Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed 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.

> FFS slandering the hell out of a political opponent is NOT part of a
> state premier's job.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage and thats
saying something. And Palmer isnt his political opponent anyway.

> The fool acted like he was in parliament and had the benefit of immunity.

And won't get any more than derisory damages even if he loses,
essentially because Palmer will never be able to prove any substanial
financial or political damage has occurred. You watch.

If anything the shit fight has been good publicity for Palmer who has
no hope in hell of getting anyone elected regardless of what was said.

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

It wasn't a blunder. And wasn't slander either, it was a statement of fact.

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
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?

They say worse things than McGowan did and doing that in parliament
avoids any possibility of any civil action which isn't cheap or quick even
if they don't lose the civil action, stupid.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> 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 ?

Because they know that there is no chance that Palmer will win.

> Public money is at risk - ain't theirs to give away.

Even if Palmer does win, the damages will be derisory and
FAR less than the cost of defending the action, stupid.

Rod Speedbot hasverbkl diarrhoea.
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> >> >> 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 ?

> Because they know that there is no chance that Palmer will win.

** Robot droppings, smelly, very nasty, full of wiggling maggots,

> > Public money is at risk - ain't theirs to give away.
>
> Even if Palmer does win, the damages will be derisory and
> FAR less than the cost of defending the action,

** Plop, plop, plop, plop - faarrrrrtttt...

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> >> >> 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 ?

>> Because they know that there is no chance that Palmer will win.

>> > Public money is at risk - ain't theirs to give away.

>> Even if Palmer does win, the damages will be derisory and
>> FAR less than the cost of defending the action,

<reams of rabid completely unemployable dole bludger shit flushed where it
belongs>

Whoops, nothing left, wota surprise.

No surprise that it has always been a completely unemployable dole bludger.

On 21/02/2022 9:34 am, 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
>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>

The premier cannot spend any public money without passing a law in
parliament.

Section 68 of the WA constitution:

68. No part of public revenue to be issued except on warrants
from Governor
No part of the public revenue of the Colony arising from any of
the sources aforesaid shall be issued except in pursuance of
warrants under the hand of the Governor directed to the
Treasurer.

>>>> 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
>>> 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.

> The premier cannot spend any public money without passing a law in
> parliament.

Wrong when the law was passed long ago, fuckwit.

>
> Section 68 of the WA constitution:
>
> 68. No part of public revenue to be issued except on warrants
> from Governor
> No part of the public revenue of the Colony arising from any of
> the sources aforesaid shall be issued except in pursuance of
> warrants under the hand of the Governor directed to the
> Treasurer.

Which happened long ago in this case, fuckwit.

>>>>> 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 is too dumb to see how dumb he ise:

-------------------------------=-------------------------
> The premier cannot spend any public money without passing a law in
> parliament.

>
> Section 68 of the WA constitution:
>
> 68. No part of public revenue to be issued except on warrants
> from Governor
> No part of the public revenue of the Colony arising from any of
> the sources aforesaid shall be issued except in pursuance of
> warrants under the hand of the Governor directed to the
> Treasurer.

** Say nothing about day to day spending of previously allocated budgets.
Ministers and premiers can and do direct that all day long.

You FUCKING Google Monkey IDIOT !!

....... Phil

On 22/02/2022 10:19 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max is too dumb to see how dumb he ise:
>
> -------------------------------=-------------------------
>> The premier cannot spend any public money without passing a law in
>> parliament.
>
>>
>> Section 68 of the WA constitution:
>>
>> 68. No part of public revenue to be issued except on warrants
>> from Governor
>> No part of the public revenue of the Colony arising from any of
>> the sources aforesaid shall be issued except in pursuance of
>> warrants under the hand of the Governor directed to the
>> Treasurer.
>
>
> ** Say nothing about day to day spending of previously allocated budgets.
> Ministers and premiers can and do direct that all day long.
>

It is not part of the previous budget to pay out defamation claims
against the Premier !!

> You FUCKING Google Monkey IDIOT !!
>
>
>
> ...... Phil

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

>>> The premier cannot spend any public money without passing a law in
>>> parliament.
>>
>>>
>>> Section 68 of the WA constitution:
>>>
>>> 68. No part of public revenue to be issued except on warrants
>>> from Governor
>>> No part of the public revenue of the Colony arising from any of
>>> the sources aforesaid shall be issued except in pursuance of
>>> warrants under the hand of the Governor directed to the
>>> Treasurer.

>> Say nothing about day to day spending of previously allocated
>> budgets. Ministers and premiers can and do direct that all day long.

> It is not part of the previous budget to pay out defamation claims
> against the Premier !!

