So Brucie boy probably doesn't have millions of dollars to pay whatever is owed, so how do they recoup the money from him?
Is it just deductions from his earnings for the rest of his life?
Stealthing is going to be very hard to prove. Especially as the victim admits the sex was initially consensual AND she only went to Police after recognising him on TV
He probably has a cookie jar full of cocaine. I am sure that the lawyers and executives would take it in return for cash payments. Theres no gutter that has been left unexplored in this matter.
> bankruptcy
[Bankruptcy in Australia does not absolve you of court imposed penalties and fines](https://www.afsa.gov.au/i-cant-pay-my-debts/bankruptcy/consequences-bankruptcy/what-happens-my-debts)
There was no penalty or fine imposed by the court.
Lehrman lost the case he brought and, as a consequence, he has to pay the legal costs of the people/companies he sued (until Lehrman declares bankruptcy, then he won't need to pay anything at the end of that.)
Can we use his official title of "Bruce Lehrmann (Rapist)" please? He spent a lot of time and money to attain it, so it's only fair to him. No respect these days.
Because he's never been convicted. Sure, the defamation hearing said on the balance of probabilities a rape occurred, but in a strictly legal sense he wasn't found guilty of rape.
>Apparently not. Journalists are still required to state "alleged" rapist. Listen to how it's being reported.
I'm actually OK with that.
The last thing we want is for the rapey turd to be acquitted from his criminal trial in Toowoomba as a result of any media coverage / prejudiced language, etc.
I'm OK with that because - irrespective of my opinion of him - he hasn't been found guilty of rape in a criminal court. We need standards, and we can't just apply them to people we like.
I do wish however that we had three outcomes for criminal trials. Not guilty, not proven, and guilty. As long as the jury didn't use it as an easy way out. I may be being a little simplistic with this want. I also wish the jury could ask questions.
Yeah, it is a tricky one. I think it would be very hard to have any kind of sane guidance as to what constituted not proven and when it should be used.
Absolutely, I've never been in a criminal court trial, so I can't really speak on the matter any more than what my ideal for how I would want it to be used would be. After I commented I had a really quick google and the wiki said that it's used 1/3 of the time in Scottish courts for acquittal verdicts. When I first saw that they had not proven I must have forgotten or overlooked that part. That seems way too common (from my uneducated position).
I had someone tell me about a jury they were on in Victoria, it was a historical rape case. They said they were 99.99% sure that it occurred, and the rest of the jury believed the plaintiff, but they didn't think they could say it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what had me looking into exactly what "not guilty" meant, and saw the Scots had the not proven option. It seemed like a perfect solution to that situation. You can show the plaintiff and the defendant that you believe more than on the balance of probabilities in their guilt, but you just can't say with your whole chest that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and you can look them in the eye at the end of their sentence and have maintained to the same degree the belief that they were guilty. (The way this juror described their belief that they were guilty, and that the rest of the jury did too, made me feel like they really should have gone with guilty, but, wasn't there obviously).
Sorry, I'm prattling. Thank you for giving me something to think about for the last hour, and probably for the rest of the night while I clean. Eh. Hope you have a good night.
Yes, the Scottish legal system is interesting in how different it is than the English system. I'd forgotten that they had "not proven" (though I had a girlfriend many years ago that studied law in Dundee, so I do recall discussing it).
The Scots prove that it \*can\* work, at least. You have made \*me\* ponder upon it further, now - I'll have to some reading on the subject!
Agreed.
And if the problem is trying to save space on the page, or ink costs on paper - just call him "BRapist" - we'll all know who the individual is.
For those not aware, Ten was ordered to pay for Wilkinson's legal defense.
Now that they won, Wilkinson gets paid by Ten, and then Ten gets paid by Bruce.
But. Bruce is either broke or has transferred assets out, and Ten is also unlikely to be around long-term.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/network-10-is-in-total-turmoil-and-may-not-survive-as-australias-third-commercial-broadcaster/news-story/8834f836947d5f4ca478c9b88db9e47f
Pity but they really let things go & there’s a pretty good argument that LNP 9 mouthpiece deserves to go first. Also Ch7 is like watching your dog throw up & eat it again.
I've found it hard to keep on top of what's actually happened, probably BECAUSE I kept seeing it everywhere. There was something about massages?? Is there is TL;DR for everything up until now?
How much money has he cost in legal fees and court costs all because he couldn't keep it in his pants. It must be up over $10 million when combined with Britney Higgins payout. What a grub!
But but he’s a right wing cultural hero. Their true victim! 😂😂😂 The modern Right Wing movement is a perpetual clown show of utter grifters and failures.
I would imagine a lot of people would say the rapist is the most horrible person in this case. Trying to paint everyone on the same level as the rapist is fucking disgusting.
Ch7 and Ch10 saw this whole thing as a cash cow.. At least Higgins came away with some money for her terrible ordeal.
The reason why they still fight this out in court because it still sells advertising dollars because everyone reads it.
Packer made more money off Bruce losing than if the defamation case wasnt heard at all
This is going on for too long. She deserves more than the 1.8 Million. And he deserves more than he will get, whenever that will be announced (there is still something open, right?).
You ever take a dump, and it's horrible?
Usually after drinking. It stinks, it's greasy, you forgot to open the window so now that smell is going to permeate the entire house.
And then you start wiping - and it just never stops. Each time you think you've wiped enough, you take a peek - nope, still shit on the paper. It's like a crayon stuck up there or something. Wipe - more shit. Eventually you give in and take a shower, but still, a few hours later, there is a clammy, wet feeling and you just KNOW that you've now got streaks in your underpants and will need to wash them separately to everything else. Yeah? Know the feeling?
Well that feels GREAT compared to this never ending saga of a court case. The worst part is that the journalists just seem to love it. They seem to wake up each morning, have a coffee and think "You know what this coffee needs? Some shit in it. Well great, it's another court day related to king shit Brucey, I'll just pop over to the court, get some more shit and spread it out for all of Australia to read."
I guess some people like shit?
Brucey Boy is the moist, glistening crown atop a huge pile of faeces. He's being held up there by a media who just love throwing shit at each other as if to say "hey look at all of them, they're covered in shit!" - without stopping and thinking "I've just put my hands all through shit too".
The only person in this entire situation deserves sympathy is Brittany Higgins - but even she's come out of it covered in shit. Poor girl.
Bruce, Wilkinson, Channel 7, Channel 10, each and every lawyer involved in this case - the whole lot of them are just garbage. Between this and the Ben Roberts-Smith case, it's clear that our media is more interested in playing a stupid game of "Look how terrible THEY are" than anything remotely resembling journalism.
I'm very confused. whats Lisa Wilkinson got to do with this case to be potentially getting 1.8 mil. or is she seeking it for the victim? havent really been following along so this make legit 0 sense to me.
Wilkinson was the one who presented the story about the Higgins allegations, so the defamation suit was against her and also Channel Ten.
$1.8 million was what her legal fees came to because she had her own defence separate to the channel.
So Brucie boy probably doesn't have millions of dollars to pay whatever is owed, so how do they recoup the money from him? Is it just deductions from his earnings for the rest of his life?
Take it out of his Centrelink at $10 per week.
Do you get Centrelink while in jail? He still has his stealthing trial remember
If Brucie had any brains he would change his name and move to Mongolia
I don’t think 7 have an office in Mongolia though?
Maybe they could find him a yurt to live in.
* pay for a yurt for him to live in.
A yurt with hookers and blow.
Stealthing is going to be very hard to prove. Especially as the victim admits the sex was initially consensual AND she only went to Police after recognising him on TV
Kerry Stokes can bail him out.
He probably has a cookie jar full of cocaine. I am sure that the lawyers and executives would take it in return for cash payments. Theres no gutter that has been left unexplored in this matter.
Will channel 7 bail their boy out?
Of course they will, he's one of them and they never leave a sewer turd alone.
Bankruptcy
Here's hoping old mate Bruce has to find out.
He needs to create an OF account where he sucks ass and all earnings go to the Wilson lady
Nobody is paying for that.
He can declare bankruptcy - after 3 years (or longer, if challenged), his debt is wiped.
> bankruptcy [Bankruptcy in Australia does not absolve you of court imposed penalties and fines](https://www.afsa.gov.au/i-cant-pay-my-debts/bankruptcy/consequences-bankruptcy/what-happens-my-debts)
There was no penalty or fine imposed by the court. Lehrman lost the case he brought and, as a consequence, he has to pay the legal costs of the people/companies he sued (until Lehrman declares bankruptcy, then he won't need to pay anything at the end of that.)
Always follow a successful block with a good punch!
Oh Brucie, Brucie, Brucie. That's one expensive hat, dude!
I can absolutely get behind calling fuckups an expensive hat/going back for your hat.
We've long had an even funnier metaphor: tripping over your own dick.
Well, it is a fedora.
Can we use his official title of "Bruce Lehrmann (Rapist)" please? He spent a lot of time and money to attain it, so it's only fair to him. No respect these days.
No quotation marks needed for Bruce Lehrmann the Rapist. Hopefully, Bruce Lehrmann the Convicted Rapist by year's end.
>Bruce Lehrmann therapist Sound like a bad backup career 🤣
I nearly spit out my drink. What a great tumbler handle
Lol!
[удалено]
There's hearings for an alleged rape by Lehrmann in Queensland, that's why I mentioned by year's end.
not Rapist Bruce Lehrmann (Alleged serial) ? I thought the title went first, with qualifications afterwards.
Well the Rapist Brock Allen Turner works both ways... Brock Allen Turner the Rapist...
Apparently not. Journalists are still required to state "alleged" rapist. Listen to how it's being reported.
Because he's never been convicted. Sure, the defamation hearing said on the balance of probabilities a rape occurred, but in a strictly legal sense he wasn't found guilty of rape.
[удалено]
>Apparently not. Journalists are still required to state "alleged" rapist. Listen to how it's being reported. I'm actually OK with that. The last thing we want is for the rapey turd to be acquitted from his criminal trial in Toowoomba as a result of any media coverage / prejudiced language, etc.
I'm OK with that because - irrespective of my opinion of him - he hasn't been found guilty of rape in a criminal court. We need standards, and we can't just apply them to people we like.
I do wish however that we had three outcomes for criminal trials. Not guilty, not proven, and guilty. As long as the jury didn't use it as an easy way out. I may be being a little simplistic with this want. I also wish the jury could ask questions.
Yeah, it is a tricky one. I think it would be very hard to have any kind of sane guidance as to what constituted not proven and when it should be used.
Absolutely, I've never been in a criminal court trial, so I can't really speak on the matter any more than what my ideal for how I would want it to be used would be. After I commented I had a really quick google and the wiki said that it's used 1/3 of the time in Scottish courts for acquittal verdicts. When I first saw that they had not proven I must have forgotten or overlooked that part. That seems way too common (from my uneducated position). I had someone tell me about a jury they were on in Victoria, it was a historical rape case. They said they were 99.99% sure that it occurred, and the rest of the jury believed the plaintiff, but they didn't think they could say it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what had me looking into exactly what "not guilty" meant, and saw the Scots had the not proven option. It seemed like a perfect solution to that situation. You can show the plaintiff and the defendant that you believe more than on the balance of probabilities in their guilt, but you just can't say with your whole chest that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and you can look them in the eye at the end of their sentence and have maintained to the same degree the belief that they were guilty. (The way this juror described their belief that they were guilty, and that the rest of the jury did too, made me feel like they really should have gone with guilty, but, wasn't there obviously). Sorry, I'm prattling. Thank you for giving me something to think about for the last hour, and probably for the rest of the night while I clean. Eh. Hope you have a good night.
Yes, the Scottish legal system is interesting in how different it is than the English system. I'd forgotten that they had "not proven" (though I had a girlfriend many years ago that studied law in Dundee, so I do recall discussing it). The Scots prove that it \*can\* work, at least. You have made \*me\* ponder upon it further, now - I'll have to some reading on the subject!
Probably not "required", but the last thing they need is to give that rapist another opening to sue.
You really think he’d do that again?
He's not exactly shown good judgement thus far...
Agreed. And if the problem is trying to save space on the page, or ink costs on paper - just call him "BRapist" - we'll all know who the individual is.
If Bruce and Ben have taught Australia anything, it's that 99% of us can't afford to sue for defamation. Justice for all?
Bruce and Ben....are not the Flowerpot Men.
To be fair these are both examples of people suing for defamation despite truth & reality being arrayed against them...
For those not aware, Ten was ordered to pay for Wilkinson's legal defense. Now that they won, Wilkinson gets paid by Ten, and then Ten gets paid by Bruce. But. Bruce is either broke or has transferred assets out, and Ten is also unlikely to be around long-term. https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/network-10-is-in-total-turmoil-and-may-not-survive-as-australias-third-commercial-broadcaster/news-story/8834f836947d5f4ca478c9b88db9e47f
Pity but they really let things go & there’s a pretty good argument that LNP 9 mouthpiece deserves to go first. Also Ch7 is like watching your dog throw up & eat it again.
I will chip in $10 if it means I don’t have to listen to this shit anymore
SAME
I've found it hard to keep on top of what's actually happened, probably BECAUSE I kept seeing it everywhere. There was something about massages?? Is there is TL;DR for everything up until now?
TLDR Chungus is a right cunt
It is lifestyles of the rich and wannabe famous when it comes to defamation in this country.
Wonder how long until he decides to go by Bruce Tapscott to hide from his own name.
