BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Perhaps they saw evidence you didn’t? Were you in court for the cross examination?
I wasn't but I certainly listened into the Blasey Ford case and that was the biggest crock of sh1t when it came to an allegation.
As for the Carroll case, as I said, if she had been able to state a date - and her witnesses also could have - then it would have been very easy to prove one way or another. That is only one thing. Her accusation mirroring almost to the hilt a Law and Order episode is another.
But you tell me - you seem to think he did it so why did you think that on the evidence?
The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.
The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.
Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.
Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.
Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.
But I think that's right though:
The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).
So the offence need not have actually happened.
Sure, but they should generally be wary of the risks of overly preventative arrest.
There's a reason if they see someone about to nick a bicycle it may be better for them to wait until the person picks up it, as it may be harder to prove intent to commit theft. I mean, aren't people technically guilty of burglary simply by walking into a place with intent to steal, ever mind if they actually manage it or even seriously try it, so long as it could be shown they intended to try it?
In the USA, in California, a unit of police was setup called SIS.
What they did was follow heavy end career crooks round. And wait until they committed a crime hat justified using lethal force. So they would watch as the crocks robbed and stole. When they finally had them, guns in hand, they would shoot them dead.
Several people said this wasn’t nice.
Sounds like one of the Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry films that had David Soul as the baddie ringleader
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
As I've reminded many PBers that victims of sexual assault often forget the time and date due to the trauma, so instead of being convenient it is normal.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps this is more to do with routine air (and possibly sea) patrols then, rather than specific responses to events as they occur.
So the ‘public’ agreement is for a ‘QRA’ emergency service, but actually there’s UK mil flights over and around RoI on a daily basis.
The way I read it the Irish government (both main parties) are ok with it all but nobody wants to have the conversation with the public, speaking to my Irish friends, they seem fine with it all but acknowledge some people would have issues with it.
Well the Irish have three choices. 1. Status quo, as amended. whatever that may be. 2. A formal agreement for the British to patrol Irish airspace. 3. The Irish to put their hands deep into their pockets, and get themselves an Air Force.
It’s understandable that the Irish don’t want to open up unnecessary old sectarian wounds, given the increasingly difficult security environment, but can also understand why that can be politically sensitive information.
I just looked in to the current state of the Irish air force, not brilliant.
The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.
The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.
Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.
Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.
Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.
But I think that's right though:
The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).
So the offence need not have actually happened.
Sure, but they should generally be wary of the risks of overly preventative arrest.
There's a reason if they see someone about to nick a bicycle it may be better for them to wait until the person picks up it, as it may be harder to prove intent to commit theft. I mean, aren't people technically guilty of burglary simply by walking into a place with intent to steal, ever mind if they actually manage it or even seriously try it, so long as it could be shown they intended to try it?
In the USA, in California, a unit of police was setup called SIS.
What they did was follow heavy end career crooks round. And wait until they committed a crime hat justified using lethal force. So they would watch as the crocks robbed and stole. When they finally had them, guns in hand, they would shoot them dead.
Several people said this wasn’t nice.
Yes, that was a Los Angeles unit.
The number of people they killed was extraordinary.
As I have made clear, I am a pretty staunch monarchist and I think the way the police behaved was absolutely bloody awful. I am particularly angered now by seeing the head of the Met coming out and trying to justify the actions.
People have a right to protest and the police action was completely unacceptable.
Given that the then Head of the Met, a few years back, said that accidentally shooting the wrong brown people was just one of those things… Why are you surprised, exactly?
I suppose i just hoped that they might have learnt some lessons. Mind you I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. At least they didn't start gunning down volunteers in the name of security....
...or maybe I shouldn't be giving them ideas.
Ok. In the list of Malmesbury’s Rules of Public Life (which I need to write down and number)
- Lessons Will Be Learned. This mantra is solemnly intoned after each fuckup. Its meaning is that no lessons of any value will be learned. Instead a large amount of performative theatre will be organised. At great expense. This will be used to justify praise and promotion all concerned.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
As I've reminded many PBers that victims of sexual assault often forget the time and date due to the trauma, so instead of being convenient it is normal.
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
Both my parents were Parkinson's sufferers in later life. Even just at 61 I find myself shuffling, rather than walking on rare occasions, which is a key symptom. This is potentially fantastic news.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Nevertheless, 12 jurors unanimously came to this verdict after hearing all the evidence. It would have have just taken one to say "no" for there to be no award.
And one has to think that, even in New York, there would have been at least one that would have been sympathetic to Trump.
This is a serious issue but for whatever reason, disruptive protests by small groups do seem to be more common lately, rather than the mass marches of the past. The law may have gone too far but it is not long since even pb contributors were arguing for something to be done about half a dozen people supergluing themselves to motorways.
Yes, the background of recent protests being increasingly disruptive to the events, must have figured in the response.
Rowley said that waving placards protesting the event was okay, it happened and was observed by officers. The action taken, was against those ‘going equipped’ with handcuffs, noise generators, spray cans etc.
One can understand the need for caution, given the worldwide attention on the event, and can imagine what the headlines would be, if there had been an ‘incident’ going out live to hundreds of millions of viewers.
Well, let's see how many prosecutions for possessing of paint, airhorns, handcuffs etc actually happen. My money is on none, and no evidence of these things being carried by protesters.
Either the Met is very gullible over their "intelligence" or they think we are that gullible.
I think they had to tread a really fine line.
As I suggested yesterday, it reminds me of the days when football ‘fans’ were rounded up in the morning of the match, and released once the match crowds had dispersed.
I’m pretty libertarian, have lived and do live in much more authoritian places, but unusually have sympathy for the police given the significance of the event.
Protests did go ahead along the route, watched carefully by police and with the TV cameras avoiding them.
What would the headlines have been, if someone had got close to the King on Saturday? What if a horse had been spooked, or police guns had to be fired? We should all be thankful, that the event passed off peacefully.
What if we remained a republic in 1660
Might still be one today if Cromwell have lived another 10 years. Who knows, maybe even a democratic one.
