Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
See my quotes from her 2003 book below.
Also the record shows that she was a tough negotiator and actually got some reforms, Cameron and Osborne... not so much.
2003 was 14 years after she left power.
While she had power, she integrated Britain further into the EU.
After last night's debate the odds will now shift towards a Trump nomination and most likely a Hillary presidency. I have always felt that Rubio was a VP contendor but last night's performance suggests he was never really a presidential nominee, anyway, we shall see. The comparisons with Quayle and Stockdale were apt
The poll also showed that Sanders, who is from neighboring Vermont, leads Clinton, 50 percent to 41 percent, with 8 percent undecided. The key factor contributing to Sanders’ lead over Clinton is his advantage among independent voters, who favor him over Clinton, 57 percent to 30 percent. Sanders also leads among men, 59 percent to 30 percent, and in the areas along the Vermont state line, 60 percent to 32 percent.
I will admit those figures surprise me somewhat. However, if Clinton can't shake Sanders off and all the while is dogged by the noises off, shouldn't the Republican nominee, even Trump, be considered the favourite (God help us all)?
After last night's debate the odds will now shift towards a Trump nomination and most likely a Hillary presidency. I have always felt that Rubio was a VP contendor but last night's performance suggests he was never really a presidential nominee, anyway, we shall see. The comparisons with Quayle and Stockdale were apt
"On Sunday morning, Rubio returned to the scene of the crime, ABC News, and This Week host George Stephanopoulos led off the interview by asking Rubio “What went wrong” to make Rubio go back to that rehearsed phrase so many times.
Rubio took an interesting tack with Stephanopoulos, defending his repetition of the talking point by repeating it three more times"
I told you that Rubio was an empty suit that would be creamed by Hillary. Rubio has literally only one thing to say on every subject.
"Senator Rubio, what's your opinion about pizza?"
"Obama knows exactly what he is doing"
Agree but after Iowa you seemed to be having another panic and shifting towards Rubio to be the nominee, I always felt his third place in Iowa was overrated
Rubio had the media and momentum on his side after Iowa, he makes Romney look human but Romney still won the GOP nomination in 2012 because of media support despite being terrible.
I still said correctly that if Rubio is the GOP nominee I will put a big bet on Hillary, because Rubio like Romney will be ditched in the end by the media in favour of the democrats. Without the media they are nothing, they are empty suits.
Such strange politics at the moment with no viable opposition. I've just heard Jeremy Hunt say in a voice so patronizing that it would embarrass a pre-school teacher say that he was very cross that the BMA have been misleading junior doctors about what's been offered to them.
He's talking about qualified doctors and this is how highly he rates them!
That Labour haven't got anyone to cash in on this Tory open goal would be so depressing if it wasn't that so many of us have given up on them. Good luck to the docs anyway. I'm sure after Hunt's recent performances the public are squarely behind them.
The ST reports how No 10 has developed close relationships with Rubio. The Florida Senator was guest of honour at a 2013 private dinner hosted by Cameron's director of strategy, Ameet Gill and Michael Gove and a Rubio adviser met Gill, Gove and others for dinner at the Garrick club last month. They are said to believe Rubio needed a third place in Iowa and a strong second in NH to get the nomination so he may well not be dead yet (his rallies are getting big crowds today https://mobile.twitter.com/Norsu2/status/696373109146910720/photo/1
IDS met Cruz last year but the Cameron circle has no links with the Texan and no senior Tories have links with Trump. Jeb Bush and Christie met Cameron, Gill, Gove, Johnson and Osborne when they visited London in Nov 2014 and Jan 2015. Ed Llewellyn, Cameron's chief of staff, has links with Hillary's team but she is also friendly with David Miliband and Labour, though presumably Corbynistas prefer Sanders as suggested by Ken Livingstone http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Americas/article1665512.ece
Similar people attract similar people.
Rubio=Cameron Hillary=Miliband D. Sanders=Corbyn Trump=?
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
After last night's debate the odds will now shift towards a Trump nomination and most likely a Hillary presidency. I have always felt that Rubio was a VP contendor but last night's performance suggests he was never really a presidential nominee, anyway, we shall see. The comparisons with Quayle and Stockdale were apt
"On Sunday morning, Rubio returned to the scene of the crime, ABC News, and This Week host George Stephanopoulos led off the interview by asking Rubio “What went wrong” to make Rubio go back to that rehearsed phrase so many times.
Rubio took an interesting tack with Stephanopoulos, defending his repetition of the talking point by repeating it three more times"
I told you that Rubio was an empty suit that would be creamed by Hillary. Rubio has literally only one thing to say on every subject.
"Senator Rubio, what's your opinion about pizza?"
"Obama knows exactly what he is doing"
Agree but after Iowa you seemed to be having another panic and shifting towards Rubio to be the nominee, I always felt his third place in Iowa was overrated
Rubio had the media and momentum on his side after Iowa, he makes Romney look human but Romney still won the GOP nomination in 2012 because of media support despite being terrible.
I still said correctly that if Rubio is the GOP nominee I will put a big bet on Hillary, because Rubio like Romney will be ditched in the end by the media in favour of the democrats. Without the media they are nothing, they are empty suits.
You are correct that the media always back the moderate in the GOP race then dump them in the general. For me Rubio is a thicker but more charismatic version of Romney, ideologically they are not that different
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
See my quotes from her 2003 book below.
Also the record shows that she was a tough negotiator and actually got some reforms, Cameron and Osborne... not so much.
2003 was 14 years after she left power.
While she had power, she integrated Britain further into the EU.
Christ on a bike, Powell was suggesting what she would do now, do you think what she said in 2003 or 14 years earlier is going to be most relevant there ? Also we are talking about the EU as it is now, not as it was in 1999. You really don't have to try this hard, we are taking your pro-EU credentials as read.
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
See my quotes from her 2003 book below.
Also the record shows that she was a tough negotiator and actually got some reforms, Cameron and Osborne... not so much.
2003 was 14 years after she left power.
While she had power, she integrated Britain further into the EU.
BBC, for example, will not be happy. There will be a markedly different mood within the corporation this election night to the one we witnessed in 2008, when the studios were awash with ejaculate and we viewers were all forced to endure a relentlessly celebratory Obamathon, utterly devoid of anything even approaching impartiality: how wonderful of the Americans to elect him and what a marvellous, marvellous little black man he is! They will be instead grim-faced with incomprehension and antipathy.
After last night's debate the odds will now shift towards a Trump nomination and most likely a Hillary presidency. I have always felt that Rubio was a VP contendor but last night's performance suggests he was never really a presidential nominee, anyway, we shall see. The comparisons with Quayle and Stockdale were apt
"On Sunday morning, Rubio returned to the scene of the crime, ABC News, and This Week host George Stephanopoulos led off the interview by asking Rubio “What went wrong” to make Rubio go back to that rehearsed phrase so many times.
Rubio took an interesting tack with Stephanopoulos, defending his repetition of the talking point by repeating it three more times"
I told you that Rubio was an empty suit that would be creamed by Hillary. Rubio has literally only one thing to say on every subject.
"Senator Rubio, what's your opinion about pizza?"
"Obama knows exactly what he is doing"
Agree but after Iowa you seemed to be having another panic and shifting towards Rubio to be the nominee, I always felt his third place in Iowa was overrated
Rubio had the media and momentum on his side after Iowa, he makes Romney look human but Romney still won the GOP nomination in 2012 because of media support despite being terrible.
I still said correctly that if Rubio is the GOP nominee I will put a big bet on Hillary, because Rubio like Romney will be ditched in the end by the media in favour of the democrats. Without the media they are nothing, they are empty suits.
You are correct that the media always back the moderate in the GOP race then dump them in the general. For me Rubio is a thicker but more charismatic version of Romney, ideologically they are not that different
The only differences between Romney and Rubio are that Romney couldn't utter a single sentence while Rubio can only utter a single sentence, also that Romney was never exposed in the GOP debates because his competitors were busy attacking each other for second, Rubio is now being attacked by everyone because he's second.
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
But surely they should have got her to look at the CCTV footage and try to say where it happened? This is clearly a stitch up and what really concerns me is this bit:
'A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”'
I suppose if I were being generous I could accept that maybe the jury didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and so made it look like they were considering all the facts, but if I had been on the jury I'd have found it difficult to keep a straight face. That this case made it to court shows what a perverted legal system we have in this country.
