Max needs to go and get fucked:
============================

( snip verbal diarrhoea )

** Look, nothing left !!

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>>>> Max wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> The WA govt isnt his employer.

>>>>>>>>> The premier receives a salary from the WA govt.

>>>>>>>> Like all *elected* officials - he gets an "allowance"
>>>>>>>> determined by a tribunal.

>>>>>>>> He is not answerable to anyone nor does he have to earn it.
>>>>>>>> Cos he ain't no fucking employee.

>>>>>>> That's like saying a director of a company who receives
>>>>>>> runumeration is not an employee of the company.

>>>>>> Nothing like in fact.

>>>>>>> It's a pointless distinction.

>>>>>> More mindless pig ignorant bullshit with state premiers, MPs,
>>>>>> governors, the GG and the Queen. NONE of those are employees.

>>>>>>> Companies can be vicariously liable for the actions of their
>>>>>>> directors, yet the directors would not be "employees" in your eyes.

>>>>>> Irrelevant to state premiers, MPs, governors, the GG and the Queen.

>>>>> And if those people did something in the course of doing their job
>>>>> which resulted in being sued, then the government would pay for the
>>>>> damages.

>>>> Being sued isn't the same thing as being guilty of anything, stupid.

>>> If there is damages awarded against the office holder, then if the
>>> government pays for that, they are taking liablity for the actions of
>>> the office holder.

>> No liability involved. They are paying for the activitys that
>> individual is involved in just like they are when they pay
>> for their air fares, hotel bills, taxi fares etc etc etc.

> So if the office holder did something wrong like assault someone or
> damage property, would the government pay those expenses?

Depends on how the property was damaged. If say
the car they were driving when on official business,
ran off the road and ran over someone, yep.

> The government is not going to pay for any court awarded damages that
> the office holder is responsible for,

In the unlikely event that Palmer is awarded other than derisory
damages, you'll see that you are just plain wrong.

> otherwise being a Premier would give you free reign to do whatever you
> want.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage and thats
saying something...

> The only things that the government will pay for are things that fall
> within the remit of the office holder's role,

And doing an interview on TV about govt business
is PRECISELY what happened, fuckwit.

> which is exactly the same as vicarious liability in an employment
> situation.

Wrong, as always.

>>> It's the same as if it was an employer being vicariously liable for an
>>> employee.

>> Wrong, as always. Nothing whatever to do with virarioius liability.

>>>>> This is because they are doing job, for which they are being
>>>>> remunerated, which is the same as being employed.

>>>> Wrong, as always, with state premiers, MPs, governors, the GG and
>>>> the Queen.

>>>>>>>>>> Nope, he isnt a subordinate of the govt. But yes, because he is
>>>>>>>>>> the PM, the WA govt would be paying any damages.

>>>>>>>> Doubt that - he was not covered by "privilege" at the time/s.

>>>>>>>> Liability for defamation applies to the originating party and
>>>>>>>> any parties who publish it.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Max wrote

>>>> Being sued isn't the same thing as being guilty of anything, stupid.

>>> If there is damages awarded against the office holder, then if the
>>> government pays for that, they are taking liablity for the actions of
>>> the office holder.

>>> It's the same as if it was an employer being vicariously liable for an
>>> employee.

>> One cannot choose to be "liable".
>> Courts decide that issue based on many factors.

> If the government did not pay for damages awarded against the Premier,

Not gunna happen given that premier is the govt, fuckwit.

> then the Premier could take the matter to court.

> The court would then apply the same analysis as it would in an
> employment vicarious liability case,

Wrong, as always.

> in the sense that if it was deemed that the Premier was "on a frolic of
> their own", then he wouldn't be covered by the government.

Wrong, as always.

On 20/02/2022 11:49 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>   Max wrote
>
>>>>> Being sued isn't the same thing as being guilty of anything, stupid.
>
>>>> If there is damages awarded against the office holder, then if the
>>>> government pays for that, they are taking liablity for the actions of
>>>> the office holder.
>
>>>> It's the same as if it was an employer being vicariously liable for an
>>>> employee.
>
>>>      One cannot choose to be "liable".
>>>      Courts decide that issue based on many factors.
>
>> If the government did not pay for damages awarded against the Premier,
>
> Not gunna happen given that premier is the govt, fuckwit.
>

The premier can only do anything by an act of parliament, which requires
a majority of members to vote for the bill.

If a majority of the parliaments didn't want to pay the damages awarded
against the premier, then that is what would happen.

>> then the Premier could take the matter to court.
>
>> The court would then apply the same analysis as it would in an
>> employment vicarious liability case,
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> in the sense that if it was deemed that the Premier was "on a frolic
>> of their own", then he wouldn't be covered by the government.
>
> Wrong, as always.

On 20/02/2022 10:43 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max is a Wog Robot.
>
> ===============
>>
>> The only things that the government will pay for are things that fall
>> within the remit of the office holder's role,
>
> ** The're are no such things.
> You FUCKING MORON
>
> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for " vicarious" to exist.
> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does not direct him.
>

There is no employment relationship as such, but you can bet that the
same body of law would be drawn from if there was a dispute as to whom
should pay the damages awarded against the Premier.

Max is a FUCKWIT LIAR MORIN Wog Robot.
=================================
>
>
> ** The're are no such things.
> > You FUCKING MORON
> >
> > There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for " vicarious" to exist.
> > The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does not direct him.
> >
> There is no employment relationship as such,

** So no "vicarious " legal responsibility is possible.

> but you can bet that the same body of law ...

** Should be shoved right up your arse on the end of a 20 foot flag pole.

Puncturing you large and small intestines, exiting though your left lung.
So you die, very slowly, screaming.

.... love, Phil

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>> Being sued isn't the same thing as being guilty of anything, stupid.

>>>>> If there is damages awarded against the office holder, then if the
>>>>> government pays for that, they are taking liablity for the actions of
>>>>> the office holder.

>>>>> It's the same as if it was an employer being vicariously liable for
>>>>> an
>>>>> employee.

>>>> One cannot choose to be "liable".
>>>> Courts decide that issue based on many factors.

>>> If the government did not pay for damages awarded against the Premier,

>> Not gunna happen given that premier is the govt, fuckwit.

> The premier can only do anything by an act of parliament,

Wrong, as always.

> which requires a majority of members to vote for the bill.

> If a majority of the parliaments didn't want to pay the damages awarded
> against the premier, then that is what would happen.

Wrong, as always.

>>> then the Premier could take the matter to court.

>>> The court would then apply the same analysis as it would in an
>>> employment vicarious liability case,

>> Wrong, as always.

>>> in the sense that if it was deemed that the Premier was "on a frolic
>>> of their own", then he wouldn't be covered by the government.

>> Wrong, as always.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Max wrote

>>> The only things that the government will pay for are things that fall
>>> within the remit of the office holder's role,

>> The're are no such things.
>> You FUCKING MORON

>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for "
>> vicarious" to exist.

>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does not
>> direct him.

> There is no employment relationship as such,

None at all in fact.

> but you can bet that the same body of law would be drawn from if there
> was a dispute as to whom should pay the damages awarded against the
> Premier.

Wrong, as always. The law on vicarous liability is completely irrelevant
to the PM getting his demages paid by the govt in the extremely unlikely
event that he gets other than derisory damages awarded against him.

On 20/02/2022 4:53 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>   Max wrote
>
>>>>>>> Being sued isn't the same thing as being guilty of anything, stupid.
>
>>>>>> If there is damages awarded against the office holder, then if the
>>>>>> government pays for that, they are taking liablity for the actions of
>>>>>> the office holder.
>
>>>>>> It's the same as if it was an employer being vicariously liable
>>>>>> for an
>>>>>> employee.
>
>>>>>      One cannot choose to be "liable".
>>>>>      Courts decide that issue based on many factors.
>
>>>> If the government did not pay for damages awarded against the Premier,
>
>>>  Not gunna happen given that premier is the govt, fuckwit.
>
>> The premier can only do anything by an act of parliament,
>
> Wrong, as always.
>

What can the premier do without an act of parliament?