Cromwell and his crew found democracy (such as it was back then) so inconvenient.
Dividing the country up into fiefdoms of literal military dictatorship was how it was when Cromwell died.
Everyone found democracy inconvenient back then, once they were in power. It's not as though they wanted to end the major generals and call new parliaments, and then shuttered them, then cal them again - they just obviously couldn't think of a better way to operate!
It was relatively stable though - if there'd be time to bed it in I suspect it'd have been hard to shift, more obvious and supported successors in place.
Any transition to actual democracy would have been in the future, and incidental to any aim of the state at the time - all about the godly!
War of escalation. Dems add 3, then Republicans add 4. Give it a few terms and we'll have a tri-cameral system with 400+ in congress, 104 in senate, and 300 justices.
If cases ended up heard by a random selection from the 300 justices it would take a lot of the political heat out of the SC...
It seems to have been a bizarre decision to have so little at the parade. If it is meant to indicate they are devoting material to the front line it still doesn't look good.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps this is more to do with routine air (and possibly sea) patrols then, rather than specific responses to events as they occur.
So the ‘public’ agreement is for a ‘QRA’ emergency service, but actually there’s UK mil flights over and around RoI on a daily basis.
The way I read it the Irish government (both main parties) are ok with it all but nobody wants to have the conversation with the public, speaking to my Irish friends, they seem fine with it all but acknowledge some people would have issues with it.
Well the Irish have three choices. 1. Status quo, as amended. whatever that may be. 2. A formal agreement for the British to patrol Irish airspace. 3. The Irish to put their hands deep into their pockets, and get themselves an Air Force.
It’s understandable that the Irish don’t want to open up unnecessary old sectarian wounds, given the increasingly difficult security environment, but can also understand why that can be politically sensitive information.
I just looked in to the current state of the Irish air force, not brilliant.
I actually thought Putin's speech was very good and right on the money.
Europe does face the terror of fascism and imperialism again. And war has been waged by an aggressive racialist.
What Putin didn't realise was how beautifully he was describing himself and his own actions.
Russia really does like to project these days. The Nazis they claim they are trying to defeat aren't in Ukraine. They're staring at them in the mirror.
Off topic - These Eurovision acts are mostly dreadful, but feel I've got to watch because its Liverpool.......
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Nevertheless, 12 jurors unanimously came to this verdict after hearing all the evidence. It would have have just taken one to say "no" for there to be no award.
And one has to think that, even in New York, there would have been at least one that would have been sympathetic to Trump.
Point of order - I think it was 9, not 12. Plus it's civil, so it is probability.
However, the main point, as I pointed out to @kle4, is that the jury's decision doesn't make logical sense - guilty on everything else which means they believe the accuser (including on sexual abuse) but, for some reason, they either don't believe her on rape or are saying they don't have the evidence which they did for everything else.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
You’re a real piece of work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford … By the time it was closed to further donations, the GoFundMe account set up on Ford's behalf had raised $647,610. As of November 21, 2018, Ford had used some of the money to cover security costs to protect herself and her family, but said that she would donate the remainder to organizations that support trauma survivors.[71]
Ford received a number of threats – including death threats – for coming forward with her allegations against Kavanaugh. During her testimony, Ford stated, "I have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. People have posted my personal information on the internet. This has resulted in additional emails, calls, and threats. My family and I were forced to move out of our home."[72] As of November 2018, Ford stated that she was still being harassed and threatened and had to move four times as well as hire private security;[73] furthermore, she had not been able to resume her teaching at Palo Alto University..
I actually thought Putin's speech was very good and right on the money.
Europe does face the terror of fascism and imperialism again. And war has been waged by an aggressive racialist.
What Putin didn't realise was how beautifully he was describing himself and his own actions.
Russia really does like to project these days. The Nazis they claim they are trying to defeat aren't in Ukraine. They're staring at them in the mirror.
I thought the Russian leadership couldn't use mirrors? Something about turning to stone if they see their reflection.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Nevertheless, 12 jurors unanimously came to this verdict after hearing all the evidence. It would have have just taken one to say "no" for there to be no award.
And one has to think that, even in New York, there would have been at least one that would have been sympathetic to Trump.
Point of order - I think it was 9, not 12. Plus it's civil, so it is probability.
However, the main point, as I pointed out to @kle4, is that the jury's decision doesn't make logical sense - guilty on everything else which means they believe the accuser (including on sexual abuse) but, for some reason, they either don't believe her on rape or are saying they don't have the evidence which they did for everything else.
Does not make sense.
Trump's belief he won the 2020 election does not compute!
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Nevertheless, 12 jurors unanimously came to this verdict after hearing all the evidence. It would have have just taken one to say "no" for there to be no award.
And one has to think that, even in New York, there would have been at least one that would have been sympathetic to Trump.
Point of order - I think it was 9, not 12. Plus it's civil, so it is probability.
However, the main point, as I pointed out to @kle4, is that the jury's decision doesn't make logical sense - guilty on everything else which means they believe the accuser (including on sexual abuse) but, for some reason, they either don't believe her on rape or are saying they don't have the evidence which they did for everything else.
Does not make sense.
Trump's belief he won the 2020 election does not compute!
I actually thought Putin's speech was very good and right on the money.
Europe does face the terror of fascism and imperialism again. And war has been waged by an aggressive racialist.
What Putin didn't realise was how beautifully he was describing himself and his own actions.
Russia really does like to project these days. The Nazis they claim they are trying to defeat aren't in Ukraine. They're staring at them in the mirror.
Off topic - These Eurovision acts are mostly dreadful, but feel I've got to watch because its Liverpool.......
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
How old are the children, please? And what main reason do they give?
The ones I have most contact with are up to 13. Although it is reported as widespread throughout all years. They don't see the relevance. A lot of Why? Why should we have a King? What's it to do with me? Prince Andrew and the p word came up a lot too. A common complaint is that elderly well meaning relatives have wasted their Saturday and considered it a "treat" for which they should be grateful too. Boring was frequent.
