Osho
Time is not linear, when we're here in your car.
- Jul 9, 2021
- 5,887
- 5,292
- AFL Club
- GWS
"Falling up stairs".
Not to be confused with falling down stairs.
Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba
- Thread starter HurleyHepsHird
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Not to be confused with falling down stairs.
Goodness, imagine thinking that heading off to a Liberal Party Christmas function was a good look in the midst of all this.
Not only is he an A grade flog of the highest order, he’s also really just not the sharpest tool in the shed is he
If there was a Kris Kringle at this shindig, I really do hope that someone slipped him a copy of one of Yumi Stynes’ kids books for shits and giggles
Hope he didnt play Santa
Hope no one fell asleep
- May 20, 2019
- 11,960
- 33,889
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
Not sure why this thread on Bruce Lehmann made me think of the end of this clip. But it did.
- Oct 19, 2020
- 22,586
- 32,520
- AFL Club
- Richmond
What a psychopath.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 9,441
- 7,565
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Don’t all rush in at once
- May 20, 2019
- 11,960
- 33,889
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
Thought that was a joke - but of course, it isn't
And the moderator name checks out too:
- May 20, 2019
- 11,960
- 33,889
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
If he wins his defamation case - still a good possibility imho - she will be all over him like blowies in a drop dunny on hot summer's day. And being a Queenslander he will fit right in, even with another rape trial pending.
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,167
- 17,739
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
And a **** tonne of incels and Young Libs.
To be fair, many get their humour from Babylon Bee, so they probably don't even know what humour is these days
- May 20, 2019
- 11,960
- 33,889
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
Media Watch covers the grubby dishonesty of Kerry Stokes' Seven Network interviews with Bruce Lehrmann:
And Seven's dishonesty has seen the organisers of the Walkley Awards review their rules on chequebook journalism
www.theguardian.com
Lehrmann said in court that he wasn't aware of how much he'd been paid for the interview because it was being organised by Channel 7. Given that the yearly rent for his current abode, paid for by Seven, comes to $130k that's not a bad position to be in given given the state of the housing market and his claim to be near bankrupt.
Sadly for him, payments for media appearances are assessable as income for tax purposes so the revelations of his secret rental payments will no doubt pique the interest of the ATO.
And Seven's dishonesty has seen the organisers of the Walkley Awards review their rules on chequebook journalism
Walkley awards to review ‘chequebook journalism’ rules after Bruce Lehrmann rent payment revealed in court
The journalism foundation board did not say it would withdraw Seven’s shortlisting for the 2023 scoop of the year award for Liam Bartlett’s interview with Lehrmann
Lehrmann said in court that he wasn't aware of how much he'd been paid for the interview because it was being organised by Channel 7. Given that the yearly rent for his current abode, paid for by Seven, comes to $130k that's not a bad position to be in given given the state of the housing market and his claim to be near bankrupt.
Sadly for him, payments for media appearances are assessable as income for tax purposes so the revelations of his secret rental payments will no doubt pique the interest of the ATO.
Last edited:
- May 20, 2019
- 11,960
- 33,889
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
Front page of Kerry Stokes WA newspaper today. Can only imagine how he will frame the front page if his boy Bruce wins his defamation action.
I'm bemused that because Lehrmann appeared on a station owned by Stokes, that suddenly Lehrmann has become 'his boy'.
Seems another case of twitter misinformation where somebody has put one and one together and got five. And now the whole thing has taken on a life of its own and suddenly its a fact.
Newsflash: People across the political and social spectrum have always appeared on television and sometimes (shock, horror) they are even paid for it.
Whybrow did the ACT Criminal trial pro bono. Its a fairly good assumption that he is doing this case pro bono as well.
Not that it should matter anyway.
Seems another case of twitter misinformation where somebody has put one and one together and got five. And now the whole thing has taken on a life of its own and suddenly its a fact.
Newsflash: People across the political and social spectrum have always appeared on television and sometimes (shock, horror) they are even paid for it.
Whybrow did the ACT Criminal trial pro bono. Its a fairly good assumption that he is doing this case pro bono as well.
Not that it should matter anyway.
Doing an interview for cash is one thing. The nuance here that you don't seem able/willing to acknowledge is that:
a) both parties denied any compensation was paid
b) when Channel 7 eventually "came clean" about the arrangement, they tried to downplay it as merely being some accommodation costs related to Lehrmann attending the interview.
If there was nothing to hide, why wouldn't 7 have just come out and said that they've paid his rent for a year?
