Speaker 1: Appoche Production.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to our little Lady. In this episode, we're
Speaker 2: going to take you back to some of the information
Speaker 2: we shared in the first series of the podcast. You
Speaker 2: might remember that we raised allegations of grooming behavior amongst
Speaker 2: some high ranking officials in Saint Helen's. We've never been
Speaker 2: able to name these people, as they are allegations. Only
Speaker 2: we heard of the police officer Paul Reynolds, who we
Speaker 2: now know was a pedophile. In this episode, you'll hear
Speaker 2: from a woman that knew him closely. She would see
Speaker 2: him at the police academy when he would turn up
Speaker 2: to meet and, in her words, ogul new recruits. We
Speaker 2: will also hear allegations of another officer who, as we've
Speaker 2: stated before, offered to let people off traffic infringements if
Speaker 2: they performed sexual favors. This first person we're going to
Speaker 2: speak to wants to be known as Larry. He has
Speaker 2: his own reasons for trying to bring pedophiles to justice
Speaker 2: and how that might affect the Eden Westbrook case.
Speaker 1: So I'm a victim survivor myself. I didn't come to
Speaker 1: grips with that until I was in my sixties, and
Speaker 1: I can't have done a really good job of that.
Speaker 1: But what it has done is spurred on my advocacy
Speaker 1: around the need for prevention of Chile sexual abuse in communities.
Speaker 1: I dealt support of the Mission inquiry and I chose
Speaker 1: to become the Loud Offense Tasmania coordinator. So for those
Speaker 1: that are unaware, Loud Offences that international grassroots movement that
Speaker 1: seeks to raise awareness of child sexual abuse by establishing
Speaker 1: ribbon fences. So we hope to encourage people to break
Speaker 1: the cad of silence that currently prevails and reduce the
Speaker 1: stigma that people that often feel and hopefully courage those
Speaker 1: people in position of authority to work better at preventing
Speaker 1: child sexual abuse.
Speaker 2: Now, Larry, I'm taking it you live in Tasmania. Now
Speaker 2: that's correct. Are you familiar with the Saint Helen's area.
Speaker 1: Yes. In previous work I had a lot of dealing
Speaker 1: in fact, all across tasmaning.
Speaker 2: Why now, why are you interested in what's been happening
Speaker 2: down in Tasmania. Has anyone reached out to you?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: And this was unexpected. When tying ribbons, I become a
Speaker 1: lightning rod for disclosures and often people would tell me
Speaker 1: about things that have happened to them, and others would
Speaker 1: also talk about things that were troubling to them in
Speaker 1: their communities. And in this particular case, our previous resident
Speaker 1: of the community leader from Saint Helen's told me that she'd
Speaker 1: been approached by young women in Saint Helen's asking her
Speaker 1: to intervene on their behalf to try and stop an
Speaker 1: officer un known colloquially into helens As from sexually assaulting them.
Speaker 2: We've heard this in the podcast previously, where there are
Speaker 2: allegations that a police officer who lives and has worked
Speaker 2: in Saint Helen's had been asking for sexual favors in
Speaker 2: return for turning a blind eye to what might be
Speaker 2: police issues.
Speaker 1: Yes, so I was told traffic infringements was a classic thing.
Speaker 1: So these young women would be pulled over for I
Speaker 1: suppose a t infringement and they would be told that
Speaker 1: that wouldn't happen if they provide sexual favors to officer.
Speaker 2: And how many people have you spoken to in Sint
Speaker 2: Helen's that have talked about this allegation As.
Speaker 1: Of last week, the tally is now four.
Speaker 2: We've beat out the officer's name that these allegations have
Speaker 2: been made against. It's not new information to us, because
Speaker 2: we've heard it before from a woman who was asked
Speaker 2: by this officer for the same thing.
Speaker 4: In twenty fifteen. I was seventeen. The police officer and
Speaker 4: the clock car was right to frid me, so I
Speaker 4: took my headphone bush and then it was and he
Speaker 4: asked me if I wanted to write home. He then
Speaker 4: requested that I had to pay him do a sexual
Speaker 4: favor or a cliche rush.
