Just back from the Liebor blogs and its all solidThe old trick of saying that someobody else has to prove they have done nothing wrong without providing evidence that they have - backfired on Mr. Little.
unthinking defence of the angry little man and evidently
he was 'doing his job' or the libeled are just National Party.
And several are making claims that no libeling occurred...
I'm buying a large tub of popcorn
george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Just back from the Liebor blogs and its all solidThe old trick of saying that someobody else has to prove they have done nothing
unthinking defence of the angry little man and evidently
he was 'doing his job' or the libeled are just National Party.
And several are making claims that no libeling occurred...
I'm buying a large tub of popcorn
wrong without providing evidence that they have - backfired on Mr. Little.
A more experienced politician would not make that mistake unless it was under >privilege.
Defamation is notoriously difficult to prove but I would not take on the >Hagaman family!
Tony
On Sat, 21 May 2016 16:54:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dot nz>wrote:
george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Just back from the Liebor blogs and its all solidThe old trick of saying that someobody else has to prove they have done nothing
unthinking defence of the angry little man and evidently
he was 'doing his job' or the libeled are just National Party.
And several are making claims that no libeling occurred...
I'm buying a large tub of popcorn
wrong without providing evidence that they have - backfired on Mr. Little. >> A more experienced politician would not make that mistake unless it was under
privilege.
Defamation is notoriously difficult to prove but I would not take on the
Hagaman family!
Tony
Little is really a bit thick. Or he would have taken the opportunity to getout of the poo.
Can anyone remember that non entity who was going to sue John Key. Nopebecause it is history.
It is history because John key is wise.hatred.
If the case had gone to court Key would have won.
But election year and the media party would have wet themselves with Key
Winning wasn't worth the hassle.to pay keys cost.
Now let's look at little
Can little afford to go to court.
The state can't pay as according to comrade Rich it was wrong for the state
So it would also be wrong to pay little's. Then again labour have madehypocrisy an art form.
Labours caucus is already is disarray. Pissing of labours rising star is notgoing to help.
By the time the court case comes up. The chance of little still being thereis very remote.
On 22/05/2016 11:23 a.m., Liberty wrote:out of the poo.
On Sat, 21 May 2016 16:54:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dotwrote:
george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Just back from the Liebor blogs and its all solidThe old trick of saying that someobody else has to prove they have done nothing
unthinking defence of the angry little man and evidently
he was 'doing his job' or the libeled are just National Party.
And several are making claims that no libeling occurred...
I'm buying a large tub of popcorn
wrong without providing evidence that they have - backfired on Mr. Little. >>> A more experienced politician would not make that mistake unless it was under
privilege.
Defamation is notoriously difficult to prove but I would not take on the >>> Hagaman family!
Tony
Little is really a bit thick. Or he would have taken the opportunity to get
going to help.Can anyone remember that non entity who was going to sue John Key. Nope because it is history.
It is history because John key is wise.
If the case had gone to court Key would have won.
But election year and the media party would have wet themselves with Key hatred.
Winning wasn't worth the hassle.
Now let's look at little
Can little afford to go to court.
The state can't pay as according to comrade Rich it was wrong for the state to pay keys cost.
So it would also be wrong to pay little's. Then again labour have made hypocrisy an art form.
Labours caucus is already is disarray. Pissing of labours rising star is not
is very remote.By the time the court case comes up. The chance of little still being there
Labour do not have a rising star.
On 22/05/2016 11:23 a.m., Liberty wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2016 16:54:50 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net dotLabour do not have a rising star.
wrote:
george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
Just back from the Liebor blogs and its all solidThe old trick of saying that someobody else has to prove they have done
unthinking defence of the angry little man and evidently
he was 'doing his job' or the libeled are just National Party.
And several are making claims that no libeling occurred...
I'm buying a large tub of popcorn
nothing
wrong without providing evidence that they have - backfired on Mr.
Little.
A more experienced politician would not make that mistake unless it was
under
privilege.
Defamation is notoriously difficult to prove but I would not take on the >>> Hagaman family!
Tony
Little is really a bit thick. Or he would have taken the opportunity to
get out of the poo.
Can anyone remember that non entity who was going to sue John Key. Nope
because it is history.
It is history because John key is wise.
If the case had gone to court Key would have won.
But election year and the media party would have wet themselves with
Key hatred.
Winning wasn't worth the hassle.
Now let's look at little
Can little afford to go to court.
The state can't pay as according to comrade Rich it was wrong for the
state to pay keys cost.
So it would also be wrong to pay little's. Then again labour have made
hypocrisy an art form.
Labours caucus is already is disarray. Pissing of labours rising star is
not going to help.
By the time the court case comes up. The chance of little still being
there is very remote.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:54:55 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,676 |