I’m probably in a minority of one, and 100% Sunak was wrong to use trans in his diatribe against Starmer, especially at this time, but I don’t think the ‘joke’, such as it was, was transphobic. It was mocking Starmer and the difficulties he got into over defining what is a woman.
I think Rishi was just clumsy. He had a script, specifically badly prepped in the circumstances, and ... just went with it.
And as a wavering voter 'clumsy' isn't winning me over. Even against 'grey mist' - 'clumsy' loses out.
Here's something worse than clumsy which the Washington.
Biden stumbling mid sentence and confusing Macron with Mitterrand.
I get a sign-up page and nothing else I'm afraid.
'I’m attacked for being honest and saying the quiet part out loud - the part DC insiders only do in private.
I admire our President. I voted for him and campaigned for him. He has visited my home and been gracious to my family and our country.
But shame on all of you pretending everything is ok. You are leading us - and him - into a disaster, and you damn well know it'
You may need a twitter account?
Why should we have to pay for one? And all the other stuff that goes with signing up to personal social media?
Edit: not complaining about you personally. But Twitter has been really getting on my nose of late as a lot of organizations which I need to check on for one reason or another have not got used to the idea that a lot of their viewers have suddenly been disallowed access. Yet they expect their punters still to sign up.
Whilst I dislike the curent iteration of Twitter particularly, and social media in general, this does read a bit like you're complaining that a valuable service that you previously got completely free is now expecting you to give something back in return for using it.
No, I am complaining that third party companies and organizations expect me to pay Twitter so I can look at their posts. Instead of putting the news on their own websites. Or in some cases, instead of having websites at all. The same applies to Facebook being used in the same way.
Edit: also Twitter gains data about me. I don't like that.
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
The common thread between the two (Rishi and Ed M), other than being nerdy, I think is that both rose through the ranks very quickly when their parties were in long spells of dominance. As a result when they became leaders neither had really learned the grittier and more intuitive political skills that come from losing elections and learning or hard won internal battles.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
If Starmer gets a big majority, he can do stuff that wasn't in the manifesto with impunity anyway. So if he thinks this is a barnacle on the hull of getting elected, why not dump it?
I don’t entirely agree. Yes to the fact if you can get elected on a blank cheque not with lots of promises on, it’s a stronger position. But this seems more about managing the pace of releasing money once in power, managing expectations.
How can a figure remain at £28B for two years without moving? The required Pension for a single person to live moderately has moved to £31,300 for 2023 to 2024 - up from £23,300 a year earlier. How can that arbitrary £28B costs remain the same on Tory attack slogans for two years, and same month after month?
So it’s a fake figure, and perfectly sensible for Labour to dampen expectations on how quickly it can be afforded and delivered once in power.
This announcement actually fits in with everything Labour has been saying and doing since start of the year, it isn’t about trying to win an election anymore, they think that’s in the bag, everything they Labour been announcing and saying, including this change, is about managing expectations on spending once they are in power. Labour are not talking to voters this year, they are taking the win for granted - they are making changes and statements for the ears business small and big, the city, foreign investors, foreign governments, the IMF etc.
It’s the Tories whose 100% messaging is for voters.
That +£8000 seems highly dubious. Do you have a link to the methodology?
And, by the way, he's guy who has done other videos about how many of the other Trump trials are largely baseless, so I don't think he's reflexively anti-Trump
Are there parts of the video dealing with things we've not discussed that you find particularly instructive?
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
If Starmer gets a big majority, he can do stuff that wasn't in the manifesto with impunity anyway. So if he thinks this is a barnacle on the hull of getting elected, why not dump it?
I don’t entirely agree. Yes to the fact if you can get elected on a blank cheque not with lots of promises on, it’s a stronger position. But this seems more about managing the pace of releasing money once in power, managing expectations.
How can a figure remain at £28B for two years without moving? The required Pension for a single person to live moderately has moved to £31,300 for 2023 to 2024 - up from £23,300 a year earlier. How can that arbitrary £28B costs remain the same on Tory attack slogans for two years, and same month after month?
So it’s a fake figure, and perfectly sensible for Labour to dampen expectations on how quickly it can be afforded and delivered once in power.
This announcement actually fits in with everything Labour has been saying and doing since start of the year, it isn’t about trying to win an election anymore, they think that’s in the bag, everything they Labour been announcing and saying, including this change, is about managing expectations on spending once they are in power. Labour are not talking to voters this year, they are taking the win for granted - they are making changes and statements for the ears business small and big, the city, foreign investors, foreign governments, the IMF etc.
It’s the Tories whose 100% messaging is for voters.
That +£8000 seems highly dubious. Do you have a link to the methodology?
Not sure that will sit well with those going out to work every day for less. My TA's are on £20k and are frequently verbally and physically assaulted for the privilege.
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
The common thread between the two (Rishi and Ed M), other than being nerdy, I think is that both rose through the ranks very quickly when their parties were in long spells of dominance. As a result when they became leaders neither had really learned the grittier and more intuitive political skills that come from losing elections and learning or hard won internal battles.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
If I were ever to allege publicly that someone had raped me 20 years ago, I certainly wouldn't consider myself to have been defamed by them denying it publicly.
I have a lot of respect for people who can judge events dispassionately and call baloney on things even when it doesn't suit their personal agenda. There are vanishingly few about.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
If Starmer gets a big majority, he can do stuff that wasn't in the manifesto with impunity anyway. So if he thinks this is a barnacle on the hull of getting elected, why not dump it?
I don’t entirely agree. Yes to the fact if you can get elected on a blank cheque not with lots of promises on, it’s a stronger position. But this seems more about managing the pace of releasing money once in power, managing expectations.
How can a figure remain at £28B for two years without moving? The required Pension for a single person to live moderately has moved to £31,300 for 2023 to 2024 - up from £23,300 a year earlier. How can that arbitrary £28B costs remain the same on Tory attack slogans for two years, and same month after month?
So it’s a fake figure, and perfectly sensible for Labour to dampen expectations on how quickly it can be afforded and delivered once in power.
This announcement actually fits in with everything Labour has been saying and doing since start of the year, it isn’t about trying to win an election anymore, they think that’s in the bag, everything they Labour been announcing and saying, including this change, is about managing expectations on spending once they are in power. Labour are not talking to voters this year, they are taking the win for granted - they are making changes and statements for the ears business small and big, the city, foreign investors, foreign governments, the IMF etc.
