Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Kwality said:
Poor state of affairs IF truth is not behind accusations/allegations .... wanting something to be true does not make it true, & its gutless to be unwilling to stand up & be counted.
Exactly this issue is being played out today over Porters lead counsel, Ms Chrysanthou SC, & the relevance of the adjudication being clearer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Number37 said:
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.
Click to expand...
& what tribunal are you envisaging to perform whatever it is you are talking about.
IF its the Porter defamation action you are talking about you only need follow the ABC coverage.

As for the truth see Senator Waters apology to Peter Dutton.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Kwality said:
Pls return to any seat in the cheer squad
Click to expand...

This is not government. Conflicts of interest are real now. No idea how this plays out but I’m not sure “I have no recollection” is going to cut it. Judges don’t put things on hold for weeks for nothing.

But yeh - everyone else is cheerleading 🙄
 
Last edited:
Kwality said:
& what tribunal are you envisaging to perform whatever it is you are talking about.
IF its the Porter defamation action you are talking about you only need follow the ABC coverage.

As for the truth see Senator Waters apology to Peter Dutton.
Click to expand...

Tribunal = court.
Any court.
Any allegation.
Including defamation and rape.
It's all open, anyone can hear an allegation by sitting in the court, BEFORE the court decides whether it is true or not.
The idea that YOU keep promulgating is that somehow people shouldn't be able to make allegations unless the party has been found guilty of the allegation....which wouldn't make it an allegation BTW.

FYI, if you want to talk about playing funny buggers...Porter's defamation action is in the Federal Court, where there are no jury trials. Convenient that Porter doesn't have to front a jury with those crocodile tears and he knows Gleeson would have eaten him alive in front of a jury.
 
Number37 said:
Tribunal = court.
Any court.
Any allegation.
Including defamation and rape.
It's all open, anyone can hear an allegation by sitting in the court, BEFORE the court decides whether it is true or not.
The idea that YOU keep promulgating is that somehow people shouldn't be able to make allegations unless the party has been found guilty of the allegation....which wouldn't make it an allegation BTW.

FYI, if you want to talk about playing funny buggers...Porter's defamation action is in the Federal Court, where there are no jury trials. Convenient that Porter doesn't have to front a jury with those crocodile tears and he knows Gleeson would have eaten him alive in front of a jury.
Click to expand...
Porter is taking the defamation & the Court has accepted the preliminaries of both sides of the action as is bog standard for suvh actions, see the ABC win in a case brought by Mr V'L regarding a horse racing.
Nothing special about the Court arrangements here.
 
Kwality said:
Porter is taking the defamation & the Court has accepted the preliminaries of both sides of the action as is bog standard for suvh actions, see the ABC win in a case brought by Mr V'L regarding a horse racing.
Nothing special about the Court arrangements here.
Click to expand...

I never said there was.
You keep rabbiting on about how its unfair that people are able to make allegations and how those allegations being aired negatively affect the person accused.
AND
That everybody should wait until a determination is made about the truth of the allegation before they're allowed to say anything.

I was just pointing out that allegations are aired, each day, every day, in every court in the land.
Every court in the land is open for anyone to walk into to view the proceedings. (except when there is a special reason for a judge to close it)
 
Number37 said:
I never said there was.
You keep rabbiting on about how its unfair that people are able to make allegations and how those allegations being aired negatively affect the person accused.
AND
That everybody should wait until a determination is made about the truth of the allegation before they're allowed to say anything.

I was just pointing out that allegations are aired, each day, every day, in every court in the land.
Every court in the land is open for anyone to walk into to view the proceedings. (except when there is a special reason for a judge to close it)
Click to expand...
Apparently the laws of defamation dont agree with you, see recent cases won & lost by the ABC that suggest you cant just make stuff up & throw it out there.
Of course there is an issue IF you cant substantiate your claim e.g Senator Waters apology to Peter Dutton, she was offered the opportunity to apologise & took that option for her name calling.


Are you suggesting people should not be held responsible for their words?
Telling fibs under oath has consequences too.

A note : if you are accusing me of a statement quote it. There is a lack of substance when you need to misinterpret what I said, to fuel your virtuous claims.
 
Last edited:
Kwality said:
Apparently the laws of defamation dont agree with you, see recent cases won & lost by the ABC that suggest you cant just make stuff up & throw it out there.
Of course there is an issue IF you cant substantiate your claim e.g Senator Waters apology to Peter Dutton, she was offered the opportunity to apologise & took that option for her name calling.


