borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188 
|
Post by borgr0 on Aug 22, 2024 13:33:46 GMT
Good points ^ I guess we have to accept that it will be Badenoch and hope she grows up a bit. It would be good to see the Tories finally formally lose that 'them darkies' attitude so many of them have. Why accept it will be Badenoch? Cleverly tops the list in polling right now does he not? I think he will make the least bad leader of the bunch, he's not a bad person but my moniker "Not-So-Cleverly" really does seem to fit |
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Aug 22, 2024 13:48:52 GMT
Wasn't it C-Too who said I was good at "digging the shit" on others?  Well I had a further look into that Huw Merriman we're told was so great He eventually did the right thing and resigned from a 2nd job linked to Lehman Bros' administrators - but only after one of his colleagues resigned thus pressuring him to do the right thing: www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-32891604The Daily Mail loves the Tories so not sure you can claim they are biased against them in this case? He also was indeed a love rat who had affairs and fathered a child in an affair he had during his marriage www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5885029/Married-Tory-MP-married-three-children-love-child-aide.htmlThat tribunal case sounds dodgy as heck, that woman worked at Lehman Bros with him. She was probably pressured to drop that case and admit it was all a lie and was paid off. That's what happens at those corrupt-as-sin banks. And we're told Andrew Mitchell the bullyboy and Huw Merriman are the best the Tories have? If I was going with the best the Tories have, I would have thought one of the much nicer backbench MPs who rebelled against the govt several times would have fit the bill, one who was either expelled or severely "whipped" for not doing their bidding. There are several examples I have in mind but I'm waiting for better ones first.. they still voted for unconscionable things though and went along with much of it so I'm not impressed at all |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on Aug 22, 2024 21:27:38 GMT
The only person who alleged the officer who made the complaint lied was Mitchell. That allegation cost Mitchell £80k in damages and several hundred thousands pounds in costs.
Even the judge said the copper's account was full of gaps and inconsistencies. But seems the judge was determined to rule in the copper's favour. So many do. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on Aug 22, 2024 21:29:03 GMT
Like I said, it's the first result on googling 'Huw Merriman scandal', your attempt to say I ignored other links is ironically itself vexatious as I didn't see any other links Isn't it just convenient that so many people go back on their stories about these Tory MPs despite clear patterns of behaviour? It's almost like they were coerced into changing their stories isn't it? No a responsible person would have looked to see how her claims panned out before slinging mud. And as it happened not very well as she withdrew them within days. |
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Aug 23, 2024 7:08:03 GMT
The only person who alleged the officer who made the complaint lied was Mitchell. That allegation cost Mitchell £80k in damages and several hundred thousands pounds in costs.
Even the judge said the copper's account was full of gaps and inconsistencies. But seems the judge was determined to rule in the copper's favour. So many do. So now you are claiming the judiciary is corrupt and biased in favour of law enforcement? |
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Aug 23, 2024 7:09:28 GMT
Like I said, it's the first result on googling 'Huw Merriman scandal', your attempt to say I ignored other links is ironically itself vexatious as I didn't see any other links Isn't it just convenient that so many people go back on their stories about these Tory MPs despite clear patterns of behaviour? It's almost like they were coerced into changing their stories isn't it? No a responsible person would have looked to see how her claims panned out before slinging mud. And as it happened not very well as she withdrew them within days. You mean like you did before slinging mud at the copper who was insulted by Andrew Mitchell, who lost the cases in the end? And now you're blaming the judge? ?? Question: Why are you defending these Tory bullies? I know you supported Cameron's coalition and believe he/they "saved the country", but can't you even abide by the results of court cases now? |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on Aug 23, 2024 7:54:11 GMT
Even the judge said the copper's account was full of gaps and inconsistencies. But seems the judge was determined to rule in the copper's favour. So many do. So now you are claiming the judiciary is corrupt and biased in favour of law enforcement? In your head maybe but in reality, no. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on Aug 23, 2024 7:55:27 GMT
No a responsible person would have looked to see how her claims panned out before slinging mud. And as it happened not very well as she withdrew them within days. You mean like you did before slinging mud at the copper who was insulted by Andrew Mitchell, who lost the cases in the end? And now you're blaming the judge? ?? Question: Why are you defending these Tory bullies? I know you supported Cameron's coalition and believe he/they "saved the country", but can't you even abide by the results of court cases now? So you're pretending the judge didn't say there were 'gaps and inconsistencies' in the copper's evidence? |
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Aug 23, 2024 8:04:45 GMT
So now you are claiming the judiciary is corrupt and biased in favour of law enforcement? In your head maybe but in reality, no. Ok, so what are you claiming then? You seem to be claiming that judges often rule in favour of coppers despite finding fault with their testimonies? |
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Aug 23, 2024 8:05:31 GMT
You mean like you did before slinging mud at the copper who was insulted by Andrew Mitchell, who lost the cases in the end? And now you're blaming the judge? ?? Question: Why are you defending these Tory bullies? I know you supported Cameron's coalition and believe he/they "saved the country", but can't you even abide by the results of court cases now? So you're pretending the judge didn't say there were 'gaps and inconsistencies' in the copper's evidence? I'm pretending that in the end Andrew Mitchell lost out, when all things are considered and the final result is what matters as opposed to cherrypicking |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Aug 23, 2024 8:09:21 GMT
The only person who alleged the officer who made the complaint lied was Mitchell. That allegation cost Mitchell £80k in damages and several hundred thousands pounds in costs.
