Australia - you're standing in it
Brittany may be the first witness up this afternoon for the defence-
Brittany Higgins could be in the witness box this afternoon at the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial as I recall they previously said she would be the first witness for the defence #auspol pic.twitter.com/1k6msR0RMf
— Kangaroo Court of Australia - Shane Dowling (@Kangaroo_Court) November 28, 2023
This explains some of his living costs. Not legal costs though. I can’t believe why anyone would be benefited by finding him innocent therefore stumping up big legal costs.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/live/2023/nov/28/bruce-lehrmann-live-ne…
Up - with 4 mins to go until close..?
12,700 Viewing - Interested to see Tmoro Mornings Numbers
Brittany is back. Does Bruce know the words to Jailbreak- ACDC?
Brittany Body Language very Confident almost Cocky....Thats soon to Change .
She is a Seasoned Drinker..A Dozen Spirits based Drinks would Knock me around at 25 Kgs plus more Body Weight than Her
all players involved are pretty horrible people...just the personality needed to be a small player in govt offices is off.
I was obliterated....
Fuggin gd memory being in that State luv
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.
I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
You said it before RK, just the personalities needed to be a small player in govt offices = I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are = delusions of grandeur
What are the standards for allowing entry to what should be the most secure building? Being"obliterated" and not being able to pass through a metal detector should raise some red flags. Or is that a regular thing for the Canberra bubble?
I've just deleted two comments, one apiece from Hiccups and Roadkill. Please think twice...hell, even try three or four times, before you comment again in this thread.
Roadkill wrote:
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.
I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
Defence?
Lehrmann is suing Lisa Wilkinson and Network 10, not Brittany.
Roadkill wrote:
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.
I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
If you think someone in this situation would only cry as a defence, and not from trauma, then I don't think that you are very nice person at all.
seeds wrote:
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
Defence?
Lehrmann is suing Lisa Wilkinson and Network 10, not Brittany.
You don't think it's all tied in? credibility is on the line for future action if it happens. This is just another piece of the puzzle with many people looking inside the bowl.
Hiccups wrote:
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
If you think someone in this situation would only cry as a defence, and not from trauma, then I don't think that you are very nice person at all.
Hey, nice edit
Roadkill wrote:
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
If you think someone in this situation would only cry as a defence, and not from trauma, then I don't think that you are very nice person at all.
Hey, nice edit
It wasn't an edit, and unless Stu deleted it for legal reasons because I did not say alleged, I can't see what was wrong with it.
Hiccups wrote:
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
If you think someone in this situation would only cry as a defence, and not from trauma, then I don't think that you are very nice person at all.
Hey, nice edit
It wasn't an edit, and unless Stu deleted it for legal reasons, I can't see what was wrong with it.
you were factually wrong. you posted something that was 100% incorrect and based off what you believe not what is fact.
Roadkill wrote:
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
If you think someone in this situation would only cry as a defence, and not from trauma, then I don't think that you are very nice person at all.
Hey, nice edit
It wasn't an edit, and unless Stu deleted it for legal reasons, I can't see what was wrong with it.
you were factually wrong. you posted something that was 100% incorrect and based off what you believe not what is fact.
There's a tiny chance that one part of my comment was incorrect, and an enormous chance that the other part was right on the money.
Considering both the subject matter and the legalities surrounding it, can I ask that, while this case is covered, people comment more generally and try to keep their emotions out of it?
Hiccups wrote:
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
If you think someone in this situation would only cry as a defence, and not from trauma, then I don't think that you are very nice person at all.
Hey, nice edit
It wasn't an edit, and unless Stu deleted it for legal reasons, I can't see what was wrong with it.
you were factually wrong. you posted something that was 100% incorrect and based off what you believe not what is fact.
There's a tiny chance that one part of my comment was incorrect, and an enormous chance that the other part was right on the money.
"There's a tiny chance that one part of my comment was incorrect"
Rubbish, you were 100% wrong. At least be man enough to own it.
