(Better not say too much more. I see some commentators have been excluded by the moderators)
Quote moviebuff1 (229 ) 11:36 pm, Tue 29 Mar #93Another space cadet who thinks it's perfectly proper for citizens to have their privacy invaded by 'journalists' and that such citizens are obliged to co-operate with a one sided TV show that has a pre-determined agenda, not only having a pre-determined agenda but one at pains to avoid critical forensic evidence against a dead daddy that had a fiddling bent. ''Aw didums I got a phone call from my bank. They told me I was overdrawn," and so the idiot writes, apparently unaware that Mr Young wasn't overdrawn at the bank or in any other way, rather being a person discharging his civic duty in accordance with the law and under no obligation to a tv reporter seeking out sensationalism from the privacy of a citizens life.
This idiot moviebuff (probably better called moviegiantbutt) sees some ownership of others that doesn't exist, sees some power of the media over that of the Courts and due process, and was no doubt one of the sick hangbainers that crowed that Mr Young was a perjurer - well, she can suck it up along with Bryan Bruce and other miserable hangbainers, maybe they could take in a movie together, something intellectually challenging like The Muppets.
read this JRBG
ReplyDeleteAuckland businessman Vincent Siemer will have to pay Michael Stiassny $825,000 in damages - the country's highest ever defamation award - after his appeal failed.
Siemer was found guilty of defaming the Vector chairman in December 2008 on a website he set up specifically to criticise Stiassny
Yes, I remember that case. Mr Siemer I think used bill boards and public newspapers as well to make his defamatory statements. Proving that bill boards, message boards, publications and so forth fit the criteria as sites of public statement, as so might speech to an audience.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing here is that Trade Me and the hate-sites continue with the defamation and that might open a class action of sorts, where in fact the plaintiff names all severally and individually. I know TM want to remove themselves from the picture by enjoining the others, if that happened Mr Karam might simply sue them all arguing that it was a deliberate premeditated effort from which none of the defendants sought to distance themselves from, other than by dropping others 'in it.'
What a turn up that could become, with a jury perhaps fixing an amount overall, then specifically against the individual defendants, that could make nina, osook, Curran and OBrien feel rather sick, and not just in the head. But they do need the lesson that's coming
Saw Bruce last night on a rerun of the Kirsty Bentley case..had the audacity to proclaim the
ReplyDeletepolice should have opened their files for his perusal..who does this clown think he is..
after watching his take on Youngs evidence how can he claim any credibility..
then spent the rest of the program debating possibilities of the brother and father involvement..
totally disregarding the green commer van and the implications of it in the investigation..
how does this fool even attract air time.
He satisfies those that want to feel unease, those that think the wool is being pulled over their eyes or that somebody has got away with something - the type that will eagerly swallow anything that identifies a potential culprit by the way he or she looks or by what they did, or didn't say, even to the point of mistaking a simple murders/suicide case like that of Robin Bain.
ReplyDelete