Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Stanley Johnson
MP Caroline Noakes has accused him of touching her inappropriately at the Conservative Party conference in 2003.Dreadful man but why wait until now? https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by grumpy01. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi - // AH, I'm doing rather better than you. //
You think?
I see you floundering and addressing anything except your attitudes, and your contradictions, whereby Ms Noakes is 'muckraking' but you like to 'err on the side of caution'.
What you like to do is post your offensive attitudes, and then avoid defending them when you are called out on them.
I am waiting for an 'I have said all I am going to say ...' followed by your exit from the thread - your standard approach to being exposed and unable to defend your reprehensible attitudes.
You think?
I see you floundering and addressing anything except your attitudes, and your contradictions, whereby Ms Noakes is 'muckraking' but you like to 'err on the side of caution'.
What you like to do is post your offensive attitudes, and then avoid defending them when you are called out on them.
I am waiting for an 'I have said all I am going to say ...' followed by your exit from the thread - your standard approach to being exposed and unable to defend your reprehensible attitudes.
Mozz - // As has been said, it's little wonder that women do not report such matters sooner when the get so thoroughly dismissed by people. //
If you hang around long enough, our Dismisser-In-Chief will be along to tell you to get a grip.
It's nothing to do with her previous pronouncements, but it saves her from the tricky task of defending the indefensible and addressing the rampant contradictions of her posts to date.
If you hang around long enough, our Dismisser-In-Chief will be along to tell you to get a grip.
It's nothing to do with her previous pronouncements, but it saves her from the tricky task of defending the indefensible and addressing the rampant contradictions of her posts to date.
sozza mozza
I was involved in a he said-she said issue
in the Good Old Days where Allison Saunders ( now disgraced DPP - no not the one who was caught crusiing) siad the she-said side would be believed
and so after the "no I didnt say that" bit
if SHE is believed then you have to do the proving a negative ( proof I DIDN'T) and THAT can be Very Hard Indeed !
and also is against one of the principle of English Law that Ally really should have paid more attention to
I did by the way - (prove the negative) somwhat gracelessly I admit
I was involved in a he said-she said issue
in the Good Old Days where Allison Saunders ( now disgraced DPP - no not the one who was caught crusiing) siad the she-said side would be believed
and so after the "no I didnt say that" bit
if SHE is believed then you have to do the proving a negative ( proof I DIDN'T) and THAT can be Very Hard Indeed !
and also is against one of the principle of English Law that Ally really should have paid more attention to
I did by the way - (prove the negative) somwhat gracelessly I admit
Um oh dear Bobbi I know you dont like me answering
no she doesnt have to prove doo-dah
when the case comes to court, the Crown ( not her ) has to prove etc as it is a criminal case and not civil ( she does and on the balance of probz)
I only write this to refute the obvious and common confusion between criminal and civil
no she doesnt have to prove doo-dah
when the case comes to court, the Crown ( not her ) has to prove etc as it is a criminal case and not civil ( she does and on the balance of probz)
I only write this to refute the obvious and common confusion between criminal and civil
Bobbi - // Mozz concrete evidence is needed here which I doubt will be ever obtained as it’s her word against his isn’t it?
People like Cliff Richard and Michael Le Vell spring to mind, if she can prove it without a doubt, then yes something has to be done //
No-one would wish anyone to be accused unjustly, or equally to be disbelieved simply on the basis of the passage of time.
But the atrocious attitude of some posters on here who are happy to condemn Ms Noakes out of hand, does address the wider issue of why this behavior is allowed to continue - because women fear not only not being believed, but being pilloried for delaying in speaking out, for fear of being disbelieved, a classic Catch-22 situation, where the solution is wrapped in the middle of the problem.
People like Cliff Richard and Michael Le Vell spring to mind, if she can prove it without a doubt, then yes something has to be done //
No-one would wish anyone to be accused unjustly, or equally to be disbelieved simply on the basis of the passage of time.
But the atrocious attitude of some posters on here who are happy to condemn Ms Noakes out of hand, does address the wider issue of why this behavior is allowed to continue - because women fear not only not being believed, but being pilloried for delaying in speaking out, for fear of being disbelieved, a classic Catch-22 situation, where the solution is wrapped in the middle of the problem.
In the Stephen Lawrence after math - can I go on? -
there will gasps of disbelief when the puleeceman said the criterion for arresting the lads for investigation was probable cause - they had probably done it
and not suspicion ( this is for arrest ) which is 'anything not fanciful'
they are paid to know these rules
there will gasps of disbelief when the puleeceman said the criterion for arresting the lads for investigation was probable cause - they had probably done it
and not suspicion ( this is for arrest ) which is 'anything not fanciful'
they are paid to know these rules
AH, what would you like me to 'defend'? I've asked what purpose can be served by her revealing this damning information 20 years after the event - without producing any evidence that the event ever took place at all - and no one answered. All too busy being rude to me I expect. Ah well…. it keeps their minds focused on something at least - even if it's not the topic under discussion.
// or equally to be disbelieved simply on the basis of the passage of time.//
well I subscribe to that - that is why we have notes and contemporaneous notes sort of near the top of trumps
when the Irish non bombers were finally let out - 17 y later
Bartells dismissed the perjury case against the fellas who put them in there - on the grounds it was so long ago......
( it did go to appeal - appeal dismissed)
well I subscribe to that - that is why we have notes and contemporaneous notes sort of near the top of trumps
when the Irish non bombers were finally let out - 17 y later
Bartells dismissed the perjury case against the fellas who put them in there - on the grounds it was so long ago......
( it did go to appeal - appeal dismissed)
I can't see the need for him to be prosecuted, nor any possibility he will, to be honest. Things like that were unfortunately commonplace in those days, I've lost count of the times my bum was lightly tapped in an office environment in the 1980's
If anyone on here as actually read the full link, its plain to see that Caroline Noakes was not 'traumatised' in any way but the incident prompted her to 'make a fuss' and confront any inappropriate behaviour following that experience. Quote:
""I now regard it as a duty, an absolute duty, to call out wherever you see it. Be the noisy, aggravating, aggressive woman in the room because if I'm not prepared to do that, then my daughter won't be prepared to do that... you do get to a point where you go 'up with this, I will not put'."
If anyone on here as actually read the full link, its plain to see that Caroline Noakes was not 'traumatised' in any way but the incident prompted her to 'make a fuss' and confront any inappropriate behaviour following that experience. Quote:
""I now regard it as a duty, an absolute duty, to call out wherever you see it. Be the noisy, aggravating, aggressive woman in the room because if I'm not prepared to do that, then my daughter won't be prepared to do that... you do get to a point where you go 'up with this, I will not put'."
naomi - // I've asked what purpose can be served by her revealing this damning information 20 years after the event - without producing any evidence that the event ever took place at all - and no one answered. //
You have asked that - and as usual, you are being selective, omitting to mention that you think Ms Noakes is and I quote, 'muckraking' by bringing up the issue now.
You also ommitted to metnion your direct contradicition of that judgement by saying you like to 'err on the side of caution'.
You can try defending your appalling attitude to a woman seeking justice for an alleged assault, or your inability to decide if reference to 'muckraking' is 'erring on the side of caution'.
I'm not bothered - both / either / neither - your record speaks for itself - again.
//All too busy being rude to me I expect. //#
I am not 'being rude' to you, I am challenging your attitude and your hypocrisy, and as usual, you are dancing around, being 'too busy' to address the challenges being offered to you.
You have asked that - and as usual, you are being selective, omitting to mention that you think Ms Noakes is and I quote, 'muckraking' by bringing up the issue now.
You also ommitted to metnion your direct contradicition of that judgement by saying you like to 'err on the side of caution'.
You can try defending your appalling attitude to a woman seeking justice for an alleged assault, or your inability to decide if reference to 'muckraking' is 'erring on the side of caution'.
I'm not bothered - both / either / neither - your record speaks for itself - again.
//All too busy being rude to me I expect. //#
I am not 'being rude' to you, I am challenging your attitude and your hypocrisy, and as usual, you are dancing around, being 'too busy' to address the challenges being offered to you.
The reason why this incident has only just come to light is explained in grumpy's link, should anyone care to read it:-/
"The comments were made in a cross-party panel discussion, hosted by Sky News, between 4 prominent female MPs about how to confront violence against women in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard."
Each of the four women went on to explain instances where they had been subjected to unwarranted attention and she did not actually name Johnson (not my mate so i won't call him Stanley) but Sky News 'did the maths'.
"The comments were made in a cross-party panel discussion, hosted by Sky News, between 4 prominent female MPs about how to confront violence against women in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard."
Each of the four women went on to explain instances where they had been subjected to unwarranted attention and she did not actually name Johnson (not my mate so i won't call him Stanley) but Sky News 'did the maths'.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
ChatterBank176 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News251 mins ago
Film, Media & TV265 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles308 mins ago
