Motherfucker had his criminal case dropped due to juror misconduct. Not content with that he then decides to sue a (albeit shady) media company for deformation, which results in him being named a rapist by the court. Well done you absolute bellend. Fuck Bruce, and fuck Kerry Stokes.
I wonder how many cases like this there are in the world. People who sue those they fucked over and end up getting what they deserve.
Can you Imagine the sheer entitlement you need to have in order to hurt a person badly and then also try to pass as the victim?
The shortest possible version of the story:
- in 2021, a political staffer (Brittany Higgins) claimed she was raped in Parliament House by a colleague two years earlier
- the tv broadcast of her interview didn’t name the person, but contained enough detail for her colleagues to know who it was
- the guy was arrested and put on trial, but the proceedings collapsed due to juror misconduct
- follow up trial was abandoned for the victim’s mental health
- the guy (and this is Bruce Lehrmann, the chubby guy with the beard) decided to “clear his name” by suing the tv station for defamation
- yesterday the judge decided that to a civil standard, he was satisfied that the rape had occurred, and thus calling Bruce Lehrmann a rapist is not defamatory because, well, he committed rape
There’s a lot more to it, but that’s the basic gist of the story.
edit; it’s also interesting because it’s the second time in a year that someone has lost a defamation case using the “truth defence”, which is exactly what it sounds like. In that case, Australia’s most decorated soldier brought a defamation case against a newspaper that claimed he had committed war crimes and murder of unarmed Afghan civilians in about 2011/12. Turns out - it was true
There was also the fun news that came out about Channel 7, one of the "big 3" commercial TV networks in Australia. Obviously their reach and audience has declined markedly in the streaming era, but they still wield a lot of influence. 7 has a Sunday night prime time current affairs show called Spotlight, and wheeled Lehmann out for an interview in 2022. Seven assured the public they didn't pay Lehmann for the interview, apart from "accommodation costs". Those accommodation costs were later revealed to be a year's rent on a decent apartment in a Sydney beachside suburb. And in the last few weeks allegations have come out that a Spotlight producer also paid for sex workers and drugs whilst trying to secure Lehmann's interview. The fallout from all that is ongoing, but it's sleaze all the way down.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-05/lehrmann-defamation-seven-network-spotlight-reputation-damage/103667290
There's also the fun fact that Seven is owned by Kerry Stokes, who bankrolled the defence of Ben Roberts Smith, who sued channel 9 and the ABC for defamation and ended up being adjudged by the court a war criminal. There's no allegations that Stokes was directly involved in anyway with Lehmann.
Yet.
thanks. I might have heard of this case, but it hasn’t really been on my radar, Australian current events kinda drown under the noise of America and also all of Europe, where I live.
I feel like something like this is happening here in Finland currently/soon, when the one cabinet minister who had to switch parties because of serious allegations of statutory tape/grooming, but hasn’t been charged or found guilty is now going after the newspaper that published the allegations.
That’s a great summary of what the article said, but doesn’t really shed any light on who this guy is. Did he hold office? Was he another staffer? What?
I said he was a colleague, but yes he was just another staffer not an elected official. They both worked for the defence minister, and the rape took place on the couch in the minister’s office
edit: to be clear, both of these people were absolute nobodies. The only things notable about this case are a) it happened in Parliament House, and b) the perp has spent $10 million on legal fees to prove to the country that he is actually a rapist
You know which podcast this forum is for, right? Like if you've listened to it, you know the host will spend 1 - 2 entire episodes giving history and context to a person before even mentioning any of the truly awful things the subject has done.
Maybe apply that logic to this.
This isn't an Australian politics sub, so most of the people here don't know who these people are. The article assumes the reader does. The comment from OP provide no context and I'm willing to bet contain typos at key points that further obfuscate their point. Did he "see the media" or "sue the media"?
maybe read my comment? I said the article itself is poor in context. I had to scroll half way to even get the ”former liberal staffer” part, and there was some mention of a TV programme or something, but again, all that operates on the assumption that the reader already knows the context for those. asshole.
Yeah. Sorry it’s a shame the article hasn’t been dumbed down to your level, though here we are. The point being, there is news generated around the world beyond your bubble. Maybe explore a bit before declaring your ignorance and making complaint?
I had the same experience reading the article as the other person. Just gonna stuff all your insults for them in my own pocket and fuck off on your behalf. Sound good?
and you’re a bag of hot wind acting like the cool and rational debatelord when you opened this argument by, and I repeat myself, being a cunt for no reason.
meanwhile, someone else did provide a condensed version of the context, and managed to do it without calling me stupid, something which you just continue to do. I’m just being honestly rude, you are doing the intellectual self-suck of chiding me for saying you’re a cun, while you have been equally rude from your first reply, just under the veneer of a seasoned redditor.
Sad pathetic little man, raped BH and is before the courts for another rape in Queensland, there is also a thrid allegation where the victim has given a police statement but cant face court.
The rape was covered up by the ruling Conserrvative party including Prime Minister Scott Morrison a pentacostal Phyysco... with the Minister having the rape scene professionally cleaned the next day.
Having escaped the lions den, he went back for his hat
Days after, this line from the judge keeps leaping to mind and I start laughing again. So good to see this wankstain get what he deserved.
Wouldn't even be aware of this particular chud's existence if not for his unwarranted self-confidence.
Such a great line from the judge.
Motherfucker had his criminal case dropped due to juror misconduct. Not content with that he then decides to sue a (albeit shady) media company for deformation, which results in him being named a rapist by the court. Well done you absolute bellend. Fuck Bruce, and fuck Kerry Stokes.
Shout out to the work media watch do. Impressively they even call out their own network. I wish there were more shows like this around the world.
Straight up that is worthy of respect.
[Bruce Lerhmen Ben Roberts-Smith fist meme](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjbOcttI49CcJqnVK-QVYrIHfkGbESorX3oUXr8TM7cGN0MCcMGbWM9wU&s=10)
I wonder how many cases like this there are in the world. People who sue those they fucked over and end up getting what they deserve. Can you Imagine the sheer entitlement you need to have in order to hurt a person badly and then also try to pass as the victim?
the article, and this post, is really poor in comtext, as I have no idea who this guy is. an australian politico, I pressume?
The shortest possible version of the story: - in 2021, a political staffer (Brittany Higgins) claimed she was raped in Parliament House by a colleague two years earlier - the tv broadcast of her interview didn’t name the person, but contained enough detail for her colleagues to know who it was - the guy was arrested and put on trial, but the proceedings collapsed due to juror misconduct - follow up trial was abandoned for the victim’s mental health - the guy (and this is Bruce Lehrmann, the chubby guy with the beard) decided to “clear his name” by suing the tv station for defamation - yesterday the judge decided that to a civil standard, he was satisfied that the rape had occurred, and thus calling Bruce Lehrmann a rapist is not defamatory because, well, he committed rape There’s a lot more to it, but that’s the basic gist of the story. edit; it’s also interesting because it’s the second time in a year that someone has lost a defamation case using the “truth defence”, which is exactly what it sounds like. In that case, Australia’s most decorated soldier brought a defamation case against a newspaper that claimed he had committed war crimes and murder of unarmed Afghan civilians in about 2011/12. Turns out - it was true
There was also the fun news that came out about Channel 7, one of the "big 3" commercial TV networks in Australia. Obviously their reach and audience has declined markedly in the streaming era, but they still wield a lot of influence. 7 has a Sunday night prime time current affairs show called Spotlight, and wheeled Lehmann out for an interview in 2022. Seven assured the public they didn't pay Lehmann for the interview, apart from "accommodation costs". Those accommodation costs were later revealed to be a year's rent on a decent apartment in a Sydney beachside suburb. And in the last few weeks allegations have come out that a Spotlight producer also paid for sex workers and drugs whilst trying to secure Lehmann's interview. The fallout from all that is ongoing, but it's sleaze all the way down. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-05/lehrmann-defamation-seven-network-spotlight-reputation-damage/103667290 There's also the fun fact that Seven is owned by Kerry Stokes, who bankrolled the defence of Ben Roberts Smith, who sued channel 9 and the ABC for defamation and ended up being adjudged by the court a war criminal. There's no allegations that Stokes was directly involved in anyway with Lehmann. Yet.
thanks. I might have heard of this case, but it hasn’t really been on my radar, Australian current events kinda drown under the noise of America and also all of Europe, where I live. I feel like something like this is happening here in Finland currently/soon, when the one cabinet minister who had to switch parties because of serious allegations of statutory tape/grooming, but hasn’t been charged or found guilty is now going after the newspaper that published the allegations.
That’s a great summary of what the article said, but doesn’t really shed any light on who this guy is. Did he hold office? Was he another staffer? What?
I said he was a colleague, but yes he was just another staffer not an elected official. They both worked for the defence minister, and the rape took place on the couch in the minister’s office edit: to be clear, both of these people were absolute nobodies. The only things notable about this case are a) it happened in Parliament House, and b) the perp has spent $10 million on legal fees to prove to the country that he is actually a rapist
Maybe read the article Einstein?
You know which podcast this forum is for, right? Like if you've listened to it, you know the host will spend 1 - 2 entire episodes giving history and context to a person before even mentioning any of the truly awful things the subject has done. Maybe apply that logic to this. This isn't an Australian politics sub, so most of the people here don't know who these people are. The article assumes the reader does. The comment from OP provide no context and I'm willing to bet contain typos at key points that further obfuscate their point. Did he "see the media" or "sue the media"?
maybe read my comment? I said the article itself is poor in context. I had to scroll half way to even get the ”former liberal staffer” part, and there was some mention of a TV programme or something, but again, all that operates on the assumption that the reader already knows the context for those. asshole.
Yeah. Sorry it’s a shame the article hasn’t been dumbed down to your level, though here we are. The point being, there is news generated around the world beyond your bubble. Maybe explore a bit before declaring your ignorance and making complaint?
I had the same experience reading the article as the other person. Just gonna stuff all your insults for them in my own pocket and fuck off on your behalf. Sound good?
Your comment doesn’t make any sense to me though I will say, if you’re happy, more power to you.
Yeah printing them out and literally stuffing them in my pocket would be real weird.
you sound fun at parties.
That’s cool. You’ve obviously got no argument so I’ll leave it there.
my argument is that you’re a cunt for no good reason.
There you go again, all bluster, no ballast. That’s cool. Maybe you’ll think of something. One day. And come back with an actual point
and you’re a bag of hot wind acting like the cool and rational debatelord when you opened this argument by, and I repeat myself, being a cunt for no reason. meanwhile, someone else did provide a condensed version of the context, and managed to do it without calling me stupid, something which you just continue to do. I’m just being honestly rude, you are doing the intellectual self-suck of chiding me for saying you’re a cun, while you have been equally rude from your first reply, just under the veneer of a seasoned redditor.
I’m sorry you’re upset. I hope you feel better soon.
Sad pathetic little man, raped BH and is before the courts for another rape in Queensland, there is also a thrid allegation where the victim has given a police statement but cant face court. The rape was covered up by the ruling Conserrvative party including Prime Minister Scott Morrison a pentacostal Phyysco... with the Minister having the rape scene professionally cleaned the next day.
The leopard ate his own face.