Senator Reynolds

Remove this Banner Ad

D Mitchell said:
There's no way I'm getting involved with you in a 4th - 5th hand analysis of selected extracts, whcih you say are court extracts, accurtate or not, of whatever. As for your 1921 - 2021 issue, if you are blind to the movements in social mores, no point intaking it any further. Repeating ALP lines doesn't impress.
Click to expand...
'blind to movements in social mores'. 'repeating ALP lines'. :rolleyes:

This is a discussion about the alleged rape and cover up inside the Ministerial Offices of Parliament House and you parrot meaningless phrases that look like they come from a young libs debating pamphlet.

I could refer you to the findings of ongoing bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces that were exposed by the 2021 Human Rights Commission Inquiry - commissioned by Morrison after the Higgins allegations surfaced - but you would regard that as not fitting with your version of the 'social mores' of 2021.

Reckon your empty trolling has been exposed pretty comprehensively.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Festerz said:
'blind to movements in social mores'. 'repeating ALP lines'. :rolleyes:

This is a discussion about the alleged rape and cover up inside the Ministerial Offices of Parliament House and you parrot meaningless phrases that look like they come from a young libs debating pamphlet.

I could refer you to the findings of ongoing bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces that were exposed by the 2021 Human Rights Commission Inquiry - commissioned by Morrison after the Higgins allegations surfaced - but you would regard that as not fitting with your version of the 'social mores' of 2021.

Reckon your empty trolling has been exposed pretty comprehensively.
Click to expand...
Say g'day to all your mates at your local branch
 
D Mitchell said:
First Bolded Bit. Up goes the Mitchell right hand.
Second Bolded Bit. That's the crux, isn't it. Why do you so choose ? it's your political orientation, isn't it, be honest at least with yourself.
Third bolded bit. Section 38 of the Crimes Act deals with rape.

Bruce denies, has not been found guilty, and is contemplating Defamation proceedings against clowns who wildly accusse him.
Click to expand...
Are you Scott Morrison?

Not everything is political.

"clowns" - nice - "it's your political orientation, isn't it, be honest at least with yourself"

It is embarrassing how much conservatives project their own weakness onto others.
 
QuietB said:
Are you Scott Morrison?

Not everything is political.

"clowns" - nice - "it's your political orientation, isn't it, be honest at least with yourself"

It is embarrassing how much conservatives project their own weakness onto others.
Click to expand...
Bolded bit. Yes it is, on this board and your last sentence gives you away. You are as poiitical as the worst of them, that's a deep condemnation.
 
D Mitchell said:
Bolded bit. Yes it is, on this board and your last sentence gives you away. You are as poiitical as the worst of them, that's a deep condemnation.
Click to expand...
I’m happy to hear your opinion on what success conservatives have ever achieved?

Saved Bruce Lehman seems to be the No. 1 priority right now. Imagine that being the highlight of your achievement.
 
D Mitchell said:
First Bolded Bit. Up goes the Mitchell right hand.
Second Bolded Bit. That's the crux, isn't it. Why do you so choose ? it's your political orientation, isn't it, be honest at least with yourself.
Third bolded bit. Section 38 of the Crimes Act deals with rape.

Bruce denies, has not been found guilty, and is contemplating Defamation proceedings against clowns who wildly accusse him.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, Mr Lehmann's trial was aborted due to a juror doing things which they had been instructed not to do by the Judge. The DPP then decided not to proceed with a re-trial. The worst outcome possible in terms of a satisfactory resolution to this issue one way or another.
 
The Punter said:
Just for the record, Mr Lehmann's trial was aborted due to a juror doing things which they had been instructed not to do by the Judge. The DPP then decided not to proceed with a re-trial. The worst outcome possible in terms of a satisfactory resolution to this issue one way or another.
Click to expand...
For Lehrmann, but not for the health of Higgins
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Festerz said:
An excellent thread that meticulously documents the trail of statements and mis-statements by Senator Reynolds both in and outside of the Lehrmann criminal trial.

A damning indictment not just of the actions and statements of Senator Reynolds but of the complicity of IPA Chair and NewsCorp writer Janet Albrechtsen and the Channel 7 Spotlight interviewer Liam Bartlett.
Click to expand...
Quick question / have you got the bit where he says he didn’t do it?
You know - for balance ?
QuietB said:
No I am not a mere spectator.

The truth is I have no idea what happened in that office that night and neither do you or anyone else who is either posting about it, writing about it or reporting on it. There has been a criminal trial which was ultimately a mistrial and resolved nothing. I don't know if Brittany Higgins is telling the truth but I choose to believe her over Bruce Lehman, Linda Reynolds (confirmed liar) and Scott Morrison (confirmed liar).