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
No - she initiated the issue by reporting it to the police.
There is absolutely no reason for her identity to be kept secret. None at all.
I think the public have a right to know who the actress is. The CCTV footage clearly showed that her story was a lie. The question is why she would try and destroy the life of an innocent man.
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
But surely they should have got her to look at the CCTV footage and try to say where it happened? This is clearly a stitch up and what really concerns me is this bit:
'A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”'
I suppose if I were being generous I could accept that maybe the jury didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and so made it look like they were considering all the facts, but if I had been on the jury I'd have found it difficult to keep a straight face. That this case made it to court shows what a perverted legal system we have in this country.
How about there was a demented feminist on the jury who insisted that because he was charged he must be guilty. Took the rest a while to convince her it was all rubbish.
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
But surely they should have got her to look at the CCTV footage and try to say where it happened? This is clearly a stitch up and what really concerns me is this bit:
'A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”'
I suppose if I were being generous I could accept that maybe the jury didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and so made it look like they were considering all the facts, but if I had been on the jury I'd have found it difficult to keep a straight face. That this case made it to court shows what a perverted legal system we have in this country.
I suspect that if she hadn't have been a 'public figure' then the Police would not have taken it so seriously.
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
But surely they should have got her to look at the CCTV footage and try to say where it happened? This is clearly a stitch up and what really concerns me is this bit:
'A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”'
I suppose if I were being generous I could accept that maybe the jury didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and so made it look like they were considering all the facts, but if I had been on the jury I'd have found it difficult to keep a straight face. That this case made it to court shows what a perverted legal system we have in this country.
How about there was a demented feminist on the jury who insisted that because he was charged he must be guilty. Took the rest a while to convince her it was all rubbish.
Trump is a social conservative only on immigration, he's on the centre-left on everything else.
Would Farage utter that he can't stand seeing people dying in the streets? Would Clegg utter that he doesn't like immigration?
That's why I put ? next to Trump, no british politician is like him.
Trump is not centre left, he wants to cut the top tax rate, he is also willing to spend on popular causes, not unlike Farage. It is not surprise UKIP voters are the only UK voters who give Trump a net positive approval rating!
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
But surely they should have got her to look at the CCTV footage and try to say where it happened? This is clearly a stitch up and what really concerns me is this bit:
'A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”'
I suppose if I were being generous I could accept that maybe the jury didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and so made it look like they were considering all the facts, but if I had been on the jury I'd have found it difficult to keep a straight face. That this case made it to court shows what a perverted legal system we have in this country.
Perhaps by the time they had had a cuppa, a sandwich, a toilet break and a quick snooze, they then made their decision...
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
See my quotes from her 2003 book below.
Also the record shows that she was a tough negotiator and actually got some reforms, Cameron and Osborne... not so much.
2003 was 14 years after she left power.
While she had power, she integrated Britain further into the EU.
After last night's debate the odds will now shift towards a Trump nomination and most likely a Hillary presidency. I have always felt that Rubio was a VP contendor but last night's performance suggests he was never really a presidential nominee, anyway, we shall see. The comparisons with Quayle and Stockdale were apt
"On Sunday morning, Rubio returned to the scene of the crime, ABC News, and This Week host George Stephanopoulos led off the interview by asking Rubio “What went wrong” to make Rubio go back to that rehearsed phrase so many times.
Rubio took an interesting tack with Stephanopoulos, defending his repetition of the talking point by repeating it three more times"
I told you that Rubio was an empty suit that would be creamed by Hillary. Rubio has literally only one thing to say on every subject.
"Senator Rubio, what's your opinion about pizza?"
"Obama knows exactly what he is doing"
Agree but after Iowa you seemed to be having another panic and shifting towards Rubio to be the nominee, I always felt his third place in Iowa was overrated
Rubio had the media and momentum on his side after Iowa, he makes Romney look human but Romney still won the GOP nomination in 2012 because of media support despite being terrible.
I still said correctly that if Rubio is the GOP nominee I will put a big bet on Hillary, because Rubio like Romney will be ditched in the end by the media in favour of the democrats. Without the media they are nothing, they are empty suits.
You are correct that the media always back the moderate in the GOP race then dump them in the general. For me Rubio is a thicker but more charismatic version of Romney, ideologically they are not that different
The only differences between Romney and Rubio are that Romney couldn't utter a single sentence while Rubio can only utter a single sentence, also that Romney was never exposed in the GOP debates because his competitors were busy attacking each other for second, Rubio is now being attacked by everyone because he's second.
Romney was also lucky in his opponents, had Trump ran in 2012 he might have beaten him!
BBC, for example, will not be happy. There will be a markedly different mood within the corporation this election night to the one we witnessed in 2008, when the studios were awash with ejaculate and we viewers were all forced to endure a relentlessly celebratory Obamathon, utterly devoid of anything even approaching impartiality: how wonderful of the Americans to elect him and what a marvellous, marvellous little black man he is! They will be instead grim-faced with incomprehension and antipathy.
I thought of a similar thing on the previous thread when I saw how many people were talking about Patel's qualities because of what she was not - not white, not rich, not privately educated, etc. But the truth is negative reasons are no reason at all to vote for anybody. That's how we end up with sad disasters like Jeremy Corbyn (elected because he wasn't Burnham or Cooper) or Michael Foot (elected because he wasn't Denis Healey) or Iain Duncan Smith (who wasn't Kenneth Clarke) and to a lesser extent John Major (not Michael Heseltine).
I did something similar in 2005 and ended up feeling a complete fool. I threw away a chance to vote for a candidate I genuinely thought had something about him (and who is such a good constituency MP that he is the lone surviving Liberal Democrat MP holding a university seat in his own strength) in order to give the rude and arrogant Labour candidate (who has since been so useless as an AM and minister that even Carwyn Jones felt he had to sack him) a bloody nose by making him come fourth. It taught me a valuable lesson, and now I look as far as I can for positive reasons for anything.
The logic falls down somewhat in the presidential race where there is no good reason to vote for any of them. But it still applies to our next PM.
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
But surely they should have got her to look at the CCTV footage and try to say where it happened? This is clearly a stitch up and what really concerns me is this bit:
'A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”'
I suppose if I were being generous I could accept that maybe the jury didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and so made it look like they were considering all the facts, but if I had been on the jury I'd have found it difficult to keep a straight face. That this case made it to court shows what a perverted legal system we have in this country.
The CCTV showed the pass by to be approx one second. If he managed "actual penetration" on that short space of time then she must have been naked. Even then it seems unlikely.
Oh ......and he must have achieved said penetration with a rolled up morning newspaper.
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
See my quotes from her 2003 book below.
Also the record shows that she was a tough negotiator and actually got some reforms, Cameron and Osborne... not so much.
2003 was 14 years after she left power.
While she had power, she integrated Britain further into the EU.
Christ on a bike, Powell was suggesting what she would do now, do you think what she said in 2003 or 14 years earlier is going to be most relevant there ? Also we are talking about the EU as it is now, not as it was in 1999. You really don't have to try this hard, we are taking your pro-EU credentials as read.
We might as well speculate on what Attlee or Chamberlain's views would be on this referendum then!
The simple facts are that while she held the reins, she integrated Britain further into the European institutions, despite plenty of opportunity to campaign to leave.
Now you may think her an unprincipled waverer swayed by the pro-Europeans around her, but my impression of the lady is that she was not afraid of making her views known!
Mr. SE, quite. It must not be the case that every accusation of sexual assault that doesn't lead to a conviction leads to the accuser's identity becoming known, but where it's clearly a malicious invention, that should be the case.
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
No - she initiated the issue by reporting it to the police.
There is absolutely no reason for her identity to be kept secret. None at all.
Yes she reported it. My point was that she did not identify him as the perpetrator at the identity parade. It was CCTV evidence that the police claimed did that, although had Emile Zola been watching I think we would have had a new burst of J'accusé to keep us occupied.
@tlg86 why would they show her the CCTV footage? To identify the man? Not easy on such a grainy image, and a defence counsel could easily suggest that she had been encouraged to spot the defendant ahead of the real perpetrator. Better to look themselves.
