Clown Job Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 George looking for a new grift 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 1 hour ago, Clown Job said: George looking for a new grift The desperation there is genuinely fantastic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 A small victory in what often seems like a losing war.... Quote Arron Banks loses libel action against reporter Carole Cadwalladr Arron Banks loses libel action against reporter Carole Cadwalladr | Arron Banks | The Guardian 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 1 hour ago, btb said: A small victory in what often seems like a losing war.... Arron Banks loses libel action against reporter Carole Cadwalladr | Arron Banks | The Guardian The amount of shit that was thrown at her from the gammonatti and bots was horrific, nearly broke her but really glad she won the libel action. It's a pity that the wealthy w**k Banks will not feel much if any effects of the loss in comparison to the effect on Cadwalladr. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duries Air Freshener Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 On 10/06/2022 at 09:10, Ervin H Burrell said: You can't trust a word Joe Mulhall says tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 11 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said: You can't trust a word Joe Mulhall says tbh. Quote Appearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London at a hearing to discuss money he owes, he said at one point he was spending about £100,000 on gambling in casinos and online. He described how he wasted money on "drink, alcohol, partying" while receiving thousands of pounds in donations from supporters. Robinson said in 2020 he received about £1,000 a month from supporters and at times that figure was between £3,000 to £4,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-61753172 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 18 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said: You can't trust a word Joe Mulhall says tbh. Not sure you could trust anything Yaxley-Lennon says either tbqh. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 Stephen Lennon has already lost court cases for making up shit, mind you the clownshoe votes for these untrustworthy liars https://boris-johnson-lies.com/johnson-in-parliament https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seb-dance/nigel-farage-seb-dance_b_14591852.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duries Air Freshener Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 1 hour ago, welshbairn said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-61753172 If it comes from Joe Mulhall, then you can be sure there's a lie somewhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 2 hours ago, dirty dingus said: The amount of shit that was thrown at her from the gammonatti and bots was horrific, nearly broke her but really glad she won the libel action. It's a pity that the wealthy w**k Banks will not feel much if any effects of the loss in comparison to the effect on Cadwalladr. It’s a very small technical victory. She receives no damages, she did defame him but not to a sufficient extent. Not much of a victory but only natural that the Guardian bigs it up, I suppose. He might appeal so she’s not out of the woods yet. A rotten journalist. -6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 22 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said: If it comes from Joe Mulhall, then you can be sure there's a lie somewhere. This is certainly the line that some bunch of VL white supremacists came up with when he criticised them. I thought you good faith debater types frowned on ad hom arguments? Oops sorry, forgot you're practically a reactionary bot. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 9 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: It’s a very small technical victory. She receives no damages, she did defame him but not to a sufficient extent. Not much of a victory but only natural that the Guardian bigs it up, I suppose. He might appeal so she’s not out of the woods yet. A rotten journalist. Why would a defendant receive damages? Gibberish 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duries Air Freshener Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 (edited) 35 minutes ago, coprolite said: This is certainly the line that some bunch of VL white supremacists came up with when he criticised them. I thought you good faith debater types frowned on ad hom arguments? Oops sorry, forgot you're practically a reactionary bot. Whether ‘VL white supremscists’ said it or not, it’s still markedly true. Edited June 13, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duries Air Freshener Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: It’s a very small technical victory. She receives no damages, she did defame him but not to a sufficient extent. Not much of a victory but only natural that the Guardian bigs it up, I suppose. He might appeal so she’s not out of the woods yet. A rotten journalist. Very true, DPB. She basically admitted she was wrong, after initially attempting, and failing, to back up her mad claims. There just wasn’t enough in it for it to be defamation. I hope he appeals. Edited June 13, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 11 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said: Very true, DPB. She basically admitted she was wrong, after initially attempting, and failing, to back up her mad claims. There just wasn’t enough in it for it to be defamation. I hope he appeals. The judge thought that given the amount of lies Banks told about his dealings with the Russian state, she made an honest attempt to get to the truth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 56 minutes ago, coprolite said: Why would a defendant receive damages? Gibberish You are correct. I apologise. The judge reckoned that the bulk of her false claims would be heard within her own echo chamber of followers and, as such, serious damage to Banks would not have occurred. Shes still a very poor journalist. Anyway, let’s see if he takes it further. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 Not got much time for Cadwalladr tbh, but Banks is a cretin, so fair play. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duries Air Freshener Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, welshbairn said: The judge thought that given the amount of lies Banks told about his dealings with the Russian state, she made an honest attempt to get to the truth. Even Cadwalladr herself admitted the claim was untrue. Banksy actually comes out of this looking well. Judge Rules Cadwalladr Claims of Russian Backing for Banks Were Defamatory, Awards No Damages – Guido Fawkes (order-order.com) Edited June 13, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 4 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said: Even Cadwalladr herself admitted the claim was untrue. Banksy actually comes out of this looking no worse than when he went into it well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 26 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said: Banksy actually comes out of this looking well. Really? Quote 384. First, I address the lies Mr Banks is alleged to have told about his relationship with the Russian government. Prior to the disclosure of the email cache, Mr Banks had (a) disclosed meeting “Oleg” at the UKIP conference on 25 September 2015 and attending lunch with the Russian ambassador, on 6 November 2015, in BBOB; (b) disclosed two lunches with the Russian ambassador (on 6 November 2015 and 18 November 2016) in a tweet and when interviewed by Ms Cadwalladr; and (c) issued a press release on 1 November 2017 in which he said his “sole involvement with ‘the Russians’” was the lunch he had written about in BBOB. 385. Ms Cadwalladr had reasonable grounds for believing that: i) Mr Banks had met the Russian ambassador again, and been introduced to Mr Povarenkin, on 16 or 17 November 2015. This meeting was acknowledged by Mr Banks, but had not been disclosed before Ms Cadwalladr obtained the email cache. ii) Mr Banks had lunch with the Russian ambassador on 19 August 2016, a few days before joining Mr Trump’s campaign in Mississippi. It was clear from the email cache that this lunch had been arranged and a few days beforehand nothing had occurred to alter the plan. Mr Banks acknowledged in interviews with The New York Times and The Washington Post that he had been to this lunch. Although in evidence Mr Banks has said he does not recall this lunch, that was not information Ms Cadwalladr had, and in any event the fact that Mr Banks has been able to disclose the menu card - showing the lunch was specifically held in his honour - is a strong indication that he attended. This meeting had not been disclosed by Mr Banks. iii) Mr Banks shared information with Russian officials, most notably, (a) documents marked “Eyes Only” relating to Mr Cottrell were sent by Mr Wigmore to Mr Fedichkin at 2.26pm on the day Mr Banks and Mr Wigmore were having lunch with the Russian ambassador and Mr Fedichkin; and (b) the contact number for the Trump administration was provided to the Russian ambassador by Mr Banks. iv) Mr Banks had been offered ‘sweetheart’ deals. First, and most clearly, the Russian Gold Consolidation Play to which Mr Banks was introduced at a meeting hosted by the Russian ambassador, and which the email cache showed had been seriously pursued for a matter of months. Secondly, the privatisation of Alrosa to which the email cache suggests Mr Banks had been alerted by Mr Povarenkin before it was mentioned by Mr van den Brul. Thirdly, the Guinea gold mine which Mr Banks had pursued to the limited extent of meeting with Mr Karas. None of these matters had been disclosed by Mr Banks. On any view, Mr Banks’s press statement of 1 November 2017 was wholly inaccurate. At the very least, and even assuming his statement should be taken as referring to the period prior to the EU referendum only, although it did not say so, Mr Banks’s “involvement with ‘the Russians’” extended beyond a single lunch to the meeting with the Russian ambassador and Mr Povarenkin, and to communications with Mr Povarenkin and Mr Udod over a period of months regarding the Russian Gold Consolidation Play. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.