If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown the door
immediately. Maybe the ABC will show Milligan the door?

"A defamatory tweet posted by high-profile ABC reporter Louise Milligan
— which “irrevocably” damaged the reputation of federal Liberal MP
Andrew Laming — will cost the taxpayer more than $130,000 in damages
and legal costs.

The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.

The costs will be covered by the ABC, not Milligan.

Dr Laming launched defamation proceedings against Milligan in May after
he claimed she posted multiple tweets that “irrevocably damaged his
personal and professional reputation”.

Court documents reveal Milligan made a series of tweets on March 28
relating to Dr Laming after 29-year-old Crystal White accused the
Queensland politician of taking a photo of her while she was bent over
at a Brisbane landscaping business in 2019. The photo showed her
underwear beneath her shorts.

Dr Laming denied taking a photo under a woman’s skirt and claimed it
was a “completely dignified” picture of a woman in her workplace
“kneeling in an awkward position and filling a fridge with an
impossible amount of stock, which clearly wasn’t going to fit in the
fridge”.

<snip>

"On Wednesday the matter was resolved in Sydney’s Federal Court with
Justice Anna Katzmann ruling in Laming’s favour."

https://is.gd/XqsOCz

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 10:39:50 +1000, James Last plays in Miami posted:-

> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown the door
> immediately. Maybe the ABC will show Milligan the door?

Dang, excuse duplicates.

On 11/08/2021 10:39 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>
> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown t

wasn't worth posting twice
snip

On 11/08/2021 10:47 am, Dechucka wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 10:39 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>>
>> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown t
>
> wasn't worth posting twice
> snip
wasn't worth posting twice
snip

On 11/08/2021 10:45 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 10:39:50 +1000, James Last plays in Miami posted:-
>
>> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown the door
>> immediately. Maybe the ABC will show Milligan the door?
>
> Dang, excuse duplicates.
>
You're like the Irish lover who wore 2 condoms
"to be sure , to be sure"

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 10:47:26 +1000, Dechucka posted:-

> On 11/08/2021 10:39 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> >
> > If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown t
>
> wasn't worth posting twice
> snip

Agreed. My bad.

On 11/08/2021 10:39 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>
> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown the door
> immediately. Maybe the ABC will show Milligan the door?
>
> "A defamatory tweet posted by high-profile ABC reporter Louise Milligan
> — which “irrevocably” damaged the reputation of federal Liberal MP
> Andrew Laming — will cost the taxpayer more than $130,000 in damages
> and legal costs.
>
> The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
> estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
>
> The costs will be covered by the ABC, not Milligan.
>
> Dr Laming launched defamation proceedings against Milligan in May after
> he claimed she posted multiple tweets that “irrevocably damaged his
> personal and professional reputation”.
>
> Court documents reveal Milligan made a series of tweets on March 28
> relating to Dr Laming after 29-year-old Crystal White accused the
> Queensland politician of taking a photo of her while she was bent over
> at a Brisbane landscaping business in 2019. The photo showed her
> underwear beneath her shorts.
>
> Dr Laming denied taking a photo under a woman’s skirt and claimed it
> was a “completely dignified” picture of a woman in her workplace
> “kneeling in an awkward position and filling a fridge with an
> impossible amount of stock, which clearly wasn’t going to fit in the
> fridge”.
>
> <snip>
>
> "On Wednesday the matter was resolved in Sydney’s Federal Court with
> Justice Anna Katzmann ruling in Laming’s favour."
>
> https://is.gd/XqsOCz

Given the rest of the information about this incident (and not covered
in that article) it just confirms my opinion that Australia's defamation
laws are desperately in need of revision to stop sordid pollies using
them like a milk cow. Laming's reputation really can't be made any
worse by anything anyone says of him.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:17:13 +1000, Fran posted:-

> Given the rest of the information about this incident (and not
> covered in that article) it just confirms my opinion that Australia's
> defamation laws are desperately in need of revision to stop sordid
> pollies using them like a milk cow. Laming's reputation really can't
> be made any worse by anything anyone says of him.

The laws may need changing, but the beak decided he was defamed;
Milligan was rash with making false claims.

On 11/08/2021 11:35 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:17:13 +1000, Fran posted:-
>
>> Given the rest of the information about this incident (and not
>> covered in that article) it just confirms my opinion that Australia's
>> defamation laws are desperately in need of revision to stop sordid
>> pollies using them like a milk cow. Laming's reputation really can't
>> be made any worse by anything anyone says of him.
>
> The laws may need changing, but the beak decided he was defamed;
> Milligan was rash with making false claims.

False claim? Bloody fine line given that he said at the time '...it
wasn't meant to be rude. I thought it was funny.'

The man's a grub.

The settlement offer from the ABC was obviously only made to stop
further legal action by Laming looking to milk the public purse.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:31:47 +1000, Fran posted:-

> On 11/08/2021 11:35 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:17:13 +1000, Fran posted:-
> >
> >> Given the rest of the information about this incident (and not
> >> covered in that article) it just confirms my opinion that
> >> Australia's defamation laws are desperately in need of revision to
> >> stop sordid pollies using them like a milk cow. Laming's
> >> reputation really can't be made any worse by anything anyone says
> >> of him.
> >
> > The laws may need changing, but the beak decided he was defamed;
> > Milligan was rash with making false claims.

Regardless, everybody has to conform to the current law, whether it
needs changing or not.
>
> False claim? Bloody fine line given that he said at the time '...it
> wasn't meant to be rude. I thought it was funny.'

> The man's a grub.
> The settlement offer from the ABC was obviously only made to stop
> further legal action by Laming looking to milk the public purse.

No settlement was offered by the ABC at all. The judge made the
decision.

"The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.

"

On 11/08/2021 4:43 pm, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:31:47 +1000, Fran posted:-
>
>> On 11/08/2021 11:35 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:17:13 +1000, Fran posted:-
>>>
>>>> Given the rest of the information about this incident (and not
>>>> covered in that article) it just confirms my opinion that
>>>> Australia's defamation laws are desperately in need of revision to
>>>> stop sordid pollies using them like a milk cow. Laming's
>>>> reputation really can't be made any worse by anything anyone says
>>>> of him.
>>>
>>> The laws may need changing, but the beak decided he was defamed;
>>> Milligan was rash with making false claims.
>
> Regardless, everybody has to conform to the current law, whether it
> needs changing or not.
>>
>> False claim? Bloody fine line given that he said at the time '...it
>> wasn't meant to be rude. I thought it was funny.'
>
>> The man's a grub.
>
>> The settlement offer from the ABC was obviously only made to stop
>> further legal action by Laming looking to milk the public purse.
>
> No settlement was offered by the ABC at all. The judge made the
> decision.

LOL. Oh dear. If you choose to think that, then you won't ever bother
to wonder why Milligan and the ABC "AGREED" to pay $79K to Laming.....
>
> "The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
> estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
>
> "
>

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:13:22 +1000, Fran posted:-

> > No settlement was offered by the ABC at all. The judge made the
> > decision.
>
> LOL. Oh dear. If you choose to think that, then you won't ever
> bother to wonder why Milligan and the ABC "AGREED" to pay $79K to
> Laming.....
> >
> > "The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
> > estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
> >
The Australia said, and from where I quoted (cite was given, feel free
to read it) "The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages,
and an estimated $50,000-plus in Dr Laming’s legal expenses."

Note the words "court ordered"?

If a court orders something, a person has no choice but to agree.
However if the justice system operates otherwise, please fell free to
correct me, with cites.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:13:22 +1000, Fran <f2r2a3@loonynutters.com>
wrote:

