OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Poupou Escobar]

She got he payout ... very convenient. Didnt need a big pay day from ch 10. The reward was already incoming from the australian tax payers.

Didn't even need to prove she was wronged.

 

[Gronk]

Spit it out Albo.

RED, RED, WHINE: Is Albo’s tasting out of touch?

The Opposition has questioned Prime Minister Anthony Albanese over a WA trip during a cost-of-living crisis that included tasting some of the most expensive reds in the State — including a $500 bottle.

thewest.com.au

 

[Gronk]

There seems to be some merkiny revisionism here.

She got her payout ? A reward ? Methinks that syntax needs examination.

 

[Gronk]

Suddenly run out of mansplainers have you?

I am sorry if your dick might have fallen off, but mansplaining has zero to do with what is happening in Court 22A.

He is claiming that his reputation was damaged by a television program which did not name him.

News Ltd did actually name him, but his show cause notice was quickly settled by way of a funds transfer into his bank account. News accepted no liability and the amount paid was $250k “as a contribution towards his legal fees” Funny that.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

What's funny about it? She got paid. Now he wants to get paid too. And you think these people got into politics because they love it?

 

[Gronk]

She got paid. Now he wants to get paid too.

What does that even mean ?

She was (allegedly) raped, then discarded by her peers and mentors as an inconvenient workplace problem. For the later, the PM apologised in parliament. The minister who called her a lying cow, lied under oath in the criminal trial has since “recanted” her evidence and admitted that she was lying all time. This was recently made in a statement via her lawyers.

I know you are after a reaction and seeking me to lose my shit, but I will let your callous attitude towards her stand for all to see.

As for him, well you say he wants to get paid. Right now in this case, he too has racanted evidence given under oath previously. As it stands his position is that:

* He suggested that they get an uber from the karaoke bar cos they lived in the same direction. She was shit faced, so whatever she said.
* They get in the car and he announces that he needs to go to Parliament House for something.
* He tells security that he forgot his keys. He told the minister that he went back to drink whiskey. He said in this trial that he went back to work on submarine files at 2am.
* So he has to sign her in cos she can’t really hold a pen.
* CCTV shows her skipping down the hallway carrying her heels, him ahead and the guard letting them in to the high security ministers suite.
* From there he claims in this trial that he went left, she went right and that was the last he saw of her.
* He left 45 mins later, did not call for her, check on her or tell her that he was leaving. He said in evidence that he did not think that was odd.
* she was found naked or half naked depending on different accounts and incoherent by a security guard. The guard closed the door and left her there.
* after she left by her own accord in the morning, the suite was quickly steam cleaned.

So in summary the male is seeking Justice Lee to believe his version of events that yes, he diverted the uber to PH, he is a conscientious worker and got distracted with important work stuff. Meanwhile that girl he hardly knew ran around drunk in some other part of building, took her clothes off and fell asleep. He denies being near her, contacting her, let alone sexually assaulting her.

His lawyer claims that after they were both reprimanded for going back to PH for no justifiable reason, that she made up the story of rape to save her job, and has continued the lie to this day.

^^^^ This position is drawing a long bow considering the PMs apology in parliament about how she was treated by the machine. Or perhaps she is worthy of a Golden Globe.

As always justice will prevail. In this instance, Justice Lee will decide if in fact he was defamed and if his reputation suffered damage. If he loses, not only will there be costs against him, but on Dec 5 a cross claim was lodged by Lisa Wilkinson for the mud slinging towards her. I suspect that was lodged after his bin fire performance in cross examination.

 

[strider]

Fkn Alboflation. That bottle of wine used to cost $300.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

What does that even mean ?

She was (allegedly) raped, then discarded by her peers and mentors as an inconvenient workplace problem. For the later, the PM apologised in parliament. The minister who called her a lying cow, lied under oath in the criminal trial has since “recanted” her evidence and admitted that she was lying all time. This was recently made in a statement via her lawyers.

I know you are after a reaction and seeking me to lose my shit, but I will let your callous attitude towards her stand for all to see.

