User talk:Tamarata

Hi, let's have an open conversation. Why is the link to the Royal Commission a joke to you? Have you read the actual transcriptions to the testimonials from the victims of the sexual abuse by the different leaders including Satyananda? Please let's stick to what the testimonials are saying. If you haven't, the transcripts from the Royal Commission are here:

If you have an issue with adding content from the transcriptions into the article or you think they break any rule let's please discuss it in the talk area of the article and not just delete it otherwise you might be in breach of the terms and conditions of wikipedia.

Hi, i think there is a misunderstanding of what a royal commision actually is especially to non australians. Findings by Royal Commissions do not of themselves have legal consequences. However, criminal proceedings can and normally follow from the Royal Commission’s findings, and the Commission can make policy recommendations to the Government to change laws. Why should anyone in this world accept allegations when there is no criminal conviction by a court? To make things more complex you are not mentioning a huge factor (and perhaps motive)which is financial claim.

Please explain to me why a hearing in a royal commision makes it defacto the absolute truth? How can truth can be ever revealed when people concerned have passed away and cannot defend themselves? What tangible proof can be submitted to a real court ? Tamarata (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)