ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#24

[plentyofnous]

Plentyofnous and everyone who has knowledge in this area, I think there is a chance the Dickies matter may have fallen under the state legislation or under the Child Protection Act, and would have gone through in a Magistrates Court somewhere. The Dickies may have obtained an interim Child Protection Order whereby the children would have come under the care of the Department of Child Safety, and in this case the Department would have granted them care of the children - your thoughts?

Perhaps even if the father gets bail, I would think the Department may get a 12 month Child Protection Order or something along those lines (I realise in your post above you are talking about permanent custody/residence)....(MOO)

IMO DOCS would only been able to get a Temporary Assessment Order which allows them custody for 3 days initially to assess where the children should be placed, not the Dickies, Dickies can make notifications about the children s welfare, but certainly can t apply for any such order under State Act that I am aware of.

IMO It would be very wrong if the Father didn t have the children returned to him if we use the basis , innocent til proven guilty, unless it can be established they are in some immediate danger, when peoples decisions, and not courts, are used to alter childrens rights to be with a parent, we end up with a stolen generation IMO

here s a link

not an opinion on what should happen , merely an opinion on what may happen, before i get shot down

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/legisltn/current/c/childprotecta99.pdf

 

[The Dark Shadow]

Social media is a juggernaut. It's way too big and embedded to control or shut down. It can be regulated though, with the cooperation and common sense of everyone involved in it. I think internet communities have been given a huge amount of power and its largely up to them to consider how they use it. It has grown too quickly for the law to keep pace. Australians have always valued a fair go and as a culture I think we strike a pretty good balance between not letting ourselves be dictated to by authority but also respecting the rights of others. That's why I love the joint. We're not perfect but i think we do it better here than in most other places.

I know almost nothing about Mr Baden Clay except that the QPS believe he murdered his wife. As a fellow Aussie I reckon I owe him the right to a proper hearing based on the evidence that passes the court's test for fairness. I reckon his family and those who care about him, including his kids, also deserve some respect and consideration. It would be bad enough having lost one family member then having another one accused of killing her without every Tom, Dick and Harry suggesting all sorts of other horrific things without any regulation at all. If enough people repeat an allegation, no matter how little real evidence there is for it, it starts to acquire the trappings of 'fact'. People forget where the rumour started and it gets passed on as if it's true. That can be truly hurtful to the subject of the allegations but also totally devestating if the the subject is facing a serious criminal charge that could result in them having the rest of their life ruined and their family torn apart.

On the other hand, I don't feel any particular sympathy for the guy beyond that, for all the reasons that were discussed here before the arrest. And all the talk about permanent stays on indictments and aborted trials I reckon doesn't really help. It just confuses people further and it causes defensive reactions and perhaps even intensifies the level of animosity when people feel their right to have an opinion is threatened. I listened to the lunch break video on the CM yesterday and it all just sounded like confused waffle to me. All well intentioned but full of mixed messages and uncertainty about what they were actually trying to say.

I also reckon that most people are fair minded enough that when a judge tells them to make a decision based only on the evidence they hear in the court that they can and will do that. Presumably judges are fair and decent enough to follow that advice themselves, so why can't we extend the same assumption of decency to the members of the community who do jury service? So many people are on social media and internet forums now that there's little point in hoping that vague warnings about subjudice will just stop internet speculation. That would be just sticking our heads in the sand.

I've got no answers to any of this, but I think that each of us could at least pause for thought before we press 'submit' on a post and consider whether what we are doing or saying is fair to all concnerned. I don't reckon that the law can effectivley regulate, on its own, what happens in social media these days but we can all play our part by valuing the wider audience it gives to our thoughts and by continuing to question our own actions. Just MOO. I'd really like to hear other people's opinions about this.

Thank you Hawkins,
A well thought out and balanced post :thumb:.

I cannot speak for other posters here, but i do want to clarify the fact that any cautioning posts that i myself have added to this thread have in no way been intended to silence posters... After all, if i completely disagreed with social media, i would not be a member of this forum!

The point i have been attempting to get across is that, despite the obvious need to update the laws to meet contemporary trends, the law that is currently enacted is still 100% enforceable :tos:.
So, regardless of the fact that we may find them unfair, unjust or unnecessary, there is still the chance, albeit slim, that a defence team may use these laws to better their position - compromising justice for Allison and her family .

My intentions are good, but i am so sorry if i have made some of you feel confused or uncomfortable with expressing your views. That was definitely not my intention.

As far as i can see, you have all been fairly cautious anyway, using words like alleged, and suspect; and the mods have been on the ball with any libelious posts, so nothing to panic about. I just thought it would be helpful for posters to be aware of the laws surrounding this case, as lack of knowledge of the law is not considered a defence in Australia.

Thanks for listening, guys

:cheers:

 

[Elspeth]

Recall reading somewhere that GBC's credit card was declined at the supermarket was this true or purely rumour?...Can imagine a person who was extremely image conscious as he is portrayed to be ? becoming very angry over such a loss of face as this...

 

[Hawkins]

Thank you Hawkins,
A well thought out and balanced post :thumb:.

I cannot speak for other posters here, but i do want to clarify the fact that any cautioning posts that i myself have added to this thread have in no way been intended to silence posters... After all, if i completely disagreed with social media, i would not be a member of this forum!

The point i have been attempting to get across is that, despite the obvious need to update the laws to meet contemporary trends, the law that is currently enacted is still 100% enforceable :tos:.
So, regardless of the fact that we may find them unfair, unjust or unnecessary, there is still the chance, albeit slim, that a defence team may use these laws to better their position - compromising justice for Allison and her family .

My intentions are good, but i am so sorry if i have made some of you feel confused or uncomfortable with expressing your views. That was definitely not my intention.

As far as i can see, you have all been fairly cautious anyway, using words like alleged, and suspect; and the mods have been on the ball with any libelious posts, so nothing to panic about. I just thought it would be helpful for posters to be aware of the laws surrounding this case, as lack of knowledge of the law is not considered a defence in Australia.

Thanks for listening, guys

:cheers:

I agree with everything you say. Great stuff.

 

[The Dark Shadow]

Hawkins, I agree. Despite my initial posts on this matter, I have now come to realise that everyone should be (and is) free to make their own decisions about what they think is suitable to post. After all, the mods have reminded us that we "own" our own words so the responsibility for our posts - in both the short and long term - rests with us.

I think the most telling thing we could all take note of is the approach that some posts take in how they are written, and what info is used. When I consider all the various legal advice given in obviously very informative posts on this topic, made by those who have ex cop, barrister, law prof, journalist, criminologist, etc backgrounds, it's clear to see that these are the posts which do not make *any* specific comments about the case (or those involved in and around it). While some people advocate a more relaxed approach to the law and others are more mindful about adhering to the letter of the law, the end result of their posts is very much on the side of caution. Therefore, I think actions speak louder than words - if we are to consider the advice from others.

There has been so much information now posted on this forum about legal issues that there can be no doubt about what may or may not be problematic, and luckily we all have Google at our fingertips if we ever want to become more knowledgable about any of these aspects. MOO

:goodpost::thumb:

 

[CaseClosed]

Thank you Hawkins,
A well thought out and balanced post :thumb:.

I cannot speak for other posters here, but i do want to clarify the fact that any cautioning posts that i myself have added to this thread have in no way been intended to silence posters... After all, if i completely disagreed with social media, i would not be a member of this forum!

The point i have been attempting to get across is that, despite the obvious need to update the laws to meet contemporary trends, the law that is currently enacted is still 100% enforceable :tos:.
So, regardless of the fact that we may find them unfair, unjust or unnecessary, there is still the chance, albeit slim, that a defence team may use these laws to better their position - compromising justice for Allison and her family .

My intentions are good, but i am so sorry if i have made some of you feel confused or uncomfortable with expressing your views. That was definitely not my intention.

As far as i can see, you have all been fairly cautious anyway, using words like alleged, and suspect; and the mods have been on the ball with any libelious posts, so nothing to panic about. I just thought it would be helpful for posters to be aware of the laws surrounding this case, as lack of knowledge of the law is not considered a defence in Australia.

Thanks for listening, guys

:cheers:

Thank you. I think most posters will appreciated everybody's input into this and I don't think it has been taken the wrong way. Although I knew some of what the law states, additional info provide by posters like you has been very helpful.

 

[CaseClosed]

Recall reading somewhere that GBC's credit card was declined at the supermarket was this true or purely rumour?...Can imagine a person who was extremely image conscious as he is portrayed to be ? becoming very angry over such a loss of face as this...

The credit card thing is a rumour.

 

[The Dark Shadow]

I agree with everything you say. Great stuff.

Thanks Hawkins

 

[The Dark Shadow]

Thank you. I think most posters will appreciated everybody's input into this and I don't think it has been taken the wrong way. Although I knew some of what the law states, additional info provide by posters like you has been very helpful.

Thank you, CC

 

[marlywings]

Recall reading somewhere that GBC's credit card was declined at the supermarket was this true or purely rumour?...Can imagine a person who was extremely image conscious as he is portrayed to be ? becoming very angry over such a loss of face as this...

Purely rumour at this stage I think Elspeth. IF it's true, I agree with you re the possible anger/loss of face. In my opinion this may have been the very thing which started it all.

Allison went to hairdresser, paid X amount of $$'s for a hairdo...GBC in meantime had his card rejected so can't buy whatever it was he wanted. Allison arrives home to a very angry/volatile GBC, he accuses her of spending those $$'s ....fighting begins.

....just my opinion.

 

[Mothergoose]

HAWKINS - Thank you again for another great post! I particularly appreciate the fairness and balance of your input.

Hawkins....Brilliant ,fair, and concise. Thank you. :yourock:

 

[Mothergoose]

I think it would be much more interesting if our on line names were used and we were dressed as some of the avatars displayed and turned up at court for duty

Well I'll be the goose:laugh: wearing the sandels re my avatar. See you there.

 

[LouH]

Apologies if this was discussed in a previous thread, I wasn't here in the early days of the case.

I've already mentioned in a previous thread that when OW was first on TV I felt like she was already 'known' to me in some way. I don't think I've ever met her but she seemed familiar. I googled, thought she might have been on TV, but couldn't find any mention.

It's been bugging me though and I've been searching. Found a site with a list of famous scouts with her name on it! The link though to her page doesn't work and she isn't on the scouting Australia list of famous scouts anymore. Just wondering if anyone knows what she was listed as being famous for?

http://atkinson.scoutsqld.com.au/famous_scouts.htm

 

[squizzey1]

Apologies if this was discussed in a previous thread, I wasn't here in the early days of the case.

I've already mentioned in a previous thread that when OW was first on TV I felt like she was already 'known' to me in some way. I don't think I've ever met her but she seemed familiar. I googled, thought she might have been on TV, but couldn't find any mention.

It's been bugging me though and I've been searching. Found a site with a list of famous scouts with her name on it! The link though to her page doesn't work and she isn't on the scouting Australia list of famous scouts anymore. Just wondering if anyone knows what she was listed as being famous for?

http://atkinson.scoutsqld.com.au/famous_scouts.htm

dont know. now famous for being sister of GBC lol

 

[ActusReus]

Social media is a juggernaut. It's way too big and embedded to control or shut down. It can be regulated though, with the cooperation and common sense of everyone involved in it.

I'd really like to hear other people's opinions about this.

I agree with the point about social media being a juggernaut and the Law is notiously slow at keeping up with social change. I also agree with applying the "fair go" principle.

MOO on social media and sub judice is that sooner or later there is bound to be a test case that will further develop the Common Law in this area. Very hard to regulate social media by statute and I think Judge made law is probably where it will be decided. As to when this happens?.....who knows. The end result will, IMO, only really affect how forums etc are moderated.

I don't think Mr Baden Clay has been unfairly villified/defamed on this site. Other sites...not so sure about.

All MOO

 

[Woof]

are u sure thats not the $300,000 GBC owes his former partners. that is the only time i have seen $300,000 ever published. i could have missed something i suppose

Yes indeed, that's it. But I'm pretty sure a similar article mentioned BC Seniors had a $300,000 mortgage on their home. I think it left the readers to assume whatever they wished. I think so. I could be wrong though.

 

[possumheart]

Fundraisers and a song for the three daughter of Allison Baden-Clay help a community heal through compassion
http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/west/fundraisers-and-a-song-help-a-community-heal-through-compassion-allison-baden-clay-daughters-girls/story-fn8m0u4y-1226400983220

 

[Woof]

Apologies if this was discussed in a previous thread, I wasn't here in the early days of the case.

I've already mentioned in a previous thread that when OW was first on TV I felt like she was already 'known' to me in some way. I don't think I've ever met her but she seemed familiar. I googled, thought she might have been on TV, but couldn't find any mention.

It's been bugging me though and I've been searching. Found a site with a list of famous scouts with her name on it! The link though to her page doesn't work and she isn't on the scouting Australia list of famous scouts anymore. Just wondering if anyone knows what she was listed as being famous for?

http://atkinson.scoutsqld.com.au/famous_scouts.htm

She was Cadet Captain at ADFA. Don't know if that's enough to make you consider her 'famous' though.

 

[Liadan]

I know next to nothing about custody laws and family law but I was thinking the change of custody to the Dickies is telling, certainly at this point in time.

What if the police have (GBC's) parents involvement on file somehow and so QPS need to keep the kids out of the BC scenario completely. I know QPS have said 'no more arrests' and then 'at this stage we cannot confirm that there be no more arrests'. (To me this sounds like the same ole story we were strung along with when GBC was a suspect and then not a person of interest, no comment at this time sort of stuff.)

The girls would not be allowed to stay with relatives implicated in the murder of ABC so perhaps this is why they have allowed them to be with the Dickies. The BC's were looking after GBC for the 8 weeks that he was 'not talking' to police. In my mind this in itself is disturbing, did the parents know of his alleged guilt, because this could be effectively aiding and abetting a criminal.

OW was questioned leading up to the arrest and I would think logically that if EBC and NBC would have been questioned and had cooperated with the police then they would still have the girls - would not speaking to the police cause concern for suspicion to detectives? And could this impact on BC's custody of the girls.

In terms of stability I think the Dickies would be the superior carers. MOO However, the Brookflied school and the girls' friends are all around where EBC and NBC live and would cause the least disruption to their life at this point. (But probably a minor consideration after their ordeal to date.)

No more talk from TM (maybe that is because of her lawyer.)

 

[Aunty]

:woohoo::rocker:

That would also apply to 99.9% of us here.
Everyone has draw to a conclusion regarding a whole heap of circumstantial evidence (not even evidence, but a string of rumours and talk about how he acted)
Give the guy his chance to be tried correctly and assess the evidence as QPS presents it.

I agree with Hawkins and your followup statement 100% :woohoo: