The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Alan Austin does himself a disservice > Comments

Alan Austin does himself a disservice : Comments

By Calum Thwaites, published 5/9/2017

If Austin is keen to do a 'Media Watch' review of reporting on the QUT case, he would do well to refresh his memory of the ABC's and Fairfax media's coverage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
There was never even the slightest faintest smallest teeniest feeblest chance of litigation succeeding, Graham. The outcome when the Prior matter went to trial proved that.

In fact, every case that has ever gone to trial proved that. There has never been a successful claim for just being offended. Not ever.

The spate of $5000 shake-downs only started after the Bolt case in 2011 when The Australian began its tawdry campaign to convince the community that s18C was a threat to free speech. It wasn’t. It isn’t. It never will be.

Now please place a note at the end of Calum Thwaites’ piece advising that his accusation against the Fairfax organisation is patently false.

Thanks, Graham.
Posted by Alan Austin, Sunday, 17 September 2017 9:34:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan,

Here is another link from the ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-03/judge-denies-qut-admins-18c-racism-appeal/8324078

"Federal Court Justice John Dowsett dismissed Ms Prior's case in November on the grounds it did not have reasonable prospects of successfully bringing a racial hatred case. On Friday, Justice Dowsett denied her leave to appeal his decision. She is now facing having to pay costs of up to six figures to students Calum Thwaites, Jackson Powell and Alex Wood."

Alan,

You have yet to provide any evidence that Calum Thwaites’ points are incorrect. So far Calum has been far more honest than you.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 18 September 2017 1:35:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, SM.
Yes, I agree with that quote from the ABC absolutely. It is spot on!
That is exactly what I have been saying all along.
There was never the slightest chance that those students could possibly have been found guilty. None whatsoever!
They were absolutely NOT engaged in a long-term campaign of racial hatred against that poor woman.
So they were never vulnerable at any stage – despite the dire warnings of the Murdoch media that s18C was a threat to free speech. Bollocks!
Will be back tomorrow to tidy up the other issues, SM.
Meanwhile, see if you can find where that ridiculous quote came from about Cindy Prior who “lost her case and was ordered to pay the costs, estimated at $200,000 for the students’ lawyers”.
I’m guessing The Australian. That is bollocks also.
Nightcap time here.
Bon nuit, SM. A demain.
AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Monday, 18 September 2017 4:16:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan,

You agree with the ABC that CP is facing costs up to 6 figures i.e. $100 000, yet the $200 000 that the Australian estimated is Bollocks? You certainly lack consistency, especially when the legal fees for a barrister can be $1000/hr.

The Shakedowns using 18c also coincided with the reign of Jillian Triggs and Tim S, and their touting for complaints of offence. 18c is absolutely a threat to free speech as none of the shakedowns of the students or the many other complaints settled would be possible without the vague and subjective measure of "offend" and the huge cost of defending frivolous actions.

Calum Thwaites hit the nails on the head.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:58:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Alan, I've reread Calum's piece and suggest if you are so worried about the truth being ascertained that Independent Australia either correct or withdraw both your original piece and your response to Calum's piece as they are obviously both wrong on a number of issues, as demonstrated in Calum's piece and on this thread.

Anyone who reads the three pieces and these comments together will know that, and that is how we treat our readers - as adults who can make up their own minds. It is not up to me to mine every article for things that I disagree with, or worse, that you disagree with, and then annotate them.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 18 September 2017 9:52:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again SM,

On the matter of costs, we already have the judgment from Judge Jarrett that Ms Prior must pay $4000 to one of the respondents and $10,780 to another two. We are awaiting the decision on the fourth respondent – one of the students.

The total will be well short of $100,000, but nowhere near $200,000. So, yes, that is absolute bollocks.

The Australian simply concocts what it wants its ignorant readers to believe.

The shakedowns began in 2012 after The Australian commenced its tawdry campaign to falsify the outcome of the Eatock v Bolt judgment – which it has done quite successfully.

The outcome in court of the Prior matter shows overwhelmingly that there is no problem whatsoever with s18C. No-one has ever been disadvantaged by the correct application of that section.

Plenty of people have been disadvantaged by being sucked in to believing that it allows compensation just for being offended. It doesn’t. It never did. It never will. The campaign by The Australian to convince you it is bad law is the cause of these shakedowns – and of all the distress to all parties in the sad and sorry saga of Cindy and the students.

Don’t let them suck you in, SM.

Cheers,
AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Monday, 18 September 2017 8:16:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy