Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Ethical questions » Melbourne’s ambulance service won’t reinstate him…

Melbourne’s ambulance service won’t reinstate him…

A PARAMEDIC cleared of sexually assaulting a drug-affected patient is shattered that Melbourne’s ambulance service won’t reinstate him.

Simon Howe, 32, was found not guilty of digital rape and indecent assault by the County Court this week and now wants his job back.

But the Metropolitan Ambulance Service yesterday claimed he was sacked for breaching his employment contract by not filling out an incident report. They said working for the MAS again was not an option.

Mr Howe yesterday said he had proved his innocence in court and was now being put through the added trauma of an unfair dismissal case.

“I’m devastated, shattered, my life has been turned upside down,” Mr Howe said yesterday.

“As far as MAS is concerned I was guilty. I have had to pay for the right to prove my innocence and I still have to pay today.”

Mr Howe said stricter security measures such as cameras were needed in ambulances to protect paramedics against false allegations or violence.

Herald Sun

In the past I have said that false accusations of rape can ruin a man’s life only to have some of my friends of the feminist/leftist persuasion insist that once the accusation is proven false all will be sweetness and light for the accused man.  Sadly for their argument the life of Simon Howe  is actually dark and sour at this very moment. despite his being acquitted of the charge of digitally raping a woman. He now has to fight another court case to win back his job.

And is there any hint that the complainant will either be named and shamed or suffer any negative consequences for her  false claims?

Not a sausage  Comrades

🙄


34 Comments

  1. Mark L. says:

    There’s more to this story than just a malicious allegation, which you’d have discovered if you’d researched a little more widely. The woman was near-psychotic from drug use; the accused paramedic was seen, by his partner, to have his hands under her clothing. A more thorough report can be read here.

    The court may have acquitted Howe because assault couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities his employer has deemed him too great a risk to re-employ, and justifiably so. Would you be happy having him transport your daughter in the back of an ambulance, Iain?

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Come off it Mark what exactly do you base that on?

    🙄

  3. Mark L. says:

    Yet another trademark Iain Hall pissweak dodge.
    I say again – would you be happy having this guy treating your daughter, based on what has been reported thus far?

  4. Iain Hall says:

    I asked you to provide sources for your claims which you seem unable to do…

  5. Mark L. says:

    No, I did, you’re either blind or stupid. There’s a link to this article in my first post:

    Howe’s co-worker, Anthony Foundling, was driving the ambulance and said the woman started making “orgasmic sounds” and flaying around her legs and arms.

    He said he glanced in the rear vision mirror several times and on one occasion saw Howe’s left hand underneath a blanket, which was covering the woman’s waist and groin region.

    Mr Foundling said he saw what appeared to be a backwards and forwards motion under the blanket two or three times and later Howe had his face only centimetres from the patient’s face.

    This story has been receiving publicity in Victoria for months and there’s much more to it than the single article you’ve come across and produced as evidence of the evils of false allegation of sexual assault. Ambulance Victoria has conducted its own investigation into Simon Howe and determined that while he mightn’t have broken the law, at best he took advantage of the situation for his own gratification. That’s why they haven’t re-employed him.

    Now I ask you again for a third time, regardless of whatever verdict this court has returned, would you want this fellow tending to your sick/injured daughter in the back of his ambulance?

  6. Iain Hall says:

    Mark
    I am not going to answer your loaded question (recently you are so fond of those aren’t you?) the “evidence” you present is by no means conclusive or a conviction would have been secured. But even on a balance of probabilities standard it does not seem to make any sense at all. I agree with the comment in the piece originally quoted for my post that cctv of the inside of ambulances would be a good idea to protect paramedics from such allegations. But what surprises me is that you are so willing to throw the presumption of innocence right out of the window on this one but yet on the other thread about your pal Hicksy you want to ignore his freely given admissions of his terrorist adventures. Seems like a typical leftist double standard to me.