Speaker 2: This woman is not one of the four women that
Speaker 2: Larry says that he was told about. The officer no
Speaker 2: longer works in Saint Helen's. We're aware of where they are,
Speaker 2: but we've decided not to publish that for now, as
Speaker 2: these are simply alligat pats. The officer has moved out
Speaker 2: of the town and there was a reason for that,
Speaker 2: But Larry says it wasn't what you think.
Speaker 1: The reason I was told for that was that the
Speaker 1: community we're planning some kind of retaliation vigilanty action against
Speaker 1: death threats. When I first heard of this matter, I
Speaker 1: contacted the police Professional Standards Command and provided the name
Speaker 1: of my informant, who said that you would be happy
Speaker 1: to talk about this officer and talk about the instance
Speaker 1: where these young women were coming to her for support.
Speaker 1: Then in December of twenty three, I included this officer
Speaker 1: as a person of concern, along with many other allegations
Speaker 1: that had been disclosed to me in my loud of
Speaker 1: fan's capacity, not necessary about the East Coast, but more
Speaker 1: to do with greater long system. And then because how
Speaker 1: many a police did not acknowledge or receipt, I tested
Speaker 1: them and finally got to give them an actual police
Speaker 1: statement in June of twenty four and the officer I
Speaker 1: spoke to there said that she would take up the
Speaker 1: matter of this officer and talk with my informant, which
Speaker 1: didn't happen. And I suppose what spurred me on is
Speaker 1: in the back of my mind, I've always had lingering
Speaker 1: concerns about an officer characterized as a violent sexual predator
Speaker 1: who may in fact remain within the police force. So
Speaker 1: when I have sent it to a lamby Maker statement
Speaker 1: in Federal Parliament about her concerns about the Eden Westbrook manor,
Speaker 1: it spurred me on to do more of my own
Speaker 1: research and was able to identify an officer who would
Speaker 1: very clearly fit the description as given to me, and
Speaker 1: I noticed on his personal Facebook the number of disturbing photographs,
Speaker 1: including a picture of a hanged girl.
Speaker 2: After our call with Larry, he sent me various pictures
Speaker 2: of this officer and his social media posts. On that
Speaker 2: same personal Facebook page. Recently, there are pictures of this
Speaker 2: officer with young girls at a school. The photos have
Speaker 2: since been removed, but Larry was on the case and
Speaker 2: screenshotted them before they were taken down.
Speaker 1: I've can see this happening, so I took screenshots and
Speaker 1: I'll be able to share them. That the photo we
Speaker 1: said generic photo. But I suppose as a victim survivor,
Speaker 1: I find the quite triering to think that an officer
Speaker 1: would think it right to post something like that on
Speaker 1: their personal Facebook page.
Speaker 2: So, having gone to the police to report what you'd
Speaker 2: heard as a first disclosure, and they didn't contact you
Speaker 2: at all, or they didn't contact this person that had
Speaker 2: come forward to you at.
Speaker 1: All, they didn't. That's right, And whys the police are
Speaker 1: not consistently doing what I understood that they would do,
Speaker 1: which is they should officially receive these u uniquely identified
Speaker 1: such reports, and they're not. And I'm also aware now
Speaker 1: that having spoken with the Westbrooks that they had similarly
Speaker 1: raised concerns about this officer with professional standards command and
Speaker 1: got no kind of satisfaction at all through that particular route.
Speaker 2: As Larry said, he's a victim survivor and before he
Speaker 2: joined loud Fence as a coordinator in Tasmania, he was
Speaker 2: a business manager at the Lonceesston General Hospital. This was
Speaker 2: in the years preceding the appointment of James Griffin, the
Speaker 2: nurse who killed himself after being found to be a
Speaker 2: child sex abuser. Larry made his own submission to the
Speaker 2: Royal Commission.
