Mercantile Investments - MVT. (BIL revisited)

[Balance]

correct but in NZ your innocent until proven guilty

Again, he was charged in Australia and he did not have name suppression.

All children anywhere in the world are entitled to be protected from sex-predators and Ron Brierley is no different from any other predator.

Once the court is satisfied that he poses a danger to underage/children out there - hence the strict bail conditions and non-name suppression.

Too often, the rich and famous get name suppression (especially in NZ) but in Australia, they throw the book at underage/child sex exploitation.

[bull....]

Again, he was charged in Australia and he did not have name suppression.

All children anywhere in the world are entitled to be protected from sex-predators and Ron Brierley is no different from any other predator.

Once the court is satisfied that he poses a danger to underage/children out there - hence the strict bail conditions and non-name suppression.

Too often, the rich and famous get name suppression (especially in NZ) but in Australia, they throw the book at underage/child sex exploitation.

guess im meaning i wont pass judgement until all the facts are known and they are proven in a court of law. too much fake news nowadays to pass judgement on whats written in the media


how do we know it was not plant by a disgruntled business person? just saying we dont know exact facts from the sidelines

[Balance]

guess im meaning i wont pass judgement until all the facts are known and they are proven in a court of law. too much fake news nowadays to pass judgement on whats written in the media

Would you be comfortable to leave a young child in the company of Ron? Especially when she or he is of your family?

That is the critical issue which seems to be missed by those jumping to the defense of Ron.

[bull....]

Would you be comfortable to leave a young child in the company of Ron? Especially when she or he is of your family?

That is the critical issue which seems to be missed by those jumping to the defense of Ron.

if i knew him really well then i could pass judgement but i dont know him so im not going to suppose what i would do. i would not leave kids with a stranger thats for sure

[Balance]

No-one can condone the exploitation of underage children in whatever country for the sexual gratification of old white men. And if the tip off from the public has come from Brierley's biographer via a book published thirty years ago, the police have certainly been tardy to act. But let's look at the facts here.

Brierley may indeed be a devout buddist. It was the author of the book who put her own interpretation on his comments on visiting buddist temples. Counter to that argument would be that most devout buddists eschew the trappings of wealth. But wealth is a relative term. Brierley was in his heyday generous with sharing his wealth with others (160,000+ shareholders). Relative to the really wealthy, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, you could argue that Brierley is in fact a pauper.

Underage prostitution may be a problem in Thailand. But there is no evidence that Sir Ron participated in this more unsavoury side of the business. He may have engaged with 'of age' prostitutes in a perfectly legal way. Behaving in way that public perception might see as unsavoury does not make Brierley a criminal.

As for those thousands of porn photographs on his computer, they could be multiple copies from his Hallenstein Glasson annual report collection ready to hand out to participants in an investment seminar he was organising in Fiji.

I am not condoning Brierley if he is eventually found guilty. But to try him and convict him by media before he is even officially named in the Australian courts as a defendant is I think going too far. I am suggesting there could still be legitimate explanations for the facts as published by the media.

SNOOPY

Multiple copies of HLG's annual report collection - you make light, Snoopy, of something extremely serious, immoral, repugnant and disgusting - the sexual exploitation of underage/child.

You are scrapping at the bottom of the sewage pond to come out with insulting excuses (especially to the exploited children) like those.

He has no name suppression - that's how serious the judge and court viewed the images and videos he had in his possession.

And remember he had been under surveillance for 4 months and they knew his modus operandi by the time they stopped him at Sydney airport.

[Balance]

if i knew him really well then i could pass judgement but i dont know him so im not going to suppose what i would do. i would not leave kids with a stranger thats for sure

You ignore the fact that there are many who know Ron and who have young children.

What part of child protection do you not get?

[Snoopy]

Multiple copies of HLG's annual report collection - you make light, Snoopy, of something extremely serious, immoral, repugnant and disgusting - the sexual exploitation of underage/child.

You are digging really at the bottom of the sewage pond to some out with excuses like those.

Child abuse, or more succinctly being in the position of having pictures of what the Australian Authorities deem as child abuse is illegal. But being 'immoral' 'repugnant' and 'disgusting' are qualities that are not illegal in themselves. These are terms that you have introduced Balance, to sway readers to your own viewpoint. They may be valid descriptions of your own emotions. But rest assured Brierley will not be charged for being 'immoral', 'disgusting' or 'repugnant'.

The police aren't as definitive in their view as you are Balance, either.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12295088

-------

The contents of his laptop and electronic storage devices were reviewed, which are alleged to have contained large amounts of child abuse material," NSW Police said in a statement.

-----

The police have not convicted Brierley yet, and they are being sensibly measured in disclosing what they found. The police would not have arrested him if they didn't think they had a case. But the mere fact of the police bringing a case does not imply guilt. As I said in my previous post, I do not condone child abuse in any form. And if Brierley is found guilty I will be quick to condemn him. But so far you have only heard the police side of the case - not Brierley's.