    Oh and on your link I actually did not see it until you pointed it out in a latter comment because of the formatting of this particular template.

  7. Mark L. says:

    You won’t provide an answer because you’re too frightened too, so don’t delve into guff about ‘loaded questions’. If you think the guy should be reinstated then by implication you’d be comfortable with him treating any female, including your wife or daughter. The fact you won’t declare this means your principle is weak and you probably know your argument is flawed.

    By the way, bringing Hicks into this is an obvious and pathetic diversion. I’ve never said anything in support of him, only that he would find it very easy to bypass any legal block against selling his story. Suggesting that Hicks is “my pal” is just one of your usual smoke-mortars you shoot into a comment thread when it’s plainly obvious that you’re having your backside kicked from one side of it to the other.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Mark
    you seem so keen to score in a game of one-upmanship rather than explore the actual issues I Won’t answer the question because it is both hypothetical and pointless as your own exposition of what you think my thought process is here shows.

    Your argument seems to be that an unsubstantiated allegation, is all that is required to ruin someone’s life and career and that that allegation should still be believed even after it has been tested (in a court of law) and dismissed. Hmm just imagine such an allegation had been made against you would you not then scream about the right that you have to be presumed innocent and that a not guilty verdict at a trial should restore your good name and reputation? I bet you would, in spades. In fact that was your line in a previous thread about false allegations of rape,
    The reality is that there can very often be a big difference between what witnesses claim to have seen and what actually happened as any detective will tell you. There are all sorts of questions about the angle of view,the fact that the witness was in the majority focused on driving the ambulance,and at best his view of what may have been happening in the back of the ambulance would have been a series of glimpses(in a rear-view mirror no less) then there is the very real possibility that the witness’ imagination has “filled in the gaps” and that he now fears losing face by retreating from his previous claims.There are as many possibilities as there are moments in time but what you can not say with any certainty is that Simon Howe has done wrong here and under our notion of justice it is the accuser who has to provide the poof not the accused.

  9. Mark L. says:

    Your argument seems to be that an unsubstantiated allegation, is all that is required to ruin someone’s life and career…

    It’s not “unsubstantiated” at all, because his workmate heard the woman moaning AND saw Howe’s hand under the blanket doing goodness-knows-what. While that wasn’t enough to warrant a criminal conviction, neither does it clear him of all wrong-doing. In addition to that, Howe failed to lodge an incident report, which is compulsory in all cases where paramedics are exposed to violent or sexually confronting situations. Something to hide, perhaps?

    Courts of law may have the burden of deciding guilt but the only function of the ambulance service is to protect the health and well-being of its patients – and that’s why Howe, whose behaviour is at best misguided and at worst devious, is no longer in their employ. His life is not destroyed because he’s not in prison or under suspicion. Ambulance Victoria can feel safer; so can their clients. If you think that this man’s rights are paramount over the safety of females who might utilise the ambulance service in the future – including my daughter and yours, even though you spinelessly deny the question – then that’s just bad luck.

    Hmm just imagine such an allegation had been made against you would you not then scream about the right that you have to be presumed innocent and that a not guilty verdict at a trial should restore your good name and reputation? I bet you would, in spades. In fact that was your line in a previous thread about false allegations of rape.

    My ‘line’ was that being falsely accused of sexual assault was nowhere near as bad as being sexually assaulted. In this case it’s not at all apparent that Simon Howe was ‘falsely accused’ in the first place. It’s only in your little misogynistic world that men are the helpless victims of plotting, conniving women.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Mark
    please look up the definition of “unsubstantiated” and then get back to me. It is still down to what one person claims against another, the woman in question was in no condition to say what happened.

    I don’t disagree about what your line was but you certainly did seem awfully keen to downplay the possibility that a man’s life could be ruined by such allegations…

  11. Mark L. says:

    please look up the definition of “unsubstantiated” and then get back to me. It is still down to what one person claims against another, the woman in question was in no condition to say what happened.

