Can You Read?

12 Nov

Today’s article regarding the defamation proves that neither the Southland Times nor the Mitchell’s can read.  Let me recap:

a liar not a slutThe judge accepted the apology was an apology for the SLUT word. 

It is NOT a sufficient apology for implying Mitchell’s dishonesty was so severe that he should go to the Police.   Because he stuck to his stance that Mitchell had lied  (hence she was LYING) he was unbeknownst to him (and obviously his lawyer) was reinforcing that her LYING warranted the attention of the Police.

Remember the Judge pointed out that Edminstin maintained the stance that Michell was lying throughout the trial…because he truly believes it.  He’s right, she has been caught out in many lies.  I have highlighted some here, Council has received complaints and half of Bluff have experiences of the bi#$! Mitchell.

Before all the defamation cases of late hit the media, how many of you knew that you did NOT visit a police station to lodged your complaint?  Edminstin obviously didn’t and what you MEANT when you said it isn’t relevant in NZ defamation law.  If this case had played out in Canada, England or Australia Edminstin would have won I believe.

The article says this to me:

Mrs Mitchell was NOT the Plantiff but her husband was.   Pardon????

They don’t even understand what the ruling was.

They are reiterating that if Edminstin had given in to Mr Mitchell’s view that was akin to blackmail it would have cost him less.  Bugger the truth though.



5 Responses to “Can You Read?”

  1. Philip.T November 12, 2013 at 8:53 am #

    Did you think for a minute the Times would get it right. They just loved being able to use the word slut on the front page.
    Someone has missed the point that a slut needs others to warrant the expression. Are there many blind and deaf able males in Bluff?

    • Kylie November 12, 2013 at 9:29 am #

      ahahahahaha….thanks I needed a laugh!
      How true….printing the facts would remove the word slut from the article

  2. I hate spiteful women November 12, 2013 at 11:15 am #

    Jan Mitchell is a *&%$ for taking this shit to court. Spiteful bloody bitch.

    • Kylie November 12, 2013 at 11:23 am #

      To save both you and I from Mr Mitchell taking us to court I have edited the four letter s- word. It seems honest opinion or truth are not valid defences any more.

  3. Rosi Coyle November 12, 2013 at 6:31 pm #

    She indicated her husband was a driver for the case going to court.

    “It was my husband’s decision that his wife wasn’t going to be addressed in such a manner and it progressed from there.”

    Mr Mitchell confirmed this, saying he was raised by his father to respect women.

    He felt sad when men verbally abused women, he said.

    “I have never done it to my wife and I wasn’t going to see anyone else do it to her. Simple as that.

    “I may be old school but that’s just the way I am.”
    Interesting quote here Kylie. She obviously doesnt have the same respect for her husband if I remember a blazing row she had with him in front of the PM at an Oyster Festival a couple of years ago…. she wasnt using nice words to him on that occasion or showing any sort of respect …lol

Got something to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: