I think you’ll enjoy it. It’s a bit superficial, but the basics are there.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
I'd be laughing were it not all so awful:
A donor has sued a pro-Trump group for $2.5 million over “empty promises” after he says it failed to prove voter fraud in the presidential election.
Fred Eshelman sued Houston-based True the Vote Inc., which promised to “investigate, litigate and expose suspected illegal balloting ad fraud in the 2020 general election,” Bloomberg reported.
Eshelman, founder of Eshelman Ventures LLC, claimed that he “regularly and repeatedly” asked for updates on the initiative but was met with “vague responses, platitudes, and empty promises.”
True the Vote said its efforts included filing lawsuits in several swing states, collecting whistleblower complaints, increasing GOP legislative support in key states and conducting “sophisticated data modeling and statistical analysis to identify potential illegal or fraudulent balloting,” according to the suit in Houston federal court.
Eshelman decided to wire True the Vote $2 million on Nov. 5 and another $500,000 a week later after the group’s president said more money would be needed to achieve their goals, according to the suit. He asked for his money to be returned after the group failed to provide reports on its progress, saying it became obvious the group would not be able to execute its plan.
Eshelman said in the complaint that True the Vote offered him $1 million if he wouldn’t sue them, Bloomberg notes.
True the Vote filed four lawsuits in the weeks after the election, Bloomberg notes, but it dropped all of them last week. The suits were filed in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all states that President-elect Joe Biden won.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/527680-donor-sues-pro-trump-group-over-failure-to-prove-voter-fraud
A donor has sued a pro-Trump group for $2.5 million over “empty promises” after he says it failed to prove voter fraud in the presidential election.
Fred Eshelman sued Houston-based True the Vote Inc., which promised to “investigate, litigate and expose suspected illegal balloting ad fraud in the 2020 general election,” Bloomberg reported.
Eshelman, founder of Eshelman Ventures LLC, claimed that he “regularly and repeatedly” asked for updates on the initiative but was met with “vague responses, platitudes, and empty promises.”
True the Vote said its efforts included filing lawsuits in several swing states, collecting whistleblower complaints, increasing GOP legislative support in key states and conducting “sophisticated data modeling and statistical analysis to identify potential illegal or fraudulent balloting,” according to the suit in Houston federal court.
Eshelman decided to wire True the Vote $2 million on Nov. 5 and another $500,000 a week later after the group’s president said more money would be needed to achieve their goals, according to the suit. He asked for his money to be returned after the group failed to provide reports on its progress, saying it became obvious the group would not be able to execute its plan.
Eshelman said in the complaint that True the Vote offered him $1 million if he wouldn’t sue them, Bloomberg notes.
True the Vote filed four lawsuits in the weeks after the election, Bloomberg notes, but it dropped all of them last week. The suits were filed in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all states that President-elect Joe Biden won.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/527680-donor-sues-pro-trump-group-over-failure-to-prove-voter-fraud
I didn't say she was an immigrant.
I said Javid's decision at the time was justified because she could then exercise her right under Bangladeshi law to have her Bangladeshi citizenship. That right has lapsed when she reached 21. She is now made stateless so she can sue the Home Office and won her appeal last September.
A long long long time ago here certain people (who shall remain nameless) got it into their heads that one of the reasons (if not THE reason) we voted leave was because of the Russians.
Another nail in the coffin of that idea arrives:
"Late last night with the Banks v Cadwalladr hearing scheduled for 10:30 this morning, Carole Cadwalladr finally admitted what we all knew, there was no evidence to back up her claims that the Russians financed the Brexit campaign or that Arron Banks was involved in shady deals with the Russians. Why she left it to the eve of the hearing to admit it was all b0llocks defies belief, cynics might note she still has two crowdfunders running. One to fund this hopeless case and another to fund her “investigative journalism” – which produced the Russia nonsense.
Cadwalladr now has to pay £62,000 of costs on account this morning as a down payment, expect that figure to go higher. Cadwalladr has avoided the humiliation of appearing in court this morning by submitting in writing an amended defence which
She has not stopped milking the crowdfunding mugs yet, Carole has learnt there are plenty of gullible idiots who still want to believe her fairy tales. She intends to continue battling Banks by trying to mitigate her costs with the argument that, despite there being no truth to the allegations, she has being making around the world to much acclaim, they were made in the public interest. So she will run up her crowdfunded legal bill to argue that her disinformation was in the public interest. Guido admires the novelty of that argument.
