Updated The Bruce Lehrmann Trials Pt2 * Justice Lee - "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins."

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General

LINK TO FEDERAL COURT DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS

 

[Festerz]

Who's paying for drinks?

 

[Kurve]

Really?!?!?!



I have a The Australian subscription that I only have as a "perk" to my credit card and I don't recall Albrechtsen saying too many "hateful and disgusting" things (at least on this topic), or "hateful bile" (as you inferred).

I don't recall seeing anything like the bolded above to be honest and I am of the view that almost all of Albrechtsen's articles on this topic are fact based, rather than opinion based (which someone alleged earlier).

I don't think it's too much to ask to provide an example. There should be one obvious point that you can provide support for Lehrmann that you've "never witnessed anything in the press as vicious in my life".

Oh ... you have a subscription to the Australian so it doesn't surprise me you didn't find anything about her coverage of the case as hateful.

The accusations against Albrechtsen's coverage of the case is documented in these threads.

 

[BFew]

Who's paying for drinks?

View attachment 1983046

Probably future clients of the bloke on the right, whose decision to choose to pay him to legally represent or advise them, will be wholly or partly due him having provided free legal representation to the bloke on the left.

 

[jason_recliner]

What does her political affiliation have to do with this? Both the complainant and the alleged rapist were employed by the same political party.

You may not have been paying attention but she's a victim-survivor and he's a rapist. Nothing "alleged" about it.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Oh ... you have a subscription to the Australian so it doesn't surprise me you didn't find anything about her coverage of the case as hateful.

The accusations against Albrechtsen's coverage of the case is documented in these threads.

Hang on.
If you don’t have a subscription then how can you possibly comment on the content of her articles if you haven’t read them?

Anyway, I’m done with this. It’s turned into a misogynistic hate fest by people who have zero idea on what they are actually abusing people of doing.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[BFew]

What I don't understand is why until this week, Ten were unable to find out that Lehrmann was only on a no-win, no payment legal agreement with his lawyers, or have a third party donor willing to pay his legal fees.

Surely a defamation defendant would need and has a right to know that before the case could go ahead.

Doesn't seem fair to the defendant that they have to wait until after the case is adjudicated (pre-appeal) to find this out.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bruce-lehrmanns-lawyers-agreement-in-ten-wilkinson-defamation-case-revealed/news-story/3176b3bc0fef813afe27f2717290fc4d

 

[FIGJAM]

Oh ... you have a subscription to the Australian so it doesn't surprise me you didn't find anything about her coverage of the case as hateful.

As I said, I have a free subscription. I wouldn't pay for anything from Murdoch. I mostly watch and read the ABC.

I've read these threads and read Albrechtsen and Rice's articles on the topic and they've been largely factual based, even if you don't like the fact that they correctly pulled Higgins up on the obviously false cover up narrative.

Stating facts is not "hateful", so some support of that evidence might be warranted. You might 'feel' that it's "hateful" because it goes against your preferred narrative, but that's a different kettle of fish.

 

[BFew]

If you don’t have a subscription then how can you possibly comment on the content of her articles if you haven’t read them?

Some people actually buy paper copies of Australian from time to time, or get access to reading them online in paper or digital format via a library, their employer, their educational institution, an airport freebie, a cafe, at a mates place, or from their fish and chips wrapper.

 

[jason_recliner]

misogynistic hate fest

 

[Brian Oblivion]

What I don't understand is why until this week, Ten were unable to find out that Lehrmann was only on a no-win, no payment legal agreement with his lawyers, or have a third party donor willing to pay his legal fees.

Surely a defamation defendant would need and has a right to know that before the case could go ahead.

Doesn't seem fair to the defendant that they have to wait until after the case is adjudicated (pre-appeal) to find this out.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bruce-lehrmanns-lawyers-agreement-in-ten-wilkinson-defamation-case-revealed/news-story/3176b3bc0fef813afe27f2717290fc4d

I agree - seems like an abuse of process.

 

[Festerz]

If you don’t have a subscription then how can you possibly comment on the content of her articles if you haven’t read them?

Up until recently her articles were cut and pasted in part 1 of this thread on an almost daily basis by a poster who also had a personal subscription but seems to have stopped posting (under their previous username at least) a few months ago.

And there are many other ways of viewing articles other than taking out a personal and specific subscription to the newspaper/organisation concerned.

 

[Kurve]

As I said, I have a free subscription. I wouldn't pay for anything from Murdoch. I mostly watch and read the ABC.

I've read these threads and read Albrechtsen and Rice's articles on the topic and they've been largely factual based, even if you don't like the fact that they correctly pulled Higgins up on the obviously false cover up narrative.

Stating facts is not "hateful", so some support of that evidence might be warranted. You might 'feel' that it's "hateful" because it goes against your preferred narrative, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Oh please. Albrechtsen is not known for simply stating facts but rather twisting them to craft her own narrative and drawing attention away from cold, hard facts she doesn't like.

