Writer Lauren Ingram revealed on Twitter yesterday that in April 2015 she endured a violent sexual assault, allegedly perpetrated by an official of the NSW Greens.
Ms Ingram went public, including posting images of the bite marks (yes, bite marks) and bruises inflicted on her body by the assailant.
Lauren went to hospital. She went to the police, who told her the individual responsible was probably too young to know how to have sex properly, and declined to pursue the matter. After discovering she wasn’t the only woman with complaints against the alleged perpetrator, some made by young Greens members as long as six years ago and ignored by the party, Lauren approached the NSW Greens.
She had no more luck with them than she’d had with the police. The man was until recently employed by the Greens, as well as an office holder. He’s resigned his employment as he plans to go overseas.
https://twitter.com/laureningram/status/876397614614192128
When a woman reports a sexual assault to the police she might be lucky and get a good, well-trained officer, or she might be unlucky, as Lauren was, and find herself dealing with yet another form of assault and insult in which her complaint is dismissed and her trauma increased. This is unacceptable. Laws designed to deal with sexual assault are useless when frontline police officers do not do their job, out of ignorance, lack of interest, or lack of training. Lauren had hospital reports. She had photographic evidence of injury. The police officer couldn’t be bothered. This is unacceptable. I hope that officer is identified and subjected to disciplinary measures, because until such officers are weeded out, women are not safe when reporting crimes against us.
The NSW Greens have allegedly been aware of a rapist and sexual harasser among their number for some six years. Yet they have done nothing. They have not expelled him. They have provided him with a hunting ground for victims. They have enabled and supported his predatory behaviours. This is unacceptable. The NSW Greens have lost all credibility in their claims to support action against violence towards women. You cannot, as a political party or any other institution, protect an abuser and claim to be opposed to abuse.
The police and the Greens have done Jarah Cook no favours. In declining to pursue the complaints against him, they have denied him the opportunity to argue his innocence. In naming him, Lauren Ingram has taken matters into her own hands because every other option available failed her. As society in general appears to be more concerned with the fate of the perpetrator than the victim, let’s look at it from the alleged perpetrator’s point of view. Had he been been questioned, arrested and charged, Jarah Cook would have been given the chance to defend himself. It is not Lauren Ingram’s fault that this didn’t happen. It is the fault of the police, and the political party who gave him protection.
So, when all else fails should a woman name the man who raped her? In the case of Lauren Ingram, absolutely, yes. The idea that because a woman is blocked by police from obtaining justice she should keep her mouth shut is vile. Just what are we expected to do? Crawl away and maintain a silence that will only protect the perpetrator and the system that has failed us?
When the system fails we have the right to speak out. Ms Ingram has most bravely taken this path, and I can only hope more women are empowered by her example.
As for the NSW Greens. All institutions are responsible for knowingly harbouring offenders. There are no innocent bystanders. They are accountable.
On June 19 2017, the Greens issued this statement. Jarah Cook’s membership was revoked in February 2017.
Further reading
And here
No Place For Sheep 
Looks good to me. Same applies to any alleged offence. If the first place you go to is the cops, who are supposed to investigate it, and they refuse, who can blame you for using other channels to get action? (But some will, inevitably, blame you).
One thing I just can’t get my head around. The cop said, allegedly “the individual responsible was probably too young to know how to have sex properly”. Huh? Wha’?
We’ve all been in that situation in our younger day, but most of us somehow, with a bit of frustrating but ultimately harmless fumbling, eventually managed to acquire some fair-to-middling expertise without (a) biting anyone or (b) prompting an accusation of rape.
Sorry, that one doesn’t cut it with me. If he’s old enough to go out and work for a political party, he’s old enough to treat other people with a bit of respect, and face the consequences if he doesn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agree, Arthur. There’s a big difference between inexperience and violence.
LikeLike
I’ve just read down Lauren Ingram’s Twitter. Wow. The world’s been really nasty all this time and I’d failed to notice. Ivory towers etc etc. Thanks Jennifer.
*Must try harder*
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s bad things about….
LikeLike
I can understand any woman wanting to publicly name the perpetrator however there are defamation laws to consider too. This makes it very difficult for the victim of a rape to get justice. There must be a way around this, could the other ladies he has raped join in a class action to sue this monster? Rape is a serious crime and it should not have been treated so lightly by the police involved.
