Parliament House sexual assault and harassment allegations

[David]

[watt price tully]

^ Porter’s a goner no matter which way the legal manoeuvres and actions go: he has little authority and he’s damaged goods. It’s quite untenable that he continues to serve as the Australia’s Attorney General.

[Pies4shaw]

^ I think the "advantage" of a defamation proceeding from the perspective of a Cabinet Minister who might not wish to be asked broader-ranging questions about his past conduct is that, if it is well pleaded, the issues that are relevant in a legal sense can be confined. I haven't yet seen this pleading but the reporting suggests that the allegations focus on the "balance" of the reporting, rather than the mere fact of the reporting. It will certainly be interesting to see how this case is put - it must, one thinks, proceed by going straight to the periphery, since the essence of the initial ABC reportage appears to be self-evidently true.

[5 from the wing on debut]

It's also interesting in that one of the complaints about the ABC recently is that it has been reporting some of the facts, more in the way of cheerleaders, rather than reporting all of the facts in a balanced way. That seems to be what Porter is alleging - that he was defamed as the facts in relation to an argument that he is a rapist were reported, but the facts that counter that were not. The ABC will without doubt attempt to ensure that the actual issue of whether or not he is a rapist will be a live issue.

It seems to me that both parties would prefer that this matter not be determined at trial.

[Tannin]

^ I think the "advantage" of a defamation proceeding from the perspective of a Cabinet Minister who might not wish to be asked broader-ranging questions about his past conduct is that, if it is well pleaded, the issues that are relevant in a legal sense can be confined.

Sure, if and when the case ever goes ahead. But I doubt that is the objective: the real purpose is to shut down debate and kill it off as a public issue for a year or more. Something else will come along to get it off the front pages soon enough - at least that is their reasoning. It's all about short-term survival.

Watch for a big, smelly dead cat on the table in a week or two. Scummo will announce some big, controversial policy, having no intention of ever actually doing anything about it, and the goldfish-memory media will forget all about this stinking mess. Works every time.

[5 from the wing on debut]

Constantly issuing proceedings without a proper basis worked for over a decade for Lance Armstrong. He didn't have and didn't need a dead cat, and would have got away with it, had he not pissed off the wrong ex Mennonite.

[eddiesmith]

[stui magpie]

[eddiesmith]

Yep and they're not denying them either, just Lindsay Fox using Neil Mitchell to say it wasn't his house.

[What'sinaname]

^ Porter’s a goner no matter which way the legal manoeuvres and actions go: he has little authority and he’s damaged goods. It’s quite untenable that he continues to serve as the Australia’s Attorney General.

Really? I guess we use the same logic and delist DeGoey now. He's damaged goods too.

[David]

I don't know where I stand on the question of whether Porter should be sacked, but it's fair to say that there's a big difference between playing for a football team and being the nation's highest law officer.

[Tannin]

Yep: if you play for a football team you get stood down on suspicion. If you are a cabinet minister, you get the full support of the Prime Minister even when you are caught red-handed with your fingers in the till.

[watt price tully]

^ Porter’s a goner no matter which way the legal manoeuvres and actions go: he has little authority and he’s damaged goods. It’s quite untenable that he continues to serve as the Australia’s Attorney General.

Really? I guess we use the same logic and delist DeGoey now. He's damaged goods too.

You’re comparing the top legal officer in Australia to an AFL footballer. That’s very funny

[5 from the wing on debut]

[5 from the wing on debut]

It's also interesting in that one of the complaints about the ABC recently is that it has been reporting some of the facts, more in the way of cheerleaders, rather than reporting all of the facts in a balanced way. That seems to be what Porter is alleging - that he was defamed as the facts in relation to an argument that he is a rapist were reported, but the facts that counter that were not. The ABC will without doubt attempt to ensure that the actual issue of whether or not he is a rapist will be a live issue.

It seems to me that both parties would prefer that this matter not be determined at trial.

Upon reading the latest about the case it appears that I was wrong.

It looks as if Porter is arguing that the imputation of the story is that he is a violent rapist and he is therefore challenging the ABC and the reporter to establish a truth defence, knowing that they cannot.

From the outside, it appears that if the court accepts Porter's argument, the damages awarded will be enormous. He is the highest legal officer in the country, a public figure, is relatively young and his reputation and career have all but been destroyed.

I assume that Porter will be arguing that the defendants did not act reasonably in the way that they published the story. That is, that it was a political hatchet job rather than a balanced report. The omission of relevant facts from the story, which the defendants are said to have been in possession of, will not be easy for them to explain.

The reporter had better hope that she will be indemnified by the ABC as to both legal costs and any damages award or her financial future will be quite bleak.