Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

farewell tara palmer-tomkinson

Spymaster said:
Well I've just been looking for it and can't find it past me ultimately agreeing with you that it had no probitive value and withdrawing that part of the argument. As I said, happy to revisit it if you can post or PM me a link to the part you mean.

To be clear, my current position is that the case shouldn't have been brought in the first place, and that the CofA shouldn't have allowed the new evidence that led to the second.
Click to expand...
My emphasis.


Which is a complete reversal of your previous position.

I'm glad you finally came to your senses.
 
Spymaster said:
That's just on the law and the difference between similar and unusual etc. They didn't misinterpret it. But yes I'm happy to say that I don't now think her background should have been admitted.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you finally realised I was right all along. ;)
 
Athos said:
I'm glad you finally realised I was right all along. ;)
Click to expand...
You mean except for the bit where you would have brought the case/found him guilty in the first place!

I wouldn't have.

This of course is what makes me a rape apologist in Bellend's opinion.
 
Spymaster said:
You mean except for the bit where you would have brought the case/found him guilty in the first place!
Click to expand...

You've (eventually) conceded the appeal shouldn't have succeded, which would have meant the original verdict stood i.e. that he was guilty. In which case, it can only have been right to bring the prosecution. The fact that you'd second guess that jury without hearing the evidence they did says a lot about you.
 
Last edited:
Athos said:
You've admitted the appeal shouldn't have succeded, which would have meant the original verdict stood i.e. that he was guilty. In which case, it can only have been right to bring the prosecution.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. That's a mad contortion.

It's perfectly possible to believe that the first case should never have been brought (by extension that the 1st guilty verdict was incorrect) whilst agreeing that the evidence that enabled the second shouldn't have been heard (although the law was followed).
 
Last edited:
Spymaster said:
Nonsense. That's a mad contortion.

It's perfectly possible to believe that the first case should never have been brought (by extension that the 1st guilty verdict was incorrect) whilst agreeing that the evidence that enabled the second shouldn't have been heard.
Click to expand...

Yes, you demonstrate that such a belief is possible. My point is that the fact that you believe he should not even have stood trial says a lot about you. Particularly when the first trial resulted in a guilty verdict. And given you didn't hear the evidence that the jury did. And given that that verdict was only overturned by an apeal which you now concede shouldn't have succeeded.
 
Last edited:
Athos said:
Yes, you demonstrate that such a belief is possible. My point is that the fact that you believe he should not even have stood trial says a lot about you. Particularly when the first trial resulted in a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
We've seen the evidence from the first trial. Which bit of it do you think was compelling?
The fact that you'd second guess that jury without hearing the evidence they did says a lot about you.
Click to expand...
Yet you're doing the same regarding the second verdict since you certainly don't know why they acquitted, and it's very possible they kicked it on the basis of the lack of evidence in the first.
 
Spymaster said:
We've seen the evidence from the first trial. Which bit of it do you think was compelling?
Click to expand...

Unlike the jury that convicted him, neither of us has heard the evidence. But you're convinced he shouldn't even have sood trial. You were keen to give let him off right from the outset.


Spymaster said:
Yet you're doing the same regarding the second verdict since you certainly don't know why they acquitted, and it's very possible they kicked it on the basis of the lack of evidence in the first.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. We both agree that the second trial shouldn't have happened. In which case, the guilty verdict would have stood.
 
Last edited:
Athos said:
Unlike the jury which convicted him, neither of us heard the evidence.
Click to expand...
But we know what it was now, and the CPS did then.

There was no complaint of rape from the alleged victim. She did not want the prosecution to take place because she didn't know if she'd consented. There was doubt in HER mind as to whether it was rape.

Once again ... She DID NOT WANT TO PROSECUTE.

Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's far from irrelevant. It demonstrates that the second jury didn't agree with the first and that the girl could have been spared the pain of the trial and subsequent acquittal, and all of the shit that goes with that, if they had just LISTENED TO HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
 
Spymaster said:
But we know what it was now, and the CPS did then.