Speaker 1: At my own instigation, was some cultural context to the
Speaker 1: wrongdoings that I saw happening at the hospital. I felt
Speaker 1: created the culture that permitted Jim Griffin to be a
Speaker 1: pedophile clearly observed for a period of something like eating years.
Speaker 2: For those that don't know the story of James Griffin,
Speaker 2: who was regularly referred to as Jim, the allegations against
Speaker 2: Griffin date back to nineteen eighty when he was in
Speaker 2: his thirties. He would take thirty years for him to
Speaker 2: be arrested. In that time, he gained access to children,
Speaker 2: primarily through his role as a nurse on the pediatric
Speaker 2: ward of the Lonsessant General Hospital and as a massage
Speaker 2: therapist for junior sporting teams. Police had numerous chances to
Speaker 2: stop Griffin, including in two thousand when a man bought
Speaker 2: a laptop from Griffin and told police it contained possible
Speaker 2: child abuse material. His email was ignored. Griffin worked as
Speaker 2: a registered nurse during his life, including on the Spirit
Speaker 2: of Tasmania, the Ashley Detention Center and the Pediatric center
Speaker 2: in Lonceston General Hospital. As a result of him working
Speaker 2: with children, he was required to acquire a Working with
Speaker 2: Vulnerable Person's accreditation, which he did so in June of
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen. After he was found out, Much like Paul Reynolds,
Speaker 2: police started to close in. They seized computers and more
Speaker 2: people came forward. Griffin was arrested but out on bail.
Speaker 2: While on bail, Gryffin contacted his son asking for help.
Speaker 2: His son said he went to his dad's house. They
Speaker 2: chatted and the son left. A short time later, the
Speaker 2: sun texted his dad to see if he was okay.
Speaker 2: There was no response. The son went back to the
Speaker 2: dad's house the next day and found his dad in
Speaker 2: the chair in the lounge room with discharge coming from
Speaker 2: his mouth. He was taken to hospital and died from
Speaker 2: a prescription medication overdose. The government held a Royal Commission
Speaker 2: into Tasmanian government's responses to institutional child sexual abuse and
Speaker 2: hand it down as fire and recommendations in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: but it was too late. Griffin had already killed himself
Speaker 2: and wasn't held accountable for what he did. The commission
Speaker 2: was largely brought about by media attention and in particular
Speaker 2: the Australian podcast Called a Nurse, which was released in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. But the particulars around that case and what
Speaker 2: we've heard about Paul Reynolds, the man who was attached
Speaker 2: to this case, about Eden Westbrook, sounds like they're from
Speaker 2: the same school. And that's what shocked Larry most. How
Speaker 2: does this make you feel, knowing that you've uncovered an
Speaker 2: officer of the law who's allegedly doing these sorts of things.
Speaker 1: I am extremely alarmed. I am distressed because I think
Speaker 1: anybody who suffered cholds actould abuse and would understand the
Speaker 1: harms that these young people have experienced, and also with
Speaker 1: the knowledge and understand that he remains unchecked and he
Speaker 1: remains serving police officer, doubly so because the Tasmanian Police
Speaker 1: Facebook page has multiple photos of him this officer clearly
Speaker 1: engaging with primary school age children and disabled women. So
Speaker 1: this is the classic modus operandi of a pedophile, and
Speaker 1: with multiple allegations from a range of what I believe
Speaker 1: credible sources identifying him as a violent sexual predator, I
Speaker 1: think that all parents should be extremely alarmed.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to this episode of Our Little Lady as
Speaker 2: we look into new allegations about a pedophile who was
Speaker 2: grooming up the five women in Saint Helen's. Christine was
Speaker 2: married to a police officer in Tasmania for seventeen years.
Speaker 2: They're no longer together, but Christine herself worked inside the
Speaker 2: police department as a civilian.
Speaker 5: So I first got into government at the age of
Speaker 5: fifteen after I sat the Tesmay State Service Exam. Then
Speaker 5: I started working for TGIO, which is no longer there,
Speaker 5: and then from there I worked for the Education Department,
Speaker 5: and then I moved to Brisbane worked for emergency services.