Are you suggesting people should not be held responsible for their words?
Telling fibs under oath has consequences too.

A note : if you are accusing me of a statement quote it. There is a lack of substance when you need to misinterpret what I said, to fuel your virtuous claims.
Click to expand...

Jesus.
You're worse than RoyLion, just repeating the same thing over and over.
 
story in (think the age) that porter is in a protection program. not doing any pressers. shouldn't have a portfolio in that case. weak leader, weak corrupt govt.
 
Kwality said:
Apparently the laws of defamation dont agree with you, see recent cases won & lost by the ABC that suggest you cant just make stuff up & throw it out there.
Of course there is an issue IF you cant substantiate your claim e.g Senator Waters apology to Peter Dutton, she was offered the opportunity to apologise & took that option for her name calling.


Are you suggesting people should not be held responsible for their words?
Telling fibs under oath has consequences too.

A note : if you are accusing me of a statement quote it. There is a lack of substance when you need to misinterpret what I said, to fuel your virtuous claims.
Click to expand...
Plenty of cretins told fibs under oath at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse...yet donuts
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

western royboy said:
Plenty of cretins told fibs under oath at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse...yet donuts
Click to expand...
Can you prove it, or is it your belief as is the case in the Porter defamation case ?
We know the original verdict was overturned on appeal. There is a thread on that issue including the Royal Commission.
 
ralphmalph said:
That’s not really the case, is it? It’s not a question of whether Porter has acted ‘lawfully’.
Click to expand...
It is a defamation action, its the ABC that has lodged its defence with the Court.
The ABC defence does not include truth of its allegations, even though it was an option for them.

IF you think the action will find Porter guilty or innocent you are in for disappointment.
 
Kwality said:
The ABC defence does not include truth of its allegations, even though it was an option for them.

IF you think the action will find Porter guilty or innocent you are in for disappointment.
Click to expand...
Why would I think that? How do you infer that from what I wrote?
You’re the one who implied that the lawfulness of Porter’s actions has a bearing on the Court’s decision.
 
ralphmalph said:
Why would I think that? How do you infer that from what I wrote?
You’re the one who implied that the lawfulness of Porter’s actions has a bearing on the Court’s decision.
Click to expand...
IF means if, no more or less.
You were not of that view so relax, then again you chose the inference over the written word.
 
Sounds like Porter's wandering around in a daze.

www.smh.com.au

Disquiet among Liberal MPs over Porter’s media silence

Christian Porter is the only minister from Scott Morrison’s March reshuffle who is yet to hold a press conference or give an interview.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

BTW, first time on this thread. I notice that as usual, the article says Porter "forcefully" denies the allegations against him.

This is a variation on the customary "strenuously", but is it some arrangement he has with the media, to not just do the box-ticking "Porter denies the allegations", but to add "strenuously" (or "forcefully") every time?

One denies an allegation. How does one "strenuously" deny it (other than using the word yourself)?
 
SBD Gonzalez said:
Sounds like Porter's wandering around in a daze.

www.smh.com.au

Disquiet among Liberal MPs over Porter’s media silence

Christian Porter is the only minister from Scott Morrison’s March reshuffle who is yet to hold a press conference or give an interview.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

BTW, first time on this thread. I notice that as usual, the article says Porter "forcefully" denies the allegations against him.

This is a variation on the customary "strenuously", but is it some arrangement he has with the media, to not just do the box-ticking "Porter denies the allegations", but to add "strenuously" (or "forcefully") every time?

One denies an allegation. How does one "strenuously" deny it (other than using the word yourself)?
Click to expand...

Journalistic licence?
 
Kwality said:
The law doesnt change because it doesnt support your political view.
IF the ABC have acted lawfully they will be successful in Court, ditto Porter.
Click to expand...
No. They will change the law such that in future, they will be deemed to have acted unlawfully.

There is a small problem holding the law up as a gold standard when the people making the law have an over size personal interest in the outcome.

Remember, libel law is the weapon of choice for every despot in the world. Make the media guilty of a crime if they say something about you that you don't like. Hey presto.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
jatz14 said:
No. They will change the law such that in future, they will be deemed to have acted unlawfully.

There is a small problem holding the law up as a gold standard when the people making the law have an over size personal interest in the outcome.

Remember, libel law is the weapon of choice for every despot in the world. Make the media guilty of a crime if they say something about you that you don't like. Hey presto.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
All that is asked is the law of the day is the messure & the current cases are simply more widely reported because of the celebrity factor.
Being held to account for ones comments is hardly onerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top