Christine Blasey Ford
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 DanH  SW2 28 Sep 18 7.41am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Why does how long ago matter? A crime is still a crime no matter when it was committed. You wouldn’t let someone off for murder if someone came forward with evidence 36 years later.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| DanH SW2 28 Sep 18 7.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
And given the privileged and powerful position this guy wants, of course he should be made to face up to these allegations. His skin colour is irrelevant, his past misdemeanours aren’t.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 28 Sep 18 7.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
The live Kavanah hearing is the lead story currently on the BBC News home page. It's a US politics story. It's because it's an opportunity to smear the Republicans and would never happen if it was a Democrat. Has anyone seen BBC or Sky News coverage currently on Keith Ellison, a progressive Democrat from Minnesota and deputy chairman of the Democratic Party? He is under investigation for allegations of abuse made against him by a former girlfriend. The silence is deafening! I don't think that it's political bias at all. One of them involves Trump and because he is larger than life anything he does seems to be very newsworthy
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 28 Sep 18 8.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Pulling up spelling mistakes is the cheapest point scoring you can do. If Kavanaugh did the crime, then he shouldn't serve on the supreme court. However all four witnesses who were there have no recollection of the assault on the penalty of perjury. Can't be trusted? His private and professional life has been exemplary. He's had multiple FBI background checks over the years. The Dems want to delay his appointment – as they held on to the claims for 60 days and desperately want an FBI investigation – then probably win the house and stop his appointment. It's a nasty trick to play and smears the man's character and his career. Edited by Penge Eagle (27 Sep 2018 11.39pm) This. I have no idea if she is telling the truth it maybe she is but she has the wrong guy or maybe she has the right guy. The problem is that however emotional her testimony is none of the other witnesses can confirm it nor can she confirm the exact date or precise location of when this happened. What would worry me if I was on that committee is has she tried to manipulate her appearance. Having inserted herself into these proceedings she attempted to dictate conditions about when and how she would give evidence. The committee chair quite rightly told her to put up or shut up. Her conditions smacked of delaying tactics so that this nomination process would drag on to just before the mid term elections and so hopefully damage the Republicans.If she is telling the truth I think that was a huge mistake. This is not evidence but I heard a US journalist this morning state that the judge has been investigated many times (for jobs) and that she had never heard any whispers or rumours about his conduct. She mentioned another appointee who had to withdraw from a job and said it was not a surprise when allegations became public. I doubt we will ever know the truth I imagine the the vote will split on party lines.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 28 Sep 18 9.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Haha, you are funny. Having lived in the US for the last couple of years, I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp of their politics than you. Having worked as a sub-editor for almost 20 years, I'm pretty sure my spelling is better than yours also. But if you want to pick up on a typo to claim your moral victory, then I'm happy for you. I am sure you do. I just saw you were one of the people that had the spelling of Brett Kavanaugh wrong, perhaps that's why you are so sensitive. Strange mistake for such a politically involved sub-editor to make but there you go. My comment was not aimed at anyone in particular but I guess you are feeling guilty so I will let you take the shame.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 28 Sep 18 10.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
I just love the way you don't care about libel laws. So refreshing. Wtf are you talking about? How do the US 'libel' laws apply to anyone in the UK?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 28 Sep 18 10.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Wtf are you talking about? How do the US 'libel' laws apply to anyone in the UK? Or indeed where you haven’t actually libelled anyone. What I read of yours was a generic comment.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 28 Sep 18 10.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
I guess there will be a queue of other women all swearing blind he assaulted them. Actually didn't this happen with Trump in his election campaign, backfired I believe.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 28 Sep 18 10.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Wtf are you talking about? How do the US 'libel' laws apply to anyone in the UK? Who said anything about US libel laws? I am sure, now we don't have Legal Eagle, another lawyer can advise on whether your comment would be construed as libelous given it was in direct response to a post about a specific individual.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 28 Sep 18 10.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
I am sure, now we don't have Legal Eagle, another lawyer can advise on whether your comment would be construed as libelous given it was in direct response to a post about a specific individual. I am not a lawyer (and I doubt whether Legal Eagle was either) but the comment that you found so offensive is no worse than a huge number of defamatory posts that are made on HOL every day
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 28 Sep 18 11.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Who said anything about US libel laws? I am sure, now we don't have Legal Eagle, another lawyer can advise on whether your comment would be construed as libelous given it was in direct response to a post about a specific individual. Ha. I'll take my chances.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Sep 18 11.04am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Who said anything about US libel laws? I am sure, now we don't have Legal Eagle, another lawyer can advise on whether your comment would be construed as libelous given it was in direct response to a post about a specific individual.
Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Sep 2018 11.04am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.