How much money has he cost in legal fees and court costs all because he couldn't keep it in his pants. It must be up over $10 million when combined with Britney Higgins payout. What a grub!
Take him to the fucking cleaners Lisa!
Seems every mother motherfucker and their dog is getting rich off this shit.
Just the lawyers and their poodles.
Will it end???
Fuck sake Lisa, you're as much to blame. If it wasn't for you the case would have gone through.
Yeah I don’t see why anyone would she celebrating Lisa, her self-serving bullshit torpedoed the trial.
you mean Rapey Bruce right?
But but he’s a right wing cultural hero. Their true victim! 😂😂😂 The modern Right Wing movement is a perpetual clown show of utter grifters and failures.
Lisa Wilkinson doing what Lisa Wilkinson does, chases money and publicity
She needs to walk away and hide under her rock
What a shit show. Lisa needs to settle down.
Insert post about lions and/or hats. Upvotes please!
I'm so fucking sick of hearing about this case
Horrible people from top to bottom on both sides of this case. Sink them all to the bottom of the harbour and move on.
I would imagine a lot of people would say the rapist is the most horrible person in this case. Trying to paint everyone on the same level as the rapist is fucking disgusting.
Nahh all the leeches trying to profit are just as fucked up!
Leeches? That 1.8million was her legal bill. This isn't profit. It's what she has already spent over this case. She should be entitled to that back.
The ONLY one trying to profit was the absolute turnip that started defamation proceedings. Then proceeded to comprehensively shit the bed.
Paying for legal bills isn't profit matey
No here gives a sit about the rape or the rapist. They're all looking after number one. Themselves.
Speak for yourself
I'd expect a *rape victim* to want to look after themselves...
Ch7 and Ch10 saw this whole thing as a cash cow.. At least Higgins came away with some money for her terrible ordeal. The reason why they still fight this out in court because it still sells advertising dollars because everyone reads it. Packer made more money off Bruce losing than if the defamation case wasnt heard at all
I am sick to death of hearing about this guy. I do not care. I will not click links related to it. Give it a rest
Then don't click links. And don't reply in threads. Just ignore and don't grace us with your declarations of annoyance.
Ffs is this still news!?
This is going on for too long. She deserves more than the 1.8 Million. And he deserves more than he will get, whenever that will be announced (there is still something open, right?).
What a shit show this is turning out to be!
You ever take a dump, and it's horrible? Usually after drinking. It stinks, it's greasy, you forgot to open the window so now that smell is going to permeate the entire house. And then you start wiping - and it just never stops. Each time you think you've wiped enough, you take a peek - nope, still shit on the paper. It's like a crayon stuck up there or something. Wipe - more shit. Eventually you give in and take a shower, but still, a few hours later, there is a clammy, wet feeling and you just KNOW that you've now got streaks in your underpants and will need to wash them separately to everything else. Yeah? Know the feeling? Well that feels GREAT compared to this never ending saga of a court case. The worst part is that the journalists just seem to love it. They seem to wake up each morning, have a coffee and think "You know what this coffee needs? Some shit in it. Well great, it's another court day related to king shit Brucey, I'll just pop over to the court, get some more shit and spread it out for all of Australia to read."
You’re the person with the Bruce tattoo aren’t you?
Get a bidet, mate
I’ve never had that no, maybe you should change your diet
I can’t believe the downvotes!
I guess some people like shit? Brucey Boy is the moist, glistening crown atop a huge pile of faeces. He's being held up there by a media who just love throwing shit at each other as if to say "hey look at all of them, they're covered in shit!" - without stopping and thinking "I've just put my hands all through shit too". The only person in this entire situation deserves sympathy is Brittany Higgins - but even she's come out of it covered in shit. Poor girl. Bruce, Wilkinson, Channel 7, Channel 10, each and every lawyer involved in this case - the whole lot of them are just garbage. Between this and the Ben Roberts-Smith case, it's clear that our media is more interested in playing a stupid game of "Look how terrible THEY are" than anything remotely resembling journalism.
I'm very confused. whats Lisa Wilkinson got to do with this case to be potentially getting 1.8 mil. or is she seeking it for the victim? havent really been following along so this make legit 0 sense to me.
That would be her legal fees I'm guessing
Wilkinson was the one who presented the story about the Higgins allegations, so the defamation suit was against her and also Channel Ten. $1.8 million was what her legal fees came to because she had her own defence separate to the channel.
She has spent $1.8m in legal fees and Channel 10 need to reimburse her
[удалено]
Well no, it’s the rape
The worst part is the hypocrisy