This is a serious question that this lady should be asking her local State MP, surely this animal can’t just continue to rape whoever he likes and get away with it, the local State MP should be pushed to come up with an answer for the constituent, that after all, is their job, is it not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your statement that the Greens have done nothing with Mr Cook are at variance with the facts. Just today the co-convenor of Greens NSW, Debbie Gibson, issued a statement that Mr Cook “was formally and indefinitely suspended on 20 February 2017 and all member rights were removed.”
https://nsw.greens.org.au/news/nsw/statement-2017
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you silkworm. I’m glad to hear Cook has been suspended.
LikeLike
Like using the sexual history of a woman as evidence in rape trials? What relevance is this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Stewart.
It’s simple really …
For me, the fact that Lauren publicly advocates killing men doesn’t inspire a great deal of confidence in her claims.
As for your comment regarding the use of the sexual history of women in rape trials is concerned, we’re in furious agreement; although I don’t understand how that is relevant to my point.
LikeLike
Jennifer, if the police dismissed Lauren Ingram’s complaint, that is very concerning. She should re-submit her complaint to more senior police until she gets her allegation dealt with properly.
As for your statements critical of the Greens, they appear to be unsubstantiated. They first received a formal complaint on the 16 February 2017 and suspended Mr. Cook four days later. They are also carrying out an internal enquiry into the way the complaint was handled. They have acted in a proper manner.
Lauren Ingram has made public allegations vilifying a private citizen, but we must consider Mr. Cook to be innocent until proven guilty, so her action is without merit.
LikeLike
You’re not doing yourself any favours John, though for some reason I can’t quite convince myself you’re just a troll so…
…the point is, that after having been treated so unprofessionally by the police L.I. lost faith in them and decided it was going to be an impossible exercise to keep pushing them up against a wall to do an investigation and press charges.
Pursuing a complaint of rape is hard, and very rarely results in a satisfactory outcome. The police should know this, and if they did their job properly they would pull out all the stops, take the initiative and support the complainant to participate fully. I’m sure this does happen in some instances – but it only takes one rebuff for the whole thing to fall apart, if we must state the obvious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, rhyllmcmaster, the Greens haven’t acted in a proper manner if the first complaints were made to them by other women six years ago.
In fact the Greens have acts only when forced to by the matters becoming public.
You have accused Ingram of *vilifying* and in the same sentence insisted Cook must be considered innocent. This appears to be a double standard.
LikeLike
But Jennifer, we don’t know if the first complaints were ever formally made known to the Greens.
I did not insist that Cook must be considered innocent. I simply stated the rule of law which says that an accused person must be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
LikeLike
The rule of law counts for nothing if its agents, the police, don’t abide by it.
When this happens citizens have a right, even a duty, to speak out.
Yes we do. Several women have confirmed that they complained to the Greens about the individual. Nothing was ever done, until matters became public.
LikeLike
But saying the Greens did nothing when it is not their job to do anything but kick him out is as absurd, the Greens cannot act as judge, jury and executioner,.
LikeLike
The Greens received complaints six years ago.They left him in place, gave him a job in spite of him using their party as a hunting ground for six years. They acted only when it went public.
Yes, they do have responsibility. They knowingly harboured a sexual predator.
LikeLike
Do we blame people in political parties who are also Catholic for all the thousands of rapes and torture by priests and school teachers and other workers?
The man was never charged with anything, hanging him out to dry and the Greens to is as disgusting as what has happened to Assange, a case where no charges were ever laid by anyone against him but he has been arrested on a fake warrant, kept in a dungeon on remand, denied his freedom for 7 years based on fake charges.
The law is for everyone, she should not have named him in public while he is still innocent before the law,
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s no comparison with Assange, Marilyn.
The law is not for everyone if police refuse to act on allegations. As I’ve said a million times, the fault here lies with the police, who denied due process & natural justice to both parties.
I am absolutely sick to death of the woman involved being used as a scapegoat for systemic and institutional failure.
LikeLike
Aingh! Are you moderating comments these days?