It’s the Tories whose 100% messaging is for voters.
That +£8000 seems highly dubious. Do you have a link to the methodology?
Not sure that will sit well with those going out to work every day for less. My TA's are on £20k and are frequently verbally and physically assaulted for the privilege.
I earned less than my 99 year old grandmother last year, and she has no rent to pay
John McTernan @johnmcternan · 45m Seems the Labour leadership decided that a policy that was popular and distinctive from the Tories gave them an unfair advantage in an election year.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
That is most unfair. He would surely be happy with claims of sexual assaults without such evidence being made against lefties and liberals.
I don’t know who made up this idea Sunak ever knew what he was doing. It was clear in 2020 he was a lightweight but I distinctly remember Horse arguing against people who said he’d be a fantastic PM
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
The common thread between the two (Rishi and Ed M), other than being nerdy, I think is that both rose through the ranks very quickly when their parties were in long spells of dominance. As a result when they became leaders neither had really learned the grittier and more intuitive political skills that come from losing elections and learning or hard won internal battles.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
And, by the way, he's guy who has done other videos about how many of the other Trump trials are largely baseless, so I don't think he's reflexively anti-Trump
Are there parts of the video dealing with things we've not discussed that you find particularly instructive?
I watched it nine months ago, and found it very informative.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
If I were ever to allege publicly that someone had raped me 20 years ago, I certainly wouldn't consider myself to have been defamed by them denying it publicly.
I have a lot of respect for people who can judge events dispassionately and call baloney on things even when it doesn't suit their personal agenda. There are vanishingly few about.
That would be your decision. Carroll felt she had been defamed and sued. So, what’s your alternative? How should the matter have been settled?
It’s the Tories whose 100% messaging is for voters.
What message?
Vote for a party unable to stop the boats, incapable of sending immigrants to Rwanda and unable to grasp the fact that while people may dislike coloured / trans / gay people on mass they have a nasty habit of liking / sympathising with any they actually get to know be it in person or because a tragedy (like Brianna Ghey) has made their story familiar..
Oh Eek, sort it out. The Tory’s have been banging on for weeks now with slogans about the threat of a Labour government, taxes up, anti car, rubbish at running health service (in Wales) inexperience, flip flop Starmer can’t be trusted, being negative ones, waiting lists falling, tax’s being cut, cost of living battle being won, boat crossings smaller last year than for many years being positive ones.
I’m not saying some of this messaging isn’t weak or even dubious, but they have developed attack lines and slogans and oft repeat them.
My point was, everything the Torys say is for voters as the audience, labour seem to be making statements not for voters, but for business, money markets, investors, the IMF. And this “reimagining” of green policy is no different. Do you see what I mean?
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
The common thread between the two (Rishi and Ed M), other than being nerdy, I think is that both rose through the ranks very quickly when their parties were in long spells of dominance. As a result when they became leaders neither had really learned the grittier and more intuitive political skills that come from losing elections and learning or hard won internal battles.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
Though none of the 3 ever fought an unwinnable parliamentary seat or even a marginal first before they got their safe seats. None of them were even a local councillor so in that sense have been Westminster insiders from the get go without having to face a battle to get voters to support them
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
Does rcs1000 have a history of saying he sexually assaults women (“grab ‘em by the…”)? Are there multiple women with similar stories about rcs1000? Does the woman concerned have witnesses saying she spoke about the event at the time? I don’t believe so. rcs1000 is, thus, in a very different position to Trump.
Indeed. Such clean living means he has no chance of ever being republican candidate for president.
I don’t know who made up this idea Sunak ever knew what he was doing. It was clear in 2020 he was a lightweight but I distinctly remember Horse arguing against people who said he’d be a fantastic PM
Happy to admit I thought he would be good-ish. Not quite sure where he ranks in terms of worst PMs yet but he is certainly top of my most disappointing ones.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Thete should be a statute of limitations of no more than a year though.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law. Part of what you’re missing is that it isn’t that Trump merely denied her charge. He went out of his way to repeatedly attack her character. This was all in the trial.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Thete should be a statute of limitations of no more than a year though.
I don’t know who made up this idea Sunak ever knew what he was doing. It was clear in 2020 he was a lightweight but I distinctly remember Horse arguing against people who said he’d be a fantastic PM
Happy to admit I thought he would be good-ish. Not quite sure where he ranks in terms of worst PMs yet but he is certainly top of my most disappointing ones.
Yes i remember him looking like a total dork when he launched eat out to help out.
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
The common thread between the two (Rishi and Ed M), other than being nerdy, I think is that both rose through the ranks very quickly when their parties were in long spells of dominance. As a result when they became leaders neither had really learned the grittier and more intuitive political skills that come from losing elections and learning or hard won internal battles.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
I agree with a lot of that. Neither Miliband or Sunak look(ed) particularly comfortable in the role they are(were) in.
Although I do think that Ed Miliband faced a fairly rabid press pack that cut him down a lot. In my opinion much of that was unfair, particularly going after his old man - shades of Kier Starmer’s donkey sanctuary. Prime Minister Sunak seems to look a bit rubbish even when he gets a good write up in the press. If you are bit rubbish in fair wind, what happens when it turns?
As I get older I do like to see politicians with a bit of hinterland or at least have seen a bit of life. I am not sure we have been well served by the folks who have always played the politics game. The funny thing is with Prime Minister Sunak - albeit I see him as an empty suit from coverage - he has done at least something else other than “politics.” He just can’t seem to sell the positives of that.
Huge mistake by Starmer on the green industrial strategy.
Backing down in the face of a collapsing tory party riven with corruption, incompetence and reeking of the end.
If Starmer gets a big majority, he can do stuff that wasn't in the manifesto with impunity anyway. So if he thinks this is a barnacle on the hull of getting elected, why not dump it?
I don’t entirely agree. Yes to the fact if you can get elected on a blank cheque not with lots of promises on, it’s a stronger position. But this seems more about managing the pace of releasing money once in power, managing expectations.
How can a figure remain at £28B for two years without moving? The required Pension for a single person to live moderately has moved to £31,300 for 2023 to 2024 - up from £23,300 a year earlier. How can that arbitrary £28B costs remain the same on Tory attack slogans for two years, and same month after month?
