|
Top OP, lost it at the Greens pic after all the pro-cap rightwing socially-conservative parties. Anarchist rabble FTW!
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
You Am I posted:GrEat, a full month of insufferable NSW crap Reminder that if anything is to seriously change, it will have to be in NSW. The writing's on the wall but it is the NSW branches of the major parties which have to read it and if they continue to ignore that, we're all still so very hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Mattjpwns posted:Oh my loving god, take it to IRC and stop loving up what started off as a great thread you goddamn goons. No, loving don't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
cpaf posted:I wonder if the Liberal party is still running the machine that churns out smarmy little smug tubby yuppies like Frydenberg and Jamie Briggs after their original prototype model Joe Hockey failed so catastrophically during mid-cycle deployment It takes so long to recalibrate the grammar schools anyway but Pyne is hard at work to spread the methodology so yes. Very pleased they're going with Bishop over Morrison for now. It's only temporary because Morrison wants to be Treasurer and the Liberals need to prove women are bad at leadership, so PM Morrison is still on down the track. The sexism dripping from Brandis right now is nothing compared to the hypocrisy with a Bishop leadership. open24hours posted:Isn't that exactly what a journalist is? Then I'm a loving journalist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:What would Bishop do differently from Abbott as PM policy-wise, if anything? That last part is the feeling I'm getting is the Libs that support her seem to want the exact same set of Abbott-brand policies and think replacing the face at the helm is all that is required. It's blatantly obvious isn't it. Or at least have a different face to walk away from the policy missteps that are absolutely killing them which is as good as pretending they never happened. That way if it looks worse, it's a woman's fault and gives them an excuse to... SynthOrange posted:Then they can accuse any opposition of being misogynistic. This is the other selling point of putting Bishop in. Meanwhile Morrison plays Economic Safe Hands and Bishop mysteriously gives way for the Best Interests of the Party. Win-win, dump a woman and claim clean hands. Bishop is the perfect Downer, she doesn't even have to get anything right, she just has to be the fall guy. There is no way the Liberal party would keep her in for an election unless they planned to lose it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:Not even a federal Lib politician is naive enough to actively want to cycle through three PMs in their first term. Its not like they want it, more that they're sleepwalking into it from cowardice and incompetence. They have to get rid of Abbott and Hockey, and their best option if not Turnbull and Bishop, is Bishop and Morrison. That's not a stable combination. Unless you have a cunning plan, we'd all like to hear it? A more general explanation of motions covers the various possible censures and notes when that has happened here ewe2 fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:any takers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4-sHXbWY6o PEEKABOO I CAN SEE YOU AND I KNOW WHAT YOU DO edit: trigger warning, clowns. ewe2 fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:Turnbull is their best bet IMO as long as they're willing to let him throw the nation a couple of centrist bones to buy the rest of their policy package (and I don't think they will because of aforementioned sleepwalking cowardice and incompetence). Yeah they can't contemplate giving Turnbull another go. He's horrible anyway, and it would be an unstable situation because they would make him beholden to them and sooner or later they'd shaft him again when they felt safer. And this is why Morrison is being watched because the base LOVE him and that's the right faction of the rightwing faction you mentioned, and the danger with him is that when he feels safe he's an utter arsehole. He's only being nice now because he needs a win or two and he doesn't intend to stay in Social Services longer than he has to. edit: BTW do keep up the whining about FDOTM, it will encourage Tink to post it every day and infuriate you, morons. ewe2 fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:http://www.afr.com/p/national/hockey_orders_sale_breach_point_4vfndyC0uTrYvcShhGyu8M So many questions about this. Why now, six months after the sale went through? Is there a point to the article mentioning one of Xu's neighbours is a major shareholder of Cubbie? What's in it for Joe, who one would have thought might have needed whatever he's clearly expecting for this unaccustomed toughness months ago? Why, again, if the rules are that clear, did noone think "hey this might contravene FIRB"? And why does Joe think there'll be no comeback for pissing off a Chinese billionaire? Even catallaxy doesn't get it! ewe2 fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Seagull posted:the alp should stop stealing left wing votes from the greens imo I lolled Nick Stomp on a Poor's Face Cater posted:Put bluntly, any means-tested welfare payment provides an incentive to be poor. Charles Murray called it the law of unintended rewards: “Any social transfer increases the net value of being in the condition that prompted the transfer.” Put bluntly, any access to power and money provides an incentive to be an arsehole. I think it was Chris Not A Dogfucker Kenny who said "I write for the Australian therefore it must be the ABC's fault".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Glad to see some ribald discussion from yesterday. Tonight I will follow up with a sequel about what is likely to happen during and after a "bubble bursting". The Sunk Cost Fallacy figures large in several ways about home ownership: - Mortgage payments cheaper than rent, for example (and I know someone in that position in a capital city but it's a rabbit hutch really) - the concept of rent as "dead money" (sure I'll just get in my time machine and make a better decision next time!), and of course - "I can't stop/can't move because I've paid so much off" So it's not purely the emotive term of ownership, it's the fallacy of defining value on the basis that you define value, and as people are saying, there's no security to base that fallacy on any more, but it still applies because people are nuts about houses.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
50 cent and Tone Def Loc combine to bring you the LNP's greatest hit, Canberra Love:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
That's a  opportunity if there ever was one. Hidden away in the business section too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:This post is a flawless gem. It's certainly reflective of a might makes right ideology. But museums are prisons for the past. This one's escaped. And being spouted by the hangers-on of clueless self-important 3rd-class bullies. Just remember that we know who you are, and you don't get to pretend it never happened and you never approved it. There'll be a reckoning and we've got long memories.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Australian politics:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Hmm, maybe this is more like Australian politics:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:A Question: When do we get to the "Dance puppets, dance!" portion of Ratbag's performance? Stop, Hitler time! Heil myself! And many many other solid-gold hits! Money-back guarantee for perverts! You all do realize that Graic is having the all-time best wank right now? Trouble is, the next hit will be harder to get hurrrr.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Speaking of reams of crap, Rowan Dean posted this filth in the AFR behind the paywall but thanks to a goon I can inflict it upon you all. Said goon doesn't understand it, so I shall help, my contributions in bold:Rowan Dean thinks he is a satirist posted:
This is what you get when a self-regarding libertarian thinks he is a funny guy. poo poo maybe it's a cry for help, maybe it's all too much for him and its just hysterical giggling. ewe2 fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Pickled Tink posted:New first dog. Brenda knows whats up  
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Anidav posted:I can't believe I spoke to Pyne directly. It felt weird. I hope you replied "we know what you do with unicorns too Chris" Another win for metadata!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Do you think Pyne knows about the pyne pinata with a cattleprod ritual at all? Oops drat.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Heeyyyy, I'm not Terrible! What a waste of taxpayers money and valuable crime-fighting time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
While you were feeding the trolls, Joe Hockey had a defamation court date today. It's managed to put the NSW Libs and their Federal friends under a spotlight they definitely don't need. Here's a capsule summary from in-court twitter journalists: It's the second day of Hockey's cross-examination by the Fairfax silk. Hockey is persisting with the claim that a forum setup to offer access to him and other leaders in his name was nothing to do with him.  That seems pretty obvious to me, but Joe's having none of it. Hockey is a terrible witness for his own prosecution, BTW. He had to be told twice not to interrupt cross-examination, and played a lot of deniability tennis with words and facts relating to the North Shore Forum. First he claimed it was set up because there was no Chamber of Commerce. Then when it was pointed out that he as Treasurer made mention of the Chamber of Commerce, he said it was set up for the North Shore donators. Then when all the non-North Shore members of the forum were pointed out, we got to listen to whether such-and-such a company was a lobbyist. I kid you not. And then we got to the part where he claims it was independent of him: The Guardian posted:The forum’s website carries photographs of Hockey and says: “On behalf of Joe Hockey I encourage you to join the North Sydney Forum and to offer your practical support to Joe Hockey.” We'll soon see. Phone records are being sought to back up what the Age editor says about a phone call he had with Hockey this time last year. His former media advisor claims she didn't understand the context of questions put to her about the forum (a former Fairfax journalist. Yeah right.), and was very protective of Joe's diary so we got to hear the excuses about why that wasn't admissible. Tomorrow we'll be hearing from the Fairfax witnesses, particularly chief political correspondent Mark Kenny, the articles writer, Sean Nicholls and Darren Goodsir SMH ed. But fair to say that Hockey hasn't done his cause a great deal of good today.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
So a wrap up of today's proceedings in the Hockey * Sean Nicholls survived repeated attempts by Hockey's barrister McClintock to appear bad and mean. McClintock tried to pin the "friends of Joe" headline on him which is a waste of time. It wasn't a stellar cross-examination: McClintock making claims of "crucifixion of my client" and similar, Nicholls just saying "no". Said more about Hockey's case than Nicholls. McClintock then went about trying to attack Goodsir through Nicholls but it seems inconclusive. * McClintock tried to get some leverage on the North Shore Forum from Nicholls, but again, only managed to shine light on the issues raised in the article, not the motives for publishing it. Eg, when MClintock attacked the "privileged access", Nicholls pointed out they paid thousands of dollars, what were they expecting otherwise? Whoops. Michaela Whitbourn, twitter posted:"Why is it a privilege to pay [for access to Hockey] if it's available for free to other people?" McClintock asks #HockeyFairfax Good question! Why would anyone do that? * McClintock claims the article had to be alleging corruption, Nicholls said it did nothing of the sort. This case is very flimsy unless McClintock can prove a such a motive or just spitefulness. * Mark Kenny then took the stand. McClintock's aim here seems to have been to get Kenny to accept some sort of corruption allegation, which Kenny refused to do. Then tried to get Kenny to say there was nothing special about North Shore Forum, which Kenny also refused to do. Then tried to suggest the article was a response by Fairfax to being frozen out by govt (ie malice). This is just flimsy stuff. * McClintock then made some kind of parallel between North Shore Forum and National Press Club which the judge actually requires more information about in case he needs to make a judgement. If McClintock intends to make some killer summing up involving NPC, that's going to be super weird. That was it for today. McClintock's purpose doesn't seem clear unless it was to influence the judge. Summing up is apparently due Monday with more evidence this week. Goodsir starts tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:So what would the verdict mean for Hockey if it's in Fairfax's favour? Just having to pay the court fees or something stronger? Most likely paying costs, but I think if it goes badly they'll try to settle out of court. Also I forgot this gem: @MWhitbourn posted:McClintock makes a point of asking Kenny if he is aware an SMH journalist has been tweeting Nicholls' cross examination #HockeyFairfax How lame is that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:Since the hacking trials in the UK tweeting live from the court seems to be all the rage. Is it allowed because the records of that court case would become public in due time anyway? It's a public trial so it depends on the direction of the judge AFAIK, IANAL. McClintock's comment is a non-sequitor really, how is it germane that an SMH journalist (two of them, actually, whose job it is to actually do this) tweets the cross-examination? That genie is out of the bottle, get over it. It makes your case look weaker if you're complaining about being observed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
I'll just link this Lateline transcript about data retention with Bruce Schneier, but it's worth a read. What is also concerning is that HTTP/2 is almost complete: Firefox and Chrome will only support it with HTTPS but this creates the problem that data caches, which cut down on internet traffic and speeds up access can't work because the data is encrypted. This is a big problem for low-bandwidth connections (like 3/4 of the world) and smartphones, and currently the only suggestion is a really bad one: put an root certificate in the phone or computer that allows a cache to decrypt the connection and be able to send it on after re-encryption. That basically ruins the whole point of HTTPS, but noone's come up with an alternative yet that I've heard. So we may be heading for a 3-tiered internet within a couple of years: those who can use encryption/VPN at high speeds, those who can't and have to accept poor security and no privacy to access anything, and those who may as well have their own internet because they can't play at all. And of course Australia will be adding extra cost on top of that for data retention. Go us 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Murodese posted:Not really. Local caching works fine under HTTP2.0 and CDNs come off better due to request multiplexing. Server-side caching works fine too, because the data is generated prior to transport-level encryption. I probably wasn't very clear: HTTP2.0 is going to be the new standard under HTTPS, being driven by firefox and Chrome. It's HTTPS that's becoming an increasing problem for shared caches, not a single client-to-browser cache. I was reading this from the guy who makes HAProxy, so I assumed there's some truth to it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Day 4 #HockeyFairfax recap: McClintock cross-examines SMH ed in