Dr John Dee

Just wait till he's had time to cook the books (which he'll be able to do without an oven and just taking them outside for a few hours in the sun the way things are going).

Assuming he actually sent it to the minister, politicians get this sort of rubbish all the time (plenty of it crazier, more incoherent or pointless). Ley won't even see it. Some poor *#%%@^ in her office or the department will have to waste days researching and composing a polite and inconsequential reply. I presume it's mainly just for propaganda purposes. A bit late for that probably.

Probably even better than Biff's suggestion. Doesn't look grumpy or disillusioned, just completely bemused. Know the feeling.

Having eaten all EFC's records and Dank's receipts as well, it won't need feeding for a while.

A small exaggeration, I suppose. The last big ticket item to get bipartisan support (albeit with a few grumbles from the then opposition about cost) was the NDIS. It's possible, but the number of issues on which either side can see some sort of political advantage in opposing what the other wants to do is growing all the time. By the end of this government's term I suspect your view will be an accurate enough description. And on Aboriginal affairs, something which for a while anyway there was a broadly bipartisan approach, it's probably now too late. Like Daisy, I want to hope it's not.

Sorry, Bob, I cant help you either. Maybe you need to do one of those word association tests to work out how deeply that song has located itself in your psyche. Then again, maybe it would be better not to know.

Since there's nothing in that post that represents telling anyone what to do, I can only surmise that you're indulging in your usual habit of sniping ... or the other equally usual one of mistaking English for some other language. Either way, there's nothing that can be said to you that can't more usefully be addressed to a vacuum.

Terribly sorry I had to go to the local store and wasn't dancing attendance on any reply you might have deemed to required an immediate reply. I didn't realise either that any silence would be taken as an evasion of your debating points about the law you weren't debating about. So it goes. If your ego is so shallow that you need these little victories, give yourself a pat on the back. Pretty sure the case is otherwise. Demonland is not an ISP and since, as far as I know, it uses a service provided by a web host it's not an ICH either. The BSA exemption doesn't apply and that's why Demonland is moderated, whatever your objections to that might be. Don't like it? Start your own. Yes, I was using an outdated resource. Uniform defamation law changes little about the point at issue though. Defamation action won't only succeed if there's no truth to an imputation but, as you cite here but then ignore, only if the defendant can prove that it was true. Rumours (even rumours circulated by Hawthorn supporters as you refer to earlier or those posted on Facebook) have got a long way to go before they'd get anywhere near basing such a defence on. Never mind, though; since truth is what you want it to be, it's all open and shut for you isn't it? As long as you don't have to carry the can. I'm off to Queensland now. I hope that's alright by you, but I'm happy if my silence on any further point you wish to make in the debate you're not having is construed in whatever fashion you choose; and I hope it makes you feel just that little bit better about yourself for the rest of the day.

While doing exactly that. If that's what you think a judge would conclude it's probably a good thing you don't do defamation law for a living.

Bound for Glory might be waiting for a bit more proof of Hogan's abilities on the big stage. Shouldn't be long now.

And of course you've got all the proof you need. The only problem with that is it probably isn't quite what a judge or jury might need ... but never mind, go on demanding your right to relay rumour, innuendo and any other scuttlebutt that comes your way. In any case, I've already posted a link to a summary of Australian defamation law. It contains the following: "... truth alone is not a defence in all jurisdictions. In some, the defendant must also prove that the publication of a true statement or imputation was made for the 'public benefit' (Queensland, Tasmania, A.C.T.) or relates to a matter of 'public interest' (NSW)." Good luck with proving that material posted on an internet site isn't "published" in Qld, Tasmania, the ACT or NSW.

Tough, or just a bit crazy? I'm not sure. One of the neighbours likes to make his raincoats out of hessian sacks, tying them with barbed wire. I've got standards to aspire to.

Your Sir ship. Love it. There's a place for you as protocols officer at St James's Palace any time you want it OD.

And he insists it's to protect his reputation.

What report are you referring to? Any sense the rest of your post might make kind of depends on that point of reference.

What makes you think a precedent is required for prudent action? Fortunately businesses, government departments, websites and so on aren't being run by fools like you. Edit: And here, try this one - https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html It makes the point in passing, and contrary to your uninformed opinionation, that defamation action is largely the preserve of the rich and famous.

There's no point arguing with him 'Tack, he has no grasp of the difference between possibility and likelihood, and even less grasp of the concept of responsibility.

There's no need to try to press your advantage. I've already deferred to your superior ignorance. Perhaps you can just leave it at that and spare me further humiliation. Do you know the differences, by the way, between defamation law in Victoria and, say, the ACT? Choosing the hypothetical venue for displaying your actual stupidity matters, I think.

What coruscating wit. I'm undone. And the old 'my posts are bigger than your posts'. Haven't seen that sort of inadequacy for a while.

Nobody said you weren't. And I'm still allowed to point out that your 'all care no responsibility' attitude won't wash with those who actually have responsibilities. What's an ungrown adult, by the way? Edit"typo

Since you're not the one who'd face any action or its consequences, what you think is silly isn't particularly relevant.

Is it? People with expertise/experience in this sort of area pointed out early in the Clark saga that the usual recommendation was to confront the situation, not avoid it (especially when that situation was regarded as contributing to the depression in the first place). What seems to have made a few people suspicious is the appearance of anonymous 'medical advice' (from a psychologist, a psychiatrist, or just a GP?) about moving on from the 'situation' of the MFC (and what was the situation anyway and how is another football club any different?) Leaving aside the abuse of Clark by contributors here and elsewhere who wouldn't know depression if they fell over it, there's nothing that says someone can't be clinically depressed and a [censored] at the same time. Whether Clark is a demonstration of this I don't know and I don't care to speculate. But assertions from you about his condition, the supposed nature of medical advice he received and the purported 'common' position on handling depression don't hold any more sway here than any of the other posters claiming to know the 'true' story.

Aww, Bob, you're just no fun any more.

I thought things were a little more ... err, hands-on in Biffo's world. I was thinking rather about marketing potential for scopophiliacs.

Now there's a marketing opportunity.