>> which requires a majority of members to vote for the bill.
>
>> If a majority of the parliaments didn't want to pay the damages
>> awarded against the premier, then that is what would happen.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> then the Premier could take the matter to court.
>
>>>> The court would then apply the same analysis as it would in an
>>>> employment vicarious liability case,
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> in the sense that if it was deemed that the Premier was "on a frolic
>>>> of their own", then he wouldn't be covered by the government.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.

On 20/02/2022 4:57 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>> The only things that the government will pay for are things that fall
>>>> within the remit of the office holder's role,
>
>>>       The're are no such things.
>>>        You FUCKING MORON
>
>>>  There is  NO employee / employer relationship,  essential for  "
>>> vicarious"  to exist.
>
>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does
>>> not direct him.
>
>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>
> None at all in fact.
>
>> but you can bet that the same body of law would be drawn from if there
>> was a dispute as to whom should pay the damages awarded against the
>> Premier.
>
> Wrong, as always. The law on vicarous liability is completely irrelevant
> to the PM getting his demages paid by the govt in the extremely unlikely
> event that he gets other than derisory damages awarded against him.

If the premier decides to defame, then that is not an expense that the
government should pay for, because it is not part of the normal job.

The only basis for the government paying for it is some sort of
vicarious liability of the government for the actions of its officeholder.

It may not be the same as an employment vicarious liability, but it will
be a very similar legal concept.

On 20/02/2022 3:04 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> Max is a FUCKWIT LIAR MORIN Wog Robot.
> =================================
>>
>>
>> ** The're are no such things.
>>> You FUCKING MORON
>>>
>>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for " vicarious" to exist.
>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does not direct him.
>>>
>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>
> ** So no "vicarious " legal responsibility is possible.
>

For a member of parliament, the legislation does mention 'vicarious
liability':

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mopsa2013254/s24.html

So the Crown can be vicariously liable for the actions of a member of
parliament.

>> but you can bet that the same body of law ...
>
> ** Should be shoved right up your arse on the end of a 20 foot flag pole.
>
> Puncturing you large and small intestines, exiting though your left lung.
> So you die, very slowly, screaming.
>

On 20/02/2022 4:57 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>> The only things that the government will pay for are things that fall
>>>> within the remit of the office holder's role,
>
>>>       The're are no such things.
>>>        You FUCKING MORON
>
>>>  There is  NO employee / employer relationship,  essential for  "
>>> vicarious"  to exist.
>
>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does
>>> not direct him.
>
>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>
> None at all in fact.
>
>> but you can bet that the same body of law would be drawn from if there
>> was a dispute as to whom should pay the damages awarded against the
>> Premier.
>
> Wrong, as always. The law on vicarous liability is completely irrelevant
> to the PM getting his demages paid by the govt in the extremely unlikely > event that he gets other than derisory damages awarded against him.

This section that:

"the Crown is vicariously liable in respect of the tort committed by a
person in the service of the Crown"

http://classic.austlii.edu.au//au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lrla1983321/s8.html

So vicarious liability does apply to member of parliament and the Crown
(the government) is vicariously liable for actions of members of parliament.

Max is a FUCKWIT LIAR MORIN Wog Robot.
=================================
> >>
> >>
> >> ** The're are no such things.
> >>> You FUCKING MORON
> >>>
> >>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for " vicarious" to exist.
> >>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does not direct him.
> >>>
> >> There is no employment relationship as such,
> >
> > ** So no "vicarious " legal responsibility is possible.
> >
> For a member of parliament, the legislation does mention 'vicarious
> liability':
>
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mopsa2013254/s24.html
>
>
> So the Crown can be vicariously liable for the actions of a member of
> parliament.

