- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Bolt is a troll
- Thread starter Slax
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Feb 24, 2013
- 45,365
- 37,740
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
- Banned
- #577
What a paid lying weasel of a Ruprect shill he is.
More than pleased to concede, Fred. Had another look at Eatock v Bolt and can't see where Justice Bromberg's judgement used "diliberate, malicious lies" in the finding. He took care not to be that blunt I thought. If you could point me to the use of those words I'd appreciate it. Maybe a different case.
I initially gave you some credit for having at least a modicum of understanding of the media and the likes of Blot. Clearly I was wrong.
A lot of posters think the ABC is perfect, you say. Blot would be proud of a gross generalisation that has no factual basis. I've never heard one person say that or seen it written anywhere. That would be because it's arrant nonsense. Not even the extremely pro "Friends of the ABC" say that.
Media Watch does what all critical analysis should do and that is support their contentions with evidence. It's not that difficult to demonstrate plagiarism. Or to check the original comment of someone who has been misrepresented et al. And they are open to that sort of criticism if they are shown to be out of line. It's rare.
Of course news and opinion are not the same. Although the Dirty Digger and his band of prevaricators are more than pleased to blur the lines in many of their publications. Just because a person writes an opinion piece does not give them the right to write uninformed s**t or pure make believe. Real opinion writers seek out and marshall facts, deploy new knowledge, critical judgement and breadth of understanding. Blot has been found be careless with research (I'd suggest he doesn't know the meaning of it) distorts the truth (lies)and been found to have written articles which contained multiple and serious errors of fact. You can't excuse rubbish writing just because it's opinion. There is a responsibility to be accurate. The journalists code demands it. In fact their first point is:
"Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis."
On a lighter note:
I dont follow Bolt, dont watch his show on Fox, have access, dont watch, dont consider his view as balanced, but some of the nonsense paraded here is exactly why I dont follow Bolt, equally if Bolt is on something I'm watching I dont turn it off - I do turn Q&A off for the same reason I dont watch Bolt.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,522
- 40,719
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
It never ceases to amaze me how Bromberg always manages to get the highly politicised Federal Court cases.
You'd think he's the only Judge at the Federal Court level.
Im sure it has nothing to do with him being a failed Labor candidate who now gets to seek revenge on right wing litigants.
I won't embarrass you by asking you to provide evidence that Justice Bromberg "always gets the highly politicised Federal Court cases" because it's a Dennis Denuto moment. The cases are allocated under the National Court Framework.
If Bolt or News Corp felt the findings by Justice Bromberg could not be supported by the evidence they could have appealed. They didn't.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,522
- 40,719
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Sure. It only costs $1 million to go through appeals. And given the type of case they would not have got much back had they won.
He banned Toyota from making a deal with employees which would have kept the company running. Interesting that he ended up with that case given as a lawyer he represented workers against Toyota (he had judged a couple of Toyota cases over the years).
Decided to introduce time limits on Immigration appeals as well.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
They were probably just thanking their lucky stars that Bolt's victims hadn't sued in defamation and that they didn't have to pay the inevitable damages and costs.
Quoting one or two examples from his huge case load doesn't corroborate your assertion. His cases are allocated.
News Corp is a huge conglomerate. A mil would be pocket money. They didn't appeal because Justice Bromberg's findings were sound. Blot is a lying germ.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,522
- 40,719
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Zero chance of winning defamation. Thats why they used 18C. Its a joke of a law.
$1M to appeal? How do you come up with that number?
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Their defamation case was as unassailable as any defamation case could be.
Many of his "facts" were demonstrably false (as he admitted in his evidence), and he acted with malice (as he also admitted in his evidence), so he had no defence of fair comment.
Ironically, in light of your comments about costs, the reason they did not sue in defamation was almost certainly because they couldn't afford it and the Murdochians could.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,403
- 19,534
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Poor excuse. There’s plenty of no fee no win lawyers around the place!
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Not taking on defamation cases, there aren't.
& why is that? ... a quids a quid unless you lose !
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,522
- 40,719
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
They werent paying. They were aided by the HRC. Who love 18C because it is so incredibly vague.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
They weren't aided by the HRC, HRC involvement ceases once mediation fails and complainants take further proceedings on their own.
Anyway, I'm not going to be dragged down any further into yet another otiose discussion of the stupid IPA/Murdoch lies about 18C.
The worth of 18C was once and for all proved by Eatock when it vindicated some of Bolt's victims and established once and for all that he is a deliberate, malicious liar.
Unfortunately, despite his ridiculous screams to the contrary, it hasn't stopped him continuing to spew out his garbage; which is, in itself, a good case for strengthening 18C.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
You have a lot to learn about lawyers and their business practices.
RupieDupie
Guru
- Jun 30, 2017
- 4,228
- 3,499
- AFL Club
- GWS
Given the diatribe surrounding politics nowadays it’s getting harder and harder to stay relevant, most people I know, who express a political opinion, are too sensible and self-respecting to enter into the fray.
That’s the strategy they used to use back in the 1800s to keep the intellectuals out of the argument, they made the debate coarse and improper, hardly the thing for a gentleman... or gentlewoman to enter in to. That’s why people like Wilde and Bronte/s etc would write of the times as if writing speculative fiction of another place, to weigh their opinions without committing the crime of becoming unrefined.
But I’m like their bulldog because I can go to those places, just like Thomas Henry Huxley was to Charles Darwin. It would be poor form for an intellectual elite like Darwin to discuss coarse and unrefined views like Creationism, but Huxley got in amongst it. “Bring on Bishop Wilberforce!” Huxley would bellow, “so I may point out his views to be quite s**t!”
Yep, in the modern days of Trump, even people who would stick heroin needles into their tongues and mutilate small insects, would be quite abashed to find themselves discussing the brutish debates that surround the Trump administration, “Oh I do say old chaps, let’s separate the children from the parents but ensure that we give the children lollies so we’re not considered as beasts”...
Last edited:
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
http://the-pen.co/hate-politics-is-a-disease/
Andrew Bolt is a disgrace and deserves to be pointed out as one
Can we change " Troll " to " Mutt " ??
Andrew Bolt is a disgrace and deserves to be pointed out as one
Can we change " Troll " to " Mutt " ??
He's a peanut but I love how worked up and triggered he gets people.
Similar threads