Even the judge said the copper's account was full of gaps and inconsistencies. But seems the judge was determined to rule in the copper's favour. So many do. The judge said there was a gap (singular) and inconsistencies (176), not 'full of'. He also said, ' These inconsistencies are the sort which inevitably occur when a witness has given an account on several different occasions about an incident which arose unexpectedly and lasted for no more than 3 minutes and 20 seconds.' You can read the whole judgment here.
As to the Public Order Act issue, while I don't agree with it, there are always 'grannies' or shocked members of the public when police officers are sworn at. Guardian
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Aug 23, 2024 8:53:45 GMT
Even the judge said the copper's account was full of gaps and inconsistencies. But seems the judge was determined to rule in the copper's favour. So many do. The judge said there was a gap (singular) and inconsistencies (176), not 'full of'. He also said, ' These inconsistencies are the sort which inevitably occur when a witness has given an account on several different occasions about an incident which arose unexpectedly and lasted for no more than 3 minutes and 20 seconds.' You can read the whole judgment here.
As to the Public Order Act issue, while I don't agree with it, there are always 'grannies' or shocked members of the public when police officers are sworn at. Guardian
Don't think it makes me a granny or someone who's easily shocked to find fault with Mitchell for having a pop at the copper who guards Downing St and was just doing his job. I generally find it unacceptable when public school bullyboys go around thinking they own the place and treat public servants like plebs, but that's just me and maybe that makes me a granny. I think throwing expletives at police when they really haven't done anything wrong could become a kind of harassment I suppose it might be wrong to charge him with an offence for it though under that act itself, a lot of people do swear at police but that doesn't make it right does it? You shouldn't treat police like that if they haven't even done anything wrong and were working on the best knowledge they had at the time |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Aug 23, 2024 9:13:01 GMT
The judge said there was a gap (singular) and inconsistencies (176), not 'full of'. He also said, ' These inconsistencies are the sort which inevitably occur when a witness has given an account on several different occasions about an incident which arose unexpectedly and lasted for no more than 3 minutes and 20 seconds.' You can read the whole judgment here.
As to the Public Order Act issue, while I don't agree with it, there are always 'grannies' or shocked members of the public when police officers are sworn at. Guardian
Don't think it makes me a granny or someone who's easily shocked to find fault with Mitchell for having a pop at the copper who guards Downing St and was just doing his job. I generally find it unacceptable when public school bullyboys go around thinking they own the place and treat public servants like plebs, but that's just me and maybe that makes me a granny. I think throwing expletives at police when they really haven't done anything wrong could become a kind of harassment I suppose it might be wrong to charge him with an offence for it though under that act itself, a lot of people do swear at police but that doesn't make it right does it? You shouldn't treat police like that if they haven't even done anything wrong and were working on the best knowledge they had at the time The 'granny' point was in relation to one of the 'inconsistencies', viz, members of the public probably didn't hear Mitchell swearing at the officer but it was (is) standard practice to refer to others present when arresting for swearing at a police officer. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
|
Post by Steve on Aug 23, 2024 9:21:32 GMT
Even the judge said the copper's account was full of gaps and inconsistencies. But seems the judge was determined to rule in the copper's favour. So many do. The judge said there was a gap (singular) and inconsistencies (176), not 'full of'. He also said, ' These inconsistencies are the sort which inevitably occur when a witness has given an account on several different occasions about an incident which arose unexpectedly and lasted for no more than 3 minutes and 20 seconds.' You can read the whole judgment here.
As to the Public Order Act issue, while I don't agree with it, there are always 'grannies' or shocked members of the public when police officers are sworn at. Guardian
Thanks for that. It's a balance of probabilities judgement and IMHO it is so flawed. Rowland had no corraborative evidence other than other coppers agreed he had alleged that Mitchell said it. Well Judge Mitting welcome to the world of reality where the Met has a long history of coppers backing other coppers to the hilt when wrongdoing. Witness after witness asserted that it was a word Mitchell never used. |
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Aug 26, 2024 23:20:11 GMT
I have no interest in the Tory leadership election, and haven't even bothered to inform myself of who the contenders are. I have no vote in it anyway, and whatever two it is whittled down to, the membership will inevitably back the most right wing headbanger out of the two, which will probably make them unelectable for longer.
At the moment, the contest for Tory leader looks somewhat akin to a contest to decide who will replace the captain of the Titanic after the iceberg has already been hit. And about as relevant.
|
|
Well I had a further look into that Huw Merriman we're told was so great
