Simon Bridges bad week, month , year

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Simon Bridges bad week, month , year

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 37

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110599 18-Oct-2018 17:32

MikeB4:

Unless I am missing something the text messages teh JLR has published prove very little and don't show in my opinion illegal activity, I concede I am likely wrong with that regard.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107937996/jamilee-ross-releases-text-message-exchange-with-national-partys-greg-hamilton

Well we would both be apparently, since what I see is the opposite. I see the National Party trying to get information to ensure they comply. I am unsure that JLR isn't entirely delusional.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2110608 18-Oct-2018 18:03

networkn:

MikeB4:

Unless I am missing something the text messages teh JLR has published prove very little and don't show in my opinion illegal activity, I concede I am likely wrong with that regard.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107937996/jamilee-ross-releases-text-message-exchange-with-national-partys-greg-hamilton

Well we would both be apparently, since what I see is the opposite. I see the National Party trying to get information to ensure they comply. I am unsure that JLR isn't entirely delusional.

Yep. If that's all he's got, then he never had much WRT campaign finance breach.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#2110616 18-Oct-2018 18:42

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144795

Another interesting read. Perhaps there is an indication that the hierarchy were aware but didn't want to act. Similar to the Waihi Young labour Party???

gzt

18672 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#2110622 18-Oct-2018 19:15

gulfa:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144795

Another interesting read. Perhaps there is an indication that the hierarchy were aware but didn't want to act. Similar to the Waihi Young labour Party???

Original newsroom article:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/17/281200/jami-lee-ross-four-women-speak-out
Horrible.

Bluntj

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 284

#2110653 18-Oct-2018 20:09

gulfa:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144795

Another interesting read. Perhaps there is an indication that the hierarchy were aware but didn't want to act. Similar to the Waihi Young labour Party???

Wasnt he basically put on leave for his conduct?

gzt

18672 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#2110654 18-Oct-2018 20:15

As I recall Ross took leave for an EMBARRASSING ahem private medical condition as Bridges put it at the time. On the other hand this story is difficult to follow for sure..

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2110655 18-Oct-2018 20:17

gulfa:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12144795

Another interesting read. Perhaps there is an indication that the hierarchy were aware but didn't want to act. Similar to the Waihi Young labour Party???

Perhaps not similar to the Waihi incident - as that was alleged sexual assault as opposed to allegations of abusing power to gain consent - and being a dickhead - which isn't a crime.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2110660 18-Oct-2018 20:20

wsnz:

He has made a perfectly valid decision based on the circumstances, one which many other lawyers could also make. Litigation serves no purpose at this point.

This is where you are completely wrong. I can name you no lawyer who has been so publically assailed by statements that, if false, are more plainly defamatory. And I am personally aware of, and have acted, for lawyers who have sued (or at a minimum threatened to sue) for far less. The idea that many lawyers would make a similar call as SB is laughable based on my professional experience.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110676 18-Oct-2018 20:49

What would Simon Bridges or National get out of Litigation at this point? Seriously? It would simply give JLR more attention. The evidence more or less speaks for itself. Other than the expense to confirm which is pretty much already known. Your average Kiwi isn't going to give a rats backside that the threat of legal action made JLR retract his statement or even in the best case scenario SB wins and gets some money or JLR is forced to make his retraction. Instead they would resent the cost (probably to the taxpayer at some point). It would simply drag this whole horrible situation on even longer.

Just because every lawyer you know would litigate this, doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid option to not bother. I'd suggest if you polled 100 kiwis randomly from the street they would mostly feel the same way.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2110688 18-Oct-2018 21:22

networkn:

Instead they would resent the cost (probably to the taxpayer at some point

What cost would the taxpayer bear? JLR would not be eligible for legal aid; court sitting fees are paid by the plaintiff and if they win, they will (generally speaking) be entitled to recover those costs from the losing party. Networkn, do the world a favour and stop ranting about things on which you know nothing. And no, shouting in CAPS (as is your tendency) won't make your argument any more convincing.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110691 18-Oct-2018 21:37

Speaking of things that people don't know about. My comments/observations weren't a "rant" and CAPS can also be used for emphasis. An entire sentence written in caps *may* (See there are actually mulitple ways to do it!) be considered shouting. A single word, emphasis.

Would Simon Bridges not have his legal fees covered by the taxpayer? He was "defamed" in his capacity as leader of the National Party.

Who paid the legal fees when Winston Peters decided to try and sue everyone in the National Party over his leak?

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2110696 18-Oct-2018 21:45

networkn:

Would Simon Bridges not have his legal fees covered by the taxpayer? He was "defamed" in his capacity as leader of the National Party.

Who paid the legal fees when Winston Peters decided to try and sue everyone in the National Party over his leak?

No, SB wouldn't be eligible to have his lawyers' fees paid for by the taxpayer. Again, you're just aimlessly sputtering away over things on which you know nothing about. Winston Peters would have had to pay his own fees also. They both sued and could only sue in their personal capacities.

Handle9

11923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9674

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110698 18-Oct-2018 21:51

IANAL but the principles are pretty simple. Peters has an extensive record of suing people for defamation and he has paid for that privately. Equally he would keep any recovery.

The defense of someone acting as a minister of the crown can be paid for by taxpayers but if they are being sued as individuals then it is generally not recoverable.

Eg If I personally called an individual a thief and a liar they could sue me personally. If the government department I headed called someone a fraudster then that the department would be liable and then the crown would pay costs.

IMO Lee-Ross called Simon Bridges personally corrupt therefore any action is between them personally. It's got nothing do with the Crown and the Crown doesn't have liability.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110699 18-Oct-2018 21:52

dejadeadnz:

networkn:

Would Simon Bridges not have his legal fees covered by the taxpayer? He was "defamed" in his capacity as leader of the National Party.

Who paid the legal fees when Winston Peters decided to try and sue everyone in the National Party over his leak?

No, SB wouldn't be eligible to have his lawyers' fees paid for by the taxpayer. Again, you're just aimlessly sputtering away over things on which you know nothing about. Winston Peters would have had to pay his own fees also. They both sued and could only sue in their personal capacities.

Really?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/106098842/government-will-pay-legal-fees-of-mps-in-winston-peters-super

If the Government was prepared to step in and pay for the legal defence of these MP's, then I don't think it's unreasonable that your average non lawyer would assume that SB may have his legal fees contributed to as well.

They aren't the exact same situation, granted, however most lay people wouldn't neccessarily understand why MP's might be defended in one situation and not in this one.

wsnz

654 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 204

#2110702 18-Oct-2018 21:55

dejadeadnz:

wsnz:

He has made a perfectly valid decision based on the circumstances, one which many other lawyers could also make. Litigation serves no purpose at this point.

This is where you are completely wrong. I can name you no lawyer who has been so publically assailed by statements that, if false, are more plainly defamatory. And I am personally aware of, and have acted, for lawyers who have sued (or at a minimum threatened to sue) for far less. The idea that many lawyers would make a similar call as SB is laughable based on my professional experience.

None of what you have stipulated above invalidates the statement I have made. You state "I can name you no lawyer..." which does not logically conclude that no examples exist in the history of NZ of a lawyer making a decision to not to sue under similar circumstances. You are not aware of any, that's fair enough, but you cannot extrapolate that as evidence that my statement is incorrect.

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 37