** Limited only to harms caused to staff members.
Such staff are effectively public servants employed by the govt.

You dumb wog cunthead.

....... Phil

On 21/02/2022 9:21 am, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> Max is a FUCKWIT LIAR MORIN Wog Robot.
> =================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** The're are no such things.
>>>>> You FUCKING MORON
>>>>>
>>>>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for " vicarious" to exist.
>>>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does not direct him.
>>>>>
>>>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>>>
>>> ** So no "vicarious " legal responsibility is possible.
>>>
>> For a member of parliament, the legislation does mention 'vicarious
>> liability':
>>
>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mopsa2013254/s24.html
>>
>>
>> So the Crown can be vicariously liable for the actions of a member of
>> parliament.
>
> ** Limited only to harms caused to staff members.
> Such staff are effectively public servants employed by the govt.
>
> You dumb wog cunthead.
>

"the Crown is vicariously liable in respect of the tort committed by a
person in the service of the Crown"

http://classic.austlii.edu.au//au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lrla1983321/s8.html

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>>> Being sued isn't the same thing as being guilty of anything,
>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>
>>>>>>> If there is damages awarded against the office holder, then if the
>>>>>>> government pays for that, they are taking liablity for the actions
>>>>>>> of the office holder.
>>
>>>>>>> It's the same as if it was an employer being vicariously liable
>>>>>>> for an employee.
>>
>>>>>> One cannot choose to be "liable".
>>>>>> Courts decide that issue based on many factors.
>>
>>>>> If the government did not pay for damages awarded against the
>>>>> Premier,
>>
>>>> Not gunna happen given that premier is the govt, fuckwit.
>>
>>> The premier can only do anything by an act of parliament,

>> Wrong, as always.

> What can the premier do without an act of parliament?

Have the govt pay for his damages in the unlikely event that he does lost
Palmer's civil suit.

>>> which requires a majority of members to vote for the bill.

Not with an existing bill, stupid. Doesnt need a new one.

>>> If a majority of the parliaments didn't want to pay the damages
>>> awarded against the premier, then that is what would happen.

>> Wrong, as always.

>>>>> then the Premier could take the matter to court.

>>>>> The court would then apply the same analysis as it would in an
>>>>> employment vicarious liability case,

>>>> Wrong, as always.

>>>>> in the sense that if it was deemed that the Premier was "on a frolic
>>>>> of their own", then he wouldn't be covered by the government.

>>>> Wrong, as always.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>> Max wrote

>>>>> The only things that the government will pay for are things that fall
>>>>> within the remit of the office holder's role,
>>
>>>> The're are no such things.
>>>> You FUCKING MORON
>>
>>>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for "
>>>> vicarious" to exist.
>>
>>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does
>>>> not direct him.
>>
>>> There is no employment relationship as such,

>> None at all in fact.

>>> but you can bet that the same body of law would be drawn from if there
>>> was a dispute as to whom should pay the damages awarded against the
>>> Premier.

>> Wrong, as always. The law on vicarous liability is completely
>> irrelevant

>> to the PM getting his demages paid by the govt in the extremely unlikely
>> event that he gets other than derisory damages awarded against him.

> If the premier decides to defame,

It hasnt been established that he has defamed anyone.

> then that is not an expense that the government should pay for, because
> it is not part of the normal job.

BULLSHIT.

> The only basis for the government paying for it is some sort of
> vicarious liability of the government for the actions of its
> officeholder.

Wrong, as always.

> It may not be the same as an employment vicarious liability, but it will
> be a very similar legal concept.

Wrong, as always.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>> Max wrote

>>>>> The only things that the government will pay for are things that fall
>>>>> within the remit of the office holder's role,
>>
>>>> The're are no such things.
>>>> You FUCKING MORON
>>
>>>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for "
>>>> vicarious" to exist.
>>
>>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does
>>>> not direct him.
>>
>>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>> None at all in fact.
>>
>>> but you can bet that the same body of law would be drawn from if there
>>> was a dispute as to whom should pay the damages awarded against the
>>> Premier.