So it’s a fake figure, and perfectly sensible for Labour to dampen expectations on how quickly it can be afforded and delivered once in power.
This announcement actually fits in with everything Labour has been saying and doing since start of the year, it isn’t about trying to win an election anymore, they think that’s in the bag, everything they Labour been announcing and saying, including this change, is about managing expectations on spending once they are in power. Labour are not talking to voters this year, they are taking the win for granted - they are making changes and statements for the ears business small and big, the city, foreign investors, foreign governments, the IMF etc.
It’s the Tories whose 100% messaging is for voters.
That +£8000 seems highly dubious. Do you have a link to the methodology?
I only have what is in the article. And to be fair to you, it seems like a huge leap to me in just one year. And it didn’t seem to mention streaming services though mentioned spa days. If you done away with streaming services you would have more money. It didn’t mentiondecorating or renovating either, though it mentions running a second car - maybe the methodology is outdated?
But the point I used it to make though, is how can “figures” on things like that move around, yet cost of Labours green deal remain at £28B for years?
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Thete should be a statute of limitations of no more than a year though.
This is a civil trial, and the reason it happened was because President Trump defamed Carrol.
She sued him - not over the claims of sexual assault - but because he defamed her repeatedly at campaign events. If he'd said nothing at campaign trials after he left the Presidency, there would have been no trial.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
You have asked this question (in various formats) of @Luckyguy1983 at least twice, as have I and no answer is forthcoming.
If someone calls you a liar in public you can sue. People do, particularly if they feel they have been damaged, and if found in your favour a court determines the value of your damages.
The only fair way to decide this is on the balance of probabilities.
@Luckyguy1983 you have persistently failed to come up with any alternative.
On the point about dentists my father is running out of teeth and frankly it is starting to look a bit daft. I keep mentioning dentures etc to him but he doesn't seem interested. Trouble is he's always hated anything cosmetic.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Thete should be a statute of limitations of no more than a year though.
Why? If a crime was committed, a crime was committed. If someone defamed another, they defamed another. I’m not in favour of time limits.
Carroll, as per the video rcs1000 suggested, had to prove a lot of things. US defamation law is way stricter than UK law. She and her lawyers persuaded the court and, critically, a jury. Where’s the problem?
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Thete should be a statute of limitations of no more than a year though.
A year from what? It is not what happened 20 years ago that is being challenged here it is current defamation that is being challenged. If I tell a pack of lies about you today regarding an event that happened 20 years ago are you saying that is ok?
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
The common thread between the two (Rishi and Ed M), other than being nerdy, I think is that both rose through the ranks very quickly when their parties were in long spells of dominance. As a result when they became leaders neither had really learned the grittier and more intuitive political skills that come from losing elections and learning or hard won internal battles.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
Though none of the 3 ever fought an unwinnable parliamentary seat or even a marginal first before they got their safe seats. None of them were even a local councillor so in that sense have been Westminster insiders from the get go without having to face a battle to get voters to support them
It is so UNFAIR that the more worthy who turn up for every training session, even in most foulest weather, and even clean off all the boots on occasion, just don’t get picked for the team. Flipping unfair.
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
The common thread between the two (Rishi and Ed M), other than being nerdy, I think is that both rose through the ranks very quickly when their parties were in long spells of dominance. As a result when they became leaders neither had really learned the grittier and more intuitive political skills that come from losing elections and learning or hard won internal battles.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
Though none of the 3 ever fought an unwinnable parliamentary seat or even a marginal first before they got their safe seats. None of them were even a local councillor so in that sense have been Westminster insiders from the get go without having to face a battle to get voters to support them
It is so UNFAIR that the more worthy who turn up for every training session, even in most foulest weather, and even clean off all the boots on occasion, just don’t get picked for the team. Flipping unfair.
Certainly is, some of us delivered leaflets through rain, snow and ice and have been canvassing since we were teenagers and don't get safe seats handed to us on a plate because we were ex Goldmans bankers or former heads of the CPS!
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law. Part of what you’re missing is that it isn’t that Trump merely denied her charge. He went out of his way to repeatedly attack her character. This was all in the trial.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
As a gambler surely we have an alternative answer? Get the juries to weight the probabilities and fines, and calculate the expected value.
So in a dispute you might get something like:
50% Scenario A - Award $1m to claimant 20% Scenario B - Award $500k to defendent 30% Scenario C - Both equally in wrong so nothing done
Would give 50% * $1m - 20% * $500k so $400k to claimant rather than the binary $1m gain or $500k loss.
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
The common thread between the two (Rishi and Ed M), other than being nerdy, I think is that both rose through the ranks very quickly when their parties were in long spells of dominance. As a result when they became leaders neither had really learned the grittier and more intuitive political skills that come from losing elections and learning or hard won internal battles.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
Though none of the 3 ever fought an unwinnable parliamentary seat or even a marginal first before they got their safe seats. None of them were even a local councillor so in that sense have been Westminster insiders from the get go without having to face a battle to get voters to support them
It is so UNFAIR that the more worthy who turn up for every training session, even in most foulest weather, and even clean off all the boots on occasion, just don’t get picked for the team. Flipping unfair.
Certainly is, some of us delivered leaflets through rain, snow and ice and have been canvassing since we were teenagers and don't get safe seats handed to us on a plate because we were ex Goldmans bankers or former heads of the CPS!
Good luck with the campaigning, try to avoid the invading Scotland plan in the candidate selection pitches though!
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
You have asked this question (in various formats) of @Luckyguy1983 at least twice, as have I and no answer is forthcoming.
If someone calls you a liar in public you can sue. People do, particularly if they feel they have been damaged, and if found in your favour a court determines the value of your damages.
The only fair way to decide this is on the balance of probabilities.
@Luckyguy1983 you have persistently failed to come up with any alternative.
This quite frantic hectoring (tagging me in twice in the same post a bit much ducks?) speaks to an indefensible position being desperately gussied up with legalese. Nobody is denying that the process has been permissible under American law - it it were not, it wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be discussing it.
The discussion has not been on the legality, but whether the process and the verdict are justifiable. I don't think they are, and I think everyone here with a couple of brain cells can see that - we choose to disregard the fact 'because it's Trump'.