>On 11/08/2021 4:43 pm, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:31:47 +1000, Fran posted:-
>>
>>> On 11/08/2021 11:35 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:17:13 +1000, Fran posted:-
>>>>
>>>>> Given the rest of the information about this incident (and not
>>>>> covered in that article) it just confirms my opinion that
>>>>> Australia's defamation laws are desperately in need of revision to
>>>>> stop sordid pollies using them like a milk cow. Laming's
>>>>> reputation really can't be made any worse by anything anyone says
>>>>> of him.
>>>>
>>>> The laws may need changing, but the beak decided he was defamed;
>>>> Milligan was rash with making false claims.
>>
>> Regardless, everybody has to conform to the current law, whether it
>> needs changing or not.
>>>
>>> False claim? Bloody fine line given that he said at the time '...it
>>> wasn't meant to be rude. I thought it was funny.'
>>
>>> The man's a grub.
>>
>>> The settlement offer from the ABC was obviously only made to stop
>>> further legal action by Laming looking to milk the public purse.
>>
>> No settlement was offered by the ABC at all. The judge made the
>> decision.
>
>LOL. Oh dear. If you choose to think that, then you won't ever bother
>to wonder why Milligan and the ABC "AGREED" to pay $79K to Laming.....
>>
How many times does the taxpayer have to pay legal fees for Mulligan?
This had to stop. Make her pay or defund the ABC.

>> "The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
>> estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
>>
>> "
>>
--
Petzl
We know the Dumb3 are lying,
they know they are lying,
they know we know they are lying,
we know they know we know they are lying,
but they are still lying. Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn

On 12/08/2021 6:19 pm, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:13:22 +1000, Fran posted:-
>
>>> No settlement was offered by the ABC at all. The judge made the
>>> decision.
>>
>> LOL. Oh dear. If you choose to think that, then you won't ever
>> bother to wonder why Milligan and the ABC "AGREED" to pay $79K to
>> Laming.....
>>>
>>> "The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
>>> estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
>>>
> The Australia said, and from where I quoted (cite was given, feel free
> to read it) "The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages,
> and an estimated $50,000-plus in Dr Laming’s legal expenses."
>
> Note the words "court ordered"?

Well duh!!!!!!! You need to do some homework!

Do you have any idea what a 'consent order' is?

> If a court orders something, a person has no choice but to agree.

Yes, that was AFTER a settlement was offered and agreed!!!!!!!!!!! The
offer was to settle for $79,000!!!!!!!!!!!! Plus costs!

> However if the justice system operates otherwise, please fell free to
> correct me, with cites.

Sigh.

I'll give you some hints to get you there: do a google and start with
the Christian Porter case. The clue from that case is that Porter made
2 'offers' to 'settle'... The ABC didn't agree to the first offer from
Porter....

Then google the current case and read a cite other than 'the Aus' which
always delights in beating up on the ABC. OTHER cites (which don't
share the OZ's glee in ABC punching) will show you that Milligan
'agreed' to the payment (because the parties negotiated). Once
agreement by the parties was reached (ie Milligan agreed to pay $79K)
the Judge made the order to ratify that negotiated settlement by issuing
an order BY CONSENT!

Are you getting the idea of what a 'consent order' is yet? Or why
Milligan/the ABC DID offer a settlement?

Now I'll take pity on you. Look here:
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/FEDERAL/P/NSD618/2021/order_list
Notice the words "Finalised - Granted/allowed by consent."
It was not a judgement, it was a consent order!

Now go away and look up the definition of 'consent order' because I've
spoon fed you enough.

AND as I said earlier, the ABC took that action to save money in the
long run. This is by the statement issued from the ABC where it stated:
"The defamation claim brought against Louise Milligan by Andrew Laming
has been settled. Resolving the claim avoids a potentially protracted
and costly legal action."

BTW, you might also choose to check who continues to employ Miranda
Devine and Andrew Bolt after they lost their last defamation cases given
your accusation that only the ABC chooses to continue to employ such
defaming staff.....

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:40:42 +1000, Fran posted:-

> Are you getting the idea of what a 'consent order' is yet? Or why
> Milligan/the ABC DID offer a settlement?

There was NO mention ~in the cite I gave you~ of a "settlement", at all!
I clearly pointed out I was quoting from that cite. Perhaps you should
read it before going off on your high horse?

>Yes, that was AFTER a settlement was offered and agreed!!!!!!!!!!!
>The offer was to settle for $79,000!!!!!!!!!!!! Plus costs!

Again, where does it say that ~in the cite I gave?~ What you state may
well be the case, but as I pointed out (now the third time), what you
are saying was not in the Australian, where the cite I gave is.(which I
have said all along BTW.)

