- Oct 4, 2016
- 7,407
- 11,662
- AFL Club
- Richmond
which has sfa to do with the matter at hand.Do you know how Kevin Rudd's wife made all her money ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
which has sfa to do with the matter at hand.Do you know how Kevin Rudd's wife made all her money ?
go help us!Labels and titles. Bruce and Brittany were kids in their 20's. The word "Advisor" is almost as misused as the word "awesome"
'blind to movements in social mores'. 'repeating ALP lines'.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.
Other than as a counter to uncorroborated allegations against the current Opposition, agree.which has sfa to do with the matter at hand.
Say g'day to all your mates at your local branch'blind to movements in social mores'. 'repeating ALP lines'.
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.
two unrelated matters, little fella. just you doing a bit of misdirection.Other than as a counter to uncorroborated allegations against the current Opposition, agree.
You are quick on the trigger,I was in the course of adding "you are short of a d."two unrelated matters, little fella. just you doing a bit of misdirection.
Are you Scott Morrison?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.
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.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.
I’m happy to hear your opinion on what success conservatives have ever achieved?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.
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.
For Lehrmann, but not for the health of HigginsJust 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.
For Lehrmann, but not for the health of Higgins
Quick question / have you got the bit where he says he didn’t do it?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.
You’re “Not a spectator?”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.
You are quick on the trigger,I was in the course of adding "you are short of a d."
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. ...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?
love to know who is footing the bill for all this litigation. including lehrmann’s.
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.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.