You might prefer to ignore her hateful remarks or consider the attacks on a rape victim to be fair but I don't. It was totally unnecessary.

 

[Kurve]

Some people actually buy paper copies of Australian from time to time, or get access to reading them online in paper or digital format via a library, their employer, their educational institution, an airport freebie, a cafe, at a mates place, or from their fish and chips wrapper.

I used to enjoy the Weekend Australian and had a full paper subscription for a while. Janet Albrechtsen turned me right off.

 

[FIGJAM]

I agree - seems like an abuse of process.

Disagree.

In the event that defamation has occurred, the perpetrator of the defamation could start using the costs side of things for intimidatory purposes (eg. hiring 25 barristers at $15K per day), to abuse the process in reverse.

 

[FIGJAM]

You might prefer to ignore her hateful remarks or consider the attacks on a rape victim to be fair but I don't. It was totally unnecessary.

I would condemn them with you on the bolded, but what exactly were they?

And don't say use the search function. I've been here for the whole time and don't remember any, so I don't believe that they exist.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Disagree.

In the event that defamation has occurred, the perpetrator of the defamation could start using the costs side of things for intimidatory purposes (eg. hiring 25 barristers at $15K per day), to abuse the process in reverse.

Is it fair that Network 10 have to end up paying their costs defending an action they actually won ?
Doesn't seem fair to me. Bruce just does 3 years in "Bankruptcy Jail" and life just goes on I suppose ?

 

[Festerz]

I used to enjoy the Weekend Australian and had a full paper subscription for a while. Janet Albrechtsen turned me right off.

Used to be one of the papers that were on the rack at my local coffee shop that I could browse if I wanted to.

Noticed that all the coffee shops I frequent cut back on providing free newspapers to read after covid. Can't say I missed it. Hard copies are even missing from most airport departure lounges and who can be bothered logging on for access?

Of course the lack of people buying these newspapers or taking out subscriptions has seen the good journalists depart to be replaced by hack 'opinionistas' like Albrechtsen who have an agenda to pursue. This results in even less subscriptions being taken up and so it goes.

In the end newspapers (and their app/web based equivalent) end up catering specifically for the people they know are inclined to read them so they get even more narrowly focussed and biased.

/OT I know.

 

[Kurve]

I would condemn them with you on the bolded, but what exactly were they?

And don't say use the search function. I've been here for the whole time and don't remember any, so I don't believe that they exist.

Between you and MPMonkeys questions continually asking for evidence with nearly every post, it's starting to look like sealioning.

 

[FIGJAM]

Is it fair that Network 10 have to end up paying their costs defending an action they actually won ?
Doesn't seem fair to me. Bruce jus does 3 years in "Bankruptcy Jail" and life just goes on I suppose ?

I'm admittedly a bit naive on defamation proceedings specifically, but like all civil matters, it hitting the court isn't automatic. I can't imaging that flippant claims would get to court. Lehrmann's team at least had some arguable points.

And if Lee's response to Quill and Wilkinson last week was any indication, Network 10 didn't "win" s**t. They got exposed for some of the worst investigative journalism that you'd care to see, so they can (and will on Friday IMHO) wear some costs.

 

[Kurve]

I would condemn them with you on the bolded, but what exactly were they?

And don't say use the search function. I've been here for the whole time and don't remember any, so I don't believe that they exist.

A small sample. You must have glossed over it or thought nothing of it.

Albrechtsen published pieces describing Higgins’s partner as her “puppet master”.

Albrechtsen described Scott Morrison’s apology to Higgins as “nothing short of grotesque”.

Albrechtsen wondered in print if the compensation paid to Higgins after she was raped was “for services rendered”.

 

[jason_recliner]

Albrechtsen wondered in print if the compensation paid to Higgins after she was raped was “for services rendered”.

That's #### DISGUSTING. It (Albrechtsen) is DISGUSTING.

 

[FIGJAM]

Between you and MPMonkeys questions continually asking for evidence with nearly every post, it's starting to look like sealioning.

It might feel that way, Kurve, but you've made some heavy worded claims on an individual that I feel would be pretty easily put to rest with just a simple example.

We're not asking for you to provide a critique on 100 articles or anything!

 

[FIGJAM]

Albrechtsen wondered in print if the compensation paid to Higgins after she was raped was “for services rendered”.

This would I agree would be disgusting!

Do we have a link to the article in question?

 

[jason_recliner]

This would I agree would be disgusting!

Do we have a link to the article in question?

https://shorturl.at/fKXY9

 

[MPMonkeys]

This would I agree would be disgusting!

Do we have a link to the article in question?

Again completely taken out of context as it was not referring to the assault but rather the way she was used by Labor and The Greens post assault.

But then again, people making these claims have never read the article (probably more than 148 characters).


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com