However, ABC staff should not be allowed to defame people, without
punishment, and I have noticed now that the ABC has instituted a
strict social media policy in this regard.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/abc-boss-warns-staff-over-social-media-posts-20210809-p58h1p.html

If Milligan was employed in private enterprises, she would have been shown
the door as soon as this court case was over.

And from today's Australian (feel free to buy a copy if the link is
behind a paywall) https://is.gd/mM8Ijo

"As of this week the public broadcaster’s star journalist, Louise
Milligan, looks to have caused her employer, and therefore hardworking
Australian taxpayers, what must be more than $1m in legal fees, costs
and settlements.

First was the defamation case launched by Liberal minister Christian
Porter against the ABC and Milligan, which cost the ABC $780,000. Now
Milligan has been ordered to pay Liberal MP Andrew Laming $79,000 in
damages and his legal costs, reported to be about $50,000, plus legal
costs for lawyers Bird & Bird, the amount of which they have not yet
revealed."

Notice the word "ordered" there? Again no mention of a "settlement". If
you have objection to this reporting, why not write to the Australian
expressing your views? They do have a lively letters to the editor
page.

There well may have been what you claim to be a "settlement", but I
repeat, again, typing slowly for you, that there is nothing about this
in the cites I am quoting

And if you were employing someone, and they cost you $1 million in
settling court actions, what are the chance they would still be in your
employ?

On 13/08/2021 6:21 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:40:42 +1000, Fran posted:-
>
>> Are you getting the idea of what a 'consent order' is yet? Or why
>> Milligan/the ABC DID offer a settlement?
>
>
> There was NO mention ~in the cite I gave you~ of a "settlement", at all!
> I clearly pointed out I was quoting from that cite. Perhaps you should
> read it before going off on your high horse?

Bullshit! I DID read the shit you wrote! From your mention of the Aus
article, you went on to say:
"Note the words "court ordered"?

If a court orders something, a person has no choice but to agree.
However if the justice system operates otherwise, please fell free to
correct me, with cites."

I corrected you. AND I gave cites. You are clearly clueless abut how
the court system works and are now lying to cover being wrong and beign
corrected. I corrected you as you asked me to do and now you can't cope.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:17:11 +1000, Fran posted:-

> On 13/08/2021 6:21 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:40:42 +1000, Fran posted:-
> >
> >> Are you getting the idea of what a 'consent order' is yet? Or why
> >> Milligan/the ABC DID offer a settlement?
> >
> >
> > There was NO mention ~in the cite I gave you~ of a "settlement", at
> > all! I clearly pointed out I was quoting from that cite. Perhaps
> > you should read it before going off on your high horse?
>
> Bullshit! I DID read the shit you wrote! From your mention of the
> Aus article, you went on to say:
> "Note the words "court ordered"?
>
> If a court orders something, a person has no choice but to agree.
> However if the justice system operates otherwise, please fell free to
> correct me, with cites."
>
> I corrected you. AND I gave cites. You are clearly clueless abut how
> the court system works and are now lying to cover being wrong and
> beign corrected. I corrected you as you asked me to do and now you
> can't cope.
>

Bullshit, but whatever rocks your boat. <shrugs>

On 13/08/2021 12:58 pm, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:17:11 +1000, Fran posted:-
>
>> On 13/08/2021 6:21 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:40:42 +1000, Fran posted:-
>>>
>>>> Are you getting the idea of what a 'consent order' is yet? Or why
>>>> Milligan/the ABC DID offer a settlement?
>>>
>>>
>>> There was NO mention ~in the cite I gave you~ of a "settlement", at
>>> all! I clearly pointed out I was quoting from that cite. Perhaps
>>> you should read it before going off on your high horse?
>>
>> Bullshit! I DID read the shit you wrote! From your mention of the
>> Aus article, you went on to say:
>> "Note the words "court ordered"?
>>
>> If a court orders something, a person has no choice but to agree.
>> However if the justice system operates otherwise, please fell free to
>> correct me, with cites."
>>
>> I corrected you. AND I gave cites. You are clearly clueless abut how
>> the court system works and are now lying to cover being wrong and
>> beign corrected. I corrected you as you asked me to do and now you
>> can't cope.
>>
>
> Bullshit, but whatever rocks your boat. <shrugs>

At least you didn't continue to pretend that you didn't ask to be corrected.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 14:40:48 +1000, Fran posted:-

> On 13/08/2021 12:58 pm, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:17:11 +1000, Fran posted:-
> >
> >> On 13/08/2021 6:21 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:40:42 +1000, Fran posted:-
> >>>
> >>>> Are you getting the idea of what a 'consent order' is yet? Or
> >>>> why Milligan/the ABC DID offer a settlement?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There was NO mention ~in the cite I gave you~ of a "settlement",
> >>> at all! I clearly pointed out I was quoting from that cite.
> >>> Perhaps you should read it before going off on your high horse?
> >>
> >> Bullshit! I DID read the shit you wrote! From your mention of the
> >> Aus article, you went on to say:
> >> "Note the words "court ordered"?
> >>
> >> If a court orders something, a person has no choice but to agree.
> >> However if the justice system operates otherwise, please fell free
> >> to correct me, with cites."
> >>
> >> I corrected you. AND I gave cites. You are clearly clueless abut
> >> how the court system works and are now lying to cover being wrong
> >> and beign corrected. I corrected you as you asked me to do and
> >> now you can't cope.
> >>
> >
> > Bullshit, but whatever rocks your boat. <shrugs>
>
> At least you didn't continue to pretend that you didn't ask to be
> corrected.
>
>
Whatever.

<suppressing major yawn>

On 11/08/2021 10:39 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>
> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown the door
> immediately. Maybe the ABC will show Milligan the door?
>
> "A defamatory tweet posted by high-profile ABC reporter Louise Milligan
> — which “irrevocably” damaged the reputation of federal Liberal MP
> Andrew Laming — will cost the taxpayer more than $130,000 in damages
> and legal costs.
>
> The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
> estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
>
> The costs will be covered by the ABC, not Milligan.
>
> Dr Laming launched defamation proceedings against Milligan in May after
> he claimed she posted multiple tweets that “irrevocably damaged his
> personal and professional reputation”.
>
> Court documents reveal Milligan made a series of tweets on March 28
> relating to Dr Laming after 29-year-old Crystal White accused the
> Queensland politician of taking a photo of her while she was bent over
> at a Brisbane landscaping business in 2019. The photo showed her
> underwear beneath her shorts.
>
> Dr Laming denied taking a photo under a woman’s skirt and claimed it
> was a “completely dignified” picture of a woman in her workplace
> “kneeling in an awkward position and filling a fridge with an
> impossible amount of stock, which clearly wasn’t going to fit in the
> fridge”.
>
> <snip>
>
> "On Wednesday the matter was resolved in Sydney’s Federal Court with
> Justice Anna Katzmann ruling in Laming’s favour."
>
> https://is.gd/XqsOCz
>
>

**Laming was not defamed.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:42:29 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 11/08/2021 10:39 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>>
>> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown the door
>> immediately. Maybe the ABC will show Milligan the door?
>>
>> "A defamatory tweet posted by high-profile ABC reporter Louise Milligan
>> — which “irrevocably” damaged the reputation of federal Liberal MP
>> Andrew Laming — will cost the taxpayer more than $130,000 in damages
>> and legal costs.
>>
>> The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
>> estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
>>
>> The costs will be covered by the ABC, not Milligan.
>>
>> Dr Laming launched defamation proceedings against Milligan in May after
>> he claimed she posted multiple tweets that “irrevocably damaged his
>> personal and professional reputation”.
>>
>> Court documents reveal Milligan made a series of tweets on March 28
>> relating to Dr Laming after 29-year-old Crystal White accused the
>> Queensland politician of taking a photo of her while she was bent over
>> at a Brisbane landscaping business in 2019. The photo showed her
>> underwear beneath her shorts.
>>
>> Dr Laming denied taking a photo under a woman’s skirt and claimed it
>> was a “completely dignified” picture of a woman in her workplace
>> “kneeling in an awkward position and filling a fridge with an
>> impossible amount of stock, which clearly wasn’t going to fit in the
>> fridge”.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> "On Wednesday the matter was resolved in Sydney’s Federal Court with
>> Justice Anna Katzmann ruling in Laming’s favour."
>>
>> https://is.gd/XqsOCz
>>
>>
>
>
>**Laming was not defamed.

You're so biased towards the left, your opinion is invalid.

It was written by Sarah Tonen:

> Trevor Wilson
>> James or whatever
>>>
>>> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown the door
>>> immediately. Maybe the ABC will show Milligan the door?
>>> "A defamatory tweet posted by high-profile ABC reporter Louise
>>> Milligan — which “irrevocably” damaged the reputation of federal
>>> Liberal MP Andrew Laming — will cost the taxpayer more than $130,000
>>> in damages and legal costs.
>>> The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
>>> estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
>>> The costs will be covered by the ABC, not Milligan.
>>> Dr Laming launched defamation proceedings against Milligan in May
>>> after he claimed she posted multiple tweets that “irrevocably damaged
>>> his personal and professional reputation”.
>>> Court documents reveal Milligan made a series of tweets on March 28
>>> relating to Dr Laming after 29-year-old Crystal White accused the
>>> Queensland politician of taking a photo of her while she was bent over
>>> at a Brisbane landscaping business in 2019. The photo showed her
>>> underwear beneath her shorts.
>>> Dr Laming denied taking a photo under a woman’s skirt and claimed it
>>> was a “completely dignified” picture of a woman in her workplace
>>> “kneeling in an awkward position and filling a fridge with an
>>> impossible amount of stock, which clearly wasn’t going to fit in the
>>> fridge”.
>>> <snip>
>>> "On Wednesday the matter was resolved in Sydney’s Federal Court with
>>> Justice Anna Katzmann ruling in Laming’s favour."
>>
>>**Laming was not defamed.

Of course he was not. That person is a long known creep.

> You're so biased towards the left, your opinion is invalid.

A very strange take on politics. So if someone is a leftist he/she is
immediately disqualified from uttering an opinion? Since when?
Hmmm. Viva la hard right dictatorship!

ABC is the least biased news media we have in OZ. It is embedded in their
charter. That of course does not mean that on some rare occasion they
don't stray in one or the other direction from the dead centre.
That is only to be expected.

--
Ördög ---- I the newsgroup Devil will show you the real Hell on Earth.
Capitalist neo-liberal/libertarian lies and alternate reality,
Lack of compassion for the already downtrodden,
Sociopathic greed & envy,
Endemic nepotistic and plutocratic corruption,
Vicious hunger for power and "born to rule mentality",
Xtian fundamentalism
Never ending misogyny & homophobia
Undeniable Anglo-Celtic racism and supremacy,
Unbridled hate for the underclasses,
Unrelenting vengeance seeking against political opponents...

*Liberal Party of Australia* is thy name!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 17/08/2021 7:44 am, Sarah Tonen wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:42:29 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2021 10:39 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
>>>
>>> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown the door
>>> immediately. Maybe the ABC will show Milligan the door?
>>>
>>> "A defamatory tweet posted by high-profile ABC reporter Louise Milligan
>>> — which “irrevocably” damaged the reputation of federal Liberal MP
>>> Andrew Laming — will cost the taxpayer more than $130,000 in damages
>>> and legal costs.
>>>
>>> The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
>>> estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
>>>
>>> The costs will be covered by the ABC, not Milligan.
>>>
>>> Dr Laming launched defamation proceedings against Milligan in May after
>>> he claimed she posted multiple tweets that “irrevocably damaged his
>>> personal and professional reputation”.
>>>
>>> Court documents reveal Milligan made a series of tweets on March 28
>>> relating to Dr Laming after 29-year-old Crystal White accused the
>>> Queensland politician of taking a photo of her while she was bent over
>>> at a Brisbane landscaping business in 2019. The photo showed her
>>> underwear beneath her shorts.
>>>
>>> Dr Laming denied taking a photo under a woman’s skirt and claimed it
>>> was a “completely dignified” picture of a woman in her workplace
>>> “kneeling in an awkward position and filling a fridge with an
>>> impossible amount of stock, which clearly wasn’t going to fit in the
>>> fridge”.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> "On Wednesday the matter was resolved in Sydney’s Federal Court with
>>> Justice Anna Katzmann ruling in Laming’s favour."
>>>
>>> https://is.gd/XqsOCz
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> **Laming was not defamed.
>
> You're so biased towards the left, your opinion is invalid.

He's right though and you are such a one-eyed rightard it's your opinion
that is invalid.

The ONLY reason why Laming got away with claiming to have been defamed
was that the police didn't charge him with the offence of upskirting.
Everyone (except idiot nym shifters like yourself) KNOWS he took the
pic. He even admitted it.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:36:08 +1000, Fran posted:-

> On 17/08/2021 7:44 am, Sarah Tonen wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:42:29 +1000, Trevor Wilson
> > <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/08/2021 10:39 am, James Last plays in Miami wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If they worked anywhere else, they would have been shown the door
> >>> immediately. Maybe the ABC will show Milligan the door?
> >>>
> >>> "A defamatory tweet posted by high-profile ABC reporter Louise
> >>> Milligan — which “irrevocably” damaged the reputation of federal
> >>> Liberal MP Andrew Laming — will cost the taxpayer more than
> >>> $130,000 in damages and legal costs.
> >>>
> >>> The payout consists of $79,000 in court-ordered damages, and an
> >>> estimated $50,000 in Dr Laming’s legal fees.
> >>>
> >>> The costs will be covered by the ABC, not Milligan.
> >>>
> >>> Dr Laming launched defamation proceedings against Milligan in May
> >>> after he claimed she posted multiple tweets that “irrevocably
> >>> damaged his personal and professional reputation”.
> >>>
> >>> Court documents reveal Milligan made a series of tweets on March
> >>> 28 relating to Dr Laming after 29-year-old Crystal White accused
> >>> the Queensland politician of taking a photo of her while she was
> >>> bent over at a Brisbane landscaping business in 2019. The photo
> >>> showed her underwear beneath her shorts.
> >>>
> >>> Dr Laming denied taking a photo under a woman’s skirt and claimed
> >>> it was a “completely dignified” picture of a woman in her
> >>> workplace “kneeling in an awkward position and filling a fridge
> >>> with an impossible amount of stock, which clearly wasn’t going to
> >>> fit in the fridge”.
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> "On Wednesday the matter was resolved in Sydney’s Federal Court
> >>> with Justice Anna Katzmann ruling in Laming’s favour."
> >>>
> >>> https://is.gd/XqsOCz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> **Laming was not defamed.
> >
> > You're so biased towards the left, your opinion is invalid.
>
> He's right though and you are such a one-eyed rightard it's your
> opinion that is invalid.

Intolerant of you! Tsk Tsk,
>
> The ONLY reason why Laming got away with claiming to have been
> defamed was that the police didn't charge him with the offence of
> upskirting. Everyone (except idiot nym shifters like yourself) KNOWS
> he took the pic. He even admitted it.

The Police didn't charge him because he didn't commit a crime. End of
story, you need to accept that.

Here we go:-

"Milligan posted “Laming upskirts”, after 29-year-old Crystal White
accused the Queensland politician of taking a photo of her while she
was bent over at a Brisbane landscaping business in 2019. The photo
showed her underwear beneath her shorts.

Dr Laming denied taking a photo under the woman’s skirt and claimed it
was a “completely dignified” picture of a woman in her workplace
“kneeling in an awkward position and filling a fridge with an
impossible amount of stock, which clearly wasn’t going to fit in the
fridge”.

Queensland Police investigated the allegation, and cleared Dr Laming of
any wrongdoing."

Hope this helps you understand the truth?

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:30:20 GMT, *Ördög* posted:-

> A very strange take on politics. So if someone is a leftist he/she is
> immediately disqualified from uttering an opinion? Since when?
> Hmmm. Viva la hard right dictatorship!

No one is disqualified, except under a totalitarian Communist society,
where dissension can see you shot, jailed, tortured, banished, whatever.

The problem is that these people are using themselves as mouthpieces
for the ABC, and their foolishness is costing the taxpayer.

Good to see that the ABC has cracked down on this, and laid down the
same guidelines an employer elsewhere would have done. The ABC should
have done this yonks ago, of course.

>ABC is the least biased news media we have in OZ. It is embedded in
>their charter.

LOL How naive.