The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

That's not what I said and for you to claim as much is a poor reflection on you, not me.

Absolutely zero evidence against Moore, except the now discredited yearbook entry, unless you know something nobody else does. Present what you have.

What’s the biggest likelihood that all of the women who have accused Moore are lying or he is.

And yeah i would apply that same standard to Franken (with the exception of the picture all the allegations are their word versus his) and Bill Clinton.

Plus what’s the evidence for the half baked accusations you throw around?

[Niall_Quinn]

What’s the biggest likelihood that all of the women who have accused Moore are lying or he is.

And yeah i would apply that same standard to Franken (with the exception of the picture all the allegations are their word versus his) and Bill Clinton.

Plus what’s the evidence for the half baked accusations you throw around?

Evidence for the people I state (not accuse) are pedos is in the public domain mainly. For example, the evidence against the serial pedophile Ted Heath is extensive and conclusive. Well that's what I, and the coppers investigating it, think. I know that for some strange reason you believe differently. And here you are accusing me of defending pedos. Odd, isn't it. This reflection business.

The Moore stitch up is comically bad, where ONE alleged and unsubstantiated case of inappropriate behaviour is rolled in with a bunch of alleged activity that is not illegal, such as asking young (but not underage) women out on dates. If it ends up in court then we'll know. But I suspect it will all go away now the point has been achieved. We'll see. If he did something wrong then there are punishments available to fit such crimes. But the Amazon.com Post should also be held to account. That's the agency that generated all this steam from a standstill.

[Niall_Quinn]

What evidence do you expect anyone to be able to produce for historic sexual assault allegations?
Witnesses? I would think these things generally happen in private so that's unlikely. There will be no forensic evidence. So then you're reduced to one person's word against another.
I Googled the yearbook thing and found this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...beverly-nelson



So what does that show? It sounds like they met and he wrote an inscription in her book. She then annotated it. What does that demonstrate?
It neither convicts him or exonerates him. One person's word against another. What has been discredited?



This is my frequent question to you. You often hint and knowing better than us poor saps but never actually produce anything solid to back that up.

Honestly Letters - what are you on about?

They DID produce "evidence" and then had to admit they tampered with it. In cases of one word against another credibility is everything. The entire entry was claimed to be from Moore. Then the story was changed. But there are other aspects to that particular piece of "evidence" that makes it suspect. Taken together, and given the cunt who is representing this woman, it's fairly safe to say she's a liar. But it would be good to see this play out in court so she could be prosecuted.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Evidence for the people I state (not accuse) are pedos is in the public domain mainly. For example, the evidence against the serial pedophile Ted Heath is extensive and conclusive. Well that's what I, and the coppers investigating it, think. I know that for some strange reason you believe differently. And here you are accusing me of defending pedos. Odd, isn't it. This reflection business.

The Moore stitch up is comically bad, where ONE alleged and unsubstantiated case of inappropriate behaviour is rolled in with a bunch of alleged activity that is not illegal, such as asking young (but not underage) women out on dates. If it ends up in court then we'll know. But I suspect it will all go away now the point has been achieved. We'll see. If he did something wrong then there are punishments available to fit such crimes. But the Amazon.com Post should also be held to account. That's the agency that generated all this steam from a standstill.

Except you’ve provided no evidence against Heath. I read countless things written about him because it’s possible it might have been true. But most of it amounts to paranoid rantings to Heath raping little boys than strangling them and weighing them down and throwing the bodies off his yacht.
Most of the accusations against him it was concluded that most of it was ugly rumour because he was a likely cottager

But you know what if he had stuff hanging over him when he was prime minister I think he’d have to resign even if he was exonerated.

[Letters]

They DID produce "evidence" and then had to admit they tampered with it.
In cases of one word against another credibility is everything.
The entire entry was claimed to be from Moore. Then the story was changed.

This is classic misdirection from the right, the sort of thing you usually baulk at. The evidence is that he wrote in her yearbook and signed it.
That is the evidence they met. It was not "tampered with". It was not "forged". It was annotated. The use of the word "forgery" by the usual suspects, Breitbart and Fox News, and your use of the word "tampered", is misdirection.
Whether she annotated it is neither here nor there. Even Fox News who immediately screamed "forgery" had to later correct themselves.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/36...rgery-headline

If the signature is genuine, as the hand-writing expert claims it is, then it is proof they met. Even if she wrote the entire rest of the inscription herself (there is no indication she did), it still proves they met.
A few weeks later she alleges he assaulted her. I have no idea whether that is true, that is one person's word against another.
I find it interesting how you generally rail against politicians and now decide this one is credible.

But there are other aspects to that particular piece of "evidence" that makes it suspect.

What other aspects? You can't just state stuff like this without elaborating.

[GP]

You can't just state stuff like this without elaborating.

Of course he can. It's what he and the rest of the headbanging Right do regularly.

He's Tory through and through.

[Globalgunner]

My gripe with these women is why wait till he was running for Senate. This man was chief justice of Alabama. Had a legal career spanning over 30 years. Were these females in a coma since the 70`s?.

Letters please stop misstating facts that are clearly in evidence. Trump DID NOT admit to assaulting women. I believe what he said is that when you are famous, women let you do all kinds of shit to them....(many would argue this is entirely true, otherwise groupies would not be a real thing). He never admitted to actually doing any of those things...the stuff about his daughter is simply mental extrapolation of some crude observations by Trump on his daughters hotness. Creepy yes. Not criminal.

Trump is a juvenile pensioner, yes but no need to exaggerate his faults.

[Niall_Quinn]

Except you’ve provided no evidence against Heath. I read countless things written about him because it’s possible it might have been true. But most of it amounts to paranoid rantings to Heath raping little boys than strangling them and weighing them down and throwing the bodies off his yacht.
Most of the accusations against him it was concluded that most of it was ugly rumour because he was a likely cottager

But you know what if he had stuff hanging over him when he was prime minister I think he’d have to resign even if he was exonerated.

Do you really believe that?

If anything, he'd never have made PM WITHOUT stuff like that hanging over him.

Evidently we believe the world works in very different ways.

I'd agree, the stories about Heath started out as whispers here and rumours there, but the last investigation doesn't leave any room for doubt. Because the establishment has circled the wagons doesn't mean the findings of trained investigators has gone away. And they went to extreme lengths to ensure their sources were vetted and reliable, as apposed to blindly accepted (like these women popping up everywhere) and fanciful. Heath one of the easy ones to identify. I haven't mentioned many (many) others because they are damn good at covering their tracks and all we have to work with are the rumours and stories.

Most people won't detach themselves from the moment and look at a progression of events. Not so long ago, any suggestion of pedophilia at the heart of the British establishment would have be greeted with outright disbelief - refusal to listen, let alone give credence. Now, because the reality is starting to escape into theatre land, the establishment says yes, okay, there are SOME pedos knocking around, mostly Jimmy Saville, can carrier extraordinaire. We'll believe anything about him, won't we? In time it will be, well okay, there are many, many pedos - but not me! And then we'll get to the truth. It will be fought at every step - not by the guilty but by the gullible who defend them.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

My gripe with these women is why wait till he was running for Senate. This man was chief justice of Alabama. Had a legal career spanning over 30 years. Were these females in a coma since the 70`s?.

Letters please stop misstating facts that are clearly in evidence. Trump DID NOT admit to assaulting women. I believe what he said is that when you are famous, women let you do all kinds of shit to them....(many would argue this is entirely true, otherwise groupies would not be a real thing). He never admitted to actually doing any of those things...the stuff about his daughter is simply mental extrapolation of some crude observations by Trump on his daughters hotness. Creepy yes. Not criminal.

Trump is a juvenile pensioner, yes but no need to exaggerate his faults.

He did openly admit to walking in on the dressing rooms of underage girls without knocking when they appeared in his beauty pageants and that they were in various states of undress when he did this.

As for the accusations of sexual assault, there is of course no doubt that the accusers will face various degrees of character assassination from the people defending the President, in the same way Gennifer Flowers, Katherine Wiley, Paula Jones etc were treated as trash by Clinton’s people.

The idea that people’s attitufes to this change depending on who it is is laughable to me. Like the women’s march in Washington after dumbarse got inaugurated. I don’t remember anything similar for Clinton?.

[Globalgunner]

He did openly admit to walking in on the dressing rooms of underage girls without knocking when they appeared in his beauty pageants and that they were in various states of undress when he did this.

As for the accusations of sexual assault, there is of course no doubt that the accusers will face various degrees of character assassination from the people defending the President, in the same way Gennifer Flowers, Katherine Wiley, Paula Jones etc were treated as trash by Clinton’s people.

The idea that people’s attitufes to this change depending on who it is is laughable to me. Like the women’s march in Washington after dumbarse got inaugurated. I don’t remember anything similar for Clinton?.

Nothing new there. If you accuse anyone with influence of something you cant expect them to meekly fess up. Im not a woman but if I was genuinely assaulted by a man I would want to see him prosecuted, no matter the personal cost.