Speaker 5: There after I met my now ex husband. We had
Speaker 5: a child and he's Maori, so we decided to go
Speaker 5: to New Zealand. Three year I worked for police in
Speaker 5: New Zealand for a year and he worked for the prison.
Speaker 3: And then I didn't.
Speaker 5: Really like New Zealand as much as I thought I
Speaker 5: would have, and my family's actually based here in Tasmania.
Speaker 5: So I applied for a job as an executive officer
Speaker 5: within Department of Police for emergency management and I got
Speaker 5: that position, and I was in that position I would
Speaker 5: have been four and a half years. And then I
Speaker 5: got promoted to a position at the Tasmania Police Academy
Speaker 5: and I was in that position and kill a complaint
Speaker 5: was made against me, which I was striking through an
Speaker 5: industrial commission.
Speaker 3: Because the report was totally biased.
Speaker 2: Christine no longer works to the government, and we'll get
Speaker 2: to that story at the end of this podcast, but
Speaker 2: it does go to show something that Jackie Lamby mentioned
Speaker 2: previously in the podcast a few episodes ago.
Speaker 6: Oh my god, if you want to cover it up,
Speaker 6: she's in the institution, she'll get covered up. And that's
Speaker 6: what it is.
Speaker 2: It's just a bloody cover up up there.
Speaker 6: Disgusting anything that's institutional, whether it's a universities, whether it's defense,
Speaker 6: whether it's politics. The first thing that they're taught, especially
Speaker 6: the hierarchies, cover the institutions asked at all costs, at
Speaker 6: all costs, doesn't matter whether you're taking people's lives, you
Speaker 6: will cover the institutions.
Speaker 2: Asked at all costs. But right now, I wanted to
Speaker 2: know from Christine about the reports of pedophile behavior in
Speaker 2: the police force in Tasmania. When we spoke first, you
Speaker 2: mentioned that you're aware of pedophile behavior within the Tasmanian
Speaker 2: Police Force. We've heard about detective Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so I was interviewed over that as well, because
Speaker 5: Senior Sergeant Reynolds or I knew him as both would
Speaker 5: come to the academy and stay overnight. And it was
Speaker 5: quite interesting because the question I was asked was did
Speaker 5: I ever see him over or look at recruits? You know,
Speaker 5: uncomfortably for everything. Your officers do that with every recruit,
Speaker 5: you know, like I saw senior officers doing that, so
Speaker 5: it didn't matter. Some of the recruits co in the
Speaker 5: seventeen and as long as they're raising when they graduate,
Speaker 5: doesn't been with the male or female I have seen it.
Speaker 5: I've known of that will actually just show up for
Speaker 5: recruitment days and twos, you know, because they're young and
Speaker 5: good looking or whatever. So am I aware that there
Speaker 5: are pedophiles in Tasmania police one percent one And it's
Speaker 5: not that I've seen them openly in talking about it.
Speaker 5: But that's only from the reports that I've read. Weak
Speaker 5: and play have been made against police officers. Some for
Speaker 5: my understanding, have been found to be correct and they're
Speaker 5: still in the job. But as for Sergeant Reynolds, there
Speaker 5: was always rumors going around. But I really liked I
Speaker 5: know that, but I really liked him. He was very rambunctious,
Speaker 5: he was very endearing. It was easy to talk to.
Speaker 5: He was great fun. But that's how they do what
Speaker 5: they do against That's just how they do what they do.
Speaker 2: When you heard the news about Paul Reynolds and it broke,
Speaker 2: did it surprise you?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 5: What surprised me the most was that the department was
Speaker 5: able to cover it up and keept it quiet for
Speaker 5: so long because they had known since two thousand and eight.
