So we have an unqualified, no knowledge, so called "immigration expert" stating his opinion as to how a third country would judge an application.
Try putting a peg on your nose.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Try putting a peg on your nose.
Call it what you will, in truth it is a justifiable determination to keep her out. She is a potential icon and precedent. I don't care how it's done, so long as she and her ilk remain excluded.
.
Yeah...I think vfr is pulling our Christmas Crackers againNo wonder he is running out of money.
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.
Well actually yes , but its not me but I do think the Bangladeshi, Foreign Minster has suitable credentials... just saying. At no stage have I said what the Bangladeshi authorities would decide... I leave that arrogance to the British .
Yep, at least in this matter, you are being straight. but you should care, and if it meant that after due process she was incarcerated for a decade or two , so be it. A Government dealing with deception of its courts is a recipe for dictatorship
Well Danny at the risk of taking sides it seems you have a point here. If we completely disregard laws then that's no way to run anything. But then again sometimes laws do need to be broken because they're f*****g stupid. I am not completely sure which is the case here. On the one hand I can see how at 15 pretty much anybody can be convinced of anything (look how many 16yr olds given the vote would have voted for Corbyn! Sorry couldn't resist). On the other hand she grew up and stayed and sometimes that's the price you pay for not seeing the error of your ways. So now she's f*****d. Which is - at least partially - her fault.
Them's the breaks as they say.
She said she did that so that all the leftwaffe would circulate it, like you have, so it worked!
How many of those 70,00 do you reckon Biden bought then?
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..?
Yes, but Trump has his own Youtube channel too plus news media, the same as Biden, so why does he get so many more views?No wonder he is running out of money.
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.
On an even more depressing note, the daily death toll from CV19 in the USA is likely to be the worst day ever. Today is their Thanksgiving , and so the statistics are depressed,..this happens every weekend where Saturday and Sunday numbers are lower, but when they tally up tomorrow, I suspect it will be close to 3000. .. yesterday it was 2300, and rising. But today reads 1300
More on that horrible woman - from Douglas Murray writing in the spectator:
"A small but significant event has just occurred. This morning the legal case between Arron Banks and the journalist Carole Cadwalladr was due to start. The case came about because of Cadwalladr’s claim that Arron Banks – who was a founder of the Leave.EU campaign (the non-official Leave campaign) – was offered money by the Russians. Cadwalladr has been going around for years making these and other unfounded accusations in every forum and on every platform she can manage. It is not as though her campaign has been obscure. The Observer newspaper has supported her, and as her entirely unsubstantiated claims grew, she was shamefully awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism.
Although she claimed to see Russian agents everywhere it was finally Banks who decided to sue Cadwalladr. She crowdfunded – posing as the underdog truth-teller against the big rich Russian agent – and then last night (having rinsed her supporters for cash till the last minute) she pulled out of the hearing. As Guido reports here she conceded that she had no evidence and could not go ahead with the case. She is now reportedly forced to pay a first down-payment of £62,000 in costs, with more to come.
Perhaps it is necessary to say at this point that I have never met either Banks or Cadwalladr and have no special love for either of them. But what has just happened is something that should cause a certain ripple of consequences.
Firstly, it should be noted that the campaign of defamation which Cadwalladr has engaged in over recent years has been poisonous. I have read many of her unsourced, unsubstantiated claims with amazement that they were ever published. For years she has pumped these claims about Russian agents and Russian money throughout our body politic. In the process she has not only attacked individuals, but every member of the British public who voted for Brexit in 2016.
Cadwalladr and her financial backers have for years pretended that the British public were misled into voting for Brexit. Instead of listening to the genuine concerns of their fellow citizens they engaged in a smear-campaign against us. They pretended there were not serious reasons to vote the way we did, but only vacuous, stupid people, led down the wrong road by agents of a foreign power. It was an outrageous claim, outrageously encouraged and tolerated by Cadwalladr’s colleagues and peers because she seemed to be confirming their own bigotries and prejudices.
She and her friends pumped poisonous toxins into post-2016 Britain, from a position of considerable privilege and with some serious financial backing of their own. Now, when Cadwalladr has to stand up just one of her claims in court it turns out – as some of us guessed all along – that she cannot. She never had the evidence to justify her attacks on Banks or the British public.
A decade ago Cadwalladr’s predecessor Johann Hari was forced to hand back the Orwell Prize for journalism after being found to be dishonest in his reporting. Perhaps this year Cadwalladr could do the decent thing and voluntarily hand back her award as well. Her behaviour has in fact been far more damaging to this country and the journalistic trade than Hari’s ever was.
