Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

Remove this Banner Ad

A good point.

As previously pointed out, Australia's defamation laws are regarded as being uniquely plaintiff friendly in that it is up to the defendant to prove that defamation did not occur with a publication that names the plaintiff (including in social media posts).

And Western Australia, where this defamation case is taking place, is regarded as being the most plaintiff friendly of all Australian states because WA has not passed changes implemented in most other jurisdictions such as the serious harm threshold and the public interest defence.

Consequently, my layman view is that under WA legislation Senator Reynolds has a very strong chance of proving defamation has occurred and that she is entitled to some form of monetary compensation for reputational damage.

But as you say, imho her reputation in the eyes of most Australians has suffered terminal damage not from social media posts that most of us have ever seen but for her subsequent actions in seeking revenge and retribution from her former staffer.
And for just being a ****ing useless defence minister who ****ed up many contracts. While not alone in this, there was nothing to suggest she was good at her job in any way shape or form.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Imagine Reynolds succeeds in her defamation and gets all of Higgins compensation moneys.

Then Lehrman sues Reynolds and takes all the money off her.

Effectively meaning Lehrman ends up with the compensation money paid to the victim he r*ped.

That would be peak Australia legals system :drunk:


Lehrmann will probably just blow it on legal fees past, present and future.
 
Imagine Reynolds succeeds in her defamation and gets all of Higgins compensation moneys.

Then Lehrman sues Reynolds and takes all the money off her.

Effectively meaning Lehrman ends up with the compensation money paid to the victim he r*ped.

That would be peak Australia legals system :drunk:



Does it matter who actually said it? From the posted tweet it would appear that the lawyer is reporting a conversation.
 
Id think that would probably be No.4 on his list after booze, nose candy and hookers…the rest would just be wasted…
Of course, I half forgot all about those other higher needs/priorities.

Although I think huge premium meaty ribs, a luxury rental appartment, and rent-a-friend would probably also come before the legal fees.
 
the age is reporting NACC has raided lehrmanns house over the submarine allegations

its all falling apart for 'ol brucie boy
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

In June 2024.
ahhh ... ok ...... ive not renewed my subscription so i only caught the headline

still, an interesting development

[edit] probably not relevant here but for anyone interested this Xitter account is providing a running commentary on in linda reynolds testimony today

 
ahhh ... ok ...... ive not renewed my subscription so i only caught the headline

still, an interesting development

[edit] probably not relevant here but for anyone interested this Xitter account is providing a running commentary on in linda reynolds testimony today


How does Reynolds remember she forgot if her memory was so shite about this part.

Can she tell the court what else she forgot.
 
Does it matter who actually said it? From the posted tweet it would appear that the lawyer is reporting a conversation.
I was being silly - Reynolds has no chance of winning based on what I have seen.

The idea that Reynolds is suing Higgins to get her hands on the compensation is frankly ridiculous and the idea that Lehrmann would sue anyone for defamation is completely absurd.
 
I was being silly - Reynolds has no chance of winning based on what I have seen.

The idea that Reynolds is suing Higgins to get her hands on the compensation is frankly ridiculous and the idea that Lehrmann would sue anyone for defamation is completely absurd.
Yet here we are…
 
Imagine Reynolds succeeds in her defamation and gets all of Higgins compensation moneys.

Then Lehrman sues Reynolds and takes all the money off her.

Effectively meaning Lehrman ends up with the compensation money paid to the victim he r*ped.

That would be peak Australia legals system :drunk:


The true outcome would be that Reynolds lawyers and Lehrmann lawyers will split the cash and go partying overseas
 
Is it just me that is surprised that the formal method of reporting suspected corruption so it can be investigated is to email confidential documents to Janet Albrechtsen from your personal email account?

I mean I know that both sides of politics effectively fought hard to make sure ICAC was never given fangs, but honestly thought there would be some other (better) method of reporting suspected corruption. Shows how little I know; I thought Janet Albrechtsen was just a biased journo opinion-piece writer...what is her actual position title and duties related to her role as corruption watch-dog?
 
Last edited:


I remember a LNP shill constantly posting stuff defending the LNPs handling of this.

But any decent human being knew this was a shit show from the start and something bad happened to Higgins.

The LNP has such a female problem even the females that are left are part of the problem. These people should be disgusted with themselves.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top