Thank you. Obviously the current lot do not have the indoctrination I had in the Cub Scouts etc. (not that it worked very well, once I had seen an actual Royal event).
I actually thought Putin's speech was very good and right on the money.
Europe does face the terror of fascism and imperialism again. And war has been waged by an aggressive racialist.
What Putin didn't realise was how beautifully he was describing himself and his own actions.
Russia really does like to project these days. The Nazis they claim they are trying to defeat aren't in Ukraine. They're staring at them in the mirror.
I thought the Russian leadership couldn't use mirrors? Something about turning to stone if they see their reflection.
Sauli Niinisto the Finnish president told Putin to look in the mirror if he wants to find Nazis
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
Both my parents were Parkinson's sufferers in later life. Even just at 61 I find myself shuffling, rather than walking on rare occasions, which is a key symptom. This is potentially fantastic news.
Good luck; fingers crossed for you. I think it’s possibly a little way off from being used for therapy, but they ought to be able to pursue it quite rapidly.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
You’re a real piece of work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford … By the time it was closed to further donations, the GoFundMe account set up on Ford's behalf had raised $647,610. As of November 21, 2018, Ford had used some of the money to cover security costs to protect herself and her family, but said that she would donate the remainder to organizations that support trauma survivors.[71]
Ford received a number of threats – including death threats – for coming forward with her allegations against Kavanaugh. During her testimony, Ford stated, "I have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. People have posted my personal information on the internet. This has resulted in additional emails, calls, and threats. My family and I were forced to move out of our home."[72] As of November 2018, Ford stated that she was still being harassed and threatened and had to move four times as well as hire private security;[73] furthermore, she had not been able to resume her teaching at Palo Alto University..
God, says the man who foams at the mouth when anything related to Trump gets mentioned. Or if anything does not bow down at the God of Covid vaccine (and I have had my shots BTW). And who generally gets quite arsey about anyone who disagrees with him. A real, self-proclaimed Righteous person.
As for the names, I am sure she did given how polarised politics in America are. However, re Kavanaugh, I happen to know through a very good friend what the effect of the accusations had on him and it was / is pretty devastating for him and his family. And everyone I know in US legal circles who has any sort of critical analysis - as opposed to partisan hackery - thinks her testament was extremely weak.
As for Blasey, I see you have used your renowned critical thinking analysis and taken Blasey Ford's words as Gospel. Not surprising really given your general attitude to evidence. However, you might want to reflect that Blasey Ford's statement was made in relation to questions about why she used most of the $647K GoFundMe funds for her own use.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Nevertheless, 12 jurors unanimously came to this verdict after hearing all the evidence. It would have have just taken one to say "no" for there to be no award.
And one has to think that, even in New York, there would have been at least one that would have been sympathetic to Trump.
Point of order - I think it was 9, not 12. Plus it's civil, so it is probability.
However, the main point, as I pointed out to @kle4, is that the jury's decision doesn't make logical sense - guilty on everything else which means they believe the accuser (including on sexual abuse) but, for some reason, they either don't believe her on rape or are saying they don't have the evidence which they did for everything else.
Does not make sense.
That’s not right at all. There are many reasons they could have come to that decision other than not believing her. They could, for example, have decided that the facts she proved did not meet the relevant legal definition of rape in New York State. There are many reasons for losing a case other than the witness evidence.
It does seem a bit concerning if a serious allegation of wrongdoing can be proven by one persons account backed up by two people they spoke to around the time, with no other significant evidence, and nearly 30 years passing. How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
Both my parents were Parkinson's sufferers in later life. Even just at 61 I find myself shuffling, rather than walking on rare occasions, which is a key symptom. This is potentially fantastic news.
Massive news if confirmed, stomach ulcer treatment was massively transformed from a similar finding.
I don't think it will be the last finding from studying the gut biome either.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.
The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.
Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.
Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.
Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.
But I think that's right though:
The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).
So the offence need not have actually happened.
Sure, but they should generally be wary of the risks of overly preventative arrest.
There's a reason if they see someone about to nick a bicycle it may be better for them to wait until the person picks up it, as it may be harder to prove intent to commit theft. I mean, aren't people technically guilty of burglary simply by walking into a place with intent to steal, ever mind if they actually manage it or even seriously try it, so long as it could be shown they intended to try it?
In the USA, in California, a unit of police was setup called SIS.
What they did was follow heavy end career crooks round. And wait until they committed a crime hat justified using lethal force. So they would watch as the crocks robbed and stole. When they finally had them, guns in hand, they would shoot them dead.
Several people said this wasn’t nice.
Sounds like one of the Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry films that had David Soul as the baddie ringleader
War of escalation. Dems add 3, then Republicans add 4. Give it a few terms and we'll have a tri-cameral system with 400+ in congress, 104 in senate, and 300 justices.
If cases ended up heard by a random selection from the 300 justices it would take a lot of the political heat out of the SC...
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
How old are the children, please? And what main reason do they give?
The ones I have most contact with are up to 13. Although it is reported as widespread throughout all years. They don't see the relevance. A lot of Why? Why should we have a King? What's it to do with me? Prince Andrew and the p word came up a lot too. A common complaint is that elderly well meaning relatives have wasted their Saturday and considered it a "treat" for which they should be grateful too. Boring was frequent.
Thank you. Obviously the current lot do not have the indoctrination I had in the Cub Scouts etc. (not that it worked very well, once I had seen an actual Royal event).
If only they’d had the opportunity to attend a grammar school!
I actually thought Putin's speech was very good and right on the money.
Europe does face the terror of fascism and imperialism again. And war has been waged by an aggressive racialist.
What Putin didn't realise was how beautifully he was describing himself and his own actions.
Russia really does like to project these days. The Nazis they claim they are trying to defeat aren't in Ukraine. They're staring at them in the mirror.