chief Goodsir. Still trying to get an admission of calling Hockey corrupt. Doesn't get anywhere with it. Goodsir adamant that Hockey's reaction to the earlier story was an overreaction. McClintock then tries various tacks about Fairfax attitudes to Hockey's reaction to that earlier story. So none of this concerns the actual story Hockey ACTUALLY sued over. McClintock's strategy is now clearer: he's trying to establish a pattern of behaviour that suggests the story sued over was itself a reaction. That tells me immediately that the suit is doubtful, if he doesn't have a strong enough case for the story itself. And worse, it makes clear that the jibes of the last couple of days are intended to suggest Fairfax have a cultural problem, which smacks of point-scoring and probably won't impress the judge. McClintock again makes reference to our tweeter @MWhitbourn and @Kate_McClintock (no relation!), possibly because they cover ICAC and this is part of the "cultural problem" strategy, but as yet it's unclear. McClintock continues to niggle at Goodsir about the apology wanted in various Fairfax papers and it's clear that he wants to characterise the organizational effort to present a united picture as a management failure as well. He continues to apparently waste time on imputing malice to various things Goodsir said/emailed, it's a wearying read even from tweets. Then he goes back to trying to get a corruption admission from Goodsir, which is also a waste of time, but openly charges that the Treasurer For Sale story (the one that is actually the point of the case) was an accusation of corruption and again ties it to the earlier story. McClintock takes a different tack: that a story published about Bill Shorten could compare favourably with the Hockey story, not much in it. But then McClintock tries to attach the ICAC investigation to the story because Obeid was linked via a donor. Talk about trying to get several wins in one. And after all that, it was time for lunch. After lunch, McClintock has a whinge about the articles remaining on some Fairfax websites and then it's Aged ed Andrew Holden's turn. We're still on the tack that the Treasurer For Sale was an attack in revenge for having to correct the earlier story. Again, this makes clear how weak the case is. But possibly they think they'd win anyway and just want some extra goodies. Holden testifies that he agreed that Hockey was overreacting to the earlier article. This is a good strategy for the defence because it increasingly looks like Hockey was looking for a reason to sue! McClintock repeats the same series of allegations to Holden that he did to Goodsir, with the same result of nothing. And then it was the Canberra Times page ed Mark Uhlmann (hmm, related to Chris?). Similar questions but nothing of interest to report and of no use to McClintock. Then it was Age print ed Mark Fuller, who was responsible for the Treasurer For Sale headline. Not much in his testimony either. Deputy SMH ed Ben Cubby is called, but McClintock lets his junior Chrysanthou question him. The line of questioning is about the resources used on the story and again tries to link ICAC to it. They are persistent about it, trying to get Cubby to agree that the mention of ICAC in the story is "unfair" to the Treasurer. This is an interesting tactic to get a junior to ask such questions, but it's not a great success. She ends up even accusing Cubby of giving false evidence and of saying anything that would help Fairfax. And with that, there are no more witnesses and no more cross-examination. Summing-up is on Monday. I'm of the opinion that while defamation cases usually have the onus on the defence to prove no defamation, the prosecution equally doesn't get a free ride, and it appears that they're taking the free ride for granted and trying to damage Fairfax's reputation on top of it. I don't really think the defence can win by pointing this out, but I don't think the prosecution make the most of its opportunities either. If I was the judge I'd still say there's not much in it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
tithin posted:Ewe2,thank you for the updates. From pages back, but there's no court today. Honestly, I think it might come down to the summing-up. The defence seems to be riding on the letter of the law, that they meant that access to Hockey was being sold, not Hockey himself. The prosecution has attacked this defence but curiously has taken the defamation as read: they haven't pressed the standard attack that a reasonable person would take a particular inference and cited evidence. Instead they've taken a conspiracy theory approach and claimed the article was motivated by spite and spent a lot of time trying to prove a top-down direction to "get" Hockey. Hockey's brief could tie all this up in an appropriate package for the judge of course, but I'm also expecting the defence to use their very attack as reason to drop the case. For me, there was too much irrelevant argument about who might have texted what to who and a view of Fairfax that appears to assume much that one might expect from a News Corp editor, which may not have bearing on the case, but is a really telling light on their attitude. And dragging ICAC into it also seems opportunistic and a bit dumb. The defence case has highlighted that they took reasonable steps to engage with Hockey in