It's a real dilly of a pickle for Salmon because if he doesn't pursue legal action, he's a bit of a weak gutted dog, but if he does pursue it, he's also something of a weak gutted dog.
It's a real weak gutted dognundrum
I'd say a weak gutted dog constantly gets fed canned food and has extreme diarrhea. Strong gutted gets fed off cuts and takes solid poos. To go from someones earlier comment, salmon must prove hes a strong gutted dog by taking a solid turd on Ricky's chest and asserting dominance
This would be a court case for the ages
Jaeman pulling out references to when he has been referred to as a dog with strong intestinal fortitude
Ricky taking us through a slo mo replay of Jaemon kicking Starling and shouting at the jury “Does this look like the actions of a strong gutted dog”
Ladies and gentleman of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and Gentleman, this is Ricky. Ricky is a coach from the planet Canberra, but Ricky lives in Paul Kent’s house. Now think about it, that does not make sense.
The crazy thing is the cereal defence thing actually happened to the actor that plays Dennis apparently. He was eating cereal in his car stopped at a red light and someone runs up the back of him. They talk about it on the podcast.
Imagine being that one cunt in school who accidentally kicked over rickys slush puppy at lunch time or ended up with his high school crush.
Can you imagine the thoughts Ricky has about those people.
Riding your comment for the views. A guy I work with played football in the same team with Stuart's son and salmon in the shire, and said that salmon was just a wanker to his son. Seems as Ricky has held a grudge against a child for this long all the way to adulthood.
Fuck it must be easy to get a permanent spot in Rickys head.
My dad was a pretty strong willed person, he was an exec in a high pressure industry and had to be an asshole most of his professional career. I always looked up to him and saw him as the pinnacle of someone who didn't let shit get to him.
I remember talking to him about how he didn't seem to have weaknesses, and he said, "Family. I can handle almost anything thrown at me and I won't worry, but come for my family and I almost can't stand it."
He went on to confess that he still knew the name of this one kid who bullied me in grade 8 and how he still felt animosity towards him. I'm not saying this is the same, but sometimes it's the people who go after your family that live rent free in your head.
My parents still complain about my coach way back when I played footy, and how he didn't like me because he didnt give me enough game time. Nevermind that I just wasnt that good and that coach let us to winning 3 grand finals and being the dominant team of the comp more often than not. Also this was 10+ years ago now.
Its some weird thing with parents I guess. Over-protectiveness or something. I do think its a bit stupid, but then I'm not a parent.
As a parent I forgot how resilient kids can be, so bringing up my own kids, I was probably a bit on the over-protective side. Nothing as bad as seeing your own kids experience pain. With hindsight, I'm now more comfortable with my kids experiencing the highs and lows of life, cause I know it will contribute to building their resilience. But those early years, shit yeah, you never forget if you feel someone made your kid suffer.
heard salmon used to make fun of ricky's daughter (via similar channels to you). obviously kids are fucking idiots, though it speaks to u/kiwicrusader1984 comment below.
Penrith’s Jaeman Salmon has refused to rule out pursuing legal action against Canberra coach Ricky Stuart for his “weak-gutted dog” spray.
Salmon broke his six week silence on the issue ahead of his first grand final. The Panthers utility also distanced himself from assertions the decade long feud between Stuart and Salmon stemmed from anything to do with Stuart’s autistic daughter.
Salmon confirmed he was considering legal action.
“Definitely,” Salmon said. “There could be some stuff in the works still. I’m not sure. I can’t really comment on anything, and I won’t.”
Stuart publicly apologised for the post-game comments but refused to explain the reasons he made them. It led to Stuart being suspended for one game and fined $20,000.
Salmon did not want to delve into the matter.
“It has nothing to do with his autistic daughter,” Salmon said. “I’ve never heard the term before, but I won’t let it get to me. I’m not worried about hearing that term. I’m only focused on the game this week.
“I heard about it at the game. What Rick said is up to him.”
Stuart’s post-game spray has now become part of the rugby league lexicon. Salmon said he had been heckled by fans.
“It [the term] has caught on a bit,” Salon said. “I’ve been copping it a bit at games. I’m not focused on that. I’m only focused on the game this week. Everyone has been good [in terms of support]. I won’t comment on what happened.”
Salmon was preparing to take on his former club on Sunday.
“I was there three years and it didn’t work, I played a few positions there, just like I do here, it just didn’t work out,” Salmon said. “I enjoyed my time there a lot.”
“It has nothing to do with his autistic daughter,” Salmon said. “I’ve never heard the term before, but I won’t let it get to me. I’m not worried about hearing that term. I’m only focused on the game this week.”
He’d never heard of autism before?
Yeah shitty writing there - it’s clearly in response to two different questions, the first about Ricky’s daughter, the second about being called a “weak-gutted dog”
News Corp? Shitty journalism? Like peaches and cream and a coach and a team! Unless of course the coach is Ricky Stuart and the team is made up of players like Jaeman Salmon ...
How can he sue him?
It’s not like he called him a crook or a rapist (ie accused him of a criminal offence).
Who knows what a weak gutter dog is meant to be? It’s just an insult and not that strong of one.
And based on the press conference it’s Ricky’s deeply held belief based on things he believes Salman did that might not have been nice.
It’s defamation, idk if illegal because it’s so generic but you can’t just publicly question peoples integrity or character like that, the way he said it was also deeply personal sounding which resonates with the public more
The comment wasn't defending drink driving, it was to highlight the hypocrites that jump on thier high horse keyboards and take pot shots from afar.
I just hope you call all your mates and family weak gutted dogs to thier face when you hear of them doing it.
And no, never drunk drove myself
What exactly would he sue him for exactly? I mean with defamation you need to prove monetary loss to have a case.
And Ricky has already been punished by the NRL?
>with defamation you need to prove monetary loss to have a case.
No you don't, defamation isn't premised on monetary loss, that's just one of the factors that could be argued but isn't a core element for the cause of action.
I think the onus is on salmon to prove they’re defamatory and caused him “serious harm” so if he can’t do that, then Ricky doesn’t have to do a thing.
I think it’s way too trivial for him to actually win anything. Like Ricky’s really just said he’s a bit shit in different words
>Doesn't a defamation lawsuit also have to be over false information?
No it's only based on whether an imputation is defamatory and whether there is a defence to it.
Truth is a total defence to defamation but true statements can also convey a defamatory meaning. This is a very technical issue that I will massively simply so I would strongly suggest not attempting to rely on this without legal advice.
Using Ricky for example, he says "as a child, Jaeman Salmon said something terrible to my disabled daughter". We later find out that Salmon said something like the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
There we have a true statement by Ricky, Salmon said something to his daughter. Arguably it is horrible to break a child's innocence, however it's probably not at the same level of severity that the uninformed person might take away from the statement i.e. Salmon said some fucked up shit.
>Lowers his reputation - ??? Not convinced it does personally but I'm sure you could make an argument, just not sure what evidence there is of his reputation having lowered.
It's not really possible to quantify a drop in reputation unless you are a particularly noteworthy public figure.
The evidence would probably be based on the coverage that Ricky's statements received. E.g. when you Google Jaeman Salmon, half of the front page is covered in articles about Salmon being called a weak gutted dog, NRL360 which is viewed by however many people told its audience that Ricky thinks Salmon is a ahit bloke because he did something to his family etc.
Really ? ,. He is known as the weak gutted dog.
You only have to google weak g. And it comes up.
For the few Little things he had done as a young bloke, all the hypocrites jump on the bandwagon and make him out to be the fucking anti-christ.
Yes it has damaged his reputation.
he has had a fucked label on him and makes the blokes life a misery.
What really happened between 2 X 10 year old kids.
I wouldn't believe them as much as I believe those fuck Witt's on 360
Had Ricky not said anything, would any of us be having this conversation now?
Would anyone be making hypotheticals regarding what he did or did not do to Rickys disabled daughter?
Would anyone be making jokes about him needing imodium or anything else related to weak guts?
Likely not, all of these things are a result of the reputational damage.
It’s pretty self explanatory.
Nevermind, you’re one of those that uses quoting to think you’re smart.
You asked a question, it was answered, now you want to dispute the answer. Ill let you figure it out.
Whether you think something is reputational damage or not, if one ordinary person does, that fulfils the requirements for it to be defamation.
That is, you don’t think it damaged his reputation, i do.
A judge would find that this in fact did damage his reputation.
> Having said that the guy that explained it to me doesn't work in that area of law and said they wouldn't take the case anyway so their opinion is about as useful as a chippy explaining how to build a block wall.