As for him, well you say he wants to get paid. Right now in this case, he too has racanted evidence given under oath previously. As it stands his position is that:

* He suggested that they get an uber from the karaoke bar cos they lived in the same direction. She was shit faced, so whatever she said.
* They get in the car and he announces that he needs to go to Parliament House for something.
* He tells security that he forgot his keys. He told the minister that he went back to drink whiskey. He said in this trial that he went back to work on submarine files at 2am.
* So he has to sign her in cos she can’t really hold a pen.
* CCTV shows her skipping down the hallway carrying her heels, him ahead and the guard letting them in to the high security ministers suite.
* From there he claims in this trial that he went left, she went right and that was the last he saw of her.
* He left 45 mins later, did not call for her, check on her or tell her that he was leaving. He said in evidence that he did not think that was odd.
* she was found naked or half naked depending on different accounts and incoherent by a security guard. The guard closed the door and left her there.
* after she left by her own accord in the morning, the suite was quickly steam cleaned.

So in summary the male is seeking Justice Lee to believe his version of events that yes, he diverted the uber to PH, he is a conscientious worker and got distracted with important work stuff. Meanwhile that girl he hardly knew ran around drunk in some other part of building, took her clothes off and fell asleep. He denies being near her, contacting her, let alone sexually assaulting her.

His lawyer claims that after they were both reprimanded for going back to PH for no justifiable reason, that she made up the story of rape to save her job, and has continued the lie to this day.

^^^^ This position is drawing a long bow considering the PMs apology in parliament about how she was treated by the machine. Or perhaps she is worthy of a Golden Globe.

As always justice will prevail. In this instance, Justice Lee will decide if in fact he was defamed and if his reputation suffered damage. If he loses, not only will there be costs against him, but on Dec 5 a cross claim was lodged by Lisa Wilkinson for the mud slinging towards her. I suspect that was lodged after his bin fire performance in cross examination.

That is a select collection of facts you've outlined here. No doubt these are the only ones you think matter.

 

[JokerEel]

What does that even mean ?

She was (allegedly) raped, then discarded by her peers and mentors as an inconvenient workplace problem. For the later, the PM apologised in parliament. The minister who called her a lying cow, lied under oath in the criminal trial has since “recanted” her evidence and admitted that she was lying all time. This was recently made in a statement via her lawyers.

I know you are after a reaction and seeking me to lose my shit, but I will let your callous attitude towards her stand for all to see.

As for him, well you say he wants to get paid. Right now in this case, he too has racanted evidence given under oath previously. As it stands his position is that:

* He suggested that they get an uber from the karaoke bar cos they lived in the same direction. She was shit faced, so whatever she said.
* They get in the car and he announces that he needs to go to Parliament House for something.
* He tells security that he forgot his keys. He told the minister that he went back to drink whiskey. He said in this trial that he went back to work on submarine files at 2am.
* So he has to sign her in cos she can’t really hold a pen.
* CCTV shows her skipping down the hallway carrying her heels, him ahead and the guard letting them in to the high security ministers suite.
* From there he claims in this trial that he went left, she went right and that was the last he saw of her.
* He left 45 mins later, did not call for her, check on her or tell her that he was leaving. He said in evidence that he did not think that was odd.
* she was found naked or half naked depending on different accounts and incoherent by a security guard. The guard closed the door and left her there.
* after she left by her own accord in the morning, the suite was quickly steam cleaned.

So in summary the male is seeking Justice Lee to believe his version of events that yes, he diverted the uber to PH, he is a conscientious worker and got distracted with important work stuff. Meanwhile that girl he hardly knew ran around drunk in some other part of building, took her clothes off and fell asleep. He denies being near her, contacting her, let alone sexually assaulting her.

His lawyer claims that after they were both reprimanded for going back to PH for no justifiable reason, that she made up the story of rape to save her job, and has continued the lie to this day.

^^^^ This position is drawing a long bow considering the PMs apology in parliament about how she was treated by the machine. Or perhaps she is worthy of a Golden Globe.

