- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,641
- Reactions
- 24,530
I guess this doesn't qualify as corruption either? Blind Freddy could see this stank from the outset, I said at the time it will be a taxpayer funded single personnel camp for seasonal workers and guess what, it is. ?I never said ICAC was useless. It's concerned with corruption not propriety.
Unfortunately, knowing Blind Freddy quite well, I am aware that he is a rusted on labour voter, so don't expect any backup from him.I guess this doesn't qualify as corruption either? Blind Freddy could see this stank from the outset.
The $220m taxpayer-funded hotel ‘we will never own’
The state government will hand over keys to the Wellcamp facility this weekend, which will then turn into accommodation and entertainment precinct run by a wealthy family.
Wellcamp COVID quarantine facility contract will not be renewed by Queensland government
The 1000-bed quarantine facility cost taxpayers more than $220 million in set-up and running costs last year, but only about 730 people ever stayed there.www.abc.net.au
From what I've read on it, the company was paid to build it, on their land and now they get to keep it. Nice. ?
$220 million and they never owned it ?
I'm speechless !
So that's basically a $220 million donation to the Wagner's?From what I've read on it, the company was paid to build it, on their land and now they get to keep it. Nice. ?
Meanwhile the Federal Govt built a quarantine facility on the RAAF base near Brisbane airport.
I think Queensland has had an ICAC for quite a long time, lucky that the Libs aren't in, there would be hell to pay IMO.
So that's basically a $220 million donation to the Wagner's?
Nice as you say.
The annoying part is, there is every effort to assist companies to bring in overseas workers, meanwhile there is minimum effort to encourage Australian participation.So that's basically a $220 million donation to the Wagner's?
Nice as you say.
You could add universities to that list. Totally free uni courses are going too far, but now our Unis are at the mercy of foreign students and their governments and local students are at the bottom of the ladder.The annoying part is, there is every effort to assist companies to bring in overseas workers, meanwhile there is minimum effort to encourage Australian participation.
The State Govt's need to get back into providing employment opportunities, as was done historically, through public works departments, State housing commissions, State electricity commissions and their maintenance divisions.
The privatisation of these services has been a disaster, the same as globalisation and now with the energy sector and housing sectors in chaos, it is the perfect time to re start those public service sectors IMO.
It's a shame the media is so focused on high profile politically motivated issues, rather than grass roots issues, that affects all Australians.
I just wish Laurie Oakes was still around, he would be highlighting the obvious.
Another article on the issue and not an ICAC investigation in sight, the auditor general is looking into it.So that's basically a $220 million donation to the Wagner's?
Nice as you say.
Here we go, the ABC seems to be getting itself in trouble again.
The TV report and two online articles included allegations from a US marine that he indirectly witnessed Australian soldiers execute a hogtied prisoner in Afghanistan in 2012.
The ABC and two journalists - Mark Willacy and Josh Robertson - filed defences denying that the stories were about Mr Russell, despite him being named and his image being used.
This is now the fourth attempt at defending itself that the ABC has been forced to abandon during the David and Goliath trial.
In an amended defence, filed in the Federal Court on Friday, the ABC deleted the defences of 'truth and contextual truth' - instead relying on a public interest defence, which has never been properly trialled in an Australian court.
The judge struck out the entirety of the ABC's truth and contextual truth defence but gave them a chance to file a fourth version.
On Monday, the ABC filed its fourth attempt at a defence in this matter - which completely abandoned the majority of the defence first filed in October 2022 .
A defamation specialist, who does not want to be identified, told Daily Mail Australia 'the court will be able to sell tickets to the cross examination of the journalists at the trial'.
'How can they seriously suggest that they had a reasonable belief about that the publication of these allegations about Mr Russell were in the public interest when they have already said that the allegations were never about him and they are not seeking to prove them to be true?' the expert said.
'There is an air of unreality about this defence.'
Most of the media is like the woman's weekly, the only difference with the ABC they don't have the social media reality T.V content, and what reality T.V content they do have like insiders is so rigged it is nauseous.Journalistic standards are slipping at the ABC and have been for some time.
Ita needs to go, she's turned the ABC into a clone of Woman's Weekly.
The rot set in 30+ years ago.Here we go, the ABC seems to be getting itself in trouble again..'
I don't know why it's the ABC being sued.It sounds to me, as though the right for the media to run a narrative. is going be tested.
From the article:ABC uses new public interest defence in Lehrmann defamation suit
The national broadcaster says it did not defame Bruce Lehrmann by broadcasting Brittany Higgins’ National Press Club address.www.smh.com.au
The ABC will seek to rely in part on a new public interest defence to fight a defamation suit brought against it by former federal Liberal political staffer Bruce Lehrmann over a National Press Club address by Brittany Higgins.
In a defence filed in court and released publicly on Friday, the ABC denies it defamed Lehrmann. In the event the court finds it did so, it will seek to rely on a series of defences, including public interest and innocent dissemination.
In the event the court finds Lehrmann was identified and the defamatory meaning was conveyed, the ABC seeks to rely on a series of defences including a defence available for fair reports of proceedings of public concern.
It also pleads innocent dissemination, a defence available to secondary publishers in some cases.
But it also seeks to rely on the new public interest defence which started in July 2021 in NSW, where the trial will be held, and is now law in most Australian states and territories. It has yet to be tested in the context of a full trial in Australia.
That defence relates to publications concerning “an issue of public interest” where the defendant “reasonably believed that the publication of the matter was in the public interest”.
It says in its defence that “the ABC reasonably believed that the National Press Club proceedings and hence the matters complained of concerned issues of public interest”.
its simple really.I don't know why it's the ABC being sued.
They always broadcast the National Press Club live and therefore have no control over the content.
Lerhmann should be suing the people who made the comments not the ABC.
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?