I thought the Russian leadership couldn't use mirrors? Something about turning to stone if they see their reflection.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
Both my parents were Parkinson's sufferers in later life. Even just at 61 I find myself shuffling, rather than walking on rare occasions, which is a key symptom. This is potentially fantastic news.
Massive news if confirmed, stomach ulcer treatment was massively transformed from a similar finding.
I don't think it will be the last finding from studying the gut biome either.
This might be a bit OTT Leon, but given this finding, and some of the ideas around viruses causing dementia - is there a chance that Covid may come back to bite us when younger people reach a similar kinda age?
The Irish are tying themselves in knots over this.
Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin said there may have been occasions in the past where RAF jets had entered Irish airspace “for different reasons”.
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has insisted that any arrangements with the RAF to police Irish airspace against Russian intruders are “consistent with our foreign defence and security policy”.
But Mr Varadkar refused to give the Dáil any details about the air defence agreement with the UK, which The Irish Times reported earlier this week has been in place since 1952.
“The security of our skies is a national security question and, therefore, I am limited in what I can say about it... We have a very good and effective Air Corps in Ireland. We do not have an air force of the nature of the United Kingdom, France, Russia or the US and we never will. We have to put in arrangements for certain scenarios and we have arrangements for certain scenarios to assure our safety and national security,” he said.
He told the Dáil he would not sanction a debate on the issue.
Earlier, Mr Martin said reports of a deal between Ireland and the UK, allowing the RAF to intervene in Irish airspace in the event of an attack, were inaccurate, but declined to elaborate. Mr Martin was speaking following the report in The Irish Times.
It’s been well known for decades, that the UK provides QRA cover over Irish airspace, Shannon FIR, to chase Bears away and escort unresponsive civil aircraft.
So what’s new? Is it that the agreement now also covers responses to domestic Irish threats?
I did read somewhere that quid pro quo has changed recently.
Also that there have been an increase of Russian aircraft violating UK and Irish airspace and there is no time for the RAF to inform the Irish.
Now if you're Sinn Fein then the latter is the Brits violating Irish sovereignty again.
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps this is more to do with routine air (and possibly sea) patrols then, rather than specific responses to events as they occur.
So the ‘public’ agreement is for a ‘QRA’ emergency service, but actually there’s UK mil flights over and around RoI on a daily basis.
The way I read it the Irish government (both main parties) are ok with it all but nobody wants to have the conversation with the public, speaking to my Irish friends, they seem fine with it all but acknowledge some people would have issues with it.
Well the Irish have three choices. 1. Status quo, as amended. whatever that may be. 2. A formal agreement for the British to patrol Irish airspace. 3. The Irish to put their hands deep into their pockets, and get themselves an Air Force.
It’s understandable that the Irish don’t want to open up unnecessary old sectarian wounds, given the increasingly difficult security environment, but can also understand why that can be politically sensitive information.
I just looked in to the current state of the Irish air force, not brilliant.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
Both my parents were Parkinson's sufferers in later life. Even just at 61 I find myself shuffling, rather than walking on rare occasions, which is a key symptom. This is potentially fantastic news.
Good luck. I think it’s possibly a little way off from being
I actually thought Putin's speech was very good and right on the money.
Europe does face the terror of fascism and imperialism again. And war has been waged by an aggressive racialist.
What Putin didn't realise was how beautifully he was describing himself and his own actions.
Russia really does like to project these days. The Nazis they claim they are trying to defeat aren't in Ukraine. They're staring at them in the mirror.
I thought the Russian leadership couldn't use mirrors? Something about turning to stone if they see their reflection.
The big cheese is Gorgon-zola ?
Now I've started, when it comes to punning I Med you, sir.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
How old are the children, please? And what main reason do they give?
The ones I have most contact with are up to 13. Although it is reported as widespread throughout all years. They don't see the relevance. A lot of Why? Why should we have a King? What's it to do with me? Prince Andrew and the p word came up a lot too. A common complaint is that elderly well meaning relatives have wasted their Saturday and considered it a "treat" for which they should be grateful too. Boring was frequent.
Thank you. Obviously the current lot do not have the indoctrination I had in the Cub Scouts etc. (not that it worked very well, once I had seen an actual Royal event).
I was an ardent republican as a teenager then gradually lost interest, eventually becoming completely indifferent to the situation.
The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.
The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.
Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.
Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.
Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.
But I think that's right though:
The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).
So the offence need not have actually happened.
Sure, but they should generally be wary of the risks of overly preventative arrest.
There's a reason if they see someone about to nick a bicycle it may be better for them to wait until the person picks up it, as it may be harder to prove intent to commit theft. I mean, aren't people technically guilty of burglary simply by walking into a place with intent to steal, ever mind if they actually manage it or even seriously try it, so long as it could be shown they intended to try it?
In the USA, in California, a unit of police was setup called SIS.
What they did was follow heavy end career crooks round. And wait until they committed a crime hat justified using lethal force. So they would watch as the crocks robbed and stole. When they finally had them, guns in hand, they would shoot them dead.
Several people said this wasn’t nice.
Yes, that was a Los Angeles unit.
The number of people they killed was extraordinary.
Anything but extraordinary. You take a bunch of American cops, selected by their experience in shooting people. Then send them to follow round people they are told deserve shooting. Until an opportunity to shoot them (the “perps”) arises.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Nevertheless, 12 jurors unanimously came to this verdict after hearing all the evidence. It would have have just taken one to say "no" for there to be no award.
And one has to think that, even in New York, there would have been at least one that would have been sympathetic to Trump.
Point of order - I think it was 9, not 12. Plus it's civil, so it is probability.
However, the main point, as I pointed out to @kle4, is that the jury's decision doesn't make logical sense - guilty on everything else which means they believe the accuser (including on sexual abuse) but, for some reason, they either don't believe her on rape or are saying they don't have the evidence which they did for everything else.
Does not make sense.
That’s not right at all. There are many reasons they could have come to that decision other than not believing her. They could, for example, have decided that the facts she proved did not meet the relevant legal definition of rape in New York State. There are many reasons for losing a case other than the witness evidence.
I think claiming her facts didn't match the legal definition of rape when she is being pretty explicit about what happened is rather lame.
You would be far more on solid ground if it was a criminal case but this is civil so it's a probability issue - and again, it all boils down to why believe her on probability grounds for everything else but not this?
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
There are many reasons for a jury deciding not to find for one side other than not believing the witness as I have said. You assume they didn’t believe her version of events. However, they could equally have believed her but not felt that the legal tests were met. Or perhaps they felt he assaulted her sexually but the plaintiff failed to come up to proof on one element of her case. All that is possible and, indeed, likely. It’s not a binary “truth or lie” situation. That’s not how law works.
Furthermore, given your theory appears to be that they just wanted to get Trump,whatever, why would they decide to let him off on the rape accusation? It’s no skin of their nose. Your vision of a jury “out to get Trump” doesn’t stack up at all.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
With the number of people and animals involved how can you be so sure no one would have been hurt? Freedom of speech is not an absolute right to do whatever you want.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And yet, they view Andrew Tate as a hero.
They don't. They really don't. There are some, but probably about as many as young royalists or Tories. The Tate thing is just another moral panic.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And yet, they view Andrew Tate as a hero.
And support Scottish Independence, are astrology "curious" and make sympathetic noises about authoritarian regimes.
Could it be that young people simply follow the crowd and don't think things through properly?
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
Both my parents were Parkinson's sufferers in later life. Even just at 61 I find myself shuffling, rather than walking on rare occasions, which is a key symptom. This is potentially fantastic news.
Massive news if confirmed, stomach ulcer treatment was massively transformed from a similar finding.
I don't think it will be the last finding from studying the gut biome either.
Very exciting news. Fingers crossed the results get confirmed and a decent therapy can be introduced soon.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
And she has been explicit it was rape. Plus, and again, the jury believed her on her other accusations. So why did they not believe her when she said she had been raped? The definition is not an issue here.
The Conservatives these days are all about making Britain into East Germany.
The General Public want to see the Protesters put in the Stocks and flogged or as a de minimus let people throw rotten cabbages at them. People in general are fed up at the selfishness of the Protesters and the distruption their protests cause. Unsurprised OGH is concerned however.
Bit difficult, unless you want lynch law.
Even the Met couldn't find anything to charge them with.
Unusually good political cartoon from someone not Matt of the DT.
But I think that's right though:
The police may arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary).
So the offence need not have actually happened.
Sure, but they should generally be wary of the risks of overly preventative arrest.
There's a reason if they see someone about to nick a bicycle it may be better for them to wait until the person picks up it, as it may be harder to prove intent to commit theft. I mean, aren't people technically guilty of burglary simply by walking into a place with intent to steal, ever mind if they actually manage it or even seriously try it, so long as it could be shown they intended to try it?
In the USA, in California, a unit of police was setup called SIS.
What they did was follow heavy end career crooks round. And wait until they committed a crime hat justified using lethal force. So they would watch as the crocks robbed and stole. When they finally had them, guns in hand, they would shoot them dead.
Several people said this wasn’t nice.
Yes, that was a Los Angeles unit.
The number of people they killed was extraordinary.
Anything but extraordinary. You take a bunch of American cops, selected by their experience in shooting people. Then send them to follow round people they are told deserve shooting. Until an opportunity to shoot them (the “perps”) arises.
Strangely, a lot of people get shot.
"To protect the sheep you gotta catch the wolf, and it takes a wolf to catch a wolf." - Denzel in "Trainingstag".
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
Both my parents were Parkinson's sufferers in later life. Even just at 61 I find myself shuffling, rather than walking on rare occasions, which is a key symptom. This is potentially fantastic news.
Massive news if confirmed, stomach ulcer treatment was massively transformed from a similar finding.
I don't think it will be the last finding from studying the gut biome either.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Nevertheless, 12 jurors unanimously came to this verdict after hearing all the evidence. It would have have just taken one to say "no" for there to be no award.
And one has to think that, even in New York, there would have been at least one that would have been sympathetic to Trump.
Point of order - I think it was 9, not 12. Plus it's civil, so it is probability.
However, the main point, as I pointed out to @kle4, is that the jury's decision doesn't make logical sense - guilty on everything else which means they believe the accuser (including on sexual abuse) but, for some reason, they either don't believe her on rape or are saying they don't have the evidence which they did for everything else.
Does not make sense.
That’s not right at all. There are many reasons they could have come to that decision other than not believing her. They could, for example, have decided that the facts she proved did not meet the relevant legal definition of rape in New York State. There are many reasons for losing a case other than the witness evidence.
I think claiming her facts didn't match the legal definition of rape when she is being pretty explicit about what happened is rather lame.
You would be far more on solid ground if it was a criminal case but this is civil so it's a probability issue - and again, it all boils down to why believe her on probability grounds for everything else but not this?
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And so as the view of young regarding the treatment of Harry becomes more mainstream the royal family will die.
On the tarmac at Schiphol on the way back from Paris.
Main thing to note Galarie Layfette now offer a 12% (tax free) discount for Brits. That £1150 handbag for €1000 is great deal
Even among the young, Harry's ratings are negative.
From the sound of what’s come out, six of the arrests were made in error. It was always going to be tough. The reality is that Just Stop Oil, ER and before them Father 4 Justice have pioneered a new style of protest, and the authorities are trying to counter this. I think the police fail when protesters impede other road users - whose rights are more important? The other thing that niggles is that the police, and notoriously the Met, lie.
A new style of protest? Everyone in this thread needs to read some histories of the Suffragettes.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
You find it incredible that a self confessed pussy grabber could sexually assault somebody.
He may well have done but, if I looked at the evidence, I would say he wasn't guilty. She couldn't remember the date nor the context and neither could the witnesses. Rather convenient as, if she had, it would have been very easy to check against his diary to see whether he was in the vicinty.