LikeLike
Well, I haven’t, but I probably should.
I don’t like to give them the satisfaction of complaining they’ve been blocked because I’m scared of them. LOLOLOLOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah goodo that’s a good strategy!
Well here’s one I prepared earlier, which for some reason my intuition told me – correctly – mightn’t survive the transmogrifying process…/-;
So, after thinking about it for a bit I think I’ve come to the conclusion that Lauren Ingram has done a remarkable thing… but it disappoints me a little that this is the case.
One thing I think’s really important when assessing someone’s actions is that you need to develop an understanding of the person’s subjective, individualised perspective, not just on the issue at hand but on things generally. Though at the same time you also need to realise and/or have the humility to understand that you will never be able to understand completely what goes on inside another person’s head. I’ve known my mum for almost 40 years and she still manages to surprise me on a regular basis!
What this boils down to is that to a certain degree you have to take it on trust that there are probably good reasons why people do the things they do, even if they seem counter-productive to you. Doubly so when the act is significant and foreseeably has major repercussions.
I’m perfectly happy to accept that Laura Ingram publicly named the person who raped her (don’t like the term “her rapist”…) because she felt she had exhausted all the avenues available to her to pursue justice – and warn other people about this guy – any other way. This is not to say I believe objectively that there really were no other avenues, but that Laura had felt she had done enough to pursue the complaint “officially” and been met with opposition, that she had made up her mind that the various authorities were systemically incapable of meeting her needs. Oh and I’m pretty sure she was quite well aware of the risks and the interest that her tweets would elicit as well.
Nonetheless, it’s a brave move for all sorts of reasons – and the reason it pains me to say so is that this whole situation makes it pretty clear that as a society we are still not ready to take women seriously, or respond appropriately, when someone rapes them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand your observations, Sam and to some extent agree.
However. The stand out issue here is the failure of the system to uphold the law. The failure of the police to carry out their duties has caused a situation in which nobody involved was allowed due process.
This happens over and over and over again. It is the system and its agents that are at fault, not the individuals who have both been denied justice.
LikeLike
Ah, yet another can of worms.
“The sex started out as consensual. But then quickly he started to get rough. I said “ow” and he kept going. I told him to stop, please, and he held me down, bit me and hit me.”
Those who have read the book ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ may have some inkling of the world of abusive/masochistic sex, where the episode Lauren describes would be typical enough.
If her statement to police included the paragraph quoted above I am not surprised that the police failed to proceed to a prosecution.
Undoubtedly Ingram feels abused, misused and badly done by. The alleged perpetrator has now also been abused and accused, defamed and badly done by. In contrast with Ms Ingram’s allegations, this defamation is all too well documented and public.
This is a lose/lose scenario. Clearly the punishment of Cook will go on; and Ingram’s punishment of herself as a self-appointed victim will also go on.
What’s done cannot be undone. But all those on the sidelines should back off, rather than further compound the misery.
LikeLike
The book is a work of fiction, DQ. You are implying that Ms Ingram’s account is also a fiction.
You accuse Ingram of *defaming* Cook, and describe her as a *self-appointed victim*, yet insist that Cook be considered *innocent* This makes no sense to me. There is apparently no doubt in your mind that Ingram is lying. Why would you leap to that assumption?
Again, the central point here is that police did not follow the law. Had they done so, this matter would be where it ought to be, in the courts, and not in the media and blogs. This is not Ms Ingram’s fault. It is the fault of the police, who have denied Cook the opportunity to defend himself.
LikeLike
No, I believe her account. But she says herself that it was consensual. In those circumstances rape is notoriously difficult to prosecute. She may have a tryable case for assault and battery, but not for rape. (For the pedants, yes I know it isn’t called “rape” in the statutes, but it is a convenienty term).
If a case cannot be successfully prosecuted, the police were right not lay charges.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seeing that she called him ‘my rapist’, I don’t see anything wrong someone calling him ‘her rapist’…
Also if it was consensual, how can it be rape….if the cops were confused, so am I.
LikeLike
It began as consensual sex, Helvi. It then turned violent, the woman asked the man to stop, he refused. Then it ceased to be consensual.