Where my theoretical defence hits a stumbling block, of course, is that if there was a second man it's extremely surprising the police did not see him and pursue him rather than this highly unfortunate guy with a newspaper.
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
to this catastrophe.
But surely they should have got her to look at the CCTV footage and try to say where it happened? This is clearly a stitch up and what really concerns me is this bit:
'A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”'
I suppose if I were being generous I could accept that maybe the jury didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and so made it look like they were considering all the facts, but if I had been on the jury I'd have found it difficult to keep a straight face. That this case made it to court shows what a perverted legal system we have in this country.
How about there was a demented feminist on the jury who insisted that because he was charged he must be guilty. Took the rest a while to convince her it was all rubbish.
And yes, I'm still a lefty.
When my husband did jury service, he said one of the female jurors kept arguing that the accused must have been guilty because "he was arrested, wasn't he? And there's no smoke without fire..."
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
No - she initiated the issue by reporting it to the police.
There is absolutely no reason for her identity to be kept secret. None at all.
Yes she reported it. My point was that she did not identify him as the perpetrator at the identity parade. It was CCTV evidence that the police claimed did that, although had Emile Zola been watching I think we would have had a new burst of J'accusé to keep us occupied.
@tlg86 why would they show her the CCTV footage? To identify the man? Not easy on such a grainy image, and a defence counsel could easily suggest that she had been encouraged to spot the defendant ahead of the real perpetrator. Better to look themselves.
Where my theoretical defence hits a stumbling block, of course, is that if there was a second man it's extremely surprising the police did not see him and pursue him rather than this highly unfortunate guy with a newspaper.
Could they not have taken her to the station and asked her to say whereabouts it happened? Then the police could take a look at the footage and see if any of it matched her account?
BBC, for example, will not be happy. There will be a markedly different mood within the corporation this election night to the one we witnessed in 2008, when the studios were awash with ejaculate and we viewers were all forced to endure a relentlessly celebratory Obamathon, utterly devoid of anything even approaching impartiality: how wonderful of the Americans to elect him and what a marvellous, marvellous little black man he is! They will be instead grim-faced with incomprehension and antipathy.
I thought of a similar thing on the previous thread when I saw how many people were talking about Patel's qualities because of what she was not - not white, not rich, not privately educated, etc. But the truth is negative reasons are no reason at all to vote for anybody. That's how we end up with sad disasters like Jeremy Corbyn (elected because he wasn't Burnham or Cooper) or Michael Foot (elected because he wasn't Denis Healey) or Iain Duncan Smith (who wasn't Kenneth Clarke) and to a lesser extent John Major (not Michael Heseltine).
I wouldn't have reversed a single one of those decisions. People's instincts can be very wise, and a sad disaster is preferable by a country mile to a presentable confidence trickster.
Could they not have taken her to the station and asked her to say whereabouts it happened? Then the police could take a look at the footage and see if any of it matched her account?
Well, this is where it all gets puzzling and why there should be a review of the case, including at the CPS. Because it's fairly obvious either they didn't take that very basic step, or the actress in question was lying about what happened and where.
I think there must be more to this than has come out, but I wonder if the name of the actress is itself the crucial part - if it is somebody popular whom the police believed on her reputation alone, or who had been attacked before.
So from look at pictures of Cameron with the huskies we should assume he is a enthusiastic environmentalist should we ? Or possibly that it was a politically expedient image to portray at the time and actually had damn all to do with his views.
Mrs T thought referenda the tool of tyrants and demagogues
She campaigned actively for Remain in the 1975 referendum.
In 1983 Labour stood on an EU withdrawal manifesto. She campaigned for remaining in. She could easily have passed a Leave bill if she wanted, with cross party support.
Shortly before the 1987 election she signed the Single European Act that she had helped negotiate.
Even after her Bruges speech, she was a critic of the EU but not a BOOer.
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
I see the banner says "Radical Youth for Europe". Is it Corbyn in disguise.
Happy Birthday Nick and Cyclefree, and best wishes.
"What we should grasp, however, from the lessons of European history is that, first, there is nothing necessarily benevolent about programmes of European integration; second, the desire to achieve grand utopian plans often poses a grave threat to freedom; and third, European unity has been tried before, and the outcome was far from happy."
You can pick and choose your Maggie quotes: "I dream of a day when I might board a train at Victoria, and alight in Paris, and need not carry a passport." makes her sound like a fully paid up supporter of Schengen
I don't think you will find a quote anywhere where she said she was in favour of British membership of a united Europe. Indeed there are dozens of quotes where she makes very clear her opposition to it.
Face it, anyone with an iota of sense sees that what we are now stuck with is a million miles from simply a free trade area. Those who pretend otherwise are utterly dishonest.
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
See my quotes from her 2003 book below.
Also the record shows that she was a tough negotiator and actually got some reforms, Cameron and Osborne... not so much.
2003 was 14 years after she left power.
While she had power, she integrated Britain further into the EU.
Christ on a bike, Powell was suggesting what she would do now, do you think what she said in 2003 or 14 years earlier is going to be most relevant there ? Also we are talking about the EU as it is now, not as it was in 1999. You really don't have to try this hard, we are taking your pro-EU credentials as read.
We might as well speculate on what Attlee or Chamberlain's views would be on this referendum then!
The simple facts are that while she held the reins, she integrated Britain further into the European institutions, despite plenty of opportunity to campaign to leave.
Now you may think her an unprincipled waverer swayed by the pro-Europeans around her, but my impression of the lady is that she was not afraid of making her views known!
Very enjoyable - keep telling Remain's left wing activist and voter base this won't you? Bound to go down a treat.
So from look at pictures of Cameron with the huskies we should assume he is a enthusiastic environmentalist should we ? Or possibly that it was a politically expedient image to portray at the time and actually had damn all to do with his views.
Mrs T thought referenda the tool of tyrants and demagogues
She campaigned actively for Remain in the 1975 referendum.
In 1983 Labour stood on an EU withdrawal manifesto. She campaigned for remaining in. She could easily have passed a Leave bill if she wanted, with cross party support.
Shortly before the 1987 election she signed the Single European Act that she had helped negotiate.
Even after her Bruges speech, she was a critic of the EU but not a BOOer.
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
No, she would see how it would destroy her legacy and reputation and have more sense. Cameron and Osborne unfortunately have not learnt that lesson yet.
Europhilia except on the basis of complete unification and a single European nation is the refuge of scoundrels, fools and the historically illiterate.
After last night's debate the odds will now shift towards a Trump nomination and most likely a Hillary presidency. I have always felt that Rubio was a VP contendor but last night's performance suggests he was never really a presidential nominee, anyway, we shall see. The comparisons with Quayle and Stockdale were apt
"On Sunday morning, Rubio returned to the scene of the crime, ABC News, and This Week host George Stephanopoulos led off the interview by asking Rubio “What went wrong” to make Rubio go back to that rehearsed phrase so many times.
Rubio took an interesting tack with Stephanopoulos, defending his repetition of the talking point by repeating it three more times"
I told you that Rubio was an empty suit that would be creamed by Hillary. Rubio has literally only one thing to say on every subject.
"Senator Rubio, what's your opinion about pizza?"
"Obama knows exactly what he is doing"
Agree but after Iowa you seemed to be having another panic and shifting towards Rubio to be the nominee, I always felt his third place in Iowa was overrated
Rubio had the media and momentum on his side after Iowa, he makes Romney look human but Romney still won the GOP nomination in 2012 because of media support despite being terrible.
I still said correctly that if Rubio is the GOP nominee I will put a big bet on Hillary, because Rubio like Romney will be ditched in the end by the media in favour of the democrats. Without the media they are nothing, they are empty suits.
You are correct that the media always back the moderate in the GOP race then dump them in the general. For me Rubio is a thicker but more charismatic version of Romney, ideologically they are not that different
Romney might have put people to sleep but Rubio only keeps them awake by inducing headaches with his whiny voice.
Rubio is one of the most narcissistic people I've ever seen in politics which is saying something given the crowded field.
She should be named for legal reasons and charged for wasting police time.
Actually, Sunil, if I read the article correctly there is a possible second explanation - it may have been a case of mistaken identity. The man who was tried was not identified by her, but by his Oyster card and CCTV footage which doesn't really match her account.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
But surely they should have got her to look at the CCTV footage and try to say where it happened? This is clearly a stitch up and what really concerns me is this bit:
'A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”'
I suppose if I were being generous I could accept that maybe the jury didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and so made it look like they were considering all the facts, but if I had been on the jury I'd have found it difficult to keep a straight face.
Or that it had been a tiring day in court and they fancied a coffee and a chat before heading back in
So from look at pictures of Cameron with the huskies we should assume he is a enthusiastic environmentalist should we ? Or possibly that it was a politically expedient image to portray at the time and actually had damn all to do with his views.
Mrs T thought referenda the tool of tyrants and demagogues
She campaigned actively for Remain in the 1975 referendum.
In 1983 Labour stood on an EU withdrawal manifesto. She campaigned for remaining in. She could easily have passed a Leave bill if she wanted, with cross party support.
Shortly before the 1987 election she signed the Single European Act that she had helped negotiate.
Even after her Bruges speech, she was a critic of the EU but not a BOOer.
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
Would she do so in 2015, though?
I find it unlikely.
Maastrich and particularly Lisbon made the EU truly problematic for the Brits - the Tories at least. The LibDems refused to back a referendum on Lisbon but said they would support an IN/OUT referendum - hypocrites.
So from look at pictures of Cameron with the huskies we should assume he is a enthusiastic environmentalist should we ? Or possibly that it was a politically expedient image to portray at the time and actually had damn all to do with his views.
Mrs T thought referenda the tool of tyrants and demagogues
She campaigned actively for Remain in the 1975 referendum.
In 1983 Labour stood on an EU withdrawal manifesto. She campaigned for remaining in. She could easily have passed a Leave bill if she wanted, with cross party support.
Shortly before the 1987 election she signed the Single European Act that she had helped negotiate.
Even after her Bruges speech, she was a critic of the EU but not a BOOer.
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
Would she do so in 2015, though?
I find it unlikely.
As recently as 2010 she had provided advice to UKIP's then leader, Lord Pearson. Not something I would expect a Europhile to be do.
After last night's debate the odds will now shift towards a Trump nomination and most likely a Hillary presidency. I have always felt that Rubio was a VP contendor but last night's performance suggests he was never really a presidential nominee, anyway, we shall see. The comparisons with Quayle and Stockdale were apt
"On Sunday morning, Rubio returned to the scene of the crime, ABC News, and This Week host George Stephanopoulos led off the interview by asking Rubio “What went wrong” to make Rubio go back to that rehearsed phrase so many times.
Rubio took an interesting tack with Stephanopoulos, defending his repetition of the talking point by repeating it three more times"
I told you that Rubio was an empty suit that would be creamed by Hillary. Rubio has literally only one thing to say on every subject.
"Senator Rubio, what's your opinion about pizza?"
"Obama knows exactly what he is doing"
Agree but after Iowa you seemed to be having another panic and shifting towards Rubio to be the nominee, I always felt his third place in Iowa was overrated
Rubio had the media and momentum on his side after Iowa, he makes Romney look human but Romney still won the GOP nomination in 2012 because of media support despite being terrible.
I still said correctly that if Rubio is the GOP nominee I will put a big bet on Hillary, because Rubio like Romney will be ditched in the end by the media in favour of the democrats. Without the media they are nothing, they are empty suits.
You are correct that the media always back the moderate in the GOP race then dump them in the general. For me Rubio is a thicker but more charismatic version of Romney, ideologically they are not that different
Romney might have put people to sleep but Rubio only keeps them awake by inducing headaches with his whiny voice.
Rubio is one of the most narcissistic people I've ever seen in politics which is saying something given the crowded field.
Well that is one reason he was called 'the Republican Obama!'
Mr. SE, quite. It must not be the case that every accusation of sexual assault that doesn't lead to a conviction leads to the accuser's identity becoming known, but where it's clearly a malicious invention, that should be the case.
Mr Morris Quite agree up and to the point malicious, not guilty or not the accused has their name splayed every where. The accuser walks away . There will be cases where the accused is not guilty and commonly it's a he said , she said which is why these types of crimes are very very difficult to bring a prosecution let alone achieve a guilty verdict. That is not good for women who know they have been assaulted.
The "cannot be named for legal reasons" must though work both ways in these cases. To clarify I am not saying cases heard in camera just no names.
I am waiting for a falsely accused to take their case to the high courts and even Europe. Surprised it hasn't happened before now TBH. If the woman was named and never the man you could quite rightly understand the howls of derision. Why is it ok the other way around and barely warrants comment.
That was the previous time Germany tried to dominate Europe
I really don't recall trhat epithet. Nazi's was usually bad enough. Possibly Nazi swine. I was young during the war though, so possibly more colourful adjectives wiould have passed me by.
That was the previous time Germany tried to dominate Europe
I really don't recall trhat epithet. Nazi's was usually bad enough. Possibly Nazi swine. I was young during the war though, so possibly more colourful adjectives wiould have passed me by.
Surely it is just a literal translation of the German "Schweinhund" ?
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
See my quotes from her 2003 book below.
Also the record shows that she was a tough negotiator and actually got some reforms, Cameron and Osborne... not so much.
2003 was 14 years after she left power.
While she had power, she integrated Britain further into the EU.
Christ on a bike, Powell was suggesting what she would do now, do you think what she said in 2003 or 14 years earlier is going to be most relevant there ? Also we are talking about the EU as it is now, not as it was in 1999. You really don't have to try this hard, we are taking your pro-EU credentials as read.
We might as well speculate on what Attlee or Chamberlain's views would be on this referendum then!
The simple facts are that while she held the reins, she integrated Britain further into the European institutions, despite plenty of opportunity to campaign to leave.
Now you may think her an unprincipled waverer swayed by the pro-Europeans around her, but my impression of the lady is that she was not afraid of making her views known!
All of which ignores the fact that it was her opposition to further EU integration that resulted in her being removed by the Eurofanatical morons in her own party.
Oh ......and he must have achieved said penetration with a rolled up morning newspaper.
Please tell me that that wasn't quite what you meant, Moses!
Unfortunately yes,
That was the basis of the defence case. His hands were occupied during the quick pass. One holding bag strap on shoulder with his right hand throughout and a morning paper in the left hand making it impossible for him to achieve what was stated to have been ....errrr ....achieved.
Could have phrased in somewhat more eloquently I suppose...*
*taps fingers looks wistfully into the distance......
Classic William Hague speech in the Commons on Blair's bid for the EU Council President position. "The naivety of ministers who think that by signing this treaty [Lisbon] they are agreeing to a static constitutional position, would be alarming were not apparent in people with such senior responsibilities."
Caption from Youtube - would Hague say the same today?
With the rest of the tracking polls I say that before the debate the situation in N.H. was returning to the normal pre-Iowa one, aka anyone could end up from 2nd to 5th.
Could they not have taken her to the station and asked her to say whereabouts it happened? Then the police could take a look at the footage and see if any of it matched her account?
Well, this is where it all gets puzzling and why there should be a review of the case, including at the CPS. Because it's fairly obvious either they didn't take that very basic step, or the actress in question was lying about what happened and where.
I think there must be more to this than has come out, but I wonder if the name of the actress is itself the crucial part - if it is somebody popular whom the police believed on her reputation alone, or who had been attacked before.
She's been described as being "in her 60s" - should narrow the field down somewhat...
Oh ......and he must have achieved said penetration with a rolled up morning newspaper.
Please tell me that that wasn't quite what you meant, Moses!
Unfortunately yes,
That was the basis of the defence case. His hands were occupied during the quick pass. One holding bag strap on shoulder with his right hand throughout and a morning paper in the left hand making it impossible for him to achieve what was stated to have been ....errrr ....achieved.
Could have phrased in somewhat more eloquently I suppose...*
*taps fingers looks wistfully into the distance......
But what you said was that he was alleged to have penetrated her with the rolled-up newspaper...
Could they not have taken her to the station and asked her to say whereabouts it happened? Then the police could take a look at the footage and see if any of it matched her account?
Well, this is where it all gets puzzling and why there should be a review of the case, including at the CPS. Because it's fairly obvious either they didn't take that very basic step, or the actress in question was lying about what happened and where.
I think there must be more to this than has come out, but I wonder if the name of the actress is itself the crucial part - if it is somebody popular whom the police believed on her reputation alone, or who had been attacked before.
I see the banner says "Radical Youth for Europe". Is it Corbyn in disguise.
Happy Birthday Nick and Cyclefree, and best wishes.
"What we should grasp, however, from the lessons of European history is that, first, there is nothing necessarily benevolent about programmes of European integration; second, the desire to achieve grand utopian plans often poses a grave threat to freedom; and third, European unity has been tried before, and the outcome was far from happy."
You can pick and choose your Maggie quotes: "I dream of a day when I might board a train at Victoria, and alight in Paris, and need not carry a passport." makes her sound like a fully paid up supporter of Schengen
I don't think you will find a quote anywhere where she said she was in favour of British membership of a united Europe. Indeed there are dozens of quotes where she makes very clear her opposition to it.
Face it, anyone with an iota of sense sees that what we are now stuck with is a million miles from simply a free trade area. Those who pretend otherwise are utterly dishonest.
As you know, I have no particular dog in this game. I am merely pointing out that - if someone has made public pronouncements for 50 odd years - then it is highly likely you will be able to find something to support a particular policy decision.
Is there anything more pointless than trying to guess how someone who had constantly eviolving views and who is now dead might react to a new development?
So from look at pictures of Cameron with the huskies we should assume he is a enthusiastic environmentalist should we ? Or possibly that it was a politically expedient image to portray at the time and actually had damn all to do with his views.
Mrs T thought referenda the tool of tyrants and demagogues
She campaigned actively for Remain in the 1975 referendum.
In 1983 Labour stood on an EU withdrawal manifesto. She campaigned for remaining in. She could easily have passed a Leave bill if she wanted, with cross party support.
Shortly before the 1987 election she signed the Single European Act that she had helped negotiate.
Even after her Bruges speech, she was a critic of the EU but not a BOOer.
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
Would she do so in 2015, though?
I find it unlikely.
I think she was - through most of her career - a pragmatist. I suspect she would be in favour of EFTA/EEA . She probably wouldn't - her quote about Paris and passports notwithstanding - be in favour of Schengen.
Oh ......and he must have achieved said penetration with a rolled up morning newspaper.
Please tell me that that wasn't quite what you meant, Moses!
Unfortunately yes,
That was the basis of the defence case. His hands were occupied during the quick pass. One holding bag strap on shoulder with his right hand throughout and a morning paper in the left hand making it impossible for him to achieve what was stated to have been ....errrr ....achieved.
Could have phrased in somewhat more eloquently I suppose...*
*taps fingers looks wistfully into the distance......
But what you said was that he was alleged to have penetrated her with the rolled- up newspaper...
Semantics ... I meant to infer that if he had assaulted her then given he had a newspaper in his hand then presumably in that one second he didn't drop it, assault her, come back from the future in a Delorean pick up the paper and then be on his way. The basis of the defence case as where his hands were and what they were doing. Sorry if you took that the wrong way ......sarcasm never works on the Internet as we all know.
The fact was its hands were full and shown to be so on the CCTV. It is hard to get from there to a court of law but somehow they managed it.
So from look at pictures of Cameron with the huskies we should assume he is a enthusiastic environmentalist should we ? Or possibly that it was a politically expedient image to portray at the time and actually had damn all to do with his views.
Mrs T thought referenda the tool of tyrants and demagogues
She campaigned actively for Remain in the 1975 referendum.
In 1983 Labour stood on an EU withdrawal manifesto. She campaigned for remaining in. She could easily have passed a Leave bill if she wanted, with cross party support.
Shortly before the 1987 election she signed the Single European Act that she had helped negotiate.
Even after her Bruges speech, she was a critic of the EU but not a BOOer.
Indeed she, like every Tory leader since the very beginning of the EU wanted to stay in, albeit with certain reforms. Her position was much the same as Cameron and Osborne now.
:-)
Would she do so in 2015, though?
I find it unlikely.
I think she was - through most of her career - a pragmatist. I suspect she would be in favour of EFTA/EEA . She probably wouldn't - her quote about Paris and passports notwithstanding - be in favour of Schengen.
The hypotheticals are a bit artificial. Above all she would have been in favour of being in Downing Street calling the shots, and if she were, we would be in a different position.
Is there anything more pointless than trying to guess how someone who had constantly eviolving views and who is now dead might react to a new development?
We don't need to guess!
Next week, OGH will be hosting the first politicalbetting seance, where we'll discover (among other things):
Reagan's view of Rubio Thatcher's view on the EU referendum Whether the moon landings were faked And who really killed JFK
With the rest of the tracking polls I say that before the debate the situation in N.H. was returning to the normal pre-Iowa one, aka anyone could end up from 2nd to 5th.
With the rest of the tracking polls I say that before the debate the situation in N.H. was returning to the normal pre-Iowa one, aka anyone could end up from 2nd to 5th.
Bush is back?
God, I'm glad I haven't been laying Bush...
Would be hilarious if it did end up as Bush vs Clinton
With the rest of the tracking polls I say that before the debate the situation in N.H. was returning to the normal pre-Iowa one, aka anyone could end up from 2nd to 5th.
Bush is back?
God, I'm glad I haven't been laying Bush...
Would be hilarious if it did end up as Bush vs Clinton
@gsoh31 Council byelex, 2016 so far: 0.9% swing Con 2 #Labour. Polls: 0.5% swing Lab 2 Con since GE. V close 2 each other: former confirming latter.
If repeated in May, that would mean a big swing from Labour to Conservative in the Welsh, Scottish, and Borough council elections.
Looking at ukpolling report, at may in 2011 Labour looked to be about 4 points ahead of Cons, hovering around 40%. This Council cycle election is the seats up from 2012, the year of the omnishambles.
I remember stories of trying to get signatures for council candidates that year, people who we had gone to for years, through the nineties even, refused to nominate that year.
Ukpollingreport looks like a 10 to 12 point lead for Labour, with them around 42 and the cons around 31. Those are the seats that are up. Assuming we dont get #omnishambles2, it is not going to be very good for Labour.
Bizarre row erupts after duck was axed from sculpture celebrating British steam train designer - who named his engine after the mallards he fed in his garden
Sir Nigel Gresley statue due to be unveiled at King's Cross Station in April Originally supposed to include mallard at feet but society has removed it Opposition threatened to attend AGM in birdsuits and leave ducks at feet They call the society 'Nazis' and row has spilled onto pages of local paper
Is there anything more pointless than trying to guess how someone who had constantly eviolving views and who is now dead might react to a new development?
Quite. And out of office she was a very different creature than in it. The modern European Union, rightly or wrongly is probably more down to her than any other British prime minister.
She didnt sign the Single European Act reluctantly, Britain was one if its architects... The spreading of a neo liberalised economic model across a continent rife with protectionism ( i think this is what sticks in the throat of the more seasoned european leaders, past and present, she actually achieved what she wanted. The Single Market is largely modelled on the liberalised market reforms she pushed in the UK).
With the rest of the tracking polls I say that before the debate the situation in N.H. was returning to the normal pre-Iowa one, aka anyone could end up from 2nd to 5th.
Bush is back?
God, I'm glad I haven't been laying Bush...
Would be hilarious if it did end up as Bush vs Clinton
Trump would in a four horse race.
I'm only, er, -765 on Bush...
I have a very large and complex spreadsheet, with a series of sheets showing implied odds of various candidates in head-to-head match-ups.
Until yesterday, my big bet was Rubio for POTUS, but not for nominee. I.e., I reckoned the 1.8-1 I was being given if he was the candidate was far too skinny. I've now sold myself down to flat on POTUS following last night's performance, but am still short Rubio for the nomination. I expect to be able to exit that position with a big profit on Wednesday morning.
I have nothing on Bush, Kasich, etc, except as residuals of various lays. I'm in the +150 to -50 range for all of them.
Bizarre row erupts after duck was axed from sculpture celebrating British steam train designer - who named his engine after the mallards he fed in his garden
Sir Nigel Gresley statue due to be unveiled at King's Cross Station in April Originally supposed to include mallard at feet but society has removed it Opposition threatened to attend AGM in birdsuits and leave ducks at feet They call the society 'Nazis' and row has spilled onto pages of local paper
Is there anything more pointless than trying to guess how someone who had constantly eviolving views and who is now dead might react to a new development?