>> Wrong, as always. The law on vicarous liability is completely
>> irrelevant
>> to the PM getting his demages paid by the govt in the extremely
>> unlikely > event that he gets other than derisory damages awarded
>> against him.

> This section that:

> "the Crown is vicariously liable in respect of the tort committed by a
> person in the service of the Crown"
>
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au//au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lrla1983321/s8.html
>
> So vicarious liability does apply to member of parliament

Thats not the law on vicraious liability, stupid.

> and the Crown (the government) is vicariously liable for actions of
> members of parliament.

Thats pig ignorant bullshit too with defamation. Which is why MPs
only do it in parliament itself, so they arent at risk legally, stupid.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for "
>>>> vicarious" to exist.

>>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does
>>>> not direct him.

>>> There is no employment relationship as such,

>> ** So no "vicarious " legal responsibility is possible.

> For a member of parliament, the legislation does mention 'vicarious
> liability':

> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mopsa2013254/s24.html

Wrong jurisdiction, stupid.

On 21/02/2022 9:41 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>> The only things that the government will pay for are things that fall
>>>>>> within the remit of the office holder's role,
>>>
>>>>>       The're are no such things.
>>>>>        You FUCKING MORON
>>>
>>>>>  There is  NO employee / employer relationship,  essential for  "
>>>>> vicarious"  to exist.
>>>
>>>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does
>>>>> not direct him.
>>>
>>>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>>>  None at all in fact.
>>>
>>>> but you can bet that the same body of law would be drawn from if
>>>> there was a dispute as to whom should pay the damages awarded
>>>> against the Premier.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always. The law on vicarous liability is completely
>>> irrelevant
>>> to the PM getting his demages paid by the govt in the extremely
>>> unlikely > event that he gets other than derisory damages awarded
>>> against him.
>
>> This section that:
>
>> "the Crown is vicariously liable in respect of the tort committed by a
>> person in the service of the Crown"
>>
>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au//au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lrla1983321/s8.html
>>
>>
>> So vicarious liability does apply to member of parliament
>
> Thats not the law on vicraious liability, stupid.
>
>> and the Crown (the government) is vicariously liable for actions of
>> members of parliament.
>
> Thats pig ignorant bullshit too with defamation. Which is why MPs
> only do it in parliament itself, so they arent at risk legally, stupid.

So why would the government pay for McGowan if he defamed Palmer?

On 21/02/2022 9:49 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for "
>>>>> vicarious" to exist.
>
>>>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does
>>>>> not direct him.
>
>>>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>
>>> ** So no "vicarious " legal responsibility is possible.
>
>> For a member of parliament, the legislation does mention 'vicarious
>> liability':
>
>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mopsa2013254/s24.html
>>
>
> Wrong jurisdiction, stupid.

It would be the same in all jurisdictions.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>
>>>>>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for "
>>>>>> vicarious" to exist.
>>
>>>>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does
>>>>>> not direct him.
>>
>>>>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>>
>>>> ** So no "vicarious " legal responsibility is possible.
>>
>>> For a member of parliament, the legislation does mention 'vicarious
>>> liability':
>>
>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mopsa2013254/s24.html

>> Wrong jurisdiction, stupid.

> It would be the same in all jurisdictions.

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit. No such law in WA.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote
>>
>>>>>>> The only things that the government will pay for are things that
>>>>>>> fall within the remit of the office holder's role,
>>>>
>>>>>> The're are no such things.
>>>>>> You FUCKING MORON
>>>>
>>>>>> There is NO employee / employer relationship, essential for "
>>>>>> vicarious" to exist.
>>>>
>>>>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and does
>>>>>> not direct him.
>>>>
>>>>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>>>> None at all in fact.
>>>>
>>>>> but you can bet that the same body of law would be drawn from if
>>>>> there was a dispute as to whom should pay the damages awarded
>>>>> against the Premier.
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. The law on vicarous liability is completely
>>>> irrelevant
>>>> to the PM getting his demages paid by the govt in the extremely
>>>> unlikely > event that he gets other than derisory damages awarded
>>>> against him.
>>
>>> This section that:
>>
>>> "the Crown is vicariously liable in respect of the tort committed by a
>>> person in the service of the Crown"
>>>
>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au//au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lrla1983321/s8.html
>>> So vicarious liability does apply to member of parliament

>> Thats not the law on vicraious liability, stupid.

And is the wrong jurisdiction, stupid.

>>> and the Crown (the government) is vicariously liable for actions of
>>> members of parliament.

>> Thats pig ignorant bullshit too with defamation. Which is why MPs
>> only do it in parliament itself, so they arent at risk legally, stupid.

> So why would the government pay for McGowan if he defamed Palmer?

Because talking to the media is part of his job, fuckwit.

Rod Speed Ex-Traffic cop FUCKING IDIOT:

==========================
>
> >> Thats pig ignorant bullshit too with defamation. Which is why MPs
> >> only do it in parliament itself, so they arent at risk legally, stupid.
>
> > So why would the government pay for McGowan if he defamed Palmer?
> Because talking to the media is part of his job, fuckwit.
>

** ROTFLMAO !!

FFS slandering the hell out of a political opponent is NOT part of a state premier's job.
The fool acted like he was in parliament and had the benefit of immunity.

No entity is "vicariously liable" for that kind of mindless blunder.

....... Phil

On 21/02/2022 12:40 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>> The only things that the government will pay for are things that
>>>>>>>> fall within the remit of the office holder's role,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>       The're are no such things.
>>>>>>>        You FUCKING MORON
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  There is  NO employee / employer relationship,  essential for  "
>>>>>>> vicarious"  to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The state govt did not elect the Premier, cannot sack him and
>>>>>>> does not direct him.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no employment relationship as such,
>>>>>  None at all in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but you can bet that the same body of law would be drawn from if
>>>>>> there was a dispute as to whom should pay the damages awarded
>>>>>> against the Premier.
>>>
>>>>>  Wrong, as always. The law on vicarous liability is completely
>>>>> irrelevant
>>>>> to the PM getting his demages paid by the govt in the extremely
>>>>> unlikely > event that he gets other than derisory damages awarded
>>>>> against him.
>>>
>>>> This section that:
>>>
>>>> "the Crown is vicariously liable in respect of the tort committed by
>>>> a person in the service of the Crown"
>>>>
>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au//au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lrla1983321/s8.html
>>>> So vicarious liability does apply to member of parliament
>
>>>  Thats not the law on vicraious liability, stupid.
>
> And is the wrong jurisdiction, stupid.
>
>>>> and the Crown (the government) is vicariously liable for actions of
>>>> members of parliament.
>
>>>  Thats pig ignorant bullshit too with defamation. Which is why MPs
>>> only do it in parliament itself, so they arent at risk legally, stupid.
>
>> So why would the government pay for McGowan if he defamed Palmer?
>
> Because talking to the media is part of his job, fuckwit.

So why do MPs only do it in parliament if they can do it to the media
and have the government cover them?

Max wrote:
===========
> >
> >>> Thats pig ignorant bullshit too with defamation. Which is why MPs
> >>> only do it in parliament itself, so they arent at risk legally, stupid.
> >
> >> So why would the government pay for McGowan if he defamed Palmer?
> >
> > Because talking to the media is part of his job, fuckwit.
>
> So why do MPs only do it in parliament if they can do it to the media
> and have the government cover them?
>
>

** If the govt is somehow liable to pay damages - why are they not defending the defamation action taken by Palmer ?
Public money is at risk - ain't theirs to give away.

FYI:

The Rodbot, manic arm waving, congenital tenth wit, bullshit artist has no damn clue.

...... Phil