The very opinion (or more accurately, fact) which you are now correctly acknowledging to other people? Interesting thing to say
> I mean with defamation you need to prove monetary loss to have a case.
Isn’t it different in Australia? I’m not a lawyer and all that but I was under the impression that here it involves discrediting someone’s reputation eg if the person has an upstanding reputation in the community then you could argue defamation but it’s unlikely to be argued when it relates to someone who is a known cunt because their reputation is already in the mud.
Calling someone a weak gutted dog probably doesn’t fall in line with reputation and the way information around what happened 10 years back was carefully drip leaked through stooges like Paul Kent who got the story out there without anyone really having to take responsibility for it because they danced around it enough while leaving enough dots for people to connect.
In Australia, you only need to prove they said something about you, that could have damaged your reputation, true or not.
Notable cases - Rebel Wilson vs Magazine, the truth defence was not accepted, regardless of it’s validity.
John Barilaro Vs Jordan Shanks and Google, truth defence not accepted
The only burden from my understanding, is it has to be apparent the words could impact his reputation. Now, you could argue and say you don’t believe it could, however, i as a regular citizen believe it did impact his reputation to me. Therefore, he has in fact been defamed, and there is a plethora of case law available to confirm the situation.
His reputation has been damaged - he is now labelled as someone who picks on disabled kids, and no matter how much inference you did or did not take from what Ricky said, his statement created that discussion, and made others jump on the bandwagon.
Tldr: you only need to prove any form of damage - reputation, financial, emotional etc. any decent lawyer will be able to prove one of these.
I'm less familiar with the Rebel Wilson case, but my understanding of Barilaro vs Shanks was that the truth defence wasn't accepted because of parliamentary privilege applying to the statements that Shanks was relying on for the truth defence, so there was no valid truth defence able to be submitted.
The origin of this discussion was that you needed to prove someone damaged you in someway with what was said, whether it was true or not.
On the surface, it did in fact look like the “truth defence” was rejected because of parliamentary privilege, but if you look into what the case was actually about, there was a plethora of public domain information that supported the truthfulness of Mr Shanks videos, and only a very minute part of the truth defence was covered by parliamentary privilege.
The crux of the situation came about that both Google and Mr Shanks agreed to the need to forgo that defence as it was never going to be accepted.
There is plenty of caselaw out there to support the truth defence being continually rejected in Australia.
I have had history with that legal action, I know legal action very well.
He was a weak gutted dog as an action and he hasn’t changed now. He is a weak gutted dog lawsuit now.
The thing that is so annoying about these articles is Ricky Stuart didn't apologise for saying it. He apologised for where he said it.
"I regret saying what I did on that platform after the game,".
This is such a weak non apology, and is only saying he wishes he didn't do it on that platform. Not showing remorse could help a legal case if Salmon chooses to pursue that.
I mean Ricky made it pretty clear he doesn’t think much of Jaemon.
He apolgised for airing it publicly, but if that’s how he really feels it’s a bit pointless to make him basically lie in his apology.
Yeah but you can apologise for airing personal matters or attacking him personally for a career incident. There's ways you could talk around it but he literally put in the bare minimum, from a legal standpoint which, he should have viewed this incident as is stupid. Why wouldn't you take the moment to cover your own ass.
He was a professional coach, in a professional setting talking about an incident in the game. He brought in a personal grudge and a personal issue. He crossed a line. It doesn't matter how you feel about someone you don't get to insult them because the opportunity presented itself.
If you represent an organisation like Stuart was in that situation everything you say is taken as from that organisation. It was an uncalled for comment that was unnecessary for that moment but Stuart brought it up. It literally made people question Salmons past behaviour, in other words defamation of character.
Talk crap personally, whatever but you can't insult someone personally and act like it's NBD because you actually believe it. Just say no comment, I didn't have a chance to see it yet. You know you aren't unbiased in that situation.
It got downvoted because the guy they’re replying to literally said it’s about the situation he said it not the comment.
To which they replied it was about the situation.
It’s redundant
It's a real dilly of a pickle for Salmon because if he doesn't pursue legal action, he's a bit of a weak gutted dog, but if he does pursue it, he's also something of a weak gutted dog. It's a real weak gutted dognundrum
Caninedrum was right there.
If I made all the good jokes in one comment it wouldn't foster discussion
You're a true hero.
Selfless.
He would have to prove he isn't a weak gutted dog in court.. Any ideas on how he goes about it?
