Making the news today....

[Johnsond]

3 minutes ago, Steven P said:

Wow, what a lot of words from a simple question for a clarification about what you were referring to. Taking a lot of interest in my comments....

You wonder why I asked Mark the question by name. He may be a rabid anti Tory but compared to the conspiracy, ridicule, aliens, cabal shite and stupidity that is the default go to setting to counter anyone who questions anything it’s night and day different. 

[doobin]

How long before they come for Neil Oliver, I wonder?

 

This whole thing is daft. Women are attracted to high status men, and Brand in his prime was a perfect example. Now that his name has been dragged through the mud by his stance on COVID, he's not so attractive and a few have decided that actually they never really liked him. Or been tempted by the chance of a payout, whether a bung from an as yet unknown third party or damages as part of a 'me too' class action.

Edited September 19, 2023 by doobin

[Johnsond]

7 minutes ago, doobin said:

How long before they come for Neil Oliver, I wonder?

 

This whole thing is daft. Women are attracted to high status men, and Brand in his prime was a perfect example. Now that his name has been dragged through the mud by his stance on COVID, he's not so attractive and a few have decided that actually they never really liked him. Or been tempted by the chance of a payout, whether a bung from an as yet unknown third party or damages as part of a 'me too' class action.

The Neil Oliver question is one I’ve been pondering myself. 

[openspaceman]

39 minutes ago, doobin said:

How long before they come for Neil Oliver, I wonder?

 

This whole thing is daft. Women are attracted to high status men, and Brand in his prime was a perfect example. Now that his name has been dragged through the mud by his stance on COVID, he's not so attractive and a few have decided that actually they never really liked him. Or been tempted by the chance of a payout, whether a bung from an as yet unknown third party or damages as part of a 'me too' class action.

As a fellow misogynist I agree

[Steven P]

1 hour ago, doobin said:

How long before they come for Neil Oliver, I wonder?

 

This whole thing is daft. Women are attracted to high status men, and Brand in his prime was a perfect example. Now that his name has been dragged through the mud by his stance on COVID, he's not so attractive and a few have decided that actually they never really liked him. Or been tempted by the chance of a payout, whether a bung from an as yet unknown third party or damages as part of a 'me too' class action.

 

 

That kind of emphasises a point I made earlier, those who are rich and famous are protected because of this attitude "they are only reporting this to go after their cash". The victims are often put off reporting what happened because of that attitude. Mentioned earlier that the courts should decide guilt but the victims should be able to report any crimes without fear or prejudice. Any guilty verdicts and then the victims should be able to chase for a payout.

 

To me making a payout is almost an admission of guilt - why make a payment if there is nothing to defend yourself from?

 

Noting that there was a report to the police about Brand (not from someone in the documentary) - shows that the program has shown other victims that they weren't the only ones.

 

Of course, writing here as if he is guilty, he could be found to be innocent of specific charges in a court of law if it gets that far

[Johnsond]

52 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

 

That kind of emphasises a point I made earlier, those who are rich and famous are protected because of this attitude "they are only reporting this to go after their cash". The victims are often put off reporting what happened because of that attitude. Mentioned earlier that the courts should decide guilt but the victims should be able to report any crimes without fear or prejudice. Any guilty verdicts and then the victims should be able to chase for a payout.

 

To me making a payout is almost an admission of guilt - why make a payment if there is nothing to defend yourself from?

 

Noting that there was a report to the police about Brand (not from someone in the documentary) - shows that the program has shown other victims that they weren't the only ones.

 

Of course, writing here as if he is guilty, he could be found to be innocent of specific charges in a court of law if it gets that far

And if it doesn’t get that far !! As other now infamous cases didn’t due to our amazing CPS. Is he therefore as your pal stated “ a sexual predator “ for life. 

[Mike Hill]

"To me making a payout is almost an admission of guilt - why make a payment if there is nothing to defend yourself from?"

 

Because sometimes it's just the lesser of two evils. I had to buy my website off my former business partner who stiffed me for at least 200 grand, I also had to pay him a gratuity in order to take over the company despite him being investigated for fraud.

 

I could have dug my heals in and rightly demanded it all for free, or tried to apply the principles of fair play. Unfortunately the world doesn't work like that.

[Steven P]

Slight difference Mike, you were paying out to buy the complete business which I guess was a shared asset you and the business partner - sucks though that you being the good guy had to pay out to the bad guy. You were never accused of anything - so any payment you made wasn't to make allegations against you vanish.

 

In the cases where the accused makes a payment and the threat of court action vanishes, the payment is the lesser of the 2 evils, the greater of the 2 is the victim having their day in court. The analogy here would be you taking your old business partner to court and them saying "here is the business, website et al and also £50k to make the court side of things go away". The greater of the 2 evils is only greater if you won't walk away from the court proceedings with an apology from the accuser.

[Johnsond]

It would appear old knee bender is busy over the channel 🤔

Britain touted as future ‘associate member’ of EU

APPLE.NEWS

---

France and Germany propose four-tiered system under which UK would be governed by European...

The corporate employment agency that  is the EU just doesn’t ever seem happy unless it’s getting ever more powerful. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Johnsond

[Mike Hill]

40 minutes ago, Steven P said:

Slight difference Mike, you were paying out to buy the complete business which I guess was a shared asset you and the business partner - sucks though that you being the good guy had to pay out to the bad guy. You were never accused of anything - so any payment you made wasn't to make allegations against you vanish.

 

In the cases where the accused makes a payment and the threat of court action vanishes, the payment is the lesser of the 2 evils, the greater of the 2 is the victim having their day in court. The analogy here would be you taking your old business partner to court and them saying "here is the business, website et al and also £50k to make the court side of things go away". The greater of the 2 evils is only greater if you won't walk away from the court proceedings with an apology from the accuser.

You are right.

 

He was jailed for fraud,I and he were under investigation although my innocence was proven early on,I still had to pay the twat out.

 

My lawyer compared it to performing a sex act upon another man.