End of Part One

SteynonLine ^ | February 10, 2024 | McAleer & McElhinney

[Twotone]

In the old days, American newspapers dispatched court reporters to cover trials for what they were: legal proceedings. Today, they don't send any reporters to court, but get their "climate correspondent" or "environment reporter" to file a story about "attacks on scientists" - even though, in this case, the "scientist" is the plaintiff.

Into this wasteland of groupthink hackery came everyone's favourite Irish double-act, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, with an innovative and energetic format: Sit in court all day soaking up the atmosphere and the corridor conspiracies, and get a cast of professional actors to re-enact all the best bits in an audio dramatisation later that evening. The result, as Mark's former GB News colleague Laurence Fox says, is "addictive and brilliant" - and shows more wit and incisiveness than you'll get from a decade-long subscription to the somnolent Washington Post.

So here is Ann and Phelim's postscript to their highly engaging series - their take on the verdict, which saddled Steyn with a solitary greenback in "actual damages" to Mann but a million bucks in "punitive damages". Click below to listen:

[Twotone]

For those who've followed the Steyn vs Mann trial, a postscript to the proceedings. Audio at the link...

[gloryblaze]

Also see:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4216329/posts

[Steve_Seattle]

"Climate change" - along with the LGBTQ+ agenda and the claims of "systemic racism" and rampant "white supremacy" - is one of the major weapons the left is using in its effort to strip us of our rights, destroy the middle-class, and impose a globalist, totalitarian state in which the individual nation states exist in name only, not as independently functioning units with their own laws and constitutions.

The Steyn verdict is an effort to criminalize dissent on the climate change issue, no matter how well-grounded in the actual climate data, and no matter how often the predictions of the climate alarmists fail to materialize.

[aquila48]

Difference between science and scientology.

Science welcomes skeptics, scientology excommunicates them.

[gloryblaze]

Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gohmert and the other guy look great. They disagree as to whether Mark should appeal, noting that, while outrageous, the game of lawfare is not about the principal, but about the money. Mark says it is on to phase two.

There seems to be a question about the constitutionality of such a humongous ratio of punitive damages over actual. But then there is the question of how long a resolution would take and the cost of that, too.

Godspeed, Mark!

[SteveH]

i don’t understand how a judge in good faith could preside over a trial and jury that resulted in a judgement of $1 actual and $1M punitive. it just seems deliberately silly and designed to be provocative in some way.

[gloryblaze]

i don’t understand how a judge in good faith could preside over a trial and jury that resulted in a judgement of $1 actual and $1M punitive. it just seems deliberately silly and designed to be provocative in some way.

No kidding. The limits aren't set in stone, so I suppose any judge would be walking on eggshells if he included instructions with even a hint about limits. So many laws and so little clarity. And so many sharks.

[Gay State Conservative]

later

[sauropod]

.