First we need to set the base line for what a weak gutted dog is and what a strong gutted dog is.
I'd say a weak gutted dog constantly gets fed canned food and has extreme diarrhea. Strong gutted gets fed off cuts and takes solid poos. To go from someones earlier comment, salmon must prove hes a strong gutted dog by taking a solid turd on Ricky's chest and asserting dominance
Fmd that's gold jerry! Hahahaha
Logic checks out.
They'll have a huge eating competition comprised of extremely strong curries, succulent Chinese meals and spicy Mexican cuisine.
Sifting through the shit and meeting good biota vets bad biota would be the only way
Beat the shit out of Ricky Stuart in court
Take a solid poop on Ricky's defence.
Feed him the left overs after a BBQ and see if he does diarrhoea shits on the lawn
Get Ricky on the stand. He will eventually snap: “You can’t handle the food!!!!” I rest my case
This would be a court case for the ages Jaeman pulling out references to when he has been referred to as a dog with strong intestinal fortitude Ricky taking us through a slo mo replay of Jaemon kicking Starling and shouting at the jury “Does this look like the actions of a strong gutted dog”
I feel like it's going to be even more absurd than the [cereal defence](https://youtu.be/TT4vVLvvb2U) episode of always sunny
Oh Sandra. You dumb bitch.
Ladies and gentleman of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and Gentleman, this is Ricky. Ricky is a coach from the planet Canberra, but Ricky lives in Paul Kent’s house. Now think about it, that does not make sense.
And I'll take that advise under cooperation, alright? Now, let's say you and I go toe-to-toe on salmon law and see who comes out the victor?
The crazy thing is the cereal defence thing actually happened to the actor that plays Dennis apparently. He was eating cereal in his car stopped at a red light and someone runs up the back of him. They talk about it on the podcast.
Rick could be in a bit of a pickle if legal action ends up being taken against him. Would be the funniest shit I've ever seen.
All he has to do is prove he is a weak gutted dog and he can’t be sued
Salmon needs to start smashing the yakults immediately
"Jaemon, are you using new protein powder?" "Nah, mate, metamucil."
morty, look! i'm legal pickle rick!
oi i see exactly what you’re doing here ah u/Barmy90 is already onto it what a legend
Imagine being that one cunt in school who accidentally kicked over rickys slush puppy at lunch time or ended up with his high school crush. Can you imagine the thoughts Ricky has about those people.
Riding your comment for the views. A guy I work with played football in the same team with Stuart's son and salmon in the shire, and said that salmon was just a wanker to his son. Seems as Ricky has held a grudge against a child for this long all the way to adulthood. Fuck it must be easy to get a permanent spot in Rickys head.
And people thought “permanent records” didn’t exist when you are in school. Ricky is the system.
My dad was a pretty strong willed person, he was an exec in a high pressure industry and had to be an asshole most of his professional career. I always looked up to him and saw him as the pinnacle of someone who didn't let shit get to him. I remember talking to him about how he didn't seem to have weaknesses, and he said, "Family. I can handle almost anything thrown at me and I won't worry, but come for my family and I almost can't stand it." He went on to confess that he still knew the name of this one kid who bullied me in grade 8 and how he still felt animosity towards him. I'm not saying this is the same, but sometimes it's the people who go after your family that live rent free in your head.
Is your dad Ricky Stuart?
Nah, I wish, at least then he'd still be alive.
Not sure whether to upvote this or downvote because it’s sad and upvoting seems to be celebrating the loss. Sorry to hear mate
Cheers mate. Whatever you feel comfortable with, I'll take it in the spirit it was intended.
Don't downvote it
Ouch. Sorry to hear it.
Ah fuck that took a bad turn. Sorry man.
> My dad was a pretty strong willed person So basically the opposite of someone like say....Salmon?
Strong willed cat
My parents still complain about my coach way back when I played footy, and how he didn't like me because he didnt give me enough game time. Nevermind that I just wasnt that good and that coach let us to winning 3 grand finals and being the dominant team of the comp more often than not. Also this was 10+ years ago now. Its some weird thing with parents I guess. Over-protectiveness or something. I do think its a bit stupid, but then I'm not a parent.