Quite. And out of office she was a very different creature than in it. The modern European Union, rightly or wrongly is probably more down to her than any other British prime minister.
She didnt sign the Single European Act reluctantly, Britain was one if its architects... The spreading of a neo liberalised economic model across a continent rife with protectionism ( i think this is what sticks in the throat of the more seasoned european leaders, past and present, she actually achieved what she wanted. The Single Market is largely modelled on the liberalised market reforms she pushed in the UK).
The Single European Act didn't make much of a difference to the UK economy, but it made a massive one to Spain and Ireland's. By making those economies much more market oriented, she did a massive favour to our European brethren. (Not something that she ever gets much credit for )
Oh ......and he must have achieved said penetration with a rolled up morning newspaper.
Please tell me that that wasn't quite what you meant, Moses!
Unfortunately yes,
That was the basis of the defence case. His hands were occupied during the quick pass. One holding bag strap on shoulder with his right hand throughout and a morning paper in the left hand making it impossible for him to achieve what was stated to have been ....errrr ....achieved.
Could have phrased in somewhat more eloquently I suppose...*
*taps fingers looks wistfully into the distance......
But what you said was that he was alleged to have penetrated her with the rolled- up newspaper...
Semantics ... I meant to infer that if he had assaulted her then given he had a newspaper in his hand then presumably in that one second he didn't drop it, assault her, come back from the future in a Delorean pick up the paper and then be on his way. The basis of the defence case as where his hands were and what they were doing. Sorry if you took that the wrong way ......sarcasm never works on the Internet as we all know.
The fact was its hands were full and shown to be so on the CCTV. It is hard to get from there to a court of law but somehow they managed it.
And importantly, if this person was in a sensitive position, either politically, with vulnerable people, or had an employer who was jumpy, he could have lost his job.
Oh ......and he must have achieved said penetration with a rolled up morning newspaper.
Please tell me that that wasn't quite what you meant, Moses!
Unfortunately yes,
That was the basis of the defence case. His hands were occupied during the quick pass. One holding bag strap on shoulder with his right hand throughout and a morning paper in the left hand making it impossible for him to achieve what was stated to have been ....errrr ....achieved.
Could have phrased in somewhat more eloquently I suppose...*
*taps fingers looks wistfully into the distance......
But what you said was that he was alleged to have penetrated her with the rolled- up newspaper...
Semantics ... I meant to infer that if he had assaulted her then given he had a newspaper in his hand then presumably in that one second he didn't drop it, assault her, come back from the future in a Delorean pick up the paper and then be on his way. The basis of the defence case as where his hands were and what they were doing. Sorry if you took that the wrong way ......sarcasm never works on the Internet as we all know.
The fact was its hands were full and shown to be so on the CCTV. It is hard to get from there to a court of law but somehow they managed it.
And importantly, if this person was in a sensitive position, either politically, with vulnerable people, or had an employer who was jumpy, he could have lost his job.
I think this all misses the point. He doesn't have to prove his innocence, the state needs to prove his guilt.
If the CCTV shows at most a one second window (which assumes the CCTV frames captured a microsecond before him doing his thing, and then the microsecond after), during which time his hands were full...
Then how can the state launch a prosecution? Didn't someone look at the recording and say "this will never fly, break it to the lady'?
Rubio must surely be a busted flush after his performance. Amazed he's still so short priced - have layed a fair amount.
Khan equally seems very short, and especially given the strong support that Corbyn will give him... surely a mixed blessing! I'd be a little surprised if he doesn't try to demonstrate a somewhat independent line in coming weeks.
I guess that there's a delicate balance going on in Boris's head too - how much should he help Goldsmith? Associating too closely and him losing wouldn't be great for his leadership ambitions, on the other hand doing so would make him seem less maverick, which would help.
Oh ......and he must have achieved said penetration with a rolled up morning newspaper.
Please tell me that that wasn't quite what you meant, Moses!
Unfortunately yes,
That was the basis of the defence case. His hands were occupied during the quick pass. One holding bag strap on shoulder with his right hand throughout and a morning paper in the left hand making it impossible for him to achieve what was stated to have been ....errrr ....achieved.
Could have phrased in somewhat more eloquently I suppose...*
*taps fingers looks wistfully into the distance......
But what you said was that he was alleged to have penetrated her with the rolled- up newspaper...
Semantics ... I meant to infer that if he had assaulted her then given he had a newspaper in his hand then presumably in that one second he didn't drop it, assault her, come back from the future in a Delorean pick up the paper and then be on his way. The basis of the defence case as where his hands were and what they were doing. Sorry if you took that the wrong way ......sarcasm never works on the Internet as we all know.
The fact was its hands were full and shown to be so on the CCTV. It is hard to get from there to a court of law but somehow they managed it.
And importantly, if this person was in a sensitive position, either politically, with vulnerable people, or had an employer who was jumpy, he could have lost his job.
This is one of the potential consequences of course. Fingers now will always be pointed another inevitability as mentioned down thread "no smoke etc" The other issue here is that could have been anyone of use minding our business walking through a station. We seem to have lost the plot in these cases and it does no one any favours least of all the women that are truly assaulted.
Rubio must surely be a busted flush after his performance. Amazed he's still so short priced - have layed a fair amount.
Khan equally seems very short, and especially given the strong support that Corbyn will give him... surely a mixed blessing! I'd be a little surprised if he doesn't try to demonstrate a somewhat independent line in coming weeks.
I guess that there's a delicate balance going on in Boris's head too - how much should he help Goldsmith? Associating too closely and him losing wouldn't be great for his leadership ambitions, on the other hand doing so would make him seem less maverick, which would help.
One poor debate is not necessarily the end for Rubio. He did look wan, sweaty and off his game. Maybe he was ill?
According to the Mail the jury was made up of nine women and three men. I think the defendant could have been forgiven for thinking the worst.
I stood trial for rape at the Old Bailey in 1987 (as many here know). After a four day trial the jury retired for 90 minutes (including lunch) and then returned with the unanimous verdict: Not Guilty.
The general impression was that they briskly decided their verdict in the first half hour, then chatted about football and Eastenders over pizza slices, so as to not appear flippant or hasty, before returning to the court.
I could be wrong, but a 90 minute jury retirement is about the minimum you will get when trying a serious crime.
That must have been a very low point in your life. Its the scenario where suicide becomes an option.
Rubio must surely be a busted flush after his performance. Amazed he's still so short priced - have layed a fair amount.
Khan equally seems very short, and especially given the strong support that Corbyn will give him... surely a mixed blessing! I'd be a little surprised if he doesn't try to demonstrate a somewhat independent line in coming weeks.
I guess that there's a delicate balance going on in Boris's head too - how much should he help Goldsmith? Associating too closely and him losing wouldn't be great for his leadership ambitions, on the other hand doing so would make him seem less maverick, which would help.
One poor debate is not necessarily the end for Rubio. He did look wan, sweaty and off his game. Maybe he was ill?
Oh ......and he must have achieved said penetration with a rolled up morning newspaper.
Please tell me that that wasn't quite what you meant, Moses!
Unfortunately yes,
That was the basis of the defence case. His hands were occupied during the quick pass. One holding bag strap on shoulder with his right hand throughout and a morning paper in the left hand making it impossible for him to achieve what was stated to have been ....errrr ....achieved.
Could have phrased in somewhat more eloquently I suppose...*
*taps fingers looks wistfully into the distance......
But what you said was that he was alleged to have penetrated her with the rolled- up newspaper...
Semantics ... I meant to infer that if he had assaulted her then given he had a newspaper in his hand then presumably in that one second he didn't drop it, assault her, come back from the future in a Delorean pick up the paper and then be on his way. The basis of the defence case as where his hands were and what they were doing. Sorry if you took that the wrong way ......sarcasm never works on the Internet as we all know.
The fact was its hands were full and shown to be so on the CCTV. It is hard to get from there to a court of law but somehow they managed it.
And importantly, if this person was in a sensitive position, either politically, with vulnerable people, or had an employer who was jumpy, he could have lost his job.
This is one of the potential consequences of course. Fingers now will always be pointed another inevitability as mentioned down thread "no smoke etc" The other issue here is that could have been anyone of use minding our business walking through a station. We seem to have lost the plot in these cases and it does no one any favours least of all the women that are truly assaulted.