These allegations would never make it to a criminal court - part way through RCS's video they present as even more off the wall than I thought they were in the first place. Donald Trump therefore stands innocent of rape, but guilty for proclaiming his innocence of rape. That is completely perverse.
The real question is over whether Donald Trump can get a fair trial now. The DA behind the case was elected on a 'Get Trump' ticket. How can a District Attorney be elected on the basis of a pledge to use their legal power against a citizen? The same would be true if the jury and judge were MAGA supporters. I don't have the answer, and I'm rapidly losing interest in the question; I just think the discussion highlights the complete hypocrisy of many posters here.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law. Part of what you’re missing is that it isn’t that Trump merely denied her charge. He went out of his way to repeatedly attack her character. This was all in the trial.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
As a gambler surely we have an alternative answer? Get the juries to weight the probabilities and fines, and calculate the expected value.
So in a dispute you might get something like:
50% Scenario A - Award $1m to claimant 20% Scenario B - Award $500k to defendent 30% Scenario C - Both equally in wrong so nothing done
Would give 50% * $1m - 20% * $500k so $400k to claimant rather than the binary $1m gain or $500k loss.
So if there’s a 1% probability that you did whatever, then you’d have to pay 1% of a $1,000,000 award, i.e. $10,000? Can’t see that being popular.
'The Conservative Party’s electoral prospects would not improve if they replaced Rishi Sunak with another leader such as Kemi Badenoch, polling for The Times suggests.'
6% would be more likely to vote for a Badenoch led party, 13% less likely. 12% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Tory under her.
12% would be more likely to vote for a Cameron led party again, 18% less likely. 16% would be more likely to vote for a Boris led party again though but 22% less likely. 35% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Conservative with Boris
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
You have asked this question (in various formats) of @Luckyguy1983 at least twice, as have I and no answer is forthcoming.
If someone calls you a liar in public you can sue. People do, particularly if they feel they have been damaged, and if found in your favour a court determines the value of your damages.
The only fair way to decide this is on the balance of probabilities.
@Luckyguy1983 you have persistently failed to come up with any alternative.
This quite frantic hectoring (tagging me in twice in the same post a bit much ducks?) speaks to an indefensible position being desperately gussied up with legalese. Nobody is denying that the process has been permissible under American law - it it were not, it wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be discussing it.
The discussion has not been on the legality, but whether the process and the verdict are justifiable. I don't think they are, and I think everyone here with a couple of brain cells can see that - we choose to disregard the fact 'because it's Trump'.
These allegations would never make it to a criminal court - part way through RCS's video they present as even more off the wall than I thought they were in the first place. Donald Trump therefore stands innocent of rape, but guilty for proclaiming his innocence of rape. That is completely perverse.
The real question is over whether Donald Trump can get a fair trial now. The DA behind the case was elected on a 'Get Trump' ticket. How can a District Attorney be elected on the basis of a pledge to use their legal power against a citizen? The same would be true if the jury and judge were MAGA supporters. I don't have the answer, and I'm rapidly losing interest in the question; I just think the discussion highlights the complete hypocrisy of many posters here.
How have you demonstrated any hypocrisy? What politician who lost a defamation case are we saying was innocent?
'The Conservative Party’s electoral prospects would not improve if they replaced Rishi Sunak with another leader such as Kemi Badenoch, polling for The Times suggests.'
6% would be more likely to vote for a Badenoch led party, 13% less likely. 12% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Tory under her.
12% would be more likely to vote for a Cameron led party again, 18% less likely. 16% would be more likely to vote for a Boris led party again though but 22% less likely. 35% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Conservative with Boris
The only part that matters is the 2019 voters. I’ve tried to find the tables so as to see the % of them who would be less likely to vote Tory if Boris took over but couldn’t
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law. Part of what you’re missing is that it isn’t that Trump merely denied her charge. He went out of his way to repeatedly attack her character. This was all in the trial.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
As a gambler surely we have an alternative answer? Get the juries to weight the probabilities and fines, and calculate the expected value.
So in a dispute you might get something like:
50% Scenario A - Award $1m to claimant 20% Scenario B - Award $500k to defendent 30% Scenario C - Both equally in wrong so nothing done
Would give 50% * $1m - 20% * $500k so $400k to claimant rather than the binary $1m gain or $500k loss.
Hah. Best of luck getting a jury to evaluate those probabilities correctly
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
You have asked this question (in various formats) of @Luckyguy1983 at least twice, as have I and no answer is forthcoming.
If someone calls you a liar in public you can sue. People do, particularly if they feel they have been damaged, and if found in your favour a court determines the value of your damages.
The only fair way to decide this is on the balance of probabilities.
@Luckyguy1983 you have persistently failed to come up with any alternative.
This quite frantic hectoring (tagging me in twice in the same post a bit much ducks?) speaks to an indefensible position being desperately gussied up with legalese. Nobody is denying that the process has been permissible under American law - it it were not, it wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be discussing it.
The discussion has not been on the legality, but whether the process and the verdict are justifiable. I don't think they are, and I think everyone here with a couple of brain cells can see that - we choose to disregard the fact 'because it's Trump'.
These allegations would never make it to a criminal court - part way through RCS's video they present as even more off the wall than I thought they were in the first place. Donald Trump therefore stands innocent of rape, but guilty for proclaiming his innocence of rape. That is completely perverse.
The real question is over whether Donald Trump can get a fair trial now. The DA behind the case was elected on a 'Get Trump' ticket. How can a District Attorney be elected on the basis of a pledge to use their legal power against a citizen? The same would be true if the jury and judge were MAGA supporters. I don't have the answer, and I'm rapidly losing interest in the question; I just think the discussion highlights the complete hypocrisy of many posters here.
Hectoring? How else am I supposed to address you if I don't use your name? Honestly what nonsense.
Legalese? What legalese?
I agree it wouldn't make it to a criminal court, so what, but again, for the umpteenth time, you fail to come up with an alternative to being able to sue for defamation, or do you believe we should all be able to defame people willy nilly and if not what is your solution?