As Christine Blasey Ford showed, making a sexual assault allegation against a bete noire of the left is a one way ticket to a very nice meal ticket and quite risk free - no one questions your motivations, your evidence can have as many holes in as you like and you will still be backed to the hilt and you will make some nice money afterwards.
Nevertheless, 12 jurors unanimously came to this verdict after hearing all the evidence. It would have have just taken one to say "no" for there to be no award.
And one has to think that, even in New York, there would have been at least one that would have been sympathetic to Trump.
Point of order - I think it was 9, not 12. Plus it's civil, so it is probability.
However, the main point, as I pointed out to @kle4, is that the jury's decision doesn't make logical sense - guilty on everything else which means they believe the accuser (including on sexual abuse) but, for some reason, they either don't believe her on rape or are saying they don't have the evidence which they did for everything else.
Does not make sense.
That’s not right at all. There are many reasons they could have come to that decision other than not believing her. They could, for example, have decided that the facts she proved did not meet the relevant legal definition of rape in New York State. There are many reasons for losing a case other than the witness evidence.
I think claiming her facts didn't match the legal definition of rape when she is being pretty explicit about what happened is rather lame.
You would be far more on solid ground if it was a criminal case but this is civil so it's a probability issue - and again, it all boils down to why believe her on probability grounds for everything else but not this?
Wise up ffs.
Something you could do with doing yourself.
If you didn't view the world through a left-leaning wealthy North London middle class background, you might start to have a clue about why people think differently from you.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Well, there's disrupted and there's disruptred.
If they were holding placards saying "not my King" or somesuch, that's one thing.
But if they - for example - set off loud sirens with the intention of getting the horses to bolt, then that's another.
The problem is, of course, that we're giving the police a great deal of latitude to decide (in advance of any actual disruption) what kind of threat people pose.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
There are many reasons for a jury deciding not to find for one side other than not believing the witness as I have said. You assume they didn’t believe her version of events. However, they could equally have believed her but not felt that the legal tests were met. Or perhaps they felt he assaulted her sexually but the plaintiff failed to come up to proof on one element of her case. All that is possible and, indeed, likely. It’s not a binary “truth or lie” situation. That’s not how law works.
Furthermore, given your theory appears to be that they just wanted to get Trump,whatever, why would they decide to let him off on the rape accusation? It’s no skin of their nose. Your vision of a jury “out to get Trump” doesn’t stack up at all.
AIUI rape has a very strict set of definitions, and ones that almost certainly vary from country to country, or state to state. Apologies for this is it's icky: but if a woman feels herself being penetrated, but cannot say whether it was with a penis, fingers, or other object, then AIUI in the UK that is rape. Other jurisdictions might have different definitions; that it cannot be rape if (say) it was fingers. In addition, laws on consent are different, and so are the effect on the laws of relationships, e.g. whether accused and accuser are married.
As a non-lawyer, it seems a really complex area of law when comparing jurisdictions. As a man, it's fairly simple: always ensure your prospective partner is okay with what is going on. TBF, it should be the same for women as well.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
And she has been explicit it was rape. Plus, and again, the jury believed her on her other accusations. So why did they not believe her when she said she had been raped? The definition is not an issue here.
And they may have considered her memory after 28 years not precise enough to demonstrate rape even on BoP but taking everything together they are confident some form of sexual assault took place.
I have no idea why you think it is binary.* Very few things in dealing with evidence especially oral evidence are.
*actually, noting that you still haven't provided a source other than a neo-Fascist website for your lurid claims about Biden, this statement is in itself not altogether true.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
Monarchists don't believe in democracy, you know, the whole choosing a Head of State kind of thing. Monarchists don't believe in meritocracy. Having a hereditary head of state means no one from a humble/ethnic/atheist/non-CofE background can become Head of State.
They sat there and held placards that said Not My King.
They "disrupted" the event, so says the Met. It is their right to do so, of course the free speech brigade as some here are, conveniently ignore it because it doesn't agree with their POV. Frauds.
On the subject of the jury, my gut would be that one or two members didn't think Trump was liable at all, and the other seven or eight did. They therefore compromised on find him liable for the all but rape.
Time to kick out the unelected clergy from the House of Lords.
The archbishop of Canterbury will make a rare intervention in the House of Lords to join dozens of peers condemning the government’s flagship asylum bill.
Justin Welby will argue against measures championed by Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman that seek to criminalise people seeking refuge in the UK if they arrive on small boats.
The illegal migration bill is expected to face a series of demands for significant changes. Almost 90 peers are listed to speak at its second reading on Wednesday, with the chamber sitting earlier, from 11am, to allow for the many contributions.
The draft plans, which cleared the Commons last month, will change the law so that those who arrive in the UK without permission will not be able to stay to claim asylum and instead be detained and removed, either to their home country or a third country, such as Rwanda.
It will be the first time that Welby, the most senior cleric in the Church of England, has publicly criticised the legislation. He has previously criticised the way the debate over refugees has been conducted.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
There are many reasons for a jury deciding not to find for one side other than not believing the witness as I have said. You assume they didn’t believe her version of events. However, they could equally have believed her but not felt that the legal tests were met. Or perhaps they felt he assaulted her sexually but the plaintiff failed to come up to proof on one element of her case. All that is possible and, indeed, likely. It’s not a binary “truth or lie” situation. That’s not how law works.
Furthermore, given your theory appears to be that they just wanted to get Trump,whatever, why would they decide to let him off on the rape accusation? It’s no skin of their nose. Your vision of a jury “out to get Trump” doesn’t stack up at all.
AIUI rape has a very strict set of definitions, and ones that almost certainly vary from country to country, or state to state. Apologies for this is it's icky: but if a woman feels herself being penetrated, but cannot say whether it was with a penis, fingers, or other object, then AIUI in the UK that is rape. Other jurisdictions might have different definitions; that it cannot be rape if (say) it was fingers. In addition, laws on consent are different, and so are the effect on the laws of relationships, e.g. whether accused and accuser are married.