LikeLike
No, that’s not what happens, DQ. Police interview both complainant & defendant, then send to DPP for advice on prosecution. Police in this instance did not do any of this. They simply mocked the complainant and verbally abused her.
Sex can start out consensual. Then it can become violent, as happened in this case. The man was asked to stop. He did not. It then ceased to be consensual.
A woman can ask for sex to stop at any point & if forced to continue, that is not consensual.
LikeLike
I agree with you. However there are some difficulties with Ingram’s account.
“I went to the police only weeks after I was raped” she says in her article which you reference above.
What happened in the intervening weeks – did some further action or non-action by Cook make her decide that the earlier event was rape?
There is too much missing for us to decide. But as you say, the better course would have been for the police to take evidence and then refer it to the DPP. Are we sure that did not happen?
As I said before, a can of worms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looks like the majority of your long-term political ‘friends’ here are v. quick to join the blame the victim mob. Learnt from experience a long time ago that a person with left-wing political leanings is not necessarily & often not your best ally when you need them most,…particularly if you’re a female who has been criminally violated by a bloke. I am not at all surprised by DQ’s, Helvityni, Paul Walter & Marilyn’s lack of sensitivity in their responses to your post. I think that when Lauren worked it out that she was up against the whole system in finding some justice for herself, she made her truth public for various reasons. Reasons all or most victims of sexual assaults, & (v. few others it seems), whose perpertrator is never held to account, understand. The conviction rate for rape trials that even make it to a trial is disturbingly low. Welcome to the privileged World of Patriarchal law. And to a global system & culture that chooses to “be more concerned with the fate of the perpertrator than the victim”
LikeLiked by 1 person
anonymous,
“..‘friends’ here are v. quick to join the blame the victim mob.” Which MOB are you referring too; I thought people here are talking about ONE case only.
Or are you again drawing it all to your poor self, who has been so badly abused. When I still used to read your posts, I was shocked by the abuse you dished on others.
Jennifer is an intelligent and compassionate blog host, and can deal with her followers any way SHE chooses.
Start your own blog and be the RULER.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your attitude to one case says so much about your attitude. Compassionate not. Using my past abuse against me says a lot too. I admit I can dish it out..just isn’t all wrapped in sickly sweet silencing & I don’t think it detracts from the truth of what I want to get across. You have a tendency to blame the victim. Do yourself a favour & own it.
LikeLike
I’ve just addressed this again n my post on the Pell charges.
LikeLike
50 Shades of Grey; therefore police should not prosecute specific sex acts that a complainant didn’t consent to.
Great point, Doug! And by “great” I mean “disgusting”.
LikeLike
Just reading it and wonder at the Greens not acting on complaints from others, unless the complaints were not specific enough to require further investigation. Was it wolf whistling or a silly remark, or groping in the storeroom, for example?
Secondly rhyllmcmasters’ suggestion that the woman resubmit a complaint. Is this possible?
As for the rest many unknown knowns and known unknowns that only a proper investigation could answer as to Greens and the Police, for a start.
Why would would police have not investigated further if there seemed enough evidence for further inquiries. Surely not to protect poor policing work…tsk, just remembered Mulrunji and Hurley.
dq, this question of re-submission, can this not still happen?
As Dr Wilson says, a young man’s reputation is now at stake, which would seem a shame if he were innocent.
Perhaps if he made a complaint about unfair public use of his name, an investigation reviewing the whole case could be instigated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry it’s me, paul walter. My details were not up which is probably to do with my computer being hacked recently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My heart goes out to you
LikeLike
Yes. Miserable beggars. And me just a working class lad, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For those interested in more details about this case and why the NSW Greens protected an alleged “serial sexual abuser” for so long, you may want to check out this feature which we put together a few days ago. We will also have a follow-up on this for later this week after receiving more information over the past few days.
We named Mr Crook and show photos of him, very much for the reasons described above in this very article.
https://truecrimenewsweekly.com/2017/06/23/exclusive-police-investigate-nsw-greens-staffer-after-being-outed-as-alleged-serial-rapist-by-survivors/
LikeLike
[Editorial : This site is dubious and not recommended.]
LikeLike
Dubious, how? We’ve actually been contacted by many inside The Greens itself to thank us for our investigation. But thanks for the slander Mr Quixote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that link.