Cadwalladr has tried to portray this legal case as some kind of freedom of the press battle, it wasn’t. She has for years made unchallenged allegations, which were motivated out of political malice. Finally she has had to admit they were untrue. A lucrative, prize winning, journalistic hoax…"
order-order.com
Another nail in the coffin of that idea arrives:
"Late last night with the Banks v Cadwalladr hearing scheduled for 10:30 this morning, Carole Cadwalladr finally admitted what we all knew, there was no evidence to back up her claims that the Russians financed the Brexit campaign or that Arron Banks was involved in shady deals with the Russians. Why she left it to the eve of the hearing to admit it was all b0llocks defies belief, cynics might note she still has two crowdfunders running. One to fund this hopeless case and another to fund her “investigative journalism” – which produced the Russia nonsense.
Cadwalladr now has to pay £62,000 of costs on account this morning as a down payment, expect that figure to go higher. Cadwalladr has avoided the humiliation of appearing in court this morning by submitting in writing an amended defence which
Which is legalese for “it was all complete cock ‘n bull”.
She has not stopped milking the crowdfunding mugs yet, Carole has learnt there are plenty of gullible idiots who still want to believe her fairy tales. She intends to continue battling Banks by trying to mitigate her costs with the argument that, despite there being no truth to the allegations, she has being making around the world to much acclaim, they were made in the public interest. So she will run up her crowdfunded legal bill to argue that her disinformation was in the public interest. Guido admires the novelty of that argument.
Cadwalladr has tried to portray this legal case as some kind of freedom of the press battle, it wasn’t. She has for years made unchallenged allegations, which were motivated out of political malice. Finally she has had to admit they were untrue. A lucrative, prize winning, journalistic hoax…"
Oh Carole: Admits Russia Claims Untrue, Agrees to Pay Banks's Costs
Late last night with the Banks v Cadwalladr hearing scheduled for 10:30 this morning, Carole Cadwalladr finally admitted what we all knew, there was no
order-order.com
Here is the last Court's decision last December before today's hearing:
Cadwalladr could possibly defend the lesser damaging interpretation of what she said but at the end, decided against contesting the claim.
QUOTE:
- The Claimant argues that this is a clear "Chase level 1 meaning" case alleging 'guilt' and there is no room to infer or imply any lower meaning.
- Ms. Cadwalladr relies upon principles set out in in a number of cases including Falter and Poulter (cited above at para. [37]), and submits that the TED Talk forms part of the context of the First Tweet on the basis that the ordinary reasonable reader of the tweet would have followed the embedded link, and would have viewed the Talk.
- I largely agree with the Defendant. My reasons can be summarised as follows:
(a) First, it can properly be inferred that a reasonable representative of Ms. Cadwalladr's Twitter followers would have been interested in the background to, and issues raised by, the tweet. The tweet is a short message containing just a single link. The tweet gives little detail about the allegation against Mr Banks and in order properly to understand what is said a reasonable reader would consider it necessary to follow the link.
(b) Second, importantly, Ms. Cadwalladr positively invites the reader to follow the tweet ("If you haven't watched it, please do").
(c) Third, although it is a fact specific question in every case, I consider that this is the type of case referred to by Nicklin J in Falter -v- Altzmon [2018] EWHC 1728 QB at [12]. As a matter of obvious inference, I consider a reasonable reader would follow the link to the Ted Talk in order to obtain an understanding of how and in what context Ms. Cadwalladr said Mr Banks had lied.- Having done that, it follows in my judgment that the reasonable reader would understand the First Tweet to bear the same meaning as that Ted Talk. I refer to and repeat my conclusions at para. [46] above.
Hmmm! Let's try and make sense of this:
The most popular president elect in history puts his Thanksgiving speech on Youtube on his own channel. With all his popularity hype and expectation, he gets 70,000 views in roughly 24 hours. Where are his other 79,930,000 supporters plus everybody else in the world who might be interested in what he has to say?
Some random bloke, who we've never heard of puts a video about why Biden didn't win on Youtube and gets 174,000 views in roughly 24 hours. Are people more interested in what random bloke has to say than Biden? Should the random bloke have stood for President?
