As I said this morning, they are pointedly using "no evidence", "I have not seen." i.e. we've covered it up well and I might have heard stuff or been wilfully blind to it.
He quite obviously means written evidence, which is what the man on the street would understand colloquially to be "evidence". Fairly obvious. I think our bicycling barrister is thinking too hard.
5. People want us to concentrate on killing people in care homes, fueling PPE fraud, ensuring shortages of basic goods, reducing exports, failing to deal with energy security for a decade leaving us at the mercy of a KGB agent etc. etc. When David Davis is your moral judge you know you are in trouble.
If they had any guts at all, and all of the moral backbone they are claiming, they would publish these recordings now. Playing politics out of it, if it actually exists, is slimy and counterproductive.
Is the testimony given at the committee also under oath (or at least intentionally misleading the committee would have the same conventions as lying to parliament).
there is absolutely no evidence that the thing that, on the basis of the lack of evidence, I say didn't happen which you say did happen but offer no evidence of whatsoever other than the assertions of two MPs which I say can be disregarded as they would, wouldn't they, and anyway that is not evidence, and if it is evidence then it is not what I call evidence so therefore it is not evidence, happened, and unless you can provide evidence that it did happen, other than the assertions of the two discredited MPs, then I will continue to remain of the view that it did not happen. Whether it did happen or not is not the issue. The issue is whether there is evidence of it happening or not. I am not aware of any.
If it happened as they say it did, they should have produced the evidence on the day it happened.
Instead they have sat on it hoping to make the best out of it (if it exists, LOL) to maximise their personal gain. Which is just a, if not more, corrupt than the beahviour htey claim to have been subjected too.
"Here was some purported blackmail that I was willing to go along with until my side of the deal became less advantageous so now I'm ratting everyone out!! " is as scummy as it gets.
“This definitely happened, on my (unwritten) instructions. I know it did, you know it did, I know you know it did and you know I know you know it did. And because there’s nothing in writing, there isn’t anything to link me to this thing that happened, so I’ll continue to pretend it didn’t happen and demand evidence that what we all know happened really did happen. See these fingers in my ears? Can’t hear you - and now I’m thticking out’ mah tongue, you thee? Ner-ner-nee-ner-ner”
Mr Wakeford told the Times: “It’s not very helpful to back an opposition [motion] against the department where you’re wanting an extremely large favour from said department, so do consider what you’re doing.
0
0
PM doesn't know what evidence is non shocka
0
0
He thinks (or pretends to think) evidence means proof
0
0
0
0
As I said this morning, they are pointedly using "no evidence", "I have not seen." i.e. we've covered it up well and I might have heard stuff or been wilfully blind to it.
0
0
He quite obviously means written evidence, which is what the man on the street would understand colloquially to be "evidence". Fairly obvious. I think our bicycling barrister is thinking too hard.
0
0
It is, of course, nonsense. As you rightly say, there is the oral testimony of two MPs.
0
0
Let's see it then. They have text messages and a video recording. Show us. Why hold it back ?
0
0
Not forgetting:
5. People want us to concentrate on killing people in care homes, fueling PPE fraud, ensuring shortages of basic goods, reducing exports, failing to deal with energy security for a decade leaving us at the mercy of a KGB agent etc. etc. When David Davis is your moral judge you know you are in trouble.
0
0
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10426503/Rebel-Tories-threaten…
If they had any guts at all, and all of the moral backbone they are claiming, they would publish these recordings now. Playing politics out of it, if it actually exists, is slimy and counterproductive.
Put up or shut up.
0
0
Heh - hard week m7?
we all now how this works:
1. allegation
2. denial
3. recording/photograph
and they walk right into it every time. It’s lolmax
0
0
0
0
Inference isn’t proof.
Words alone can state something very different from what is inferred by an accompanying wink.
W: You make a very good case for the very important investment in your constituency
MP: I know
W: But funds are not unlimited
MP: ‘Choices have to be made’
W: Exactly! Just what the PM says
MP: How does the PM make choices?
W: Ah well. Wouldn’t we all like to know?
MP: And …?
W: He wouldn’t want to be seen to back something that wasn’t supported across the Parliamentary Party, would he?
MP: Well, no. I suppose not.
W: He wants to be sure that he has full support across all of the Parliamentary party 😉
MP: I see
W: You do? 😉
MP: (nods)
W: Excellent. I’m sure that the PM will your project appropriate consideration
W: At the right time …
0
0
State of that elfffi post
0
0
Rejected script from 'please God no, minister'
0
0
Is the testimony given at the committee also under oath (or at least intentionally misleading the committee would have the same conventions as lying to parliament).
0
0
"I have seen no evidence" just means they are not sufficiently confident to say it didnt happen.
0
0
there is absolutely no evidence that the thing that, on the basis of the lack of evidence, I say didn't happen which you say did happen but offer no evidence of whatsoever other than the assertions of two MPs which I say can be disregarded as they would, wouldn't they, and anyway that is not evidence, and if it is evidence then it is not what I call evidence so therefore it is not evidence, happened, and unless you can provide evidence that it did happen, other than the assertions of the two discredited MPs, then I will continue to remain of the view that it did not happen. Whether it did happen or not is not the issue. The issue is whether there is evidence of it happening or not. I am not aware of any.
0
0
If it happened as they say it did, they should have produced the evidence on the day it happened.
Instead they have sat on it hoping to make the best out of it (if it exists, LOL) to maximise their personal gain. Which is just a, if not more, corrupt than the beahviour htey claim to have been subjected too.
"Here was some purported blackmail that I was willing to go along with until my side of the deal became less advantageous so now I'm ratting everyone out!! " is as scummy as it gets.
0
0
“This definitely happened, on my (unwritten) instructions. I know it did, you know it did, I know you know it did and you know I know you know it did. And because there’s nothing in writing, there isn’t anything to link me to this thing that happened, so I’ll continue to pretend it didn’t happen and demand evidence that what we all know happened really did happen. See these fingers in my ears? Can’t hear you - and now I’m thticking out’ mah tongue, you thee? Ner-ner-nee-ner-ner”
0
0
Heh. You're right, not producing a video for a couple of days is definitely a worse criminal offence than blackmail.
0
0
HEH. You fooking joker.
0
0
“Who’s the real criminal - the criminals, or the ones who didn’t immediately report being victims of a crime?”
0
0
Some people are taking this really badly
0
0
Also lol @ the boomers still putting incriminating behaviour on WhatsApp
amateur hour
0
0
Surely someone at one of these factories or hospitals you see him visiting will see him off, sooner or later?
0
0
All the right people
0
0
Mr Wakeford told the Times: “It’s not very helpful to back an opposition [motion] against the department where you’re wanting an extremely large favour from said department, so do consider what you’re doing.
Exactly.
Join the discussion