Burnside
PROMINENT Queen’s Counsel Julian Burnside has issued an apology to Tony Abbott after tweeting “Paedos in speedos” during a stream of critical remarks about the Opposition Leader on Twitter.
Burnside says he wasn’t referring to Abbott.
Absolute bullshit Burnside – you were involved in a tweet conversation about the evils of Abbott!
However a left winger abusing a conservative politician with such vitriol is hardly newsworthy so all will be forgotten.
Facebook
Twitter
Burnside apologised for an accidental slur – Bolt has not apologised for a range of slurs that were intentional. That’s your measure of these men – right there.
“hardly newsworthy” so I guess that front page coverage on the Fart of the Nation was a figment of my imagination?
It wasn’t accidental.
Only Burnside knows that, whereas Bolt wrote his copy to be published on a blog and in a newspaper, so it’s reasonable to assume it was intentional.
In any case, one of the two has had the courage to apologise – one has not.
bullshit, he typed it and posted it. that is deliberate, explain EXACTLY how it could have been accidental.
I hate how Burnside tried to “cover-up” his deliberately offensive remark. People or organisations which “cover-up” horrible offences really can’t be trusted. Jesus christ. In the name of God, somebody have him prosecuted. :-)
And he claimed to be new to tweeting, too. Pull the other one, Burns – your tweets show you’ve been prolifically tweeting since at least Nov. 2010 – I couldn’t be bothered to check back further.
Accidental slur? please explain how that works, did he slip onto the keyboard and accidentally type Paedo and send it whilst concussed?
Let me spell it out for you in simple language, Harry, although it’s surprising that it’s necessary.
Burnside did not intend his remark to be spread all over the newspapers – Bolt did. The remark was intentional, but its broadcasting was accidental. It may or may not have been directed at Abbott – he wasn’t named.
Bolt, on the other hand, named a range of people, made up “facts” which were grossly inaccurate (he admitted that at the hearing) with the intention of publication.
The Australian put the Burnside story on the front page. You’ll remember the outrage on this blog about Riley’s “gotcha” in his interview with Abbott about casualities in Afghanistan. This is similar, (something “overheard” but I haven’t noticed outrage directed against the Oz.
Obviously, there are goodies and baddies. Kids stuff.
Burnside has no credit on this site. His entire career is based on a false premise – that the current wave of people who arrive by boat are genuine refugees when clearly they are not. Genuine refugees turn up at UN refugee camps emaciated, hungry, poor, frightened and WITH ID. Boat people pay thousands of dollars, bypass safe countries, threaten authorities, coord through Burnside’s, and others, boat people relocation organizations, destroy their ID, send juveniles out first to sucker us into accepting the adults later and often end up being accepted into the land of milk and honey (read government handouts) for all the wrong reasons and subsequently impact on our helping genuine refugees.
As to Bolt – I subscribe to this quote by Henry Thornton;
Full article
Kev
Burnside usually wins, and he’s got people offside because of this. He assisted the Maritime Union of Australia defeat Patrick Stevedores in the High Court. There are those who will never forgive him for this or for successfully claiming compensation for Bruce Trevorrow for damage as a member of the Stolen Generation – that same stolen generation that Bolt claims doesn’t exist.
Bolt makes a quid out of confecting outrage because it sells newspapers. He is often inaccurate, frequently offensive, and his journalism is second rate.
He was caught out – not for the first time. Note the difference between Henry Thornton’s quote, and the article that got Bolt in trouble. Thornton doesn’t name and smear individuals – Bolt does – that’s why he ends up in court.
Bolt is a joke – see – http://1735099.blogspot.com/2011/10/blot-in-meida.html
So, by your own admission (you admit he deliberately typed it and sent it), it was a deliberate slur, the only difference is that he did not intend his defamation to be viewed by the general public – he did send the defamatory comment during a discussion of Tony, so your normal gutless weaselling will, yet again, fail to get you out of it, it was about Tony.
Regardless of your position on Bolt (and we all know you are a loon on the subject), he had the courage of his convictions and stood by his remarks, Burnside intended to keep his defamation inside the club and when it got out he grovelled.
We all know you barrack for a side not a principle, so we don’t expect you to stand up for free speech when it is a conservative under immediate attack, nor for you to condemn defamation when it is a leftist doing the defaming.
“the only difference”
What rot. To follow that cockeyed logic, every overheard remark slagging off at a pollie at the pub is grounds for litigation. It’s been a quiet Sunday, but that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard today.
“the courage of his convictions and stood by his remarks”
Translation – He’s bankrolled by a Tory rag so thinks he’s above the law.
“to stand up for free speech”
There’s a vast difference between free speech and racial vilification.
“Burnside did not intend his remark to be spread all over the newspapers…”
Then he is a fool as well as a member of the dissolute left.
Sorry, tautology, I must take more care.
An overheard defamatory remark in a Pub IS grounds for litigation you fool. (of course, given how long Burnside has been tweeting the “oops I didn’t know it was loaded” argument doesn’t hold water.
Ah yes, the old “free speech is only speech that I approve of” argument. how very leftist of you.
The bloke is a QC….he should know better. He has amassed a fortune by pulling up others on their own slips. He did not say he did not mean it, he just said he did not mean to broadcast it, and then apologised for broadcasting it. Touted in today’s blogosphere as a potential chair of ABC – OMFG
I am an uneducated male in my sixties and even I can see that this slur is made in full spirits by a legal eagle who then makes a “Claytons” apology, knowing full well that by making light of it he will probably avoid litigation. He grabs a headline or two giving Tony the bird. He will get away with it. I don’t believe that Tony’s legal crew will give him any more to play with.
Isn’t 173etc Burnside’s blogging name?
I am pretty sure it is.
Might as well be!
Theirs a bit of whit takern in sarcasm I suppose.