Note the last sentence in this sketch.Plus staying silent is kinda giving the tacit impression she agrees with him....
I don't think it would have mattered. Peoples poor opinion of her wouldn't have suddenly flipped. And to be fair I don't think she cares what people think. Not worth her time or energy worrying about it.Worse than staying silent, she specifically refused to denounce his statement.
From this guy that said some pretty ordinary stuff about gay people. I can’t recall he apologized for those comments.
Has Gina distanced herself from Lang's bullshit? Or apologised? Has she made it clear the company she runs no longer supports Lang's thinking?
Thus I don't really like him.From this guy that said some pretty ordinary stuff about gay people. I can’t recall he apologized for those comments.
Optus could do with a good news story.Thus I don't really like him.
Who knows if he'd try to put his brand on a team with gay people if he had the money.
He certainly wouldn't be getting any kind of work currently from many sporting orgs around the country with his views.
When you aren't listed on the stock exchange like Hancock you don't need as much social license but maybe a company that aligns better will jump in with money especially given the publicity.
Funny, and true.Optus could do with a good news story.
Sounds like they accessed it themselves. They've not had their technology or access to it taken away, just asked not to do their own research.I wonder who provided this information to the juror?
Routine tidying unearths juror research that torpedoes Bruce Lehrmann rape trial
The jury in the rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann is discharged, without a verdict, after a juror accessed information that was not presented as evidence in court.www.abc.net.au
Given the heading of the document I would put money on a male with a bias.Sounds like they accessed it themselves. They've not had their technology or access to it taken away, just asked not to do their own research.
Given they have been unable to all agree, it sounds like someone was trying to either get a better perspective or influence someone else's.
Maybe, but this doesn't make the charges or a trial go away. Just shifts it. Given the jury were having trouble coming to a verdict, if this was intentionally left to be found, it could be just as likley a try for a more sympathetic jury next time round.What are the chances of someone finding it? Maybe a secret payoff deal in the toilets occurred.
The all centers around media and outside influence.Maybe, but this doesn't make the charges or a trial go away. Just shifts it. Given the jury were having trouble coming to a verdict, if this was intentionally left to be found, it could be just as likley a try for a more sympathetic jury next time round.
I always do ALL of them. Start at the top down to the end of MY preferences, then start at the bottom and work my way up.With 2 weeks until early voting starts for those of us in Vic, this is your friendly public-service announcement reminding you that we still have the dumbest upper-house voting laws in the country; where if you vote above the line the party you put at #1 gets to dictate how your preferences flow.
So make sure that whenever you vote, and whoever you vote for in the upper house, vote below the line putting in at least preferences 1-5 to make it valid. Preferences are important, don't give up yours willingly !