Who knows. I’ll leave that for the conspiracy theorists to come up with something.
might have undermined the 'culture war' fire bruce was trying to ignite [edit] and ch 7 was wanting to benefit from
Nah, can't be that... As MPMonkeys has pointed out to us, the mainstream media is completely impartial and would never think of presenting a biased, agenda driven point of view.
Last edited:
- May 20, 2019
- 11,960
- 33,889
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PAFC Maggies SANFL, ASU Sun Devils
It's a ridiculous assumption. This is a civil trial where costs will most likely be awarded against the losing party. Are you seriously suggesting that the bill for Steve Whybrow SC's days/weeks in the Federal Court that will be presented to Channel Ten if Lehrmann's defamation action succeeds will be ZERO.
As what about the three other top shelf lawyers acting for Lehrmann, including Matthew Richardson SC and adviser Mark O'Brien - founding partner of O'Brien Legal - who coincidentally was also the legal adviser for Ben Roberts-Smith in his failed defamation action?
And who funded Ben Roberts-Smith multi-million dollar legal representation and other costs during that failed defamation trial I wonder
Yeah I know- just a coincidence.
And it doesn't really matter apparently because all these high powered lawyers working for the self declared 'almost bankrupt' Liberal adviser Bruce Lehrmann are doing it for free - no one is getting paid. Heck maybe even Justice Lee, hearing the defamation action, is doing it pro-bono too.
Just like Kerry Stokes' Channel 7 network didn't pay Bruce Lehrmann for his Spotlight interview. Err, hang on.
Take your conspiracy theory BS somewhere else pleaseIt's a ridiculous assumption. This is a civil trial where costs will most likely be awarded against the losing party. Are you seriously suggesting that the bill for Steve Whybrow SC's days/weeks in the Federal Court that will be presented to Channel Ten if Lehrmann's defamation action succeeds will be ZERO.
As what about the three other top shelf lawyers acting for Lehrmann, including Matthew Richardson SC and adviser Mark O'Brien - founding partner of O'Brien Legal - who coincidentally was also the legal adviser for Ben Roberts-Smith in his failed defamation action?
And who funded Ben Roberts-Smith multi-million dollar legal representation and other costs during that failed defamation trial I wonder
Yeah I know- just a coincidence.
And it doesn't really matter apparently because all these high powered lawyers working for the self declared 'almost bankrupt' Liberal adviser Bruce Lehrmann are doing it for free - no one is getting paid. Heck maybe even Justice Lee, hearing the defamation action, is doing it pro-bono too.
Just like Kerry Stokes' Channel 7 network didn't pay Bruce Lehrmann for his Spotlight interview. Err, hang on.
Why do you have to use the adjectives 'top-shelf' and 'high powered'?It's a ridiculous assumption. This is a civil trial where costs will most likely be awarded against the losing party. Are you seriously suggesting that the bill for Steve Whybrow SC's days/weeks in the Federal Court that will be presented to Channel Ten if Lehrmann's defamation action succeeds will be ZERO.
As what about the three other top shelf lawyers acting for Lehrmann, including Matthew Richardson SC and adviser Mark O'Brien - founding partner of O'Brien Legal - who coincidentally was also the legal adviser for Ben Roberts-Smith in his failed defamation action?
And who funded Ben Roberts-Smith multi-million dollar legal representation and other costs during that failed defamation trial I wonder
Yeah I know- just a coincidence.
And it doesn't really matter apparently because all these high powered lawyers working for the self declared 'almost bankrupt' Liberal adviser Bruce Lehrmann are doing it for free - no one is getting paid. Heck maybe even Justice Lee, hearing the defamation action, is doing it pro-bono too.
Just like Kerry Stokes' Channel 7 network didn't pay Bruce Lehrmann for his Spotlight interview. Err, hang on.
Can you provide examples of non top shelf or non high powered SC's or KC's? If there is a distinction, then I am all ears.
Feels like I'm reading a copy of New Idea when I read your posts half the time.
Yes, I am suggesting he is doing it pro bono. Happens all the time in civil cases. Slater & Gordon make a living from it. Its hardly something new. Otherwise the only civil cases we would see would be people who have a spare 200K up their sleeves.
And BRS's case has as much to do with this case as Sue Chrysanthou representing Pauline Hanson in her case or Sarah Hanson-Young in her case.
In other words - zero relevance whatsoever.
Brittney received 2.3m compensation from government
Brittany Higgins has told a court she received $2.3 million in compensation from the Commonwealth after filing a claim following her rape allegation.
From herald sun
Brittany Higgins has told a court she received $2.3 million in compensation from the Commonwealth after filing a claim following her rape allegation.
From herald sun
Similar threads