    I’ve laid it out on the table before you, Iain, and you still demand more. But I shouldn’t really be surprised, since you have a track record of demanding endless amounts of evidence from others, while offering none yourself.

    I’ll conclude by stating that something can’t be a ‘false allegation’ if the testimony of a third party does more to incriminate than exonerate. And I for one am glad that Simon Howe is no longer riding ambulances as a paramedic, as all right-thinking people should be.

  12. PKD says:

    I’ve laid it out on the table before you, Iain, and you still demand more. But I shouldn’t really be surprised, since you have a track record of demanding endless amounts of evidence from others, while offering none yourself.

    Amen to that. I reckon Iain just puts his fingers in his ears and goes ‘I CAN’T HEAR YOU’ whenever he’s confronted by evidence that doesn’t conform to his ideals that lead him to constantly jump to the wrong coclusion in the first place.

    Oh, and don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about Iain!

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Adj. 1. unsubstantiated
    unsubstantiated – unsupported by other evidence
    uncorroborated
    unsupported – not sustained or maintained by nonmaterial aid; “unsupported accusations”
    (source)

    what part of this definition is impossible for you two to understand?

    Both of your positions are based entirely upon the claims by one person against another that can not be supported in any way ,not one scrap of forensic evidence , not one scrap of corroboration, nothing, nada, nowt, fuck all.

    You have been convinced by nothing more than second hand reports in the tabloid press, fortunately the courts deal in a small matter called evidence, and we have a fine principle in law that one is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. So just what evidence would prove this chaps guilt and where is it? Tabloid reports are not enough 🙄

  14. craigy says:

    Iain, I think the point you are missing in the heat of your argument with Mark, is that the rules for ambulance/police services employees (and some other jobs) are somewhat different than those in regular jobs.

    In Victoria, officers can be dismissed purely on the say so of their managers if they have a suspicion of inappropriate behaviour. They don’t need to ‘prove’ anything. Many dodgy police have been removed this way.

    The officers know all about this when they sign up. I don’t think it’s a good way of dealing with people in normal jobs, but the duty of care factor in these jobs surely makes this reasonable. In most cases the sacked works haven’t appealed. I think this guy will, but they still don’t have to reinstate him.

    What should a manager do if he has strong suspicions of misbehaviour, but no evidence to prove it and the job involves intimate dealing with vulnerable people?

  15. Mondo Rock says:

    It’s not often that I agree with Iain, but this is one of those cases.

    The man was tried in court, where all of the above evidence (and more) was presented in an unbiased, fair and above board manner. Despite all of that he was found to be innocent (though with the selective excerpts of evidence presented by Mark you’d struggle to understand how). Absent of any successful appeal by the prosecution then nobody here has a reasonable ground for disputing that the correct outcome was reached.

    I find it a bit absurd that Mark is insitsing that this fellow was guilty purely on the basis of innuendo and selective tabloid gossip.

    Iain is correct – this man is innocent under law and has the right to be treated as such. Amateur and half-arsed opinions aside, there is no basis for continuing to punish him for an allegation that has been proved false in a court of law.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for that Mondo

  17. Mark L. says:

    I find it a bit absurd that Mark is insitsing that this fellow was guilty purely on the basis of innuendo and selective tabloid gossip.

    I’ve never suggested that he was definitively guilty or should have been found as such by a court of law, and you deceitfully misrepresent my views by suggesting that I have said so. What I have stated is that he acted irresponsibility, as found by an Ambulance Victoria inquiry. He was observed by a colleague acting suspiciously with a patient; he failed to lodge an incident report even though one is required. On its own that is enough to warrant his dismissal, in the interests of any and all female patients in the future.

    Iain and Mondo can bleat about court acquittals and employee rights all they like – when there’s even a sniff that doctors, teachers, nurses, paramedics, etc. might have taken advantage of those in their care, then out they go. Despite Iain clumsily dodging the question, he wouldn’t want his daughter waking up in the back of an ambulance, alone with Simon Howe, and nor would I.

