He's the guy that went against a court order and named two women for clicks.
He's the guy that went against a court order and named two women for clicks.No Bas, when people are starting to quote Shane Dowling, it is all becoming very sad.
I had never heard of him before your earlier post, but after reading his posts, IMO it is worse than posting the Bolt report.
Yes god help us, when we have to quote people like that, to support our moral compass.He's the guy that went against a court order and named two women for clicks.
This is the problem with and for bloggers, they have to be able to prove their claims, when tested, that is the rule of law.I'm not rapt in lots of Shane Dowling reporting. But he is accurate about who who the alleged woman is and he called out Christian Porter earlier than other sources as far as I can see.
Let's remember that the documents sent to various reporters , ScoMo and the police have a wide circulation. The content is all the same.
At some stage, hopefully in a closed investigation, James Hooke will give on oath his memories of ongoing conversations with the young woman and with Christian Porter on the incident in the early 90's. This is the event that Porter has said never ever happened and that he never knew about until a few weeks ago.
Your post is contradictory.This is the problem with and for bloggers, they have to be able to prove their claims, when tested, that is the rule of law.
I can't see the whole article, but it does show people need to be careful what they write as fact, when it really is an opinion or educated guess.
It's o.k picking on captain underpants, no one cares, but picking on companies and or people who can afford to challenge your opinion, is a whole new ball game.
It will be interesting to see what Christian Porter does, if he is aquitted of the charges, his career will be in tatters and he may well turn as spiteful as some of the bloggers.
In a statement of claim, the company's lawyers alleged each of the eleven publications carried a number of defamatory imputations about Capilano, now known as Hive and Wellness Australia, and Dr McKee, including that they put the “lives of Australians at risk” by selling honey that is “full of antibiotics, toxins, .
Capilano Honey awarded $25,000 after spending $millions trying to silence journalist Shane Dowling for allegations they sold poisonous and toxic honey - Kangaroo Court of Australia
Capilano Honey Ltd, which is now known as Hive and Wellness Australia, has been awarded $25,000 by the NSW Supreme Court after spending $millions trying tokangaroocourtofaustralia.com
As is most things in life, Dowling is probably well aware of that and when running an opinion blog, it is one of the setbacks he no doubt faces.Your post is contradictory.
Dowling provided evidence for his claims, including using the words of the CEO of the company that sued him, yet has huge damages to pay.
The rule of law is mostly the rule of deepest pockets.
Dowling used factual information to make his points: they were not his opinions.As is most things in life, Dowling is probably well aware of that and when running an opinion blog, it is one of the setbacks he no doubt faces.
I'm sure he takes onboard his responsibilities.
And as I said it is one of the setbacks of posting on a public space, much the same as the Jeremy Cordeaux's situation.Dowling used factual information to make his points: they were not his opinions.
As he points out, the case against him had holes, but they did not affect the damages claim he now faces.
Even relying on proper material for posting anything does not preclude another party from claiming you have damaged their reputation. Porter's case is proof, as is Dowling's.
And as I said it is one of the setbacks of posting on a public space, much the same as the Jeremy Cordeaux's situation.
Where his employment was been "terminated" after Cordeaux called Ms Higgins "a silly little girl who got drunk".
The station may well have been sued for defamation, or it could well be sued for unfair dismissal, it is probably exposed to both outcomes.
He was employed to give an opinion, he gave his opinion, was she a "silly little girl, who got drunk" or not? From the security guards account, she definitely slept it off, on the couch in the office.
He was sacked for doing his job, which sometimes causes public backlash, is that just cause to sack him? As you say, it may well claim it has damaged his reputation.
I think they were wrong to sack him, they could distance themselves from the statement, but the statement wasn't incorrect.Cordeaux ran a talkback program.
If people didn't like what he said they could ring him up and say so.
His former employers were gutless to sack him.
Higgins is not "silly" and not "little". Nor is she a "girl". These are defamatory imputations.I think they were wrong to sack him, they could distance themselves from the statement, but the statement wasn't incorrect.
If she hadn't been drunk, one would think the alleged situation may not have happened, as in retrospect the lady appears very hurt, angry and embarrassed by the whole incident.
So in fact what the radio announcer said may have some accuracy to it, who knows it is all speculation, but the radio announcer is just another casualty of the media circus that is running the Country ATM.
His former employer will have been advised of the legal liability of Cordeaux's commentary and acted accordingly.Cordeaux ran a talkback program.
If people didn't like what he said they could ring him up and say so.
His former employers were gutless to sack him.
Higgins is not "silly" and not "little". Nor is she a "girl". These are defamatory imputations.
Getting drunk is not of itself an offence, but getting raped is a crime.
Rapists are often opportunists and don't necessarily rely on their victims to be drunk in order to rape them.
You are falling into the same trap of victim blaming as Cordeaux.
Furthermore, what Cordeaux said is not speculative. His remarks are on the public record and were broadcast to tens of thousands.
Your opinion that a media circus is running the country is very much at odds with that very same media that regularly defames people and recants.
His former employer will have been advised of the legal liability of Cordeaux's commentary and acted accordingly.
You seem to think that hosting a talkback program indemnifies Cordeaux from the law.
Your views are anachronistic and fail to acknowledge the defamatory nature of Cordeaux's commentary.No, I think they are just being PC.
The feminazis have frightened the cr@p out of anyone who dares criticise a woman for anything.
I don't think he actually implied BH wasn't raped, he was just asking questions about the case.
If the public can't explore issues in a democracy without being shut down, then freedom of speech is worthless.
Your views are anachronistic and fail to acknowledge the defamatory nature of Cordeaux's commentary.
This was not a case of the public exploring any particular issues. It was a plain and simple case of a public broadcaster making false comments about a person already in the media spotlight, adding an inference that being drunk leads to rape.
That is the crux of the whole matter, rapes as with most crimes, are mainly crimes of opportunity.Higgins is not "silly" and not "little". Nor is she a "girl". These are defamatory imputations.
Getting drunk is not of itself an offence, but getting raped is a crime.
Rapists are often opportunists and don't necessarily rely on their victims to be drunk in order to rape them.
You are falling into the same trap of victim blaming as Cordeaux.
Furthermore, what Cordeaux said is not speculative. His remarks are on the public record and were broadcast to tens of thousands.
Your opinion that a media circus is running the country is very much at odds with that very same media that regularly defames people and recants.
Rapes are mostly crimes of power, seeking best opportunity.That is the crux of the whole matter, rapes as with most crimes, are mainly crimes of opportunity.
It isn't a crime to leave the front door of your house open when you go to the shops, but it is a lack of taking reasonable responsibility to protect your property.
It isn't a crime to leave your keys in your car when not in attendance, but if it is stolen the insurance company can refuse to pay out, due to not taking adequate personal responsibility for the security of the vehicle.
With a lot of things in life, there is a requirement to apply good judgement and take personal responsibility to minimise risk, as I have repeatedly said there are a lot of people out there who are not nice and will take the opportunity when it presents.
Was she silly?, did she act immaturely?
Did she deserve to get raped? NO, did she take reasonable steps to avoid putting herself in danger? NO, should the rapist be put in jail if found guilty? YES.
You are falling into the trap which is common today, which is educating the next generation to take no personal responsibility for their actions and just find someone to blame when $hit happens.
There are nasty people out there, there always will be nasty people out there, taking no personal responsibility for your safety and relying on the fact it shouldn't happen to me isn't a plan.
Like I have already said , we see things differently.
We are discussing the radio announcers sacking, not the actual rape, the radio announcer said the girl was silly to get drunk to the point of being incompetent, that is IMO accurate.Rapes are mostly crimes of power, seeking best opportunity.
Of itself, it isn't a crime to be drunk.
And the idea that one would not not be safe in the highly secure areas of Parliament House where access was restricted defeats your sense that Higgins was not minimising risk. Higgins was also with people she knew and, apparently, trusted.
This is a matter with clear particulars and you are confusing it with general statements which are barely relevant.
Cordeaux made comments which were factually false.It's not defamatory to express an opinion.
Look it up.
The radio announcer made specific comments about Higgins which were not true, and made further inferences, including comments about rape.We are discussing the radio announcers sacking, not the actual rape, the radio announcer said the girl was silly to get drunk to the point of being incompetent, that is IMO accurate.
So sacking him, in effect, condones people behaving in an irresponsible manner.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?