He has no name suppression - that's how serious the judge and court viewed the images and videos he had in his possession.

IIRC the police only said that an 82 year old member of the public living in an exclusive suburb has been arrested at Sydney Airport on the way to Fiji on suspicion of possessing offensive material. It was the public and journalists that joined the dots and figured out it was Brierley. I think the name had escaped into the wild before there was any chance to even consider name suppression.

And remember he had been under surveillance for 4 months and they knew his modus operandi by the time they stopped him at Sydney airport.

If the authorities knew Brierley's modus operandi, wouldn't they have just gone to his house and arrested him and executed a search warrant? The anti-terrorism laws at airports might have given the police a legitimate chance to inspect his electronic devices in what was up to the point of laptop inspection a 'fishing expedition'.

SNOOPY

[Balance]

Child abuse, or more succinctly having pictures of what the Australian Authorities deem as child abuse is illegal. But being 'immoral' 'repugnant' and 'disgusting' are qualities that are not illegal in themselves. These are terms that you have introduced Balance,to sway readers to your own viewpoint. They may be valid descriptions of your own emotions. But rest assured Brierley will not be charged for being 'immoral', 'disgusting' or 'repugnant'.

The police aren't as definitive in their view as you are Balance, either.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12295088

-------

The contents of his laptop and electronic storage devices were reviewed, which are alleged to have contained large amounts of child abuse material," NSW Police said in a statement.

-----

The police have not convicted Brierley yet, and they are being sensibly measured in disclosing what they found. The police would not have arrested him if they didn't think they had a case. But the mere fact of the police bringing a case does not imply guilt. As I said in my previous post, I do not condone child abuse in any form. And if Brierley is found guilty I will be quick to condemn him. But so far you have only heard the police side of the case - not Brierley's.




IIRC the police only said that an 82 year old member of the public living in an exclusive suburb has been arrested at Sydney Airport on the way to Fiji on suspicion of possessing offensive material. It was the public and journalists that joined the dots and<script src="https://adservice.google.co.nz/adsid/integrator.sync.js?domain=www.sharetrader.co.nz" ></script><script >processGoogleTokenSync({"newToken":"FBS"},5);</script> figured out it was Brierley. I think the name had escaped into the wild before there was any chance to even consider name suppression.



If the authorities knew Brierley's modus operandi, wouldn't they have just gone to his house and arrested him and executed a search warrant? The anti-terrorism laws at airports might have given the police a legitimate chance to inspect his computer in what was up to the point of laptop inspection a 'fishing expedition'.

SNOOPY

1. Your understanding of how legal jargon works - 'alleged'. That's legal language journalists have to use for 'guilty until proven innocent.' A lot easier to use the word 'alleged' as it's an easy out for the reporters. They can actually use "the police charged Ron with possession of child abuse and exploitation material' but the editors always put in the alleged as a failsafe against law suits.

Check with your local reporter.

2. Repugnant, immoral and disgusting are several of the many reasons why child exploitation has been outlawed. You may think it's not so and that's your right but most of us think so.

3. From one of the reporters - the police did not have enough to go on to get an order to raid Ron's house after placing him under surveillance. So being smart and diligent, they used their legal power to inspect his laptop and mobile when he was departing the country. They were right and they got him. Judge agreed and placed Ron under strict bail conditions. Judge also authorized a raid on his house.

"A subsequent search of Brierley's Point Piper home in Sydney's eastern suburbs allegedly yielded further electronic items that will undergo investigation."

The Australian police followed proper procedures and they have convinced the judge.

4. Ron may be rich, powerful and thought he was immune from the laws of ordinary folks - he is finding out and will find out even more in Feb 2020 that's not the case in Australia.

5. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12295088

Which part of 'arrested and charged' do you not understand?

6. Name suppression is usually requested and granted at the first hearing. Why did Ron not asked for name suppression? More likely he asked but it was refused.

[Snoopy]

I honestly don't even know where to start to correct you so let's leave it at :

1. Your understanding of how legal jargon works - 'alleged'.

An alleged offender is not a guilty offender

2. Repugnant, immoral and disgusting are several of the many reasons why child exploitation has been outlawed. You may think it's not so and that's your right.

I thought that child exploitation had been outlawed because it was harmful to the child! Feeling repugnant, immoral and disgusting are natural human reactions when hearing about child exploitation. I am not saying you or anyone else are wrong for feeling those. But a person being repugnant, immoral and disgusting in someone's view is not a crime in itself.

SNOOPY

[Balance]

An alleged offender is not a guilty offender



I thought that child exploitation had been outlawed because it was harmful to the child! Feeling repugnant, immoral and disgusting are natural human reactions when hearing about child exploitation. I am not saying you or anyone else are wrong for feeling those. But a person being repugnant, immoral and disgusting in someone's view is not a crime in itself.

SNOOPY

Only in NZ, Snoopy where it's okay to allow child killers to escape jail because the law allows witnesses the right to remain silent.

Great, isn't it?