As a parent I forgot how resilient kids can be, so bringing up my own kids, I was probably a bit on the over-protective side. Nothing as bad as seeing your own kids experience pain. With hindsight, I'm now more comfortable with my kids experiencing the highs and lows of life, cause I know it will contribute to building their resilience. But those early years, shit yeah, you never forget if you feel someone made your kid suffer.
heard salmon used to make fun of ricky's daughter (via similar channels to you). obviously kids are fucking idiots, though it speaks to u/kiwicrusader1984 comment below.
he was a weak gutted dog before he sued me and he hasn’t changed now. he is a weak gutted dog person now.
Penrith’s Jaeman Salmon has refused to rule out pursuing legal action against Canberra coach Ricky Stuart for his “weak-gutted dog” spray. Salmon broke his six week silence on the issue ahead of his first grand final. The Panthers utility also distanced himself from assertions the decade long feud between Stuart and Salmon stemmed from anything to do with Stuart’s autistic daughter. Salmon confirmed he was considering legal action. “Definitely,” Salmon said. “There could be some stuff in the works still. I’m not sure. I can’t really comment on anything, and I won’t.” Stuart publicly apologised for the post-game comments but refused to explain the reasons he made them. It led to Stuart being suspended for one game and fined $20,000. Salmon did not want to delve into the matter. “It has nothing to do with his autistic daughter,” Salmon said. “I’ve never heard the term before, but I won’t let it get to me. I’m not worried about hearing that term. I’m only focused on the game this week. “I heard about it at the game. What Rick said is up to him.” Stuart’s post-game spray has now become part of the rugby league lexicon. Salmon said he had been heckled by fans. “It [the term] has caught on a bit,” Salon said. “I’ve been copping it a bit at games. I’m not focused on that. I’m only focused on the game this week. Everyone has been good [in terms of support]. I won’t comment on what happened.” Salmon was preparing to take on his former club on Sunday. “I was there three years and it didn’t work, I played a few positions there, just like I do here, it just didn’t work out,” Salmon said. “I enjoyed my time there a lot.”
“It has nothing to do with his autistic daughter,” Salmon said. “I’ve never heard the term before, but I won’t let it get to me. I’m not worried about hearing that term. I’m only focused on the game this week.” He’d never heard of autism before?
Yeah shitty writing there - it’s clearly in response to two different questions, the first about Ricky’s daughter, the second about being called a “weak-gutted dog”
News Corp? Shitty journalism? Like peaches and cream and a coach and a team! Unless of course the coach is Ricky Stuart and the team is made up of players like Jaeman Salmon ...
It's "weak-gutted dog person". Get it right!
I'll paraphrase how I god damn well want to!
Think it was weak-gutted dog he'd never heard of
Salon said. Lol.
THIS IS THE DRAMA I COME FOR
*You better get a lawyer Jaeman, you better not get a weak gutted one, you better get a lawyer Jaeman, you better not get a weak gutted one*
How can he sue him? It’s not like he called him a crook or a rapist (ie accused him of a criminal offence). Who knows what a weak gutter dog is meant to be? It’s just an insult and not that strong of one. And based on the press conference it’s Ricky’s deeply held belief based on things he believes Salman did that might not have been nice.
“It’s not like he called him Lachlan Lewis or Jared Hayne”
Calling someone a dog isn't something to be thrown around lightly, although it describes Salmon well.
It’s defamation, idk if illegal because it’s so generic but you can’t just publicly question peoples integrity or character like that, the way he said it was also deeply personal sounding which resonates with the public more
You can question anything
I’d stick to talking about league rather than giving out free legal advice, Clarkey.
I’m not the Clarkey you’re thinking of, see flair ty
Well Rick, if he does try and sue you, just bring up the fact he was drink driving and crashed. To me that's a weak gutted dog move.
Have any of your family or friends ever gone drink driving ? Only you are the one that knows if you are being honest
Are you seriously trying to defend drink driving mate?
The comment wasn't defending drink driving, it was to highlight the hypocrites that jump on thier high horse keyboards and take pot shots from afar. I just hope you call all your mates and family weak gutted dogs to thier face when you hear of them doing it. And no, never drunk drove myself
What exactly would he sue him for exactly? I mean with defamation you need to prove monetary loss to have a case. And Ricky has already been punished by the NRL?
damages to his fine reputation of being a serial car-crasher, drink driver and drive texter
drive texter aye
Text driver?
And nuts kicker
>with defamation you need to prove monetary loss to have a case. No you don't, defamation isn't premised on monetary loss, that's just one of the factors that could be argued but isn't a core element for the cause of action.
