Dandy Andy shows us the precise probative value of his deluded defamation claim
A pair of f*ckwits sent some bloke named Brenden a salacious piece of bullshit this arvo, and – ignorant of the fact that I was six sails to the wind at the Bunger and making sexy eyes at Annie – the swine had the audacity to forward it on to me for my amusement and edification.
Talk about pouring cold water on a hot as Hades moment.
But oh well, such is life as the great man famously said, and so rendered soft by the root robber’s ridiculous rant I thought it only apt to put the cock-blocking c*nts in their place, and simply because I can’t stand the smell of a sewer instead sportsfans I deliver you my imaginary defence to a duet of deluded dickhead’s antediluvian allegations of defamation.
Here we go, and excuse the numbering but I simply can’t be bothered fixing it because the flea-bitten f*ckheads just ain’t worth it.
And ain’t that the truth Annie?
Too right it is Archie baby!
That the plaintiff in having as a ‘drinking buddy’, ‘..former Liberal MP and crazed religious fundamentalist, Dale Shuttleworth..’ was similarly deranged or simply deranged.
No Tonto. It simply means that if you lay down with dogs you get fleas, and if the Shuttlecock wants to sue me for calling him a dog then he’s more than welcome. My only advice to the happy clapping imbecile would be to remind him that his phone and internet records are discoverable should he elect to embark on such a course of action.
The defendant by stating that the plaintiff was a person “who hangs out at public events with his mates the far right wingers from Campbell’s drop kicked crew”, implies the plaintiff was a turncoat to the Labor Party of which the plaintiff has been a long time and active member.
Incorrect again amateur.
It simply says what it says, and doesn’t reality bite?
The defendant in saying that the plaintiff by suggesting on the plaintiff’s facebook page, on October 6th 2014, at the bottom of a letter written by Gary Bullock, in his capacity as Branch Secretary of the United Voice Union in Queensland, that ‘Bruce Flegg looking for a job? Maybe he could ask Gary Bullock at United Voice for one at their union’ implies that the plaintiff was publicly attacking Garry Bullock, Branch Secretary of the United Voice Union in Queensland.
Defamation actions are built on imputations, not implications lawyer boy. But this one is neither – it is a simple statement of fact – and it would be Gary Bullock suing Dandy Andy for defamation were he not smart enough to realise that anything Dandy says isn’t worth a grain of the smallest sand on the tiniest beach of nothingness in the whole wide world.
The defendant in further saying in reference to Gary Bullock, that the plaintiff was “Taking a shot at a union leader..” implies that the plaintiff was publicly attacking Garry Bullock, Branch Secretary of the United Voice Union in Queensland.
Of course Dandy Andy was publicly attacking Gary Bullock.
Much I am certain to his later sober chagrin.
The defendant in saying that the plaintiff would “publicly slag off the party, the union affiliates and the Kingmaker..” implies that the plaintiff was publicly attacking the Labor Party, its union affiliate, United Voice and Garry Bullock, Branch Secretary of the United Voice Union in Queensland.
Spot on poloko.
That’s exactly what Dandy Andy was doing, no question at all.
It’s not exactly the recommended recipe for ALP pre-selection success is it?
The bloke’s an absolute moron.
The defendant in referring to the plaintiff as a ‘Queen’ implies the plaintiff was a person of dubious character.
Geez it’s gunna be fun summonsing HRH Betty to appear to defend her reputation as a person of good character isn’t it?
Of course Betty has immunity and can’t be prosecuted, but the parade of drag queens being cross-examined as to whether they are people ‘of dubious character’ will be worth the price of admission all by itself won’t it?
The defendant by saying in relation to the plaintiff that ‘he called radio and TV presenter, Paul Murray’s baby son, Leo..’ a “grub” implies the plaintiff was the type of person to defame the dead.
As previously stated there is no implication that Dandy Andy is a grub who defames the dead. It is a statement of fact, and let’s go a little bit further and say that anyone who slags off a bloke’s dead kid is not only a grub but a out and out c*nt who has no place in public life or in the courts, other than as a defendant entering a guilty plea to charges of crimes against humanity.
The defendant In using the words ‘..a bloke who calls dead babies grubs..’ implies the plaintiff is the type of person who defames the dead.
See above. Ibid.
The defendant in using words referring to the plaintiff ”…scumbag lied and blamed an unnamed friend for ‘stealing his phone’ and posting the tweet” implies the plaintiff is a liar.
This is getting boring. Look lawyer boy, there is absolutely no implication that Dandy Andy is a liar. It’s a simple statement of fact.
Dandy Andy IS a liar.
The defendant in using the words ‘his knee-jerk, brainless, dummy spit response to someone who has upset him is totally consistent with the behaviour he has exhibited over a number of years and demonstrated above” (a picture showing the plaintiff in the foreground with Dale Shuttleworth in the background), implies that the plaintiff:-
has been prone to outbursts over a number of years, and
Correct-a-mundo, as the Fonz would say.
There is an absolute weight of dummy-spitting evidence to attest to it.
is stupid and treacherous due to the plaintiff’s associating with former Liberal member of parliament, Dale Shuttleworth.
Archie’s nailed the quinella.
The defendant in using words ‘..beaten, bitter dog who comes back to bite you ..’ implies not only that the plaintiff is vindictive and bears malice toward the Labor Party, but that the plaintiff will in the future seek to take retribution against the Labor Party.
Now Archie’s snagged the trifecta.
If only Dandy and Duddo would have thrown us one more sucker punch we could have jagged the First Four, but it wasn’t meant to be, and so rather than take home a ton to the Twirler so she could spend it on sexy crotchless panties, all I could do was chunder on the courtesy chariot and deliver her a douche bag full of mirth.
‘Are these pair of clowns for real Archie’ she asked me as I stumbled up the stairs and told her the tale. ‘Or are you just making up some mendacious soliloquy to sweeten me up for a sensational solstice sex romp you amorous arch-sex-artist arsehole?’
What could I say sportsfans?
With my fingers crossed behind my back.
‘You’ve got me bang to rights girlfriend’.
And whack Boom, Boom, Boom on the boombox, and decency demands that that is all she wrote, and dear reader if you’re worrying more about defamation claims than doing the deed in style, then all I can say is that you are as big a d*ckhead as Dandy and Duddo.
And Everest is your middle name.