Jump to content

The normalisation of the far-right continues


Guest Bob Mahelp

Recommended Posts

"people say "where's your evidence? " - i  have a feeling that a left wing influence has seeped in to the legal profession" 

Absolute moron. 

Then the cinnamon thing. Copying teenagers off of tik tok. What an utterly brainless buffoon. 

No idea who this guy is, but he's confirming all my prejudices about the cognitive abilities of your average gammon. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ervin H Burrell said:

 

BBC

I liked this bit: 

Asked about a claim in his 2009 book Enemy of the State that he owned seven properties, but six of them were in his wife's name, he said: "I like to give off that I am a successful man when I am not."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, btb 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Duries Air Freshener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Duries Air Freshener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...