As always justice will prevail. In this instance, Justice Lee will decide if in fact he was defamed and if his reputation suffered damage. If he loses, not only will there be costs against him, but on Dec 5 a cross claim was lodged by Lisa Wilkinson for the mud slinging towards her. I suspect that was lodged after his bin fire performance in cross examination.

Why does he seek that Justice Lee believe him? Its a civil case not a trail on the alleged Rape?

Lisa Wilkins just like every other garbage Journo should be shot to the sun.

If he does win this case I hope he bets it all on black and loses

 

[JokerEel]

Spit it out Albo.

RED, RED, WHINE: Is Albo’s tasting out of touch?

The Opposition has questioned Prime Minister Anthony Albanese over a WA trip during a cost-of-living crisis that included tasting some of the most expensive reds in the State — including a $500 bottle.

thewest.com.au

View attachment 82584

Oh noes $500 someone think of the children!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why does he seek that Justice Lee believe him?

Because Ten/Wilko are claiming truth as a defence.

 

[the phantom menace]

 

[the phantom menace]

Both 'protagonists' in this shitfight are self-serving opportunists. Higgins' mental health was such a concern that the rape case was called off. Now her mental health is fine and she's the star witness in the civil trial. Cha-ching.

You might have missed that this current case isn't a civil case brought by Higgins on the alleged rape - it's a Ben Roberts-Smith like "own goal" attempted defamation case brought by Lerhmann. He's the one seeking ca-ching here, you argumentative but dopey merkin .

And mental health (or wellness) changes over time... as you should well be aware.

 

[Gary Gutful]

No doubt BL is a dodgy grub and if he losses I wouldn’t really care.

But there’s some things that don’t stack up imo and I think that Lisa Wilkinson betrayed BH and took advantage of her.

BH and her dodgy boyfriend don’t come across as trustworthy either.

The whole thing is a shit show.

 

[Gary Gutful]

By ‘losses’, I meant ‘loosses’.

 

[Incorrect]

No doubt BL is a dodgy grub and if he losses I wouldn’t really care.

But there’s some things that don’t stack up imo and I think that Lisa Wilkinson betrayed BH and took advantage of her.

BH and her dodgy boyfriend don’t come across as trustworthy either.

The whole thing is a shit show.

So maybe you'd sum it up by saying the blame is 50/50?

Solid insights as always splinters....

 

[Gary Gutful]

So maybe you'd sum it up by saying the blame is 50/50?

Solid insights as always splinters....

*shpincters

 

[Gronk]

Why does he seek that Justice Lee believe him? Its a civil case not a trail on the alleged Rape?

Lisa Wilkins just like every other garbage Journo should be shot to the sun.

If he does win this case I hope he bets it all on black and loses

Because Ch10 are using the truth defense in the defamation trial.

The defendant (the alleged defamer) must prove that the defamatory imputation carried by the material published or broadcast is substantially true.

You’re reputation can’t be harmed if someone is telling the truth, merkin.

 

[Gronk]

That is a select collection of facts you've outlined here. No doubt these are the only ones you think matter.

Not at all, I purposely omitted the facts framed by the cross-examination of the first witness. I only outlined his side, didn’t include her side or Ch10’s investigations, CCTV or how they present their truth defence.

The point is that he brought the action. So like the Ben Roberts-Smith case, he needs to convince the court that he’s the guy he claims he is and not the guy he thinks the broadcast insinuated he was. So his evidence needs to stack up. He then needs to convince the court that he has suffered serious harm to his reputation. Those two words are legislated. Ask siri if you like.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Not at all, I purposely omitted the facts framed by the cross-examination of the first witness. I only outlined his side, didn’t include her side or Ch10’s investigations, CCTV or how they present their truth defence.

The point is that he brought the action. So like the Ben Roberts-Smith case, he needs to convince the court that he’s the guy he claims he is and not the guy he thinks the broadcast insinuated he was. So his evidence needs to stack up. He then needs to convince the court that he has suffered serious harm to his reputation. Those two words are legislated. Ask siri if you like.

So you're saying he might be more chance of getting paid if he says he was raped?