Roadkill wrote:
the game is to get her to say things and confirm things then in the future she contradicts herself...and it will happen. She will cry a lot as a defence.I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are.
If you think someone in this situation would only cry as a defence, and not from trauma, then I don't think that you are very nice person at all.
Hey, nice edit
It wasn't an edit, and unless Stu deleted it for legal reasons, I can't see what was wrong with it.
you were factually wrong. you posted something that was 100% incorrect and based off what you believe not what is fact.
There's a tiny chance that one part of my comment was incorrect, and an enormous chance that the other part was right on the money.
"There's a tiny chance that one part of my comment was incorrect"
Rubbish, you were 100% wrong. At least be man enough to own it.
Out of respect to Stu, I'll refrain from anymore discourse with you, and leave you to your MRA activities.
https://www.thejuicemedia.com/5478-2/#
This should have everyone a little concerned regardless of your political persuasions.
suchas wrote:
What are the standards for allowing entry to what should be the most secure building? Being"obliterated" and not being able to pass through a metal detector should raise some red flags. Or is that a regular thing for the Canberra bubble?
the standards probably are there... in a fashion...
she didn't look too obliterated on the parliment house entrance video
the one they didn't want you to see...
having said that, the revelation today is ol' brucey had a secret stash at the house
I just want to commend a brave Brittany Higgins for speaking her truth in court. Much kudos to her.
seaslug wrote:
You said it before RK, just the personalities needed to be a small player in govt offices = I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are = delusions of grandeur
totally
a bunch of mids at best...
being manipulated by bigwigs and the worst of forces on both sides
the whole thing is so political, there can be no justice...
unless lisa wikinson goes down
that's the only potenial ' justice' i can see
sypkan wrote:
What are the standards for allowing entry to what should be the most secure building? Being"obliterated" and not being able to pass through a metal detector should raise some red flags. Or is that a regular thing for the Canberra bubble?the standards probably are there... in a fashion...
she didn't look too obliterated on the parliment house entrance video
the one they didn't want you to see...
Someone has to literally be falling over to be really drunk do they? I can tell you now, from my 20 years experience of working in bars, playing music in bars, and getting fucked up in bars, you absolutely do not. It's so disingenuous to say so too, unless you've lived a very sheltered life, or are trolling.
sypkan wrote:
You said it before RK, just the personalities needed to be a small player in govt offices = I don't think either of them are as smart as they think they are = delusions of grandeurtotally
a bunch of mids at best...
being manipulated by bigwigs and the worst of forces on both sides
the whole thing is so political, there can be no justice...
unless lisa wikinson goes down
that's the only potenial ' justice' i can see
Given the number of lies ol’ Brucey has told I don’t think it’ll be Lisa who wears the face egg.
GuySmiley wrote:
I just want to commend a brave Brittany Higgins for speaking her truth in court. Much kudos to her.
+1. Very courageous under what were always going to be distressing circumstances.
Check the link that I posted and you’ll realise Bruce and Brittany is really just a distraction. For the media that is.
'her truth'
I don't think you even realise what you did there...
but it is funny
sypkan wrote:
'her truth'
I don't think you even realise what you did there...
but it is funny
"Her truth" is a bogus saying, but works when getting around having your comment deleted.
sypkan wrote:
What are the standards for allowing entry to what should be the most secure building? Being"obliterated" and not being able to pass through a metal detector should raise some red flags. Or is that a regular thing for the Canberra bubble?the standards probably are there... in a fashion...
she didn't look too obliterated on the parliment house entrance video
the one they didn't want you to see...
having said that, the revelation today is ol' brucey had a secret stash at the house
Security has just been mentioned in recent evidence given. Their inaction I would include in questionable standards.
brucey's cooked either way
that's a given
the liberal cokeheads revelations are funny
many know, but ya just don't go there...
time for another friendly jordies vid me thinks
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.