This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Carole Cadwalladr
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Teddy Eagle  11 Nov 23 1.46pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
An opinion piece by a writer with very odd views (read some of his other pieces) is just another opinion. It proves nothing. He is entitled to his opinion. Other opinions are available. You have no need to look in obscure magazines to find such opinions. They are here in this thread. None of which alters the fact that had she taken the legal advice offered none of this would have happened.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 11 Nov 23 8.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
None of which alters the fact that had she taken the legal advice offered none of this would have happened. Which tends to suggest she must have had an extremely important reason for doing so. As I am sure you will acknowledge she is far from stupid and many feel the judgement vindicated her, even given she lost part of it.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 11 Nov 23 9.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Which tends to suggest she must have had an extremely important reason for doing so. As I am sure you will acknowledge she is far from stupid and many feel the judgement vindicated her, even given she lost part of it. It must have been incredibly important bearing in mind - As the judgment notes: “Ms Cadwalladr gave evidence that ‘there was no evidence’ that Mr Banks ‘had gone through with the deals’ (proffered via the Russian Embassy) ‘or made any money from them’; or that he ‘had accepted any money from the Russian Government or its proxies’. Nor was there any evidence ‘that Russian money went into the Brexit campaign’. Ms Cadwalladr also made clear that she had never thought Mr Banks was a ‘Russian agent’ or a ‘Russian actor’.”
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 11 Nov 23 9.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
'Carole Codswallop'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Nov 23 10.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
It must have been incredibly important bearing in mind - As the judgment notes: “Ms Cadwalladr gave evidence that ‘there was no evidence’ that Mr Banks ‘had gone through with the deals’ (proffered via the Russian Embassy) ‘or made any money from them’; or that he ‘had accepted any money from the Russian Government or its proxies’. Nor was there any evidence ‘that Russian money went into the Brexit campaign’. Ms Cadwalladr also made clear that she had never thought Mr Banks was a ‘Russian agent’ or a ‘Russian actor’.” That is but one part of the judgement dealing with the way that she structured her defence. If you really want to understand what this was all about and why she thought it so important then read this. It might not come from your favourite newspaper but it’s in her own words. She revealed what Banks had done and got it out in the open. If you don’t believe it’s important, then I, and many others, disagree:-
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 11 Nov 23 10.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That is but one part of the judgement dealing with the way that she structured her defence. If you really want to understand what this was all about and why she thought it so important then read this. It might not come from your favourite newspaper but it’s in her own words. She revealed what Banks had done and got it out in the open. If you don’t believe it’s important, then I, and many others, disagree:- I believe the evidence is important and not only has she not produced any but now says there isn't any.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Nov 23 10.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
I believe the evidence is important and not only has she not produced any but now says there isn't any. Did you read what she wrote subsequently? There is evidence. Evidence that was accepted by the Judge. Just not in a way which met the particular interpretation placed on the meaning of certain words. As I said at the very beginning a partial, technical victory for Banks but a bigger one for Cadwalladr and the truth.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 11 Nov 23 10.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Did you read what she wrote subsequently? There is evidence. Evidence that was accepted by the Judge. Just not in a way which met the particular interpretation placed on the meaning of certain words. As I said at the very beginning a partial, technical victory for Banks but a bigger one for Cadwalladr and the truth. So she won the case then. OK, thread closed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Nov 23 11.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
So she won the case then. OK, thread closed. She was required to pay 60% of the costs, so nobody won. Did you read her account? You will understand a great deal more if you do.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 11 Nov 23 11.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
She was required to pay 60% of the costs, so nobody won. Did you read her account? You will understand a great deal more if you do. The account from June? Yes. She appears to have changed her story since then.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 12 Nov 23 8.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The account from June? Yes. She appears to have changed her story since then. It is a comprehensive description of events, not a “story”. I am unaware of any corrections to the account. By anyone involved.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 12 Nov 23 10.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It is a comprehensive description of events, not a “story”. I am unaware of any corrections to the account. By anyone involved. Where is the evidence? She said she didn't have any and the National Crime Agency didn't find any either.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.