Dear Liat

I agree entirely with you and reckon that Laws wishes he didn’t take that call.

If I may extend this uggly storry, I wonder what “group” of people that poor woman belongs to.
I am sure you know what I am aluding to,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Anyway, thanks for the comprehensive discussion, Otto.

Dear Liat
1st. Chag Sameah to you and yours as well !!!

You are perfectly right in everything you say. I am not trying to reduce the value of your argument, only to add that certain procedures have been put in place and people who are aware of them, even non legal minds, would find it safe, specially when the issue goes public on air and without prior knowledge of the case, as it happened, to follow what is known as “the protocols” of discussion.
It is too obvious that a six year old abused child has no notion of consent and no one in his right mind would agree to that, but I still believe that Laws felt that he would need to be EXTRA cautious and, by doing that he did give reasons to some people to believe that he was doubting the victim’s genuine case. He made it clear that his intentions were to support the claims of abuse, but what does one do when on air and a case like this want sto be heard publicly and the station gives the “go ahead” ?!.
These are current and ardent issues, they are widely publicised and debated by all manner of individuals and organisations. If 2GB would have refused to air such issues, whic they may from now on, they would have been accused by more or less the same who accuse now Laws/2GB of not handling it properly, that they are sweeping the issue under the carpet and all such stuff.
So either the subject is restricted to legal fora and NO other entity or person is allowed to partake in the topic, lest the imputations of unfairness will abound ( and that goes for Tzedek as well ) or we allow the issue, as it is democratically normal, to be discussed by all sorts of entities, some of which may NOT be suitably trained to debate in a manner that will not attract ANY criticism at all !!!
Going by my own record, I have been quite regularly critical of the way in which Tzedek has been handling at times this very issue. So, dear Liat, give us the name of Mr/Mrs/Mis/Ms Perfect .

Would this be your reaction if the woman concerned was your daughter?

Chag Sameach, Otto and best regards. L.

Dear Liat
My assumption is based on the FACT(s) that John Laws would consider carefully his approach to the matter. One may also easily interpret that Laws’ questions were meant to allay any doubts that the person in question would have consented and, thus, establish that she was, indeed, a genuine victim. Such lines of questioning are reasonable in such situations and they do form part of a statutory forensic procedure in such cases, anyway. I feel confident that Laws would be well aware of this.
I also believe that there is a genuine concern amongst public personalities involved in opinion making in strengthening the universal opprobium of such abhorent cases. Laws would be very careful not to indulge to any degree in creating doubts, conducive to accpetance of child molestation.

It doesn’t matter who wrote this posted article, really. It’s what it has say that’s important, and I support what it has to say entire.y.

I was warmed that you chose to support the victim and condemn Laws. Especially,
when you were unsure of whether the woman caller was a member of the Jewish community.
I am not a member of your community either, ,except in the sense we are all members of a great big diverse community.
For what it is worth, I am very impressed by your stand.

I wish more groups would do this sort of thing for others.

Thank you

Dianne