It is one thing if a newspaper wants to continue to publish the unsubstantiated claims of a conspiracy theorist. It is quite another that a distinguished award for journalism should continue to encourage such behaviour."
"A small but significant event has just occurred. This morning the legal case between Arron Banks and the journalist Carole Cadwalladr was due to start. The case came about because of Cadwalladr’s claim that Arron Banks – who was a founder of the Leave.EU campaign (the non-official Leave campaign) – was offered money by the Russians. Cadwalladr has been going around for years making these and other unfounded accusations in every forum and on every platform she can manage. It is not as though her campaign has been obscure. The Observer newspaper has supported her, and as her entirely unsubstantiated claims grew, she was shamefully awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism.
Although she claimed to see Russian agents everywhere it was finally Banks who decided to sue Cadwalladr. She crowdfunded – posing as the underdog truth-teller against the big rich Russian agent – and then last night (having rinsed her supporters for cash till the last minute) she pulled out of the hearing. As Guido reports here she conceded that she had no evidence and could not go ahead with the case. She is now reportedly forced to pay a first down-payment of £62,000 in costs, with more to come.
Perhaps it is necessary to say at this point that I have never met either Banks or Cadwalladr and have no special love for either of them. But what has just happened is something that should cause a certain ripple of consequences.
Firstly, it should be noted that the campaign of defamation which Cadwalladr has engaged in over recent years has been poisonous. I have read many of her unsourced, unsubstantiated claims with amazement that they were ever published. For years she has pumped these claims about Russian agents and Russian money throughout our body politic. In the process she has not only attacked individuals, but every member of the British public who voted for Brexit in 2016.
Cadwalladr and her financial backers have for years pretended that the British public were misled into voting for Brexit. Instead of listening to the genuine concerns of their fellow citizens they engaged in a smear-campaign against us. They pretended there were not serious reasons to vote the way we did, but only vacuous, stupid people, led down the wrong road by agents of a foreign power. It was an outrageous claim, outrageously encouraged and tolerated by Cadwalladr’s colleagues and peers because she seemed to be confirming their own bigotries and prejudices.
She and her friends pumped poisonous toxins into post-2016 Britain, from a position of considerable privilege and with some serious financial backing of their own. Now, when Cadwalladr has to stand up just one of her claims in court it turns out – as some of us guessed all along – that she cannot. She never had the evidence to justify her attacks on Banks or the British public.
A decade ago Cadwalladr’s predecessor Johann Hari was forced to hand back the Orwell Prize for journalism after being found to be dishonest in his reporting. Perhaps this year Cadwalladr could do the decent thing and voluntarily hand back her award as well. Her behaviour has in fact been far more damaging to this country and the journalistic trade than Hari’s ever was.
It is one thing if a newspaper wants to continue to publish the unsubstantiated claims of a conspiracy theorist. It is quite another that a distinguished award for journalism should continue to encourage such behaviour."
Last edited:
Remember this was the charming woman who spent months hounding 22-year-old Darren Grimes, hoping to extort some kind of 'confession' from him under threat of a jail sentence.
Completely batty, but nothing will shift some Remainers' conspiracy theories and delusional self-righteousness.
I think the story is a lot simpler than that.
Stories that Cadwalladr wrote about Banks dealings with Russian companies are not contested in Court.
What this case is dealing with is one tweet that Cadwalladr made which she cannot defend because it's factually untrue, chiefly that Banks broke the law.
Cadwalladr has deleted that tweet and apologised to Banks some time ago, so she has already accepted being in the wrong. That does not mean that her work in the years before was sub-standard and she did not deserve to win investigative journalistic prizes.
Why anyone would trust what ministers say, I have no idea. Much of it is proved in time to have been meaningless, misleading, wrong, or outright deception.
Even when legislation is put forward, it all too often doesn't do quite what is claimed.
Report casts doubt on UK pledge to prevent low-quality food imports
Ministers have refused to sign safeguards, potentially spelling disaster for farmers after Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/report-casts-doubt-uk-pledge-prevent-low-quality-food-imports-brexit
Even when legislation is put forward, it all too often doesn't do quite what is claimed.
Report casts doubt on UK pledge to prevent low-quality food imports
Ministers have refused to sign safeguards, potentially spelling disaster for farmers after Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/report-casts-doubt-uk-pledge-prevent-low-quality-food-imports-brexit