But based on what we do know the government of the time has behaved atrociously at various times and the Murdoch and Stokes media ever since has done everything they can to victim shame Brittany Higgins and to protect Bruce Lehman.

And you think the whole thing should be dismissed as "boys being boys" and I and others should simply continue being "quiet Australians" and mere spectators.

Those days are over.
Click to expand...
You’re “Not a spectator?”

How do you figure that ?
 
D Mitchell said:
You are quick on the trigger,I was in the course of adding "you are short of a d."
Click to expand...

you are an excuser for a person who has been accused of 3 sexual offences by 3 separate women. when your case is shown to be weak and flawed you resort to whataboutism.

are you an incels member?
 
Not Important said:
you are an excuser for a person who has been accused of 3 sexual offences by 3 separate women. when your case is shown to be weak and flawed you resort to whataboutism.

are you an incels member?
Click to expand...
My freely admitted whataboutism was in reference to an allegation of profiteering by a politician from the conservative side, probably Reynold, perhaps Morrison, nothing to do with Lehrmann. Excuser ? The man has had allegations made against him, that's all. No convictions, now not even a completed trial. He doesn't need to be "excused" by anyone. ...
 
Not Important said:
love to know who is footing the bill for all this litigation. including lehrmann’s.

Click to expand...

It's not litigation just a routine letter to remove an article - with dramatic 'at your peril' threat for non compliance.

Perjury is the wilful/intentional misrepresentation or telling of untruths under oath. Reynolds claims she just forgot what happened and while most people find that claim unbelievable given the circumstances there is no proof to claim otherwise and she has not been charged with any offence in relation to her evidence.

Dowling knows this and will now remove or heavily edit the article to remove reference to the perjury claim - probably excited that his troll has worked and thankful for the extra traffic Reynolds' lawyer has brought to his website with the letter.

A smarter politician would have just ignored it rather than giving Dowling the publicity he thrives on.
 
Festerz said:
It's not litigation just a routine letter to remove an article - with dramatic 'at your peril' threat for non compliance.

Perjury is the wilful/intentional misrepresentation or telling of untruths under oath. Reynolds claims she just forgot what happened and while most people find that claim unbelievable given the circumstances there is no proof to claim otherwise and she has not been charged with any offence in relation to her evidence.

Dowling knows this and will now remove or heavily edit the article to remove reference to the perjury claim - probably excited that his troll has worked and thankful for the extra traffic Reynolds' lawyer has brought to his website with the letter.

A smarter politician would have just ignored it rather than giving Dowling the publicity he thrives on.
Click to expand...
this is a threat to litigate, but both have and are involved in litigation. among other liberals. we still don't know who was behind porter's 1 mill blind trust. who is funding all the other litigation was what i was getting at.

dowling is no shrinking violet. he's not moderated his behaviour before. at personal cost in some instances. twill be interesting to see whether he does this time.
 

Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation cases against Brittany Higgins and partner David Sharaz may be heading to mediation, as a judge raises concerns about the "human cost".

The former defence minister is suing Ms Higgins and David Sharaz over five social media posts that she says have damaged her reputation.

The matter is set to go to trial in May, with lawyers for both Senator Reynolds and Mr Sharaz meeting before Supreme Court Justice Marcus Solomon on Thursday to discuss a security for costs application.

During a hearing over legal costs on Thursday, a Perth judge said he was concerned about the potential impact a trial could have on the parties as he urged them to mediate.

"We've had a lot of discussions about the financial costs. I'm very mindful of the human costs about this litigation on everybody," Justice Marcus Solomon said.

Senator Reynolds' lawyer Martin Bennett said he would speak to the senator about making time available in her schedule to attend the sessions if they occur.

Justice Solomon made his remarks during a hearing for an application brought to the court by Mr Sharaz, who wants Ms Reynolds to provide a substantial security bond worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. This means Senator Reynolds would need to put up hundreds of thousands of dollars to be held by the court, or mortgage her home, in order to prove she can cover any legal costs incurred by Mr Sharaz, should she fail to prove her case to the court.

Mr Shiraz' layer Jason MacLaurin said the senator was suing or threatening to sue multiple people and he was concerned she wouldn't be able to pay his client's legal costs should she lose at trial.

He was critical of Ms Reynolds' case, saying it was weak and the five social media posts it concerned were a "drop in the ocean" considering the vast amount of critical statements made about the senator.

Justice Solomon will hand down his decision on Friday afternoon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chief
Anti-vax LNP senate candidate. Where did all the adults go?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top