generators need to perform," he said.

In its action, the AER alleges each of the wind farm operators failed to ensure that their plant and associated facilities complied with their generator performance standard requirement to ride-through certain disturbances.

It also alleges that the wind farm operators failed to provide automatic protection systems to enable them to ride-through voltage disturbances to ensure continuity of supply, in contravention of the National Electricity Rules.

The AER is seeking declarations, penalties, compliance program orders and costs.

The action against AGL relates to the Hallett 1, Hallett 2 Hallett 4 and Hallett 5 wind farms.

In relates to Neoen SA's Hornsdale Wind Farm, Pacific Hydro's Clements Gap Wind Farm and Tilt Renewables' Snowtown 2 Wind Farm.

In a statement, AGL said it had previously considered that it had complied with its legal obligations in relation to the 2016 events.

But it said it would review the allegations made by the AER and consider its position.

Tilt Renewables said it believed it had acted in good faith and in accordance with the applicable National Electricity Rules in relation to the SA blackout. "The company will continue to engage with the AER in an endeavour to resolve this matter," it said.

Pacific Hydro said as legal proceedings had just commenced, it would not be making comment at this stage.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here