  18. Iain Hall says:

    One day Mark some one may make a complaint about you, either through some malice or because they misinterpret an entirely benign thing that you may do and you will of course be entirely happy to have your life and career ruined with no recourse to law, no natural justice, and no possibility of being exonerated. Frankly I’m glad that you are so good with that.

    Just don’t dare put words into my mouth as per the last sentence of your comment that is not my position at all.

  19. Mondo Rock says:

    It has nothing to do with ’employee rights’ Mark – it has to do with basic human rights.

    You have been extremely selective in your presentation of evidence in relation to this case. For example you fail to note that a female nurse who attended the patient was also accused of sexual assault after cutting off the girl’s top AND that the patient performed sex acts on herself twice at the hospital before she was restrained and sedated. You failed to note this, despite both of those facts being mentioned in the article from which you took your ‘incriminating’ evidence.

    You also fail to note that the colleague, Mr Foundling, actually appeared as a witness for the defence and not the prosecution, and that there was a recording of his call to the hospital warning that security was required for the patient because she was totally uncontrollable in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. It’s quite clear that if anyone is being ‘deceitfully misrepresentative’ in relation to this issue it is you.

    Don’t get me wrong – when I first read of this case I was shocked too, and immediately disgusted by the notion that a paramedic would do something that was such a violation of patient trust. As it turns out though, none of this girl’s accusations have been found to be true and it would appear that Mr Howe is, in fact, the victim in this story. I know you don’t want to believe that, but the weight of evidence clearly suggests that you should.

    I for one would be happy for my daughter to ride in an ambulance with this fellow, just like the hundreds of other women who were attended to by him prior to this incident, and just like the hundreds who will ride with him again when the MAS reinstates him.

    And lets not play silly buggers here – they almost certainly will.

  20. Mark L. says:

    One day Mark some one may make a complaint about you, either through some malice or because they misinterpret an entirely benign thing that you may do and you will of course be entirely happy to have your life and career ruined with no recourse to law, no natural justice, and no possibility of being exonerated. Frankly I’m glad that you are so good with that.

    Just as I’m glad you and Mondo are so good with putting Simon Howe back into circulation, Iain, where the next doped-up female he gropes may be one of your loved ones. At least I’m bold enough to stand by my principle.

    For example you fail to note that a female nurse who attended the patient was also accused of sexual assault after cutting off the girl’s top AND that the patient performed sex acts on herself twice at the hospital before she was restrained and sedated.

    I don’t care if she used a giant black dildo on herself in the middle of Bourke Street – she was under the influence of drugs after having her drink spiked with GBH, engaged in abnormal and high-risk behaviour, and therefore in need of protective care. It was Howe’s responsibility to provide that care, which could not be conclusively ascertained given Foundling’s testimony and Howe’s failure to lodge an incident report about what was obviously a serious matter (something you have overlooked, perhaps wilfully).

    You also fail to note that the colleague, Mr Foundling, actually appeared as a witness for the defence and not the prosecution, and that there was a recording of his call to the hospital warning that security was required for the patient because she was totally uncontrollable in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

    Witnesses called by either the defence or the prosecution are not pledged or duty-bound to testify for them, as anyone with knowledge of law knows. Under scrutiny, Foundling’s testimony did more to incriminate Howe than to clear him. As for Foundling’s call to the hospital, that proves nothing other than the woman was suffering from a drug-fuelled psychosis, which is not in doubt.

    I for one would be happy for my daughter to ride in an ambulance with this fellow, just like the hundreds of other women who were attended to by him prior to this incident, and just like the hundreds who will ride with him again when the MAS reinstates him. And lets not play silly buggers here – they almost certainly will.

    Right after they release Martin Bryant to work in a gun shop, Mondo.

  21. PKD says:

    Both of your positions are based entirely upon the claims by one person against another that can not be supported in any way ,not one scrap of forensic evidence , not one scrap of corroboration, nothing, nada, nowt, fuck all.

    Actually Iain, I wasn’t commenting on this case in particular, it was just a general point about your willingness to ignore evidence when provided it. Interesting to see you misread my post and jump to the wrong conclusion though…

    …I will say one thing about this though – why is it you stand behind square this ambulance guy now he’s been exonerated, yet in the similar case of Dr Haneef you not only cast mud at him when the case was ongoing and unproven, but are now silent on Haneef now he too has been exonerated?

    If you’re going to be even-handed on this stuff, isn’t it time to come out and apologise to Haneef for getting it wrong, and to now support his case for reinstatement, hmmm??

    Otherwise your whole defense of this exonerated ambulance guy smacks of double-standard.

    Rgrds,
    PKD
    .

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Just as I’m glad you and Mondo are so good with putting Simon Howe back into circulation, Iain, where the next doped-up female he gropes may be one of your loved ones. At least I’m bold enough to stand by my principle.

    Ah yes YOUR principle: that one is guilty until the cows come home even when the accusation has been tested in a court of law and found wanting. What a good stance that is for a leftie.

    I don’t care if she used a giant black dildo on herself in the middle of Bourke Street – she was under the influence of drugs after having her drink spiked with GBH, engaged in abnormal and high-risk behaviour, and therefore in need of protective care. It was Howe’s responsibility to provide that care, which could not be conclusively ascertained given Foundling’s testimony and Howe’s failure to lodge an incident report about what was obviously a serious matter (something you have overlooked, perhaps wilfully).

    It is still just one man’s testimony, that is not in any way conclusive and on the matter of the incident report, Foundling failed to lodge one either so why is he not also fighting for his job and reputation?

    Witnesses called by either the defence or the prosecution are not pledged or duty-bound to testify for them, as anyone with knowledge of law knows. Under scrutiny, Foundling’s testimony did more to incriminate Howe than to clear him. As for Foundling’s call to the hospital, that proves nothing other than the woman was suffering from a drug-fuelled psychosis, which is not in doubt.

    In the strictest sense of the word “incriminate” it did no such thing Mark; Foundling’s testimony may have supported the prosecutions argument but it was dismissed by the jury and that is the prurient detail that you are ignoring here.

    Right after they release Martin Bryant to work in a gun shop, Mondo.

    All you have is an an emotional argument Mark you have nothing substantive at all yet you are unwilling concede; is there a deeper more personal reason for that?

    PKD

    Both of your positions are based entirely upon the claims by one person against another that can not be supported in any way ,not one scrap of forensic evidence , not one scrap of corroboration, nothing, nada, nowt, fuck all.
    Actually Iain, I wasn’t commenting on this case in particular, it was just a general point about your willingness to ignore evidence when provided it. Interesting to see you misread my post and jump to the wrong conclusion though…

    That may have been your intention but your comment reads to me as being about the specific case rather than as a general principle.

    …I will say one thing about this though – why is it you stand behind square this ambulance guy now he’s been exonerated, yet in the similar case of Dr Haneef you not only cast mud at him when the case was ongoing and unproven, but are now silent on Haneef now he too has been exonerated?

    But has Haneef been exonerated? The case against him collapsed due to procedural errors by the police the matter never went to trial, and it is at a trial that one is exonerated, with a not guilty verdict.In his case the question remains unanswered but in the Howe matter it has been soundly and clearly (except to Mark) demolished by the jury.

    If you’re going to be even-handed on this stuff, isn’t it time to come out and apologise to Haneef for getting it wrong, and to now support his case for reinstatement, hmmm??
    Otherwise your whole defense of this exonerated ambulance guy smacks of double-standard.

    But on what basis do I personally have to offer anyone an apology? I write a blog which contains my opinions none of which has any effect on any court process that Haneef faced.