not just the cited article but the previous one also (which the prosecution took so much time on), that they took legal advice on it is also important. In fact the cross-examination by Hockey's brief brought up much material that was more useful to the defence it seems to me. I don't think the prosecution established the motive they wanted successfully, but defamation hinges on what the defence can prove, so it comes down more to whether their answers were sufficient. So for me the actual charge of imputing corruption to Hockey is not proven, but I can't say he won't get away with having his "pain" acknowledged. It's going to come down on the best light each brief can put on their evidence. I would give it to the defence but unfortunately defamation law tends to give the free prize to the plaintiff too often.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
May CAT BUDDHA save you all The Hun today had a few laughs: they're going full blast how a teenage suicide bomber might have thought about bombing Melbourne but didn't, which is nice because he's dead and can't defend himself. No metadata was harmed in the production of this bullshit. They also claim that Ivanhoe Grammar School parents had NO IDEA there was a teacher facing abuse charges UNTIL THE HUN TOLD THEM. Funny, the news has been everywhere for a fortnight, do they all live under rocks? The funniest part was the letters page with the headline OUTRAGE OVERWHELMS SENSE about Abbotts comments/plans to cut Aboriginal regional communities: one letter saying the outrage was ridiculous, 7 saying it's another dumb and cruel Abbottism.  Michael Kroger is Vic Libs President again and he's got a new team! And they're getting The Report On How poo poo They Are next week. So exciting. The bottom of the barrel is feeling sore.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Kat Delacour posted:Oh my god ... Are goons turning into a lobby group? Why not, you're a bunch of smart, engaged and energetic citizens. You've no idea how unusual you are (or maybe you do and that's the problem). Don't let it stop you, and don't get hung up on the jargon, do it your way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Richard Ackland did a good writeup of the Hockey trial, it lays out the problems for both sides, and does a better job of showing why defamation law needs reform than I could. As Ackland is careful to say, the judge has to weigh whether the defence is sufficient but also to weigh whether the prosecution case isn't also overblown. Hockey's reputation is even lower: he'll get a pyrrhic victory if at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
nockturne posted:As an aside from oniongate, I'm looking for an article written by a journo who was with Tony Abbott when they got lost in the desert. It included an extraordinary description of Abbott inhaling any food that wasn't tied down. Anyone remember it? All I found was this from an SMH article: quote:"We were one jerry can of fuel, six bottles of water and about three hours of daylight short of what we needed," was his verdict on the experience when he arrived back at Kings Creek station for a late-night feast of scotch fillet and camel sausages.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
bowmore posted:I'm supposed to write an opinion piece and now I'm having a crisis wondering if I actually have opinions or not Write an onion piece instead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
MC Eating Disorder posted:I'm pretty sure anyone whose family has been here since federation has about as much aboriginal blood as Ray Martin, they just don't know it Or Asian. I have a suspicious blood group for a Celt descendant and my main suspect is my great great grandfather's wife but I can't prove anything yet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Wang is the pinyin spelling of the character 王 (Emperor). It is pronounced 'wong' in Chinese and the Chinese do not really have a sound that matches the hard, nasal Australian 'wang'. Right, so just remember Wang/Huang is pronounced like Aung San Suu Kyi. Pinyin isn't the fix-all it promised to be I guess, but at least it's better than Wade-Giles. It's so irritating to keep seeing Wade-Giles especially from Taiwanese writers - I'm reading a rather good ebook on Guan-yin, spelt variously Kwan-yin or Kuan-yin/Kuan-shih-yin, and it's Wade-Giles and I give up trying to pronounce any of it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Got any of that Sing-tao beer? Possibly but the defence raised some very good points also, and Justice White has a lot of written submission homework to read too. It's going to be a more detailed issue that people might think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Ok another effortpost based entirely on the awesome tweets of @MWhitbourn: Final trial day or is it?? (summing-up): So the day began with a tussle over Fairfax's silk Collins tendering evidence. Fairfax did not succeed in tendering the member list of Noth Shore Forum into evidence (Evidence Act for some reason, IANAL). McClintock objecting to everything possible, including reader reactions to the article of all things. Written submissions also tendered, so a lot of homework for Justice White tonight. Collins goes first and suggests that Hockey's silk has put the worst interpretation of the story possible. It is NOT