Anna Soubry 🖤🤍🇺🇦 🇪🇺 🇬🇧 @Anna_Soubry · 2h Beyond disgusting. You don’t have to be a mother or indeed a father to “imagine” Esther Gheys suffering. #Sunak knew she was in the gallery. Sunak chose to say what he did. He, Badenoch et al are woefully out of their depth & the sooner they’re out of Govt the better.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law. Part of what you’re missing is that it isn’t that Trump merely denied her charge. He went out of his way to repeatedly attack her character. This was all in the trial.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
As a gambler surely we have an alternative answer? Get the juries to weight the probabilities and fines, and calculate the expected value.
So in a dispute you might get something like:
50% Scenario A - Award $1m to claimant 20% Scenario B - Award $500k to defendent 30% Scenario C - Both equally in wrong so nothing done
Would give 50% * $1m - 20% * $500k so $400k to claimant rather than the binary $1m gain or $500k loss.
So if there’s a 1% probability that you did whatever, then you’d have to pay 1% of a $1,000,000 award, i.e. $10,000? Can’t see that being popular.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law. Part of what you’re missing is that it isn’t that Trump merely denied her charge. He went out of his way to repeatedly attack her character. This was all in the trial.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
As a gambler surely we have an alternative answer? Get the juries to weight the probabilities and fines, and calculate the expected value.
So in a dispute you might get something like:
50% Scenario A - Award $1m to claimant 20% Scenario B - Award $500k to defendent 30% Scenario C - Both equally in wrong so nothing done
Would give 50% * $1m - 20% * $500k so $400k to claimant rather than the binary $1m gain or $500k loss.
Hah. Best of luck getting a jury to evaluate those probabilities correctly
Currently they are asked to pick one outcome where they will also be wrong a substantial proportion of the time. So equally getting a jury to consistently guess the right outcome, not happening currently either in the trickier cases.
Rishi Sunak, even if one discounts his vegetarianism, really is the sort of man who could lose a bacon sandwich eating contest with Ed Miliband, isn't he?
He's smart, and probably hard working, but he's politically inept to a degree that is remarkable. Lord knows what CCHQ will do with him during the general election campaign, perhaps replace him with a deep fake to make him more normal and likeable.
The common thread between the two (Rishi and Ed M), other than being nerdy, I think is that both rose through the ranks very quickly when their parties were in long spells of dominance. As a result when they became leaders neither had really learned the grittier and more intuitive political skills that come from losing elections and learning or hard won internal battles.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
Though none of the 3 ever fought an unwinnable parliamentary seat or even a marginal first before they got their safe seats. None of them were even a local councillor so in that sense have been Westminster insiders from the get go without having to face a battle to get voters to support them
It is so UNFAIR that the more worthy who turn up for every training session, even in most foulest weather, and even clean off all the boots on occasion, just don’t get picked for the team. Flipping unfair.
Certainly is, some of us delivered leaflets through rain, snow and ice and have been canvassing since we were teenagers and don't get safe seats handed to us on a plate because we were ex Goldmans bankers or former heads of the CPS!
Good luck with the campaigning, try to avoid the invading Scotland plan in the candidate selection pitches though!
Thanks, though due to personal circumstances I am unlikely to be a candidate again for the foreseeable future
'The Conservative Party’s electoral prospects would not improve if they replaced Rishi Sunak with another leader such as Kemi Badenoch, polling for The Times suggests.'
6% would be more likely to vote for a Badenoch led party, 13% less likely. 12% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Tory under her.
12% would be more likely to vote for a Cameron led party again, 18% less likely. 16% would be more likely to vote for a Boris led party again though but 22% less likely. 35% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Conservative with Boris
The only part that matters is the 2019 voters. I’ve tried to find the tables so as to see the % of them who would be less likely to vote Tory if Boris took over but couldn’t
Boris is the only alternative to Rishi who could really squeeze the Reform vote and win back some redwall voters from Labour to Conservative again. However he would also likely see even stronger anti Tory tactical voting, especially in the bluewall
'The Conservative Party’s electoral prospects would not improve if they replaced Rishi Sunak with another leader such as Kemi Badenoch, polling for The Times suggests.'
6% would be more likely to vote for a Badenoch led party, 13% less likely. 12% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Tory under her.
12% would be more likely to vote for a Cameron led party again, 18% less likely. 16% would be more likely to vote for a Boris led party again though but 22% less likely. 35% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Conservative with Boris
Crime and punishment. The public want to punish the Tories for being shit for the last at least 8 years. Until they’ve served their penance they’re not going to get back into favour. They’re best off just accepting it, calling an election and getting a beating. Then they can regenerate again.
When reflecting on things like the american legal system, with its openly political prosecutors and judges being a fundamental aspect of it, it's always going to be easy to point to that politics, or find some point that is legal but which seems pretty ridiculous. Lots of legal standards can feel that way, and plenty of dodgy people benefit from it, it's not like the oddities of the system only flow in one direction.
The problem in this particular isntance is many complaints online (amped up by Trump's TV lawyers) are along the lines of objecting to what even to a layman is clearly common court procedure - like lawyers getting stern instructions from judges when they ignore rulings, or not being allowed to bring in random anecdotes which have nothing to do with the facts of the case - or entirely self serving (like verbally attacking judges, then using that attack as proof they must be biased) because and that sort of thing undermines what might be more valid points, by drowing them out.
Do I agree with the verdicts in the Carrol cases? I've no idea. A jury outcome has never stopped people believing or disbelieving something if they really want, so it seems only fair that people are focusing on whether the process was properly carried out under the law that exists and not the law others might want, since that is the relevant question that remains, when nobody else is in a position to assess the facts in the same way.
It reminds me of some of the many baseless legal challenges, when some would point to an electoral practice which we might agree is poor (like counting ballots arriving well after election day if posted on that day). Disliking that practice is a worthy question, but it was kind of irrelevant to the question of the legality, that they hadn't been challenged prior, and given the disproportionate remedies being sought.
I just can't believe this is really what Rishi wants to be doing, I feel like he hardly cares about the culture wars, he's been told/goaded into saying this stuff, which is sad.
Why does Rishi Sunak think the culture wars are an issue that anyone cares about, is this really going to swing any votes?
He watches too much American TV?
This is happening to Americans as well, hence the car crash that was the DeSantis campaign. It happens when you have a team of political people around you who are too online.
More Labour announcements tomorrow on how they won’t do anything to improve things because money’s too tight to mention.