Speaker 5: Was the first complaint that came in. I don't know
Speaker 5: how many have come in since two thousand and eight,
Speaker 5: but obviously enough for him to have been caught, for
Speaker 5: the department to have known that and for it to
Speaker 5: be reported to one now senior officer who knew back
Speaker 5: then to even support and I will use that word
Speaker 5: support a state police funeral. I was just disgusted over that,
Speaker 5: because you've got your police officers, and there's some fantastic
Speaker 5: police officers out there, especially the ones that are on
Speaker 5: the street that are doing hard every day. There's lots
Speaker 5: of fantastic police officers, so I want to emphasize that.
Speaker 5: But for them to stand there and salute somebody that
Speaker 5: the upper echer on knew was a pedophile, it just
Speaker 5: blows my mind and astowns me.
Speaker 2: We heard at the start of the podcast that Christine
Speaker 2: used to work at the police recruit headquarters. That was
Speaker 2: until her house was raided by police and she spent
Speaker 2: five years trying to battle to clear her name. It
Speaker 2: ended in a secret payout that she can't disclose, but
Speaker 2: it was substantial and in the seven figures. I wanted
Speaker 2: to know what led her.
Speaker 5: So the findings were that I was guilty. They found
Speaker 5: me guilty of sexually harassing or grooming openly gay male
Speaker 5: young police recruit for the sexual satisfaction of my husband,
Speaker 5: which is so far from the truth, and which I
Speaker 5: was surprised with because when I was told there was
Speaker 5: a complaints made, I actually believed it was from another
Speaker 5: recruit who turned out to be this young male's best friend,
Speaker 5: because she was using her fingers to get bread out
Speaker 5: of a bread wind and I asked to use tongs
Speaker 5: and she said, I don't know how to use tongs.
Speaker 5: And I said, how could you not know how to
Speaker 5: use tongs or give your clowns guns, which I did say,
Speaker 5: and that really upset her because this young male recruit
Speaker 5: told me that I'd upset his bessie, and I did
Speaker 5: have a discussion with this young male recruit previously to
Speaker 5: him when I was working at the academy. I've had
Speaker 5: five senior people when I first started at the academy
Speaker 5: being autistic and I was employed on the disability framework
Speaker 5: or was fully disclosed. I didn't realize and I still
Speaker 5: don't get it in a lot of ways. But they
Speaker 5: said that I've got social awkwardness, which I agree with,
Speaker 5: and I lacked communication skills. But senior officers were showing
Speaker 5: up to where the kitchen door was in vehicles expecting
Speaker 5: me to put curtains of alcohol in the vehicles for
Speaker 5: senior officers and I wouldn't do it, and that caused
Speaker 5: me a lot of problems, not that I saw them,
Speaker 5: but people were saying to me, you're not very well liked.
Speaker 5: And I couldn't understand why I wasn't liked because I
Speaker 5: was happy to put curtains of alcohol into these senior officers'
Speaker 5: cars for them to take back to their offices and
Speaker 5: consume if it was put in writing. And it was
Speaker 5: never put in writing to me.
Speaker 2: Ever, can I just ask, so, the reason that you
Speaker 2: were in charge of the bar at the academy is
Speaker 2: that right?
Speaker 5: Yes, I was the licenseee. I was also in charge
Speaker 5: of purchasing the alcohol and therefore balancing that against sales.
Speaker 2: Now I'm guessing, and I don't know the rule, but
Speaker 2: it's illegal for a public officer to take goods out
Speaker 2: of something that has been purchased by the government the police.
Speaker 5: In this case, well, it definitely is. I mean I
Speaker 5: thought it was corrupt behavior. That's the word that I use.
Speaker 5: I shouldn't be expected to purchase alcohol for it to
Speaker 5: then be given to police officers for them to go
Speaker 5: and consume in their own officers in the city, for
Speaker 5: the most senior management, I should not have done that, so.
Speaker 2: You became a whistleblower around this particular instances of high
Speaker 2: ranking police officers taking alcohol for their own conser And also.