For contrast, Trump's last video has 548,000 views after 18 hours. Biden has never cracked 100K within 24 hours. He normally gets about 30K -60K
The most popular president elect in history puts his Thanksgiving speech on Youtube on his own channel. With all his popularity hype and expectation, he gets 70,000 views in roughly 24 hours. Where are his other 79,930,000 supporters plus everybody else in the world who might be interested in what he has to say?
Some random bloke, who we've never heard of puts a video about why Biden didn't win on Youtube and gets 174,000 views in roughly 24 hours. Are people more interested in what random bloke has to say than Biden? Should the random bloke have stood for President?
For contrast, Trump's last video has 548,000 views after 18 hours. Biden has never cracked 100K within 24 hours. He normally gets about 30K -60K
As Barry says, her own fault for which we have no responsibility.
There's only so much we can do for these people. When she first left she was tracked and attempts made by us to get her to return. When she turned up on the Turkish border with Syria the Turks did everything they could could get her to change her mind and return, but she ignored them and slipped across the border.
She remained as uncompromising when she fell into custody following the Isis collapse, underlining that later with her saying the only reason she wanted to return to Britain was for her sick child. When informed she had the Bangladeshi avenue she refused it, a devout Muslim who rejected the idea of going to a strictly Muslim country, preferring a country of infidels, according to her beliefs
That's enough, more than enough. We should do no more for her.
.
The simple fact is that the minute a order was made in 2019 rendering her not a UK citizen,she was Stateless. Not that she could go to another State ,but She was Stateless. Now the judgement of last July, did not bother to consider that aspect,and said so. It was sufficient to decide she had the right to plead her case .
..so it is there the matter rests at present.
Incidentally and totally independent of my thought processes, human rights groups including the British Muslim council , are concerned that the concept that a British citizen who might have a potential claim to citizen ship in a second country can be stripped of their UK citizenship by direction of the HS.
There was no one over 55 in the sub group (3000 people) who were given the half dose Oxford vaccine by mistake that produced the 90% efficacy figure. A vaccine that's around 60% effective is still a good vaccine and I remember an expert saying that if the Oxford vaccine turned out to be around that mark he would be over the moon.
I think though the fact that the other two vaccines that have so far reported appear to be 95% effective have set an extremely high bench mark.
Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine results face growing scrutiny | Coronavirus | The Guardian
I think though the fact that the other two vaccines that have so far reported appear to be 95% effective have set an extremely high bench mark.
Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine results face growing scrutiny | Coronavirus | The Guardian
OK,
If that bothers you---fine, it's a free country believe what you want.
Me?
Couldn't care less about her, she is evil.
she can't come back unless the Court backs her.
If the Court backs her, then she is currently banished but not an immigrant.
that's not correct. If she came to Bangladesh then, they would let her in.
If she comes to Bangladesh now, she will need a visa.
You are wasting your time. The only time he’s ever been right was when he thought he’d got something wrong.
From what I remember of what I have read, which is probably getting rather too close to nothing
, we potentially have a vast number of A-Z vaccine doses, but only a relatively small number of P and M vaccine doses.I am wondering what the impact would be of having two doses (as I think they all suggest) but of different products? Seems quite likely to occur at some point unless there is truly astonishingly good management of distribution and vaccination.
Probably the sort of approach that the manufacturers have no interest in even looking at!
Buy YouTube Views or Get FREE Views?⚠️ 3 Clever Ways
If you ever wondered if you should buy YouTube views, you might want to rethink your options. Try these alternative methods instead to grow your channel.
keywordtool.io
Next question..?
No wonder he is running out of money.Buy YouTube Views or Get FREE Views?⚠️ 3 Clever Ways
If you ever wondered if you should buy YouTube views, you might want to rethink your options. Try these alternative methods instead to grow your channel.
Next question..?
Video of Biden's speech is available on just about every news media site which has the capability. That includes many non-USA sites. Very little need for people to view it on YouTube.
The current situation is that the Home Secretary is appealing against the Decision made in August to allow her make her case in person. Then and only then can she seek to have the arbitrary decision of the Home Secretary in February voided.
Now I see that a lot of the contrary arguments presented here rely on a BBC website presentation of February 2019 a few days after the arbitrary decision of the HS.,which was of course predicated on the Times scoop of a few days earlier. So we have unnamed , unaccountable so called "immigration expert lawyers" stating their opinions as to how a third country would judge an application. These assertions are unchallenged,and not presented as evidence..but as justications . Can you not see spin when its in front of your eyes?.
Again and again I am not her advocate, but I smell a stitch up.