As a non-lawyer, it seems a really complex area of law when comparing jurisdictions. As a man, it's fairly simple: always ensure your prospective partner is okay with what is going on. TBF, it should be the same for women as well.
Rape in the U.K. is very precisely defined as 'penetration with a penis.' Anything else including fingers would be sexual assault.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Well, there's disrupted and there's disruptred.
If they were holding placards saying "not my King" or somesuch, that's one thing.
But if they - for example - set off loud sirens with the intention of getting the horses to bolt, then that's another.
The problem is, of course, that we're giving the police a great deal of latitude to decide (in advance of any actual disruption) what kind of threat people pose.
They held placards. The Met call that disruption, it is their right to do so.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
There are many reasons for a jury deciding not to find for one side other than not believing the witness as I have said. You assume they didn’t believe her version of events. However, they could equally have believed her but not felt that the legal tests were met. Or perhaps they felt he assaulted her sexually but the plaintiff failed to come up to proof on one element of her case. All that is possible and, indeed, likely. It’s not a binary “truth or lie” situation. That’s not how law works.
Furthermore, given your theory appears to be that they just wanted to get Trump,whatever, why would they decide to let him off on the rape accusation? It’s no skin of their nose. Your vision of a jury “out to get Trump” doesn’t stack up at all.
I actually would have found the jury's verdict more credible if they found him guilty of rape.
Again, and this is critical, this is a probability case not beyond standards of proof.
So it essentially does come down to what they believe rather than what they have proof for. And, again, why believe everything else including the sexual assault (which also has a precise definition) but not the rape charge?
Maybe let's do this. Explain, in a probability case, why a jury would accept everything the accuser stated in a 1-1 situation with no other witnesses present and relying on the accuser and defendant only, but would not accept the rape charge?
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And so as the view of young regarding the treatment of Harry becomes more mainstream the royal family will die.
On the tarmac at Schiphol on the way back from Paris.
Main thing to note Galarie Layfette now offer a 12% (tax free) discount for Brits. That £1150 handbag for €1000 is great deal
Even among the young, Harry's ratings are negative.
I don't know why we lionise the young as uniquely wise and the old as uniquely selfish.
On the subject of the jury, my gut would be that one or two members didn't think Trump was liable at all, and the other seven or eight did. They therefore compromised on find him liable for the all but rape.
It is human nature to want to "split the baby".
Alternatively, all of them agreed sexual assault had happened and Trump had lied* but not all of them were convinced it was rape as legally defined.
*let's face it, that would be entirely in character so he started this case under a severe handicap.
It does seem a bit concerning if a serious allegation of wrongdoing can be proven by one persons account backed up by two people they spoke to around the time, with no other significant evidence, and nearly 30 years passing. How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
It's not remotely concerning. Concerning is how he's avoided accountability for so long.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And so as the view of young regarding the treatment of Harry becomes more mainstream the royal family will die.
On the tarmac at Schiphol on the way back from Paris.
Main thing to note Galarie Layfette now offer a 12% (tax free) discount for Brits. That £1150 handbag for €1000 is great deal
Even among the young, Harry's ratings are negative.
I don't know why we lionise the young as uniquely wise and the old as uniquely selfish.
Both can be dumb or insightful.
Let's discuss on the merits of the issues please.
You've just said - in effect - that the opinions of the young can be disregarded, a few posts earlier, as a matter of principle!
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And yet, they view Andrew Tate as a hero.
And support Scottish Independence, are astrology "curious" and make sympathetic noises about authoritarian regimes.
Could it be that young people simply follow the crowd and don't think things through properly?
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
And she has been explicit it was rape. Plus, and again, the jury believed her on her other accusations. So why did they not believe her when she said she had been raped? The definition is not an issue here.
And they may have considered her memory after 28 years not precise enough to demonstrate rape even on BoP but taking everything together they are confident some form of sexual assault took place.
I have no idea why you think it is binary.* Very few things in dealing with evidence especially oral evidence are.
*actually, noting that you still haven't provided a source other than a neo-Fascist website for your lurid claims about Biden, this statement is in itself not altogether true.
"*actually, noting that you still haven't provided a source other than a neo-Fascist website for your lurid claims about Biden, this statement is in itself not altogether true."
What, you mean RealClearPolitics is a neo-fascist website?
I know you said you wanted to outlaw the GOP and make it illegal but surely saying RCP is a neo-fascist website is a step too far, even for your dictatorial credentials
On the subject of the jury, my gut would be that one or two members didn't think Trump was liable at all, and the other seven or eight did. They therefore compromised on find him liable for the all but rape.
It is human nature to want to "split the baby".
Alternatively, all of them agreed sexual assault had happened and Trump had lied* but not all of them were convinced it was rape as legally defined.
*let's face it, that would be entirely in character so he started this case under a severe handicap.
Comments
As for the Carroll case, as I said, if she had been able to state a date - and her witnesses also could have - then it would have been very easy to prove one way or another. That is only one thing. Her accusation mirroring almost to the hilt a Law and Order episode is another.
But you tell me - you seem to think he did it so why did you think that on the evidence?
Magnum Force.
Europe does face the terror of fascism and imperialism again. And war has been waged by an aggressive racialist.
What Putin didn't realise was how beautifully he was describing himself and his own actions.
The number of people they killed was extraordinary.
- Lessons Will Be Learned. This mantra is solemnly intoned after each fuckup. Its meaning is that no lessons of any value will be learned. Instead a large amount of performative theatre will be organised. At great expense. This will be used to justify praise and promotion all concerned.
And one has to think that, even in New York, there would have been at least one that would have been sympathetic to Trump.
It was relatively stable though - if there'd be time to bed it in I suspect it'd have been hard to shift, more obvious and supported successors in place.
Any transition to actual democracy would have been in the future, and incidental to any aim of the state at the time - all about the godly!
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ireland-purchases-new-c295-military-transport-aircraft/
So, in theory, they will soon be able to help with civilian extraction cf Sudan.
The Nazis they claim they are trying to defeat aren't in Ukraine.
They're staring at them in the mirror.
Off topic - These Eurovision acts are mostly dreadful, but feel I've got to watch because its Liverpool.......
Boris the Tank Engine!
(Took me a while to realise 'Boris' didn't refer to Massive Johnson.)
Women are beautiful and utterly divine.
Yes, I have been drinking. Don't judge me.
However, the main point, as I pointed out to @kle4, is that the jury's decision doesn't make logical sense - guilty on everything else which means they believe the accuser (including on sexual abuse) but, for some reason, they either don't believe her on rape or are saying they don't have the evidence which they did for everything else.
Does not make sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford
… By the time it was closed to further donations, the GoFundMe account set up on Ford's behalf had raised $647,610. As of November 21, 2018, Ford had used some of the money to cover security costs to protect herself and her family, but said that she would donate the remainder to organizations that support trauma survivors.[71]
Ford received a number of threats – including death threats – for coming forward with her allegations against Kavanaugh. During her testimony, Ford stated, "I have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. People have posted my personal information on the internet. This has resulted in additional emails, calls, and threats. My family and I were forced to move out of our home."[72] As of November 2018, Ford stated that she was still being harassed and threatened and had to move four times as well as hire private security;[73] furthermore, she had not been able to resume her teaching at Palo Alto University..
I think it’s possibly a little way off from being used for therapy, but they ought to be able to pursue it quite rapidly.
As for the names, I am sure she did given how polarised politics in America are. However, re Kavanaugh, I happen to know through a very good friend what the effect of the accusations had on him and it was / is pretty devastating for him and his family. And everyone I know in US legal circles who has any sort of critical analysis - as opposed to partisan hackery - thinks her testament was extremely weak.
As for Blasey, I see you have used your renowned critical thinking analysis and taken Blasey Ford's words as Gospel. Not surprising really given your general attitude to evidence. However, you might want to reflect that Blasey Ford's statement was made in relation to questions about why she used most of the $647K GoFundMe funds for her own use.
1) The Met are institutionally ranged against them
2) They annoy the appropriate suite of PB posters
How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
I don't think it will be the last finding from studying the gut biome either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPD_Special_Investigation_Section
https://criminaldefense.1800nynylaw.com/new-york-rape-lawyer.html
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
They were training with Spitfires until 1961.
Strangely, a lot of people get shot.
Or, much to my surprise, Bedford. Now that result was a bolt out of the blue.
You would be far more on solid ground if it was a criminal case but this is civil so it's a probability issue - and again, it all boils down to why believe her on probability grounds for everything else but not this?
Furthermore, given your theory appears to be that they just wanted to get Trump,whatever, why would they decide to let him off on the rape accusation? It’s no skin of their nose. Your vision of a jury “out to get Trump” doesn’t stack up at all.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Could it be that young people simply follow the crowd and don't think things through properly?
Punters think it’s a dead cert.
25% chance of winning.
Favourite is Sweden, at 57% win probability.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
If you didn't view the world through a left-leaning wealthy North London middle class background, you might start to have a clue about why people think differently from you.
If they were holding placards saying "not my King" or somesuch, that's one thing.
But if they - for example - set off loud sirens with the intention of getting the horses to bolt, then that's another.
The problem is, of course, that we're giving the police a great deal of latitude to decide (in advance of any actual disruption) what kind of threat people pose.
As a non-lawyer, it seems a really complex area of law when comparing jurisdictions. As a man, it's fairly simple: always ensure your prospective partner is okay with what is going on. TBF, it should be the same for women as well.
I have no idea why you think it is binary.* Very few things in dealing with evidence especially oral evidence are.
*actually, noting that you still haven't provided a source other than a neo-Fascist website for your lurid claims about Biden, this statement is in itself not altogether true.
Monarchists don't believe in meritocracy. Having a hereditary head of state means no one from a humble/ethnic/atheist/non-CofE background can become Head of State.
They "disrupted" the event, so says the Met. It is their right to do so, of course the free speech brigade as some here are, conveniently ignore it because it doesn't agree with their POV. Frauds.
It is human nature to want to "split the baby".
The archbishop of Canterbury will make a rare intervention in the House of Lords to join dozens of peers condemning the government’s flagship asylum bill.
Justin Welby will argue against measures championed by Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman that seek to criminalise people seeking refuge in the UK if they arrive on small boats.
The illegal migration bill is expected to face a series of demands for significant changes. Almost 90 peers are listed to speak at its second reading on Wednesday, with the chamber sitting earlier, from 11am, to allow for the many contributions.
The draft plans, which cleared the Commons last month, will change the law so that those who arrive in the UK without permission will not be able to stay to claim asylum and instead be detained and removed, either to their home country or a third country, such as Rwanda.
It will be the first time that Welby, the most senior cleric in the Church of England, has publicly criticised the legislation. He has previously criticised the way the debate over refugees has been conducted.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/09/archbishop-of-canterbury-criticise-small-boats-bill-house-of-lords-justin-welby?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I mean do we really want to be like Iran and have unelected clergy in our parliament.
Again, and this is critical, this is a probability case not beyond standards of proof.
So it essentially does come down to what they believe rather than what they have proof for. And, again, why believe everything else including the sexual assault (which also has a precise definition) but not the rape charge?
Maybe let's do this. Explain, in a probability case, why a jury would accept everything the accuser stated in a 1-1 situation with no other witnesses present and relying on the accuser and defendant only, but would not accept the rape charge?
Both can be dumb or insightful.
Let's discuss on the merits of the issues please.
*let's face it, that would be entirely in character so he started this case under a severe handicap.
You can all thank me for that image.
He always looked like a hale and hearty man in his late 60s. Now, for the first time, he's looking like someone well into their 70s.
What, you mean RealClearPolitics is a neo-fascist website?
I know you said you wanted to outlaw the GOP and make it illegal but surely saying RCP is a neo-fascist website is a step too far, even for your dictatorial credentials
You heard it here first.