  23. Mark L. says:

    It is still just one man’s testimony, that is not in any way conclusive and on the matter of the incident report Foundling failed to lodge one either so why is he not also fighting for his job and reputation?

    Where’s your evidence for this, Iain? And where’s your evidence that Foundling was actually required to post such a report, given that he wasn’t directly involved in the incident? I’ll wait for you to post a link.

    Foundling’s testimony may have supported the prosecutions argument but it was dismissed by the jury and that is the prurient detail that you are ignoring here.

    Oh dear Iain, it’s obvious how little you know about the law when you make statements like this. A criminal acquittal does mean that all evidence or testimony is discredited – it simply means that evidence or testimony, in sum, does not constitute enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    All you have is an an emotional argument Mark you have nothing substantive at all yet you are unwilling concede is there a deeper more personal reason for that?

    What’s this, a trademark Iain Hall cliche about how since I have an interest in a sexual assault matter then I must be a victim of sexual assault? I could well say the same about you, since you have blogged several times about false allegations of rape. But I wouldn’t stoop that low Iain, well not as low as you.

    But has Haneef been exonerated? The case against him collapsed due to procedural errors by the police the matter never went to trial, and it is at a trial that one is exonerated, with a not guilty verdict.

    Now THAT is a classic Iain Hall double standard: Howe was charged and committed to trial but he is innocent, while Haneef was never committed to trial but he is less innocent. You couldn’t make up this stuff.

  24. Iain Hall says:

    It is still just one man’s testimony, that is not in any way conclusive and on the matter of the incident report Foundling failed to lodge one either so why is he not also fighting for his job and reputation?

    Where’s your evidence for this, Iain? And where’s your evidence that Foundling was actually required to post such a report, given that he wasn’t directly involved in the incident? I’ll wait for you to post a link.

    Mark that was in the piece I originally quoted for this post… 🙄

    Foundling’s testimony may have supported the prosecutions argument but it was dismissed by the jury and that is the prurient detail that you are ignoring here.

    Oh dear Iain, it’s obvious how little you know about the law when you make statements like this. A criminal acquittal does mean that all evidence or testimony is discredited – it simply means that evidence or testimony, in sum, does not constitute enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    In a word Mark: Bollocks!!

    All you have is an an emotional argument Mark you have nothing substantive at all yet you are unwilling concede is there a deeper more personal reason for that?

    What’s this, a trademark Iain Hall cliche about how since I have an interest in a sexual assault matter then I must be a victim of sexual assault? I could well say the same about you, since you have blogged several times about false allegations of rape. But I wouldn’t stoop that low Iain, well not as low as you.

    But in a back handed manner that is exactly what you do Mark I am just trying to find out why your are being so unreasonable here, so unwilling to concede that there is a principle of justice at stake, namely that our jobs and good name should not be subject to arbitrary destruction.

    But has Haneef been exonerated? The case against him collapsed due to procedural errors by the police the matter never went to trial, and it is at a trial that one is exonerated, with a not guilty verdict.

    Now THAT is a classic Iain Hall double standard: Howe was charged and committed to trial but he is innocent, while Haneef was never committed to trial but he is less innocent. You couldn’t make up this stuff.

    No double standard at all because I still presume that Haneef is innocent however I also hold the opinion that the evidence, from more than one source, does at the very least justify the suspicion that he may have been well aware of his cousins Jihadist leanings and did nothing to stop him. Howe on the other hand has not just been “committed” to trial, he has had the test of a trial and he has been vindicated by the result.

  25. Mondo Rock says:

    You’ve lost the plot Mark – clearly you’ve ceased arguing from a postion of reason or established fact and are now resorting to cheap emotional rhetoric. Martin Bryant was found guilty of Australia’s worst mass murder event. By even raising him in the context of this argument, which is about an innocent man accused of rape by a drug addled girl, you have exposed the utter paucity of your position.