what a reasonable reader would find, and gives specific examples of where this has not held in defamation cases. Describes issues of where Hockey is taking meanings from the article that does not apply, eg a link to Obeids. Fairfax is using the defence of "qualified privilege", which our tweeter doesn't completely define but seems to be that they acted on incomplete information which was difficult or impossible to improve eg Sean Nicholls couldn't go to a NSF meeting because he'd have to disclose that he is a journalist, or Hockey's office did not answer questions they needed to answer concerning the issues they raise in the article. The problem of secrecy impeded the gathering of information also eg the way the fundraising was disclosed, and the access the forum got to Hockey. Collins then attacked Hockey's evidence thoroughly, and suggested to White that his evidence was misleading and not transparent and the misleading claims made about the forum are still on public view. Now Collins addresses malice, which I always thought would be an important thing (since McClintock spent so much time on it) and it defeats the qualified privilege defence if proven. He rejects the plaintiff's argument that timing suggested malice and asks that it needs serious proof, not the hearsay advanced by plantiff. Then a lunch break, and McClintock's turn: McClintock notes that qualified privilege was the defence in the Lange case (referred to by defence). It is still defamation even if the reader disbelieves it. Says there is nothing to defend the phrase "Treasurer for sale" and refers to the advertisements using that phrase, because Hockey is also suing on those advertisements (which gives you some idea of how certain he was about this case. Think about that, its a 2 for 1 he wants.). Then McClintock outlines what he thinks a reasonable reader would infer and predictably he thinks its "corruption". Attacks the SMH as a tabloid. Says the mere mention of Obeid is a watchword for corruption (easy there tiger, Eddie has a reputation too!). Claims that defence of qualified privilege re malice fails because they did not take reasonable steps to get or publish Hockey's response (I think this is amazingly self-serving, but they can get away with it). Then talks up how the defence usually fails (that's up to the judge, surely). At this point White straight out asks McClintock what his definition of "access" to Hockey means. McClintock doesn't answer this directly but attacks the headline again for suggesting that Hockey sold his access (a mistake I think. The judge compared the CWA with the NSF and McClintock didn't address that at all). Jumps right on to malice, and centres his attack on SMH ed Goodsir, claiming everything about his communications about the article were malicious. But we're out of time for today and McClintock gets to finish TOMORROW because he doesn't want to rush things. So I hope lawyery types might peek at this and give some ideas, but basically I think unless McClintock pulls out a rabbit tomorrow, its still line ball. I think they knew all along that malice was going to be the way to sell their case to the judge or at least get something favourable so that the advertisements case will automatically win also. Right now that's not looking very strong to me, but he may still address why they stonewalled Nicholls when he asked for comment because that and the issue of the selling of access counts very much in the defence's favour. Smegmatron posted:The best outcome is that the herald loses and sets the precedent that the poster board headlines are highly actionable publications and the daily telegraph immediately goes out of business under the weight of twelve billion defamation claims. I couldn't help but smirk derisively at half the Hun's headlines of just last Fridays which were all textbook cases of this also.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
JosephWongKS posted:The other way around, actually. 王 (Emperor) is pronounced "wang" in Putonghua / Mandarin Chinese / 普通話 (i.e. the official language of PRC and Taiwan), and Putonghua / Mandarin Chinese / 普通話 does not have a sound that matches "wong". For the sake of clarity, in this case the "wang" is pronounced as "wah-ng" and not "when-ng". Oh wat now I am all confuseld. V for Vegas posted:I think this is going to turn on whether the imputations were conveyed. If they weren't, then game over for Hockey. If they were, I don't think the QP defence will stand up. Not because of maliciousness (which is a very high bar of itself) but that you really have to show you did everything possible to clear the story first. That's where the comment by White J that the email to Hockey's staff didn't contain 'the sting' of the article was quite telling. That was a nod to the fact he may be considering Fairfax fell short of the QP requirements. Good points, but they at least made the effort, and that may be important. I think it's very line ball on that, they didn't even get to first base no matter what material they were putting forward. Nicholls didn't know about the headline, that came afterwards and the whole plaintiff case revolves around it (for obvious reasons, like another specific case that would be automatically a win if they win this one). There's a lot to balance on both sides here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 07:54
|
|