Speaker 5: I had it in writing where the last seeing after
Speaker 5: I worked for he actually invited all staff for free
Speaker 5: drinks at the Academy bar. And I asked him how
Speaker 5: I'm supposed to balance it. I included the utility officer
Speaker 5: because there's always two people that did stock take, so
Speaker 5: there was two people with a count of cash. There
Speaker 5: was always a speechsheet when I was over or under
Speaker 5: from bar nights that the police officers would have. We
Speaker 5: always had the two people because I'm made sure of that,
Speaker 5: so there wasn't any issues. And I asked him verbally first,
Speaker 5: how am I supposed to balance these bar nights that
Speaker 5: you're putting on for free?
Speaker 3: How do I balance it?
Speaker 5: And he said I can do this if I want
Speaker 5: to do it, like we actually can't, not within a
Speaker 5: delegated authority because I understood the Treasurer's guidelines. So then
Speaker 5: I emailed him because he didn't give me a response.
Speaker 5: He then flew into my office and said, don't you
Speaker 5: ever put that in writing to me?
Speaker 3: Again?
Speaker 5: I said, all I'm asking for is every third Friday
Speaker 5: you've been buying start.
Speaker 4: For free drinks.
Speaker 5: I'm asking you how do I balance it? Then he
Speaker 5: really lost it at me and he said, I'm the
Speaker 5: most popular. Everybody loves me. I don't know what your
Speaker 5: problem is. And then I said, looking dick doesn't make
Speaker 5: yours any bigger. That was wrong of me to say,
Speaker 5: but he's already pushed every button of mine. And so
Speaker 5: I then wrote to Reckon, the second most senior person
Speaker 5: in the department, with an email with a copy to
Speaker 5: the utility officer because he was the one with me
Speaker 5: doing the stock take, asking how do I balance this?
Speaker 5: These is continually giving away free alcohol? How am I
Speaker 5: supposed to balance it? And ten days later I was
Speaker 5: stood down on a complaint and I haven't been back
Speaker 5: to work since, and that was in twenty nineteen. It
Speaker 5: took a long time because initially I wasn't going to
Speaker 5: settle and I needed to go down and be rabbit hole,
Speaker 5: as in I lodged complaints where I was told that
Speaker 5: they lodged on the police systems to only find out
Speaker 5: through rite to information. After being rejected several times through
Speaker 5: write to information on appeal on appeal on appeal. I
Speaker 5: was then told that on another scene, that none of
Speaker 5: my complaints have ever been registered and that's what they've
Speaker 5: never been addressed.
Speaker 3: I did go to the.
Speaker 5: Premiers with it and the Minister's office. I've got emails
Speaker 5: he where I've written to them. I rang the Minister's
Speaker 5: office to talk to them about I finally got the
Speaker 5: redacted information I needed on briefing notes about me to
Speaker 5: the minister when initially the department said they never had
Speaker 5: written anything about me. That was a lie because one
Speaker 5: of the corporate ghosts, can I say, actually told me
Speaker 5: that there were briefing notes, yet the Department put in
Speaker 5: writing there weren't. I knew that there was because I
Speaker 5: believe this person will lie. Turned out there work wanted
Speaker 5: to meet with the minister. The Minister would meet with me.
Speaker 5: So I have never been able to get an audience
Speaker 5: face to face with the Minister about my concerns.
Speaker 3: My complaints have.
Speaker 5: Never ever been lodged. The Integrity Commission told me that
Speaker 5: since the complaints related back to twenty nineteen and twenty twenty,
Speaker 5: especially with the Serious and Organized Crime Unit raiding me
Speaker 5: on a fourth warrant, that it was historical and the
Speaker 5: public wouldn't be interested in the senior police officers drinking
Speaker 5: or the alcohol for nothing, and wouldn't be interested in
Speaker 5: this same senior officer a sanctioning a raid on my
Speaker 5: house which obviously caused my marriage to break down.
Speaker 2: Can I ask the settlement what was that in regards
Speaker 2: to So that was.