    It was Howe’s responsibility to provide that care, which could not be conclusively ascertained given Foundling’s testimony

    Do you realise you’ve just reversed the burden of proof with this statement? It’s guilty until proven innocent in your world, is it Mark?

    Give up. You’re making an idiot of yourself.

  26. craigy says:

    Mondo and Iain,

    Just wish to repeat my point above, that him manager has no obligation to reinstate this man.

    You don’t need to be found guilty of anything to be found to be inappropriate for some jobs.

    Who knows, his manager may be aware of other incidents.

    It sucks – but they know that when they take on the job.

  27. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    it is just simple ,even if the situation is as you describe it does not change the fact that the scenario you describe is innately unjust and I would have thought that you would be denouncing it loud and long, rather than just thinking that it is hunky dory.
    The problem is that it relies entirely on the benevolence of those managers, something that you just can not rely upon, I don’t actually believe you on this (no offence intended) so please provide some proof that the status quo is as you claim.

  28. Mark L. says:

    Mark that was in the piece I originally quoted for this post

    The union says Foundling didn’t lodge an incident report – but where does it say that he had to, given that he wasn’t directly involved in the incident?

    In a word Mark: Bollocks!!

    The response of a man with no answers, Iain. What is your grounding or qualification in the law to make such a simple and unqualified dismissal of my point? Hmmmm?

    there is a principle of justice at stake, namely that our jobs and good name should not be subject to arbitrary destruction

    But it’s not arbitrary, which has been my point all along. Howe’s behaviour and professional practice have been dubious to say the least. And there may well be more that MAS aren’t letting on. In any event, if you are right then it will all come out when he launches an unfair dismissal claim. Oh hang on … he’s “considering” it at the moment. If he’s as innocent as he says, why should he need to “consider” it – why not just launch it right away?

    You’ve lost the plot Mark – clearly you’ve ceased arguing from a postion of reason or established fact and are now resorting to cheap emotional rhetoric.

    It was a glib throwaway line, Mondo, don’t dine out on it too much. I never said Howe is Martin Bryant; I was merely commenting on the likelihood of him being reinstated. Let’s just wait awhile and see who’s proven right on that matter.

    Give up. You’re making an idiot of yourself.

    We’re all here at Iain’s blog so it’s the right place – it happens here daily.

  29. Iain Hall says:

    Mark that was in the piece I originally quoted for this post

    The union says Foundling didn’t lodge an incident report – but where does it say that he had to, given that he wasn’t directly involved in the incident?

    Making an educated guess I would say that if you are driving the ambulance in which something reportable happens then you are involved enough to be obliged to lodge a report.
    🙄

    In a word Mark: Bollocks!!

    The response of a man with no answers, Iain. What is your grounding or qualification in the law to make such a simple and unqualified dismissal of my point? Hmmmm?

    You claim that the veracity of a witnesses testimony is unaffected by the outcome of the trial when infact that trial is the test of all evidence put before it. You don’t have to be Rumpole of the Bailey to know what a stupid argument that is. Give me a practical example of just when your scenario is actually true please.

    there is a principle of justice at stake, namely that our jobs and good name should not be subject to arbitrary destruction

    But it’s not arbitrary, which has been my point all along. Howe’s behaviour and professional practice have been dubious to say the least. And there may well be more that MAS aren’t letting on. In any event, if you are right then it will all come out when he launches an unfair dismissal claim. Oh hang on … he’s “considering” it at the moment. If he’s as innocent as he says, why should he need to “consider” it – why not just launch it right away?

    Just how is anything other than arbitrary? no evidence , no redress, and no possible defence, hmm sounds ABSOLUTELY arbitrary to me.

    Give up. You’re making an idiot of yourself.

    We’re all here at Iain’s blog so it’s the right place – it happens here daily.