I walk through Waterloo everyday and am always as careful as possible - there's nothing worse than someone in a rush bashing into you, but accidents do happen at busy times when people are rushing for their train.
There's been quite a focus on sexual assaults taking place on London transport. Take a look at this advert:
Now I don't know what the statistics are on this, but the image they are presenting is one of a businessman feeling himself against a woman in rush hour. I'm sure it goes on - but I wonder to what extent the authorities look for something when it isn't there for the sake of ticking a box.
According to the Mail the jury was made up of nine women and three men. I think the defendant could have been forgiven for thinking the worst.
I stood trial for rape at the Old Bailey in 1987 (as many here know). After a four day trial the jury retired for 90 minutes (including lunch) and then returned with the unanimous verdict: Not Guilty.
The general impression was that they briskly decided their verdict in the first half hour, then chatted about football and Eastenders over pizza slices, so as to not appear flippant or hasty, before returning to the court.
I could be wrong, but a 90 minute jury retirement is about the minimum you will get when trying a serious crime.
You certainly have had an eventful life, now saw several of your books lining the shelves of Waterstones main London branch off Piccadilly Circus last week!
With the rest of the tracking polls I say that before the debate the situation in N.H. was returning to the normal pre-Iowa one, aka anyone could end up from 2nd to 5th.
Bush is back?
God, I'm glad I haven't been laying Bush...
Would be hilarious if it did end up as Bush vs Clinton
Trump would in a four horse race.
I'm only, er, -765 on Bush...
I have a very large and complex spreadsheet, with a series of sheets showing implied odds of various candidates in head-to-head match-ups.
Until yesterday, my big bet was Rubio for POTUS, but not for nominee. I.e., I reckoned the 1.8-1 I was being given if he was the candidate was far too skinny. I've now sold myself down to flat on POTUS following last night's performance, but am still short Rubio for the nomination. I expect to be able to exit that position with a big profit on Wednesday morning.
I have nothing on Bush, Kasich, etc, except as residuals of various lays. I'm in the +150 to -50 range for all of them.
Rubio only needs 2nd on Tuesday to keep the POTUS plan alive.
According to the Mail the jury was made up of nine women and three men. I think the defendant could have been forgiven for thinking the worst.
I stood trial for rape at the Old Bailey in 1987 (as many here know). After a four day trial the jury retired for 90 minutes (including lunch) and then returned with the unanimous verdict: Not Guilty.
The general impression was that they briskly decided their verdict in the first half hour, then chatted about football and Eastenders over pizza slices, so as to not appear flippant or hasty, before returning to the court.
I could be wrong, but a 90 minute jury retirement is about the minimum you will get when trying a serious crime.
Sounds about right. Any shorter and it would look like the jury were giving a view on the case coming to court in the first place.
According to the Mail the jury was made up of nine women and three men. I think the defendant could have been forgiven for thinking the worst.
I stood trial for rape at the Old Bailey in 1987 (as many here know). After a four day trial the jury retired for 90 minutes (including lunch) and then returned with the unanimous verdict: Not Guilty.
The general impression was that they briskly decided their verdict in the first half hour, then chatted about football and Eastenders over pizza slices, so as to not appear flippant or hasty, before returning to the court.
I could be wrong, but a 90 minute jury retirement is about the minimum you will get when trying a serious crime.
You certainly have had an eventful life, now saw several of your books lining the shelves of Waterstones main London branch off Piccadilly Circus last week!
Have you ever consider an autobiographical style book recounting the events of struggling drug addled writer in the late 80's and 90's...
Rubio must surely be a busted flush after his performance. Amazed he's still so short priced - have layed a fair amount.
Khan equally seems very short, and especially given the strong support that Corbyn will give him... surely a mixed blessing! I'd be a little surprised if he doesn't try to demonstrate a somewhat independent line in coming weeks.
I guess that there's a delicate balance going on in Boris's head too - how much should he help Goldsmith? Associating too closely and him losing wouldn't be great for his leadership ambitions, on the other hand doing so would make him seem less maverick, which would help.
One poor debate is not necessarily the end for Rubio. He did look wan, sweaty and off his game. Maybe he was ill?
Yep - entirely possible.
Being accused of just consisting of pre-prepared soundbites is tricky to dispell though. Any thing good you say will be labelled as pre-prepared, and anything weak that you're useless without the pre-prepared stuff.
I haven't emptied my bank account to oppose him - decent chunk of what was in the betfair account though.
With the rest of the tracking polls I say that before the debate the situation in N.H. was returning to the normal pre-Iowa one, aka anyone could end up from 2nd to 5th.
Bush is back?
God, I'm glad I haven't been laying Bush...
Would be hilarious if it did end up as Bush vs Clinton
Trump would in a four horse race.
I'm only, er, -765 on Bush...
I have a very large and complex spreadsheet, with a series of sheets showing implied odds of various candidates in head-to-head match-ups.
Until yesterday, my big bet was Rubio for POTUS, but not for nominee. I.e., I reckoned the 1.8-1 I was being given if he was the candidate was far too skinny. I've now sold myself down to flat on POTUS following last night's performance, but am still short Rubio for the nomination. I expect to be able to exit that position with a big profit on Wednesday morning.
I have nothing on Bush, Kasich, etc, except as residuals of various lays. I'm in the +150 to -50 range for all of them.
Rubio only needs 2nd on Tuesday to keep the POTUS plan alive.
"Only" might be the problem. No clear second at the moment.
With the rest of the tracking polls I say that before the debate the situation in N.H. was returning to the normal pre-Iowa one, aka anyone could end up from 2nd to 5th.
Bush is back?
God, I'm glad I haven't been laying Bush...
Would be hilarious if it did end up as Bush vs Clinton
Trump would in a four horse race.
I'm only, er, -765 on Bush...
I have a very large and complex spreadsheet, with a series of sheets showing implied odds of various candidates in head-to-head match-ups.
Until yesterday, my big bet was Rubio for POTUS, but not for nominee. I.e., I reckoned the 1.8-1 I was being given if he was the candidate was far too skinny. I've now sold myself down to flat on POTUS following last night's performance, but am still short Rubio for the nomination. I expect to be able to exit that position with a big profit on Wednesday morning.
I have nothing on Bush, Kasich, etc, except as residuals of various lays. I'm in the +150 to -50 range for all of them.
Rubio only needs 2nd on Tuesday to keep the POTUS plan alive.
Hmmm:
Trump 36 Rubio 15 Cruz 14
Is not that great a result for Cruz Rubio. It makes Nevada an absolute must win state for him, given the paucity of possible wind on Super Tuesday.
Comments
While she had power, she integrated Britain further into the EU.
The polls in 2010 did show David Miliband polling better than Ed Miliband so in that sense they were right!
I still said correctly that if Rubio is the GOP nominee I will put a big bet on Hillary, because Rubio like Romney will be ditched in the end by the media in favour of the democrats.
Without the media they are nothing, they are empty suits.
He's talking about qualified doctors and this is how highly he rates them!
That Labour haven't got anyone to cash in on this Tory open goal would be so depressing if it wasn't that so many of us have given up on them. Good luck to the docs anyway. I'm sure after Hunt's recent performances the public are squarely behind them.
That would mean the police should be charged with wasting their own time, of course, and possibly the CPS with wasting the court's time, but I can still see that the woman in question might not be party to this catastrophe.
In the film they talk about 'Nazi pig-dogs'
Trump is a social conservative only on immigration, he's on the centre-left on everything else.
Would Farage utter that he can't stand seeing people dying in the streets?
Would Clegg utter that he doesn't like immigration?
That's why I put ? next to Trump, no british politician is like him.
There is a certain anticipation of schadenfreude and gloating at the incandescent tirades that would follow from the metro-liberals on here
'A jury at Blackfriars Crown Court took 90 minutes to clear Mr Pearson of the charge of “sexual assault by penetration”'
I suppose if I were being generous I could accept that maybe the jury didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings and so made it look like they were considering all the facts, but if I had been on the jury I'd have found it difficult to keep a straight face. That this case made it to court shows what a perverted legal system we have in this country.
There is absolutely no reason for her identity to be kept secret. None at all.
And yes, I'm still a lefty.
Cheering an injury time Costa goal....
There is a certain anticipation of schadenfreude and gloating at the incandescent tirades that would follow from the metro-liberals on here
I thought of a similar thing on the previous thread when I saw how many people were talking about Patel's qualities because of what she was not - not white, not rich, not privately educated, etc. But the truth is negative reasons are no reason at all to vote for anybody. That's how we end up with sad disasters like Jeremy Corbyn (elected because he wasn't Burnham or Cooper) or Michael Foot (elected because he wasn't Denis Healey) or Iain Duncan Smith (who wasn't Kenneth Clarke) and to a lesser extent John Major (not Michael Heseltine).
I did something similar in 2005 and ended up feeling a complete fool. I threw away a chance to vote for a candidate I genuinely thought had something about him (and who is such a good constituency MP that he is the lone surviving Liberal Democrat MP holding a university seat in his own strength) in order to give the rude and arrogant Labour candidate (who has since been so useless as an AM and minister that even Carwyn Jones felt he had to sack him) a bloody nose by making him come fourth. It taught me a valuable lesson, and now I look as far as I can for positive reasons for anything.
The logic falls down somewhat in the presidential race where there is no good reason to vote for any of them. But it still applies to our next PM.
Oh ......and he must have achieved said penetration with a rolled up morning newspaper.
The simple facts are that while she held the reins, she integrated Britain further into the European institutions, despite plenty of opportunity to campaign to leave.
Now you may think her an unprincipled waverer swayed by the pro-Europeans around her, but my impression of the lady is that she was not afraid of making her views known!
@tlg86 why would they show her the CCTV footage? To identify the man? Not easy on such a grainy image, and a defence counsel could easily suggest that she had been encouraged to spot the defendant ahead of the real perpetrator. Better to look themselves.
Where my theoretical defence hits a stumbling block, of course, is that if there was a second man it's extremely surprising the police did not see him and pursue him rather than this highly unfortunate guy with a newspaper.
I wouldn't have reversed a single one of those decisions. People's instincts can be very wise, and a sad disaster is preferable by a country mile to a presentable confidence trickster.
I think there must be more to this than has come out, but I wonder if the name of the actress is itself the crucial part - if it is somebody popular whom the police believed on her reputation alone, or who had been attacked before.
I find it unlikely.
Face it, anyone with an iota of sense sees that what we are now stuck with is a million miles from simply a free trade area. Those who pretend otherwise are utterly dishonest.
Europhilia except on the basis of complete unification and a single European nation is the refuge of scoundrels, fools and the historically illiterate.
Rubio is one of the most narcissistic people I've ever seen in politics which is saying something given the crowded field.
Quite agree up and to the point malicious, not guilty or not the accused has their name splayed every where. The accuser walks away . There will be cases where the accused is not guilty and commonly it's a he said , she said which is why these types of crimes are very very difficult to bring a prosecution let alone achieve a guilty verdict. That is not good for women who know they have been assaulted.
The "cannot be named for legal reasons" must though work both ways in these cases. To clarify I am not saying cases heard in camera just no names.
I am waiting for a falsely accused to take their case to the high courts and even Europe. Surprised it hasn't happened before now TBH. If the woman was named and never the man you could quite rightly understand the howls of derision. Why is it ok the other way around and barely warrants comment.
People often get more defensive (or offended) on behalf of groups to which they don't belong.
That was the basis of the defence case. His hands were occupied during the quick pass. One holding bag strap on shoulder with his right hand throughout and a morning paper in the left hand making it impossible for him to achieve what was stated to have been ....errrr ....achieved.
Could have phrased in somewhat more eloquently I suppose...*
*taps fingers looks wistfully into the distance......
"The naivety of ministers who think that by signing this treaty [Lisbon] they are agreeing to a static constitutional position, would be alarming were not apparent in people with such senior responsibilities."
Caption from Youtube - would Hague say the same today?
Monmouth, N.H., conducted before the debate, changes since January.
Trump 30 -2
Kasich 14 0
Rubio 13 +1
Bush 13 +9
Cruz 12 -2
Christie 6 -2
Fiorina 5 0
Carson 4 +1
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/2114e68d-b5a1-46c5-a375-2d112a71d050.pdf
With the rest of the tracking polls I say that before the debate the situation in N.H. was returning to the normal pre-Iowa one, aka anyone could end up from 2nd to 5th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIQK1Hl47Qw
But he is now dead, so I can't be sure.
The fact was its hands were full and shown to be so on the CCTV. It is hard to get from there to a court of law but somehow they managed it.
Next week, OGH will be hosting the first politicalbetting seance, where we'll discover (among other things):
Reagan's view of Rubio
Thatcher's view on the EU referendum
Whether the moon landings were faked
And who really killed JFK
"Two world wars and one World Cup...do Dah.!.. Do Dah... Day!"
Would be hilarious if it did end up as Bush vs Clinton
I'm only, er, -765 on Bush...
I remember stories of trying to get signatures for council candidates that year, people who we had gone to for years, through the nineties even, refused to nominate that year.
Ukpollingreport looks like a 10 to 12 point lead for Labour, with them around 42 and the cons around 31. Those are the seats that are up. Assuming we dont get #omnishambles2, it is not going to be very good for Labour.
What a disappointment. Seemingly empty of serious journalism, including the Powell "revelation" about Thatcher.
The newspaper it reminded me of the most was the ultra tabloidly Metro.
Bizarre row erupts after duck was axed from sculpture celebrating British steam train designer - who named his engine after the mallards he fed in his garden
Sir Nigel Gresley statue due to be unveiled at King's Cross Station in April
Originally supposed to include mallard at feet but society has removed it
Opposition threatened to attend AGM in birdsuits and leave ducks at feet
They call the society 'Nazis' and row has spilled onto pages of local paper
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3436133/What-steaming-row-British-fury-decision-remove-duck-planned-tribute-statue-engineer-designed-Mallard-steam-train.html#ixzz3zVgSYKOT
No further comment required...
She didnt sign the Single European Act reluctantly, Britain was one if its architects... The spreading of a neo liberalised economic model across a continent rife with protectionism ( i think this is what sticks in the throat of the more seasoned european leaders, past and present, she actually achieved what she wanted. The Single Market is largely modelled on the liberalised market reforms she pushed in the UK).
Until yesterday, my big bet was Rubio for POTUS, but not for nominee. I.e., I reckoned the 1.8-1 I was being given if he was the candidate was far too skinny. I've now sold myself down to flat on POTUS following last night's performance, but am still short Rubio for the nomination. I expect to be able to exit that position with a big profit on Wednesday morning.
I have nothing on Bush, Kasich, etc, except as residuals of various lays. I'm in the +150 to -50 range for all of them.
BTW had my first ride on Nottingham's NET tram network on Friday, between the rail station and Hucknall station.
And importantly, if this person was in a sensitive position, either politically, with vulnerable people, or had an employer who was jumpy, he could have lost his job.
If the CCTV shows at most a one second window (which assumes the CCTV frames captured a microsecond before him doing his thing, and then the microsecond after), during which time his hands were full...
Then how can the state launch a prosecution? Didn't someone look at the recording and say "this will never fly, break it to the lady'?
Khan equally seems very short, and especially given the strong support that Corbyn will give him... surely a mixed blessing! I'd be a little surprised if he doesn't try to demonstrate a somewhat independent line in coming weeks.
I guess that there's a delicate balance going on in Boris's head too - how much should he help Goldsmith? Associating too closely and him losing wouldn't be great for his leadership ambitions, on the other hand doing so would make him seem less maverick, which would help.
http://tinyurl.com/jjuxbsa
There's been quite a focus on sexual assaults taking place on London transport. Take a look at this advert:
http://tinyurl.com/kt78jn4
Now I don't know what the statistics are on this, but the image they are presenting is one of a businessman feeling himself against a woman in rush hour. I'm sure it goes on - but I wonder to what extent the authorities look for something when it isn't there for the sake of ticking a box.
Being accused of just consisting of pre-prepared soundbites is tricky to dispell though. Any thing good you say will be labelled as pre-prepared, and anything weak that you're useless without the pre-prepared stuff.
I haven't emptied my bank account to oppose him - decent chunk of what was in the betfair account though.
Trump 36
Rubio 15
Cruz 14
Is not that great a result for Cruz Rubio. It makes Nevada an absolute must win state for him, given the paucity of possible wind on Super Tuesday.