Yes I know you’re going to inherit a load of shit but millions of people like me are hoping this is all a convenient lie and there’s actually a plan. I really hope so. Otherwise we’re fucked. And my little family the Lib Dems seek to have few novel ideas at the moment either.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
You have asked this question (in various formats) of @Luckyguy1983 at least twice, as have I and no answer is forthcoming.
If someone calls you a liar in public you can sue. People do, particularly if they feel they have been damaged, and if found in your favour a court determines the value of your damages.
The only fair way to decide this is on the balance of probabilities.
@Luckyguy1983 you have persistently failed to come up with any alternative.
This quite frantic hectoring (tagging me in twice in the same post a bit much ducks?) speaks to an indefensible position being desperately gussied up with legalese. Nobody is denying that the process has been permissible under American law - it it were not, it wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be discussing it.
The discussion has not been on the legality, but whether the process and the verdict are justifiable. I don't think they are, and I think everyone here with a couple of brain cells can see that - we choose to disregard the fact 'because it's Trump'.
These allegations would never make it to a criminal court - part way through RCS's video they present as even more off the wall than I thought they were in the first place. Donald Trump therefore stands innocent of rape, but guilty for proclaiming his innocence of rape. That is completely perverse.
The real question is over whether Donald Trump can get a fair trial now. The DA behind the case was elected on a 'Get Trump' ticket. How can a District Attorney be elected on the basis of a pledge to use their legal power against a citizen? The same would be true if the jury and judge were MAGA supporters. I don't have the answer, and I'm rapidly losing interest in the question; I just think the discussion highlights the complete hypocrisy of many posters here.
Remember, though, this case wasn't about rape or sexual assault.
It was about Donald Trump defaming Ms Carroll to hundreds of thousands of people at campaign events.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
You have asked this question (in various formats) of @Luckyguy1983 at least twice, as have I and no answer is forthcoming.
If someone calls you a liar in public you can sue. People do, particularly if they feel they have been damaged, and if found in your favour a court determines the value of your damages.
The only fair way to decide this is on the balance of probabilities.
@Luckyguy1983 you have persistently failed to come up with any alternative.
This quite frantic hectoring (tagging me in twice in the same post a bit much ducks?) speaks to an indefensible position being desperately gussied up with legalese. Nobody is denying that the process has been permissible under American law - it it were not, it wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be discussing it.
The discussion has not been on the legality, but whether the process and the verdict are justifiable. I don't think they are, and I think everyone here with a couple of brain cells can see that - we choose to disregard the fact 'because it's Trump'.
These allegations would never make it to a criminal court - part way through RCS's video they present as even more off the wall than I thought they were in the first place. Donald Trump therefore stands innocent of rape, but guilty for proclaiming his innocence of rape. That is completely perverse.
The real question is over whether Donald Trump can get a fair trial now. The DA behind the case was elected on a 'Get Trump' ticket. How can a District Attorney be elected on the basis of a pledge to use their legal power against a citizen? The same would be true if the jury and judge were MAGA supporters. I don't have the answer, and I'm rapidly losing interest in the question; I just think the discussion highlights the complete hypocrisy of many posters here.
Remember, though, this case wasn't about rape or sexual assault.
It was about Donald Trump defaming Ms Carroll to hundreds of thousands of people at campaign events.
More Labour announcements tomorrow on how they won’t do anything to improve things because money’s too tight to mention.
Yes I know you’re going to inherit a load of shit but millions of people like me are hoping this is all a convenient lie and there’s actually a plan. I really hope so. Otherwise we’re fucked. And my little family the Lib Dems seek to have few novel ideas at the moment either.
I feel like "don't spend a load of money we don't have but also don't do performative cruelty or stupid shit that actively damages the economy" would be an excellent, practical plan for government that also commands majority support.
A federal judge has denied Trump’s motions for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
I only really looked this up recently - I lose track of all his cases. As far as I can gather, the facts are these.
This lady is an author who has previously written a novel where she imagines being raped by a powerful politician.
She decides to accuse Trump after attending a Democrat Party where she's persuaded to do so.
There are no witnesses, and literally zero corroboration for her account, except two friends who say that she told them.
It's not been proven in a court of law, nor would it ever reach one.
Yet Trump now owes her £80mill for trashing her reputation by denying rape.
I am reminded of the 'just because you're paranoid' aphorism.
A jury of twelve people heard all the evidence.
They decided that - on balance of probabilities - she had been sexually assaulted.
Generally juries get things right. Not always, but generally. And it's not as if Trump will have lacked proper legal representation.
As I recall, this forum has tended to take a very dim view of alleged historical sex crimes without a shred of evidence - Carl Beech comes to mind. As far as I can see, the only reason this process isn't being roundly condemned here is that 'Trump is a bad guy and deserves it' - which indeed seems to be the basis of the entire exercise.
Would you like someone to accuse you of raping them 30 years ago in a store changing room, and when you deny it, be sued by that person for defamation of their character? Because what you're saying is that essentially that would be fine.
You give no credit to the idea that the jury in the case, having been presented with all the evidence and reaching a unanimous verdict that he did sexually assault her, might have been right?
I think I'd place more faith in that jury's verdict than your "as far as I can gather" verdict.
No, because the "evidence" that was presented is as I described. There are no witnesses to the event, there is no forensic, the event was not reported at the time, there was no medical evidence, it would be past the statute of limitations except this law was changed off the back of #Metoo. The evidence comprises two friends of the alleged victim recalling that she told them about it at the time - which if she had, would still not hold up in a court of law, or frankly even make it that far.
It might not hold up in a criminal court, but it did hold up in a civil court (you know - a court of law)
What do you want to happen? This is a civil case between two parties. The jury has to decide. The only fair way is 'balance of probability' which is why that exists. In any dispute between two parties do you want one to have a greater weight than the other? That isn't fair.
You weren't on the jury. You don't have all the details they saw. It must have been a difficult job, particularly with, unlike a criminal case, you could be deciding on something where your opinion is 51:49, but what alternative is there? If it isn't 'balance of probability' you are giving one side an advantage over the other.
I'm sorry; the process has been wholly public - we do have all the details they saw. Frankly, I doubt it many of them found it that difficult. Who in America doesn't have a strong opinion about Donald Trump?
Would you then be happy for Carl Beech to have made his allegations about Lord Brammal public, and for him then to succeed in suing Lord Brammal for defamation if the latter had the audacity to deny them?
Bollocks. You sat through the whole evidence did you, like the jury? Did you hell. I find this assault on the integrity of juries insulting.
And what is your alternative when there is a dispute between two parties? This isn't a criminal case. It has to be made on the balance of probability. There is no other way.
You still haven't answered what the alternative is? If you are ever on the end of a dispute with a third party I would hope you would reflect on your opinion that the third party may be given some advantage over you because of whatever. Why should they?
This was a dispute between two people. A jury had to decide on the balance of probability who was telling the truth. They may have got it wrong, but how else are you going to settle disputes?
Luckyguy1983’s view appears to be that no-one should be allowed to make a claim of sexual assault unless they have witnesses or forensic evidence.
Nobody has denied anybody's right to make a claim of sexual assault without evidentiary support - what is questionable is that the alleged attacker should not be allowed to deny the claims without being guilty of defamation.
If someone calls you a liar, you can sue them for defamation (in the UK and US). You need to persuade the court and a jury of various things (that you aren’t lying, that they were acting maliciously etc.): it’s a lot tougher under US law than UK law.
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
You have asked this question (in various formats) of @Luckyguy1983 at least twice, as have I and no answer is forthcoming.
If someone calls you a liar in public you can sue. People do, particularly if they feel they have been damaged, and if found in your favour a court determines the value of your damages.
The only fair way to decide this is on the balance of probabilities.
@Luckyguy1983 you have persistently failed to come up with any alternative.
This quite frantic hectoring (tagging me in twice in the same post a bit much ducks?) speaks to an indefensible position being desperately gussied up with legalese. Nobody is denying that the process has been permissible under American law - it it were not, it wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be discussing it.
The discussion has not been on the legality, but whether the process and the verdict are justifiable. I don't think they are, and I think everyone here with a couple of brain cells can see that - we choose to disregard the fact 'because it's Trump'.
These allegations would never make it to a criminal court - part way through RCS's video they present as even more off the wall than I thought they were in the first place. Donald Trump therefore stands innocent of rape, but guilty for proclaiming his innocence of rape. That is completely perverse.
The real question is over whether Donald Trump can get a fair trial now. The DA behind the case was elected on a 'Get Trump' ticket. How can a District Attorney be elected on the basis of a pledge to use their legal power against a citizen? The same would be true if the jury and judge were MAGA supporters. I don't have the answer, and I'm rapidly losing interest in the question; I just think the discussion highlights the complete hypocrisy of many posters here.
Remember, though, this case wasn't about rape or sexual assault.
It was about Donald Trump defaming Ms Carroll to hundreds of thousands of people at campaign events.
"I didn't defame her, okay. I made her famous."
Quite.
He made her famous, just as Guiliani made Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss famous.
Separately: everyone's talking about Tucker and Putin. But it looks like Elon / Twitter / X have really lucked out with this whole Drake thing. The Twitter / X app has shot to the top of the App Store as people want to see a rapper* apparently engaged in some kind of sex act.
More Labour announcements tomorrow on how they won’t do anything to improve things because money’s too tight to mention.
Yes I know you’re going to inherit a load of shit but millions of people like me are hoping this is all a convenient lie and there’s actually a plan. I really hope so. Otherwise we’re fucked. And my little family the Lib Dems seek to have few novel ideas at the moment either.
In the immortal words of the sleep deprived and absolutely panic-stricken Faisal Islam on 25/06/16 - THERE. IS. NO. PLAN.
'The Conservative Party’s electoral prospects would not improve if they replaced Rishi Sunak with another leader such as Kemi Badenoch, polling for The Times suggests.'
6% would be more likely to vote for a Badenoch led party, 13% less likely. 12% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Tory under her.
12% would be more likely to vote for a Cameron led party again, 18% less likely. 16% would be more likely to vote for a Boris led party again though but 22% less likely. 35% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Conservative with Boris
The funny thing is with Prime Minister Sunak - albeit I see him as an empty suit from coverage - he has done at least something else other than “politics.” He just can’t seem to sell the positives of that.
The "thing" he did outside politics was marry a billionaire.
The politics of that are that he has no clue about life for other people, and he sells that on a daily basis
'The Conservative Party’s electoral prospects would not improve if they replaced Rishi Sunak with another leader such as Kemi Badenoch, polling for The Times suggests.'
6% would be more likely to vote for a Badenoch led party, 13% less likely. 12% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Tory under her.
12% would be more likely to vote for a Cameron led party again, 18% less likely. 16% would be more likely to vote for a Boris led party again though but 22% less likely. 35% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Conservative with Boris
Yes, the party is already beyond the point where changing its leader has any electoral utility whatsoever. Even the people wanting a change are probably just ‘grass is greener’ folk, who if you did jump to the next field, will suddenly find that the grass is still greener on the other side of the fence.
Comments
Edit: also Twitter gains data about me. I don't like that.
If you waltz to the top at a time when your party is dominant, you never learn how to persuade the public when they dislike you or something, the importance of emotional intelligence politically, or why some political positions which poll well, backfire. Because there's an assumption the party will just keep winning doing what it's doing and you're brilliant.
See all the current Tory guff about speaking for the 'will of the people' or a silent majority. The country isn't where it was in 2015, 16, or 19 and a politician who'd developed more of an antenna or emotional intelligence would understand that.
You can contrast Sunak to Starmer. Both became MPs in 2015. Both had high-flying careers outside politics and neither are completely natural politicians or performers. Yet one has been hardened by having to deal with and then put an end to Labour's disastrous 2015-2019 and learned from the litany of errors made by all its factions, so has developed far better political judgment.
Ed Miliband too is probably a better politician now than he was as leader because defeat taught him a few things and toughened it up a bit. In contrast, Sunak seems to constantly walk into situations that make him look weak.
My TA's are on £20k and are frequently verbally and physically assaulted for the privilege.
Geoff Marshall video about the new London bus Superloop routes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tzpm-j0sYg
The "silent majority" want the Tories out.
I have a lot of respect for people who can judge events dispassionately and call baloney on things even when it doesn't suit their personal agenda. There are vanishingly few about.
John McTernan
@johnmcternan
·
45m
Seems the Labour leadership decided that a policy that was popular and distinctive from the Tories gave them an unfair advantage in an election year.
However the fact the Tory candidate in the former is Bone's lover will test his popularity there too
I’m not saying some of this messaging isn’t weak or even dubious, but they have developed attack lines and slogans and oft repeat them.
My point was, everything the Torys say is for voters as the audience, labour seem to be making statements not for voters, but for business, money markets, investors, the IMF. And this “reimagining” of green policy is no different. Do you see what I mean?
What are you saying? That no-one should be allowed to sue over being called a liar if the claim relates to a sexual assault?
Although I do think that Ed Miliband faced a fairly rabid press pack that cut him down a lot. In my opinion much of that was unfair, particularly going after his old man - shades of Kier Starmer’s donkey sanctuary. Prime Minister Sunak seems to look a bit rubbish even when he gets a good write up in the press. If you are bit rubbish in fair wind, what happens when it turns?
As I get older I do like to see politicians with a bit of hinterland or at least have seen a bit of life. I am not sure we have been well served by the folks who have always played the politics game. The funny thing is with Prime Minister Sunak - albeit I see him as an empty suit from coverage - he has done at least something else other than “politics.” He just can’t seem to sell the positives of that.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/keir-starmers-distasteful-behaviour-at-pmqs/
But the point I used it to make though, is how can “figures” on things like that move around, yet cost of Labours green deal remain at £28B for years?
She sued him - not over the claims of sexual assault - but because he defamed her repeatedly at campaign events. If he'd said nothing at campaign trials after he left the Presidency, there would have been no trial.
If someone calls you a liar in public you can sue. People do, particularly if they feel they have been damaged, and if found in your favour a court determines the value of your damages.
The only fair way to decide this is on the balance of probabilities.
@Luckyguy1983 you have persistently failed to come up with any alternative.
Carroll, as per the video rcs1000 suggested, had to prove a lot of things. US defamation law is way stricter than UK law. She and her lawyers persuaded the court and, critically, a jury. Where’s the problem?
Finally getting use out of my NFTs thanks to the Apple Vision Pro! $3,000,000 well spent!
https://twitter.com/AlexFinnX/status/1754573701696082032
So in a dispute you might get something like:
50% Scenario A - Award $1m to claimant
20% Scenario B - Award $500k to defendent
30% Scenario C - Both equally in wrong so nothing done
Would give 50% * $1m - 20% * $500k so $400k to claimant rather than the binary $1m gain or $500k loss.
The discussion has not been on the legality, but whether the process and the verdict are justifiable. I don't think they are, and I think everyone here with a couple of brain cells can see that - we choose to disregard the fact 'because it's Trump'.
These allegations would never make it to a criminal court - part way through RCS's video they present as even more off the wall than I thought they were in the first place. Donald Trump therefore stands innocent of rape, but guilty for proclaiming his innocence of rape. That is completely perverse.
The real question is over whether Donald Trump can get a fair trial now. The DA behind the case was elected on a 'Get Trump' ticket. How can a District Attorney be elected on the basis of a pledge to use their legal power against a citizen? The same would be true if the jury and judge were MAGA supporters. I don't have the answer, and I'm rapidly losing interest in the question; I just think the discussion highlights the complete hypocrisy of many posters here.
'The Conservative Party’s electoral prospects would not improve if they replaced Rishi Sunak with another leader such as Kemi Badenoch, polling for The Times suggests.'
6% would be more likely to vote for a Badenoch led party, 13% less likely. 12% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Tory under her.
12% would be more likely to vote for a Cameron led party again, 18% less likely. 16% would be more likely to vote for a Boris led party again though but 22% less likely. 35% of 2019 Conservative voters would be more likely to vote Conservative with Boris
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/getting-rid-of-rishi-sunak-wont-save-the-tories-poll-says-b9sptfxb6
Who will the Tories place in the public gallery? A Saville victim? A post mistress Starmer’s CPS imprisoned? 😈
Legalese? What legalese?
I agree it wouldn't make it to a criminal court, so what, but again, for the umpteenth time, you fail to come up with an alternative to being able to sue for defamation, or do you believe we should all be able to defame people willy nilly and if not what is your solution?
@Anna_Soubry
·
2h
Beyond disgusting. You don’t have to be a mother or indeed a father to “imagine” Esther Gheys suffering. #Sunak knew she was in the gallery. Sunak chose to say what he did. He, Badenoch et al are woefully out of their depth & the sooner they’re out of Govt the better.
The problem in this particular isntance is many complaints online (amped up by Trump's TV lawyers) are along the lines of objecting to what even to a layman is clearly common court procedure - like lawyers getting stern instructions from judges when they ignore rulings, or not being allowed to bring in random anecdotes which have nothing to do with the facts of the case - or entirely self serving (like verbally attacking judges, then using that attack as proof they must be biased) because and that sort of thing undermines what might be more valid points, by drowing them out.
Do I agree with the verdicts in the Carrol cases? I've no idea. A jury outcome has never stopped people believing or disbelieving something if they really want, so it seems only fair that people are focusing on whether the process was properly carried out under the law that exists and not the law others might want, since that is the relevant question that remains, when nobody else is in a position to assess the facts in the same way.
It reminds me of some of the many baseless legal challenges, when some would point to an electoral practice which we might agree is poor (like counting ballots arriving well after election day if posted on that day). Disliking that practice is a worthy question, but it was kind of irrelevant to the question of the legality, that they hadn't been challenged prior, and given the disproportionate remedies being sought.
Keir was right, we really need to move on.
And it's a ringer question. What a berk.
Yes I know you’re going to inherit a load of shit but millions of people like me are hoping this is all a convenient lie and there’s actually a plan. I really hope so. Otherwise we’re fucked. And my little family the Lib Dems seek to have few novel ideas at the moment either.
It was about Donald Trump defaming Ms Carroll to hundreds of thousands of people at campaign events.
He made her famous, just as Guiliani made Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss famous.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/texas-firm-allegedly-behind-fake-biden-robocall-that-told-people-not-to-vote/
* No, I've never heard of him
Con are going to have to take their medicine in the form of the voters wrath in 2024. Sunak needs to be left in place to soak that up...
Then we'll see how pale, male and stale Sir Keir looks up against Kemi's Tories in 2029...
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/superloop
The politics of that are that he has no clue about life for other people, and he sells that on a daily basis
NEW THREAD