Wrong, as always. It has always been part of all budgets
that the parliament gets to pay the premier's costs when
they are part of what a premier does.

On 22/02/2022 3:17 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>> The premier cannot spend any public money without passing a law in
>>>> parliament.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Section 68 of the WA constitution:
>>>>
>>>> 68. No part of public revenue to be issued except on warrants
>>>> from Governor
>>>> No part of the public revenue of the Colony arising from any of
>>>> the sources aforesaid shall be issued except in pursuance of
>>>> warrants under the hand of the Governor directed to the
>>>> Treasurer.
>
>>>  Say nothing about day to day spending of previously allocated
>>> budgets.  Ministers and premiers can and do direct that all day long.
>
>> It is not part of the previous budget to pay out defamation claims
>> against the Premier !!
>
> Wrong, as always. It has always been part of all budgets
> that the parliament gets to pay the premier's costs when
> they are part of what a premier does.

Defaming some random citizen is not part what a premier does.

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

>>>>> The premier cannot spend any public money without passing a law in
>>>>> parliament.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Section 68 of the WA constitution:
>>>>>
>>>>> 68. No part of public revenue to be issued except on warrants
>>>>> from Governor
>>>>> No part of the public revenue of the Colony arising from any of
>>>>> the sources aforesaid shall be issued except in pursuance of
>>>>> warrants under the hand of the Governor directed to the
>>>>> Treasurer.
>>
>>>> Say nothing about day to day spending of previously allocated
>>>> budgets. Ministers and premiers can and do direct that all day long.

>>> It is not part of the previous budget to pay out defamation claims
>>> against the Premier !!

>> Wrong, as always. It has always been part of all budgets
>> that the parliament gets to pay the premier's costs when
>> they are part of what a premier does.

> Defaming some random citizen

Palmer is no random citizen and it hasnt been established
that the premier has defamed anyone, fuckwit.

> is not part what a premier does.

Pathetic.

On 22/02/2022 8:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>>> The premier cannot spend any public money without passing a law in
>>>>>> parliament.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 68 of the WA constitution:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 68. No part of public revenue to be issued except on warrants
>>>>>> from Governor
>>>>>> No part of the public revenue of the Colony arising from any of
>>>>>> the sources aforesaid shall be issued except in pursuance of
>>>>>> warrants under the hand of the Governor directed to the
>>>>>> Treasurer.
>>>
>>>>>  Say nothing about day to day spending of previously allocated
>>>>> budgets.  Ministers and premiers can and do direct that all day long.
>
>>>> It is not part of the previous budget to pay out defamation claims
>>>> against the Premier !!
>
>>>  Wrong, as always. It has always been part of all budgets
>>> that the parliament gets to pay the premier's costs when
>>> they are part of what a premier does.
>
>> Defaming some random citizen
>
> Palmer is no random citizen and it hasnt been established
> that the premier has defamed anyone, fuckwit.
>

That is the point of the court case - to determine whether Palmer was
defamed.

Imagine if Palmer wins and it awarded millions of dollars.

Can you imagine the WA public will be happy about tax payer money being
used to pay for that?

>> is not part what a premier does.
>
> Pathetic.

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 <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>>>> The premier cannot spend any public money without passing a law in
>>>>>>> parliament.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Section 68 of the WA constitution:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 68. No part of public revenue to be issued except on warrants
>>>>>>> from Governor
>>>>>>> No part of the public revenue of the Colony arising from any of
>>>>>>> the sources aforesaid shall be issued except in pursuance of
>>>>>>> warrants under the hand of the Governor directed to the
>>>>>>> Treasurer.
>>>>
>>>>>> Say nothing about day to day spending of previously allocated
>>>>>> budgets. Ministers and premiers can and do direct that all day
>>>>>> long.
>>
>>>>> It is not part of the previous budget to pay out defamation claims
>>>>> against the Premier !!
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always. It has always been part of all budgets
>>>> that the parliament gets to pay the premier's costs when
>>>> they are part of what a premier does.
>>
>>> Defaming some random citizen

>> Palmer is no random citizen and it hasn't been established
>> that the premier has defamed anyone, fuckwit.

> That is the point of the court case - to determine whether Palmer was
> defamed.

You quite sure you aren't one of those rocket scientist terminal fuckwit
children ?

> Imagine if Palmer wins and it awarded millions of dollars.

Not going to happen. He hasn't suffered any damages what
so ever even if it is established that he has been defamed.

> Can you imagine the WA public will be happy abouttax payer money being
> used to pay for that?

Completely academic question, stupid.

>>> is not part what a premier does.

>> Pathetic.