LikeLike
For lack of anywhere else to post this, OT
Oliver Stone’s interviews with Putin show us a man whose views are clearly coloured by what he perceives as Russian national interest and his personal predilections for secrecy security and a quaint religion. But he is an impressive leader, with qualities of intelligence, straightforwardness, attention to detail and also a breadth of interest in the gamut of matters Russian. It is not difficult to see why he is popular in his country.
What is interesting is to see the other angle, not just the usual American perspective. I regularly watch PBS Newshour, Al Jazeera news and the BBC as well as Australian ABC an SBS networks, and our newspapers, and I take it all with a grain of salt. As usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle – battered and bleeding, but still alive if you can use enough discernment.
Putin is typical enough of politicians everywhere: quote their misbehaviours to them and they will say “they (their opponents) did it first!” and quote chapter and verse in support.
There are ways to push back, acceptable ways to push back when challenged. They all do it, with the possible exception of Trump, who manages to find unacceptable ways to push back, via a constant attack on the credibility and merits of anyone who crosses him. Almost unique amongst people who have achieved world leadership, his thin skin is deadly dangerous to the world itself. I cannot conceive of a more dangerous world leader.
He says there is a witch hunt. But unlike all previous witch hunts there is a witch to be found. Big, ugly, narcissistic incompetent and now possessed of all sorts of evil charms and spells. The sooner the Republicans in Congress wise up and act to impeach him the better off the world will be. By comparison Putin is a model leader and statesman. I thought I’d never be required to say that. I never wanted to; in his own way Putin is very dangerous.
The old Chinese curse is “may you live in interesting times” . Interesting times is indeed where we live.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are an unlovable lot, the politicians. Trump and Putin equal trouble, but this time Trump is the bigger problem because of superior power.
As for Qatar, it is interesting how the US, Saudis and others have stood on Qatar to silence Al Jazeera and further cut off Iran. But Turkish troops remained stationed in Qatar. Its a fearful dangerous mess that has slipped below the consciousness Westerners, who fret about whether their tqxes are used “to educate other peoples children” for example and other self interested stuff.
All that gas and petroleum. As for Yemen, this is a gruesome real world mess, evidenced by all the pics of kids dying of cholera despite blanket suppression of media by Saudi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“For lack of anywhere else to post this, your blog will do as a vessel to dump my pathological drivel & be assured of a mutual wank with another pathological driveller…sometimes you guys need to just control your urges I can’t believe what you let these pricks get away with Jennifer.
LikeLike
I don’t have any problems with observations on Putin. Don’t agree with it all but see no reason to censor.
LikeLike
DQ, I never imagined we would be in a situation in which we had to decide if the US President was more of a danger than Putin.
And yet, here we are.
My conclusion, thus far, is that they are equally dangerous, and will cause havoc using entirely different methods. Really, it boils down to, do you want your world to end through Putin’s machinations, or Trump’s insanity?
That there will be catastrophe seems increasingly a given.
LikeLike
Anonymous, you should consider avoiding mutual wanks with borderliners.
You haven’t the guts to put your name up and probably know little of the site and how it has worked for five or six years.
LikeLike
Dq, more on the lines of what we were discussing the other night:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/28/yemen-facing-worst-cholera-outbreak-world-health-authorities-say/436858001/
How can an entire epidemic in a war zone be kept almost completely out of our news services?
Perhaps we can discern beneath the sideshow a rape, this time of the truth, involving the contaminated steel prick of one of the most vile diseases humans can suffer from.
LikeLike
Does seem sad ,in the light of the charges against Cardinal Pell, that the woman was unable to get a review also since there are underlying similarities in the situations.
LikeLike
Isn’t it illegal to accuse someone of this when it has been cleared by the police?
LikeLike
You did read the article?
I cannot think it is lllegal in a civilised society to query whether the existence of something like an inquiry mechanism is available.
How can you know if you don’t at least ask?
“The unconsidered life is hardly worth the consideration”, or do we live as unconscious worms?
What is your idea of intelligent life, Steve?
LikeLike
My point is don’t you open yourself up to bring sued if no charge is made and the person sues for deformation?
LikeLike