There was no complaint of rape from the alleged victim. She did not want the prosecution to take place because she didn't know if she'd consented. There was doubt in HER mind as to whether it was rape. She DID NOT WANT TO PROSECUTE.

It's far from irrelevant. It demonstrates that the second jury didn't agree with the first and that the girl could have been spared the pain of the trial and subsequent acquittal, and all of the shit that goes with that, if they had just LISTENED TO HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the real reason you didn't want him to stand trial, to avoid the pain to her. Lol. From someone who originally defended the admission irrelevant of evidence about her sex life.

To be honest, there's nowhere left for us to go with this. You've had to concede many of your argument about this case, over time. Yet, even as your spurious justifications drop away, you remain convinced that he should not have stoood trial/been found guilty. Very telling.
 
Athos said:
Yeah, that's the real reason you didn't want him to stand trial, to avoid the pain to her.
Click to expand...
Phwoar you dodgy shitbag! Talk about dishonest. You and Bellend deserve each other. :D

I don't agree that he should have stood trial because there wasn't evidence that a rape occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. That the first jury convicted suggests they got it as wrong as the police and CPS. A fact borne out by the eventual acquittal. That the woman would've been spared the grief is incidental to this, not the reason for thinking the case shouldn't have been brought. Wow, that was very sneaky of you. Good effort though!

Again, she may well have been raped. There just was not enough evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Pointing this out is not "rape aplology" or "telling". You're wrong if you think otherwise.

 
Spymaster said:
Phwoar you dodgy shitbag! Talk about dishonest. You and Bellend deserve each other. :D

I don't agree that he should have stood trial because there wasn't evidence that a rape occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. That the first jury convicted suggests they got it as wrong as the police and CPS. A fact borne out by the second acquittal. That the woman would've been spared the grief is incidental to this, not the reason for thinking the case lacked evidence.

Again, she may well have been raped. There just was not enough evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Pointing this out is not "rape aplology" or "telling". You're wrong if you think otherwise.

Click to expand...
Surely pa you have a trial to determine whether things are beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Pickman's model said:
Surely pa you have a trial to determine whether things are beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Not when things are so obviously in doubt, son. Even in the mind of the alleged victim who doesn't want to prosecute. Some good posts by LBJ and Joe reilly about this on the original thread.
 
Spymaster said:
Phwoar you dodgy shitbag! Talk about dishonest. You and Bellend deserve each other. :D

I don't agree that he should have stood trial because there wasn't evidence that a rape occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. That the first jury convicted suggests they got it as wrong as the police and CPS. A fact borne out by the second acquittal. That the woman would've been spared the grief is incidental to this, not the reason for thinking the case lacked evidence.

Again, she may well have been raped. There just was not enough evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Pointing this out is not "rape aplology" or "telling". You're wrong if you think otherwise.

Click to expand...

You don't believe the evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But the first jury did. And they heard that evidence, whereas you didn't! Your position isn't actually based on any evidence; that's why it's so telling.

The accquital at the second trial doesn't suggest the first jury got it wrong on the evidence they heard. Becasue the second jury heard different evidence. Evidence which you've since conceded they shouldn't have heard!

You've had to admit you've been totally wrong about this case, a number of times. But you still insist that he should never have been convicted, and, over time, have come up with a number of (sometimes contradictory) bases for your position.

We're never going to agree on this, and there's little point in going round and round.

In any event, if I wait long enuugh, you might have another complete and utter u-turn on this point, too. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
so farewell frank dobson
Replies
16
Views
1K
tony.c
tony.c
gosub
Palmerston resigns!
Replies
10
Views
836
stavros
S
bemused
Quentin Tarantino defends Roman Polanski
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Nanker Phelge
Nanker Phelge
S
Kala Tara: the Asian Youth Movement and the fight against fascism in the 70s
Replies
6
Views
861
killer b
K
E
Let's say farewell to the 'ethnic minorities'
Replies
6
Views
674
TAE
T
Back
Top Bottom