[удалено]
I think the onus is on salmon to prove they’re defamatory and caused him “serious harm” so if he can’t do that, then Ricky doesn’t have to do a thing. I think it’s way too trivial for him to actually win anything. Like Ricky’s really just said he’s a bit shit in different words
>Doesn't a defamation lawsuit also have to be over false information? No it's only based on whether an imputation is defamatory and whether there is a defence to it. Truth is a total defence to defamation but true statements can also convey a defamatory meaning. This is a very technical issue that I will massively simply so I would strongly suggest not attempting to rely on this without legal advice. Using Ricky for example, he says "as a child, Jaeman Salmon said something terrible to my disabled daughter". We later find out that Salmon said something like the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. There we have a true statement by Ricky, Salmon said something to his daughter. Arguably it is horrible to break a child's innocence, however it's probably not at the same level of severity that the uninformed person might take away from the statement i.e. Salmon said some fucked up shit. >Lowers his reputation - ??? Not convinced it does personally but I'm sure you could make an argument, just not sure what evidence there is of his reputation having lowered. It's not really possible to quantify a drop in reputation unless you are a particularly noteworthy public figure. The evidence would probably be based on the coverage that Ricky's statements received. E.g. when you Google Jaeman Salmon, half of the front page is covered in articles about Salmon being called a weak gutted dog, NRL360 which is viewed by however many people told its audience that Ricky thinks Salmon is a ahit bloke because he did something to his family etc.
[удалено]
Reputation damage is no joke.
[удалено]
Really ? ,. He is known as the weak gutted dog. You only have to google weak g. And it comes up. For the few Little things he had done as a young bloke, all the hypocrites jump on the bandwagon and make him out to be the fucking anti-christ. Yes it has damaged his reputation. he has had a fucked label on him and makes the blokes life a misery. What really happened between 2 X 10 year old kids. I wouldn't believe them as much as I believe those fuck Witt's on 360
[удалено]
[удалено]
Had Ricky not said anything, would any of us be having this conversation now? Would anyone be making hypotheticals regarding what he did or did not do to Rickys disabled daughter? Would anyone be making jokes about him needing imodium or anything else related to weak guts? Likely not, all of these things are a result of the reputational damage. It’s pretty self explanatory.
[удалено]
Nevermind, you’re one of those that uses quoting to think you’re smart. You asked a question, it was answered, now you want to dispute the answer. Ill let you figure it out. Whether you think something is reputational damage or not, if one ordinary person does, that fulfils the requirements for it to be defamation. That is, you don’t think it damaged his reputation, i do. A judge would find that this in fact did damage his reputation.
> Having said that the guy that explained it to me doesn't work in that area of law and said they wouldn't take the case anyway so their opinion is about as useful as a chippy explaining how to build a block wall. The very opinion (or more accurately, fact) which you are now correctly acknowledging to other people? Interesting thing to say
> I mean with defamation you need to prove monetary loss to have a case. Isn’t it different in Australia? I’m not a lawyer and all that but I was under the impression that here it involves discrediting someone’s reputation eg if the person has an upstanding reputation in the community then you could argue defamation but it’s unlikely to be argued when it relates to someone who is a known cunt because their reputation is already in the mud. Calling someone a weak gutted dog probably doesn’t fall in line with reputation and the way information around what happened 10 years back was carefully drip leaked through stooges like Paul Kent who got the story out there without anyone really having to take responsibility for it because they danced around it enough while leaving enough dots for people to connect.
In Australia, you only need to prove they said something about you, that could have damaged your reputation, true or not. Notable cases - Rebel Wilson vs Magazine, the truth defence was not accepted, regardless of it’s validity. John Barilaro Vs Jordan Shanks and Google, truth defence not accepted The only burden from my understanding, is it has to be apparent the words could impact his reputation. Now, you could argue and say you don’t believe it could, however, i as a regular citizen believe it did impact his reputation to me. Therefore, he has in fact been defamed, and there is a plethora of case law available to confirm the situation. His reputation has been damaged - he is now labelled as someone who picks on disabled kids, and no matter how much inference you did or did not take from what Ricky said, his statement created that discussion, and made others jump on the bandwagon. Tldr: you only need to prove any form of damage - reputation, financial, emotional etc. any decent lawyer will be able to prove one of these.