    Mark I have noticed that of late you have been in a rather belligerent state of mind when it comes to the comments you post here. I can’t for the life of me understand why you can’t lighten up just a bit. I have tried to play very nice on this one but you seem intent on just trying to attack me personally, which is entirely uncalled for, and it just goes to make you look very petulant and rather petty.

  30. Mark L. says:

    Give me a practical example of just when your scenario is actually true please.

    Anytime there is a mistrial or a retrial, for one, when the same witnesses may be called again. Unless specifically rebutted in cross-examination or by expert testimony, the assertions of a witness under oath stand as fact. Acquittal does not mean witnesses were wrong or were lying, simply that there wasn’t a body of evidence to warrant a guilty verdict. Criminal trials are not “tests of evidence” as you suggest but a test of whether collected evidence can prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Do you reckon that OJ Simpson’s acquittal back in the 1990s means that all the witnesses at his trial were discredited as liars? Think again if you do.

    Just how is anything other than arbitrary? no evidence , no redress, and no possible defence, hmm sounds ABSOLUTELY arbitrary to me.

    There is evidence: it’s already been mentioned. There is redress: he can launch an unfair dismissal claim and, by extension, a legal suit. It’s so ‘arbitrary’ that you won’t put your money where your mouth is and swear that you’d be fine and dandy with your female loved ones riding an ambo in the care of Simon Howe. Why can’t you come clean and admit that Howe is dodgy, Iain?

  31. Iain Hall says:

    Anytime there is a mistrial or a retrial, for one, when the same witnesses may be called again. Unless specifically rebutted in cross-examination or by expert testimony, the assertions of a witness under oath stand as fact. Acquittal does not mean witnesses were wrong or were lying, simply that there wasn’t a body of evidence to warrant a guilty verdict. Criminal trials are not “tests of evidence” as you suggest but a test of whether collected evidence can prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Utter rubbish!!
    If a matter is declared to be a mistrial then the same witness may indeed be called again , the witness may give essentially similar testimony but the words they uttered in the failed trial would would not be admissible as evidence in the subsequent retrial.
    Show me the articles of the common law that support your claims here I think I have some of the rules of evidence in my studio but you are making the claim here so the onus of proof here is yours.

  32. Mark L. says:

    If a matter is declared to be a mistrial then the same witness may indeed be called again , the witness may give essentially similar testimony but the words they uttered in the failed trial would would not be admissible as evidence in the subsequent retrial.

    That’s not what I said and it is not relevant to what you are arguing. You have suggested that if a prosecution case fails and the accused is acquitted, the prosecution’s evidence is therefore voided or somehow “demolished” (your term). Not so, unless that evidence has been specifically rebutted, challenged or declared as inadmissable during the course of the trial. Criminal cases are decided on a body of evidence, winning the war doesn’t necessarily mean you won all your battles along the way.

    I could tell you this until I’m blue in the face but I don’t intend trawling through precedent because you’d still stomp your feet and claim superior knowledge, as all bush lawyers do. But from what I can tell your only experience with real lawyers is that you once stalked one on the internet, so continuing this conversation any further is a waste of time.

  33. Mondo Rock says:

    Just wish to repeat my point above, that him manager has no obligation to reinstate this man.

    You don’t need to be found guilty of anything to be found to be inappropriate for some jobs.

    Who knows, his manager may be aware of other incidents.

    It’s a fair point Craigy – and I’m sure that the MAS will present any evidence they have in this regard when the Union tries to force them to reinstate this fellow (as they are already doing).

    But geez – you’ve got to admit that if he is entirely innocent (which is at least a very strong possibility) then he’s just been totally fucked over.

  34. craigy says:

    Iain and Mondo,

    I don’t like it at all, the same way I didn’t think the process for David Hicks made him a ‘convicted terrorist’ as Iain likes to call him, admissions of fighting for Taliban or not.

    I don’t know enough about the appeal process to comment, only that the final say is with the manager regardless of the outcome.

    Iain, you are sounding like a Union supporter on this one, good on you.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: