farewell tara palmer-tomkinson

[Spymaster]

She didn't know if she consented, so it can't be rape.

Eh?

Who's said that?

 

[Pickman's model]

Eh?

Who's said that?

Bahnhof Strasse pa, get you to specsavers

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Eh?

Who's said that?

You said:

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.

Seriously, once you've sobered up, go back and look up what consent means.

 

[Spymaster]

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!

But we have since and those first suspicions were confirmed.

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.

Although they may not have acquitted on the new evidence. Do you know something that we don't?

You've had to admit you've been totally wrong a number of times

I've admitted I was wrong about the new evidence and that it shouldn't have been heard (even though hearing it was good in law).

... have come up with a number of (sometimes contradictory) bases for your position.

Don't be daft. My position has remained constant apart from agreeing with you about the appeal evidence. I can see however, that it suits you to assert otherwise!

 

[Spymaster]

You said:

Seriously, once you've sobered up, go back and look up what consent means.

WTF are you on about?

Who said it can't be rape if she didn't know if she consented?

 

[Spymaster]

Bahnhof Strasse pa, get you to specsavers

He's being silly, son.

 

[Athos]

... My position has remained constant apart from agreeing with you about the appeal evidence.

Your conclusion has. But your supporting arguments have been all over the place, and, in respect of a few of them, withdrawn or completely reversed. That's because you are using facts to support a conclusion, rather than basing a conclusion on facts. What's telling is that you have the conclusion as your starting point.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

I like bananas and tits

#urbananasatitsbest

 

[Spymaster]

What's telling is that you have the conclusion as your starting point.

After considering the facts.

We can go on like this forever but the fact is that there was never the evidence to support the original charge beyond reasonable doubt, and I and others have been saying that virtually since day one.

 

[Athos]

... the fact is that there was never the evidence to support the original charge beyond reasonable doubt...

That's simply not a fact. Because that's exactly the basis upon which the first jury convicted him.

The fact that, for reasons of your own, you've decided they were wrong doesn't make it true.

The police, CPS, judge and jury all felt there was. But we should listen to you, someone has hasn't heard the evidence, as you clamour to exculpate Evans. Lol.

 

[Spymaster]

... the first jury convicted him.

 

[Athos]

What? That totally undermined your assertion that there was never evidence to convict. And that'she true notwithstanding the subsequent acquittal.

 

[Spymaster]

What?

All said and done. The conviction was overturned. Quite probably because the second jury saw the sense that you and the first are unable to. Doesn't mean she wasn't raped, of course.

 

[Athos]

All said and done. The conviction was overturned. Quite probably because the second jury saw the sense that you and the first are unable to.

Pure speculation. The only fact we know about the difference between the two trials is that the second contained evidence which you now concede it shouldn't have.

 

[Spymaster]

The only fact we know about the difference between the two trials is that the second contained evidence which you now concede it shouldn't have.

And that they acquitted the defendent.

Quite important, that bit.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

 

[Athos]

And that they acquitted the defendent.

Quite important, that bit.

Yes. But, for reasons of your own, you peddle the lie that the two are probably unconnected.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

We can go on like this forever

......and you are

 

[Spymaster]

Yes. But, for reasons of your own, you peddle the lie that the two are probably unconnected.

Not at all. I've suggested the possibility that the two are unconnected.

Are you Bellend in disguise? He makes up stuff like that to pretend people are "lying" too. its a common tactic around here, but wholly transparent.

 

[Treacle Toes]

So you agreed to give this shit up on the Ched Evans thread but are happy to continue here now?

Slow night lads?

 

[Athos]

Not at all. I've suggested the possibility that the two are unconnected.

Are you Bellend in disguise? He makes up stuff like that to pretend people are "lying" too. its a common tactic around here but wholly transparent.

Not possibility, probability. You said "Quite probably because the second jury saw the sense that you and the first are unable to." From which it must follow that it's probable that the content of the new evidence wasn't what made the difference.

Your floundering, and lying. Again.

Go pursue your shitty agenda without me.

 

[snadge]

Shut the fuck up muppets, my darling is dead.

 

[Athos]

So you agreed to give this shit up on the Ched Evans thread but are happy to continue here now?

Slow night lads?

You're right. I'm knocking it on the head.

 

[Spymaster]

Go pursue your shitty agenda without me.

You'll be back, being just as wrong and equally mendacious.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm knocking it on the head.

Good.

 

[Sea Star]

I thought she'd already died. Probably just heard about the brain tumour and put two and two together and made five. Like I normally do.

 

[clicker]

I hated Zebedee with a passion as a kid, because I had to go to bed, when he said so at the end of the show. My sisters told me he was in charge and a real b'stard.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

lol

 

[belboid]

You need to learn the fuff

Not at all. I've suggested the possibility that the two are unconnected.

Are you Bellend in disguise? He makes up stuff like that to pretend people are "lying" too. its a common tactic around here, but wholly transparent.

Excuse me, but you are the one who accuses people of 'lying' - I haven't used the word on this thread, only you have. You take a difference of opinion and then shout MASSIVE LIE. Your inability to distinguish between opinions and facts doesn't really do your argument any good.

To be clear - the only liar here is you. I didn't show any 'glee' at TPT's death, merely a complete lack of interest. I didn't edit a second post, as you explicitly claimed (but then couldn't say which post I'd supposedly edited). Your backsliding is evident, as is your utter dishonesty.

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't show any 'glee' at TPT's death, merely a complete lack of interest.

which is why you're on this thread no doubt. if you really were showing a complete lack of interest you wouldn't have posted this on the subject:

An appalling, vacuous idiot, without any redeeming features. But hey, she did loads of coke, so she must have been, like, really cool, ya?

No.

No loss at all.

"no loss at all" doesn't indicate complete apathy on tpt's death. so if pa's lying he's got you keeping him company.