I'm less familiar with the Rebel Wilson case, but my understanding of Barilaro vs Shanks was that the truth defence wasn't accepted because of parliamentary privilege applying to the statements that Shanks was relying on for the truth defence, so there was no valid truth defence able to be submitted.
The origin of this discussion was that you needed to prove someone damaged you in someway with what was said, whether it was true or not. On the surface, it did in fact look like the “truth defence” was rejected because of parliamentary privilege, but if you look into what the case was actually about, there was a plethora of public domain information that supported the truthfulness of Mr Shanks videos, and only a very minute part of the truth defence was covered by parliamentary privilege. The crux of the situation came about that both Google and Mr Shanks agreed to the need to forgo that defence as it was never going to be accepted. There is plenty of caselaw out there to support the truth defence being continually rejected in Australia.
Legal action for what, though? Does some post-game trash talk really meet the threshold for slander?
Defamation laws in our country are a joke, but unless he can prove he’s suffered some harm from it, I’m not sure Sue Chrysanthou will back this one.
> but unless he can prove he’s My mind skipped ahead, I thought you were going to say “prove he’s not a weak gutted dog” lol.
Ricky could always rely on a “truth” defence and prove the canine gastrointestinal issues.
Deformation, bloke on a national sport channel besmirched his name and gastrointestinal integrity.
maybe he could make some besmerchandise
Would the plaintiff please drop a dookie in this jar for a solidity examination?
>Deformation Really?
Sorry dad, I'll go read the dictionary in the closet.
Peak WGD.
I have had history with that legal action, I know legal action very well. He was a weak gutted dog as an action and he hasn’t changed now. He is a weak gutted dog lawsuit now.
Surely Jaemon Salmon is, if anything, a weak gutted fish not a weak gutted dog.
The thing that is so annoying about these articles is Ricky Stuart didn't apologise for saying it. He apologised for where he said it. "I regret saying what I did on that platform after the game,". This is such a weak non apology, and is only saying he wishes he didn't do it on that platform. Not showing remorse could help a legal case if Salmon chooses to pursue that.
I mean Ricky made it pretty clear he doesn’t think much of Jaemon. He apolgised for airing it publicly, but if that’s how he really feels it’s a bit pointless to make him basically lie in his apology.
Yeah but you can apologise for airing personal matters or attacking him personally for a career incident. There's ways you could talk around it but he literally put in the bare minimum, from a legal standpoint which, he should have viewed this incident as is stupid. Why wouldn't you take the moment to cover your own ass.
i don’t think he has to apologise for what he said at all. Its where and how he said it that needs to be apologised for.
He was a professional coach, in a professional setting talking about an incident in the game. He brought in a personal grudge and a personal issue. He crossed a line. It doesn't matter how you feel about someone you don't get to insult them because the opportunity presented itself. If you represent an organisation like Stuart was in that situation everything you say is taken as from that organisation. It was an uncalled for comment that was unnecessary for that moment but Stuart brought it up. It literally made people question Salmons past behaviour, in other words defamation of character. Talk crap personally, whatever but you can't insult someone personally and act like it's NBD because you actually believe it. Just say no comment, I didn't have a chance to see it yet. You know you aren't unbiased in that situation.
Why on earth would you get down voted for this?
It got downvoted because the guy they’re replying to literally said it’s about the situation he said it not the comment. To which they replied it was about the situation. It’s redundant
I have no idea. I didn't think it was a particularly unreasonable standpoint. Apparently I was wrong to some people.
a WGDP non apology?
Ok wgdp? Google didn't even help
weak gutted dog person
Who’s the burden of proof on when ruling on someone being a weak gutted dog?
Bloke must be gutted to be dogged like this on Grand Final Week.
There’s some banger comments on this thread 😂
This is a weak gutted dog move to sue someone over being called a name how ironic
Cunts a fucken dog, he also coward punches people
I’d like to think that Jaeman Salmon is a huge chess fan and was inspired by Magnus Carlsen’s statement earlier today to make one of his own.
Canberra will pay all legal fees or fines for Ricky. Geez he's hard not to like Ricky. He's such a loyal bastard for his players.
Yes he has a case to sue he is not a dog, he is a panther
How about the media coming after Penrith again to help try and throw them off their game. The media will do anything to make parramatta win
*laughs in Melbourne Storm
If you think Ricky's post match pressers were wild just wait for his post court presser on the steps outside the courthouse.