Speaker 5: In relating to discrimination. I was discriminated against where I
Speaker 5: really inquished my job after I was raided, so I
Speaker 5: just wanted to get on with work actually, But during
Speaker 5: the Tasman Industrial Commission, the senior representatives of the Police
Speaker 5: Department of the Department of Police for Emergency Management stated,
Speaker 5: I don't look any different. So if I was to
Speaker 5: go back, the need to be signage so that people
Speaker 5: knew that I was autistic. Stonage was on my or
Speaker 5: to warn people that I was autistic. It's said person
Speaker 5: athoritism present. But I wasn't allowed to use the same toilet,
Speaker 5: didn't have access the same access as everybody else that
Speaker 5: went through an equal opportunity Tasmania where they were found
Speaker 5: guilty of it. So the payout that I got was
Speaker 5: in relation to the discrimination that I suffered, the negligence
Speaker 5: of the raid on my home, and also you'll never
Speaker 5: get an apology from Tasmania Police ever, ever, ever. But
Speaker 5: the amount of money that I got was a reflection
Speaker 5: on how the government, I would say, has treated me
Speaker 5: throughout five and a half years. So it was substantial.
Speaker 5: But there there is confidentiality because on that. But I
Speaker 5: wouldn't have got any more money than what I did.
Speaker 5: There's no way I would have got it. But I
Speaker 5: wouldn't have taken it if they said that I had
Speaker 5: to sign a disparaging clause and I definitely wouldn't have
Speaker 5: taken it if I didn't have.
Speaker 2: A voice talk to me about what a disparaging clause is.
Speaker 5: So that's where I wouldn't be able to talk to you.
Speaker 5: Causes where I've said, you know how they tread me,
Speaker 5: how that closed rank. Once you caught in the crosshairs,
Speaker 5: you're done, You're actually done. I did have a senior
Speaker 5: officer supporting me, and he ever received threatening letters from
Speaker 5: higher up from the apparentilon, so much so that he
Speaker 5: relinquished his position that he held and transferred out and
Speaker 5: went sideway. So they do have a lot of power
Speaker 5: and none of them will come forward. I actually had
Speaker 5: a very senior officer approached me saying what was done
Speaker 5: to me and what was being done to me he
Speaker 5: didn't agree with, and not to hold him accountable. And
Speaker 5: I just said him, you're complicit. You're standing by and
Speaker 5: allowing this to happen to me. You know what they're doing.
Speaker 5: And then I was told I just should have played
Speaker 5: the game, and I said, well, I don't know what
Speaker 5: the game is. And again I would have been happy
Speaker 5: to let them have the alcohol and do what they
Speaker 5: wanted if they would just put it in writing and
Speaker 5: I could balance the books. End of that, what happened,
Speaker 5: there was no way. They will never back down. They
Speaker 5: were never back damn. And that's got the full support
Speaker 5: of the current government as well.
Speaker 2: Christine, can I ask one final question, how has all
Speaker 2: this affected you?
Speaker 5: Oh? That's a hard one. Get a bit emotional. I've
Speaker 5: lost my reputation, I've lost my career, I lost my husband,
Speaker 5: I've lost my mental health. I've lost my son who's
Speaker 5: auto sick becaus. When they raided the house, I didn't
Speaker 5: actually take my computer. They took my sons, which I've
Speaker 5: never been on, never been on, which really impacted him
Speaker 5: because the words were said similar to I could go
Speaker 5: to jail, for two years. Of course, threats were made
Speaker 5: that night my son had an attachment disorder, So I've
Speaker 5: got cameras up everywhere. Do I live in fear, No, No,
Speaker 5: But I'm very cynical of the government, I think because
Speaker 5: Mane it definitely is a silent state. When the most
Speaker 5: senior legal person said they were going to take my
Speaker 5: house and they were going to break me because of
Speaker 5: the amount of money that I had to pay for
Speaker 5: lawyers to fight them, and I've still.
Speaker 3: Got another matter pending, he wasn't wrong.
Speaker 5: He hasn't yet. The department haven't yet taken my house,
Speaker 5: but yet they have broken me.