Christian Porter

[Rabbitpig]

You're being daft.
It doesn't need to be true.
There only needs to be substance to it.
Otherwise nobody would be allowed to say anything until a tribunal makes a determination of guilt.
In the process the tribunal, which would be open to anyone, would reveal the substance of an allegation anyway. ie BEFORE it reaches its conclusion.

You say "it doesn't need to be true". Enough said. Let's all propogate lies because it supports our opinions. I'm neither left or right, but I'll always ignore dickheads who disregard facts in pursuit of their agenda. You take the cake.

 

[Number37]

You say "it doesn't need to be true". Enough said. Let's all propogate lies because it supports our opinions. I'm neither left or right, but I'll always ignore dickheads who disregard facts in pursuit of their agenda. You take the cake.

I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand simple things.

 

[Kwality]

I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand simple things.

Simple things like the truth, nothing but the truth, not the 'substantial truth' ... you say it, you own it, how hard is that?

 

[ralphmalph]

Simple things like the truth, nothing but the truth, not the 'substantial truth' ... you say it, you own it, how hard is that?

If you think whether something is substantially true is not relevant, you might want to familiarise yourself with the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

 

[Kwality]

If you think whether something is substantially true is not relevant, you might want to familiarise yourself with the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

Thank you. Clearly making things up to suit your narrative doesnt cut it.

 

[ralphmalph]

Thank you. Clearly making things up to suit your narrative doesnt cut it.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Can you clarify?

 

[Kwality]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Can you clarify?

The suggestion that people should be able to make unsubstantiated comments & not own them.
I understand its getting off the Porter defamation action, I will keep to the topic.

 

[jatz14]

The suggestion that people should be able to make unsubstantiated comments & not own them.
I understand its getting off the Porter defamation action, I will keep to the topic.

Just about every comment by everybody is unsubstantiated.

Even substantiated comments can be unsubstantiated.

Greatest gift to despots everywhere.

You broke the law telling people about my graft. This evidence substantiates it our story.
No it doesn't, off to prison with you criminal.



On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jatz14]

Simple things like the truth, nothing but the truth, not the 'substantial truth' ... you say it, you own it, how hard is that?

Impossible. That's how hard that it is.



On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Porter lied about robodebt, lied about refugees.

No reason to suggest he isn't lying about this.

Certainly not a fit and proper person.

 

[Kwality]

Just about every comment by everybody is unsubstantiated.

Even substantiated comments can be unsubstantiated.

Greatest gift to despots everywhere.

You broke the law telling people about my graft. This evidence substantiates it our story.
No it doesn't, off to prison with you criminal.



On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
[/QUOTE)



Off to gaol NO, for defamation a hit to the hip pocket.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Dunno, maybe the lodgement of defamation proceedings against the parties who reported the allegations might be a start?

Dunno, maybe the lodgement of defamation proceedings against the parties who reported the allegations might be a start?

So, they used the term in the lodgement, and then every media report slavishly repeats it every single time the matter is raised? Is that the media feeding off itself (not unimaginable; particularly given it concerns the former highest legal officer in the land), or some legal convention I'm not aware of?

Journalistic licence?

If so, it's remarkably consistent.

Happy to be proven wrong, but my impression is that usually in legal cases, the media will, as a matter of course, include "Mr X denies the allegation", but this phenomenon of always including "strenuously or "forcefully" has caught my eye this time. Maybe I'm imagining it.

But intriguing to ponder, on the other hand, whether Porter was able to actually dictate such terms.

Just thinking out loud here.

 

[Number37]

Simple things like the truth, nothing but the truth, not the 'substantial truth' ... you say it, you own it, how hard is that?

Great for TV shows, not really relevant to the Porter case.

The standard of proof is "balance of probabilities".

 

[Kwality]

So, they used the term in the lodgement, and then every media report slavishly repeats it every single time the matter is raised? Is that the media feeding off itself (not unimaginable; particularly given it concerns the former highest legal officer in the land), or some legal convention I'm not aware of?

If so, it's remarkably consistent.

Happy to be proven wrong, but my impression is that usually in legal cases, the media will, as a matter of course, include "Mr X denies the allegation", but this phenomenon of always including "strenuously or "forcefully" has caught my eye this time. Maybe I'm imagining it.

But intriguing to ponder, on the other hand, whether Porter was able to actually dictate such terms.

Just thinking out loud here.

I'd think any left leaning media outlet would squeal if Porter was dictating their words.
No such noise, not a problem or no left leaning media outlets ?

 

[Kwality]

Great for TV shows, not really relevant to the Porter case.

The standard of proof is "balance of probabilities".

Is that right?
I was dubious about the use of social media references prior to Porter identifying himself.

 

[Number37]

Is that right?

Nah, I just made it up.

Evidence Act, section 140-ish.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I'd think any left leaning media outlet would squeal if Porter was dictating their words.
No such noise, not a problem or no left leaning media outlets ?

The other day you were saying you read/watch all media types, both sides.

But you don't even know what left is.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I'd think any left leaning media outlet would squeal if Porter was dictating their words.
No such noise, not a problem or no left leaning media outlets ?

Not saying it’s what’s happening in this case but I suspect media of all persuasions find politicians trying things on with them all the time. Deals are done, even between pollies and their media enemies.


People have a very binary view of how power is exercised, by both politicians and by media.

 

[Kwality]

Not saying it’s what’s happening in this case but I suspect media of all persuasions find politicians trying things on with them all the time. Deals are done, even between pollies and their media enemies.


People have a very binary view of how power is exercised, by both politicians and by media.

We share your view on media deals.

 

[Pie eyed]

Dunno, maybe the lodgement of defamation proceedings against the parties who reported the allegations might be a start?

You agree they were "reporting" the allegations then?
Not making them.
Open and shut case.
Porter should pay costs out his own pocket hopefully.
Not like the rape allegations have anything to do with his career or portfolio.

 

[Fadge]

You agree they were "reporting" the allegations then?
Not making them.
Open and shut case.
Porter should pay costs out his own pocket hopefully.
Not like the rape allegations have anything to do with his career or portfolio.

Yes, his career hasn't been impacted whatsoever by the reporting of the rape allegations...

 

[Kwality]

You agree they were "reporting" the allegations then?
Not making them.
Open and shut case.
Porter should pay costs out his own pocket hopefully.
Not like the rape allegations have anything to do with his career or portfolio.

Only way the taxpayer will pay is if the ABC loses & has costs awarded against it (all of us).

 

[Kwality]

You agree they were "reporting" the allegations then?
Not making them.
Open and shut case.
Porter should pay costs out his own pocket hopefully.
Not like the rape allegations have anything to do with his career or portfolio.
[/QUOTE)

Open & shut eh !
Why are both parties employing silk when a suburban practitioner could do it?
uh !

 

[NSWCROW]

This'd cost a LABOR pollie their job !!!!

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

Going back to the OP. Seems so-so appropriate even now with The Christian in Slippery's witness protection program.

What’s he up to these days? He was such a promising young talent but we don’t hear from him any more.