[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yet amazingly, you have absolutely NO problem with LT branding the others involved "vile" and intimating that they are liars, based on... What was it... Oh. Not even a bit of hearsay in a newspaper. Absolutely nothing in fact.

incorrect its is the actual statement from the poor accused Clockwinder


so not hearsay but from the very mouth of the innocent 71 year old man

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

incorrect its is the actual statement from the poor accused Clockwinder


so not hearsay but from the very mouth of the innocent 71 year old man

I beg your pardon then. It was indeed, equally, a bit of hearsay in a newspaper.

The point stands though, that it's a piece of hearsay in a newspaper that is fine by Livia because it confirms her predisposition to believe the testimony of "poor old men" over that of ... Others.

I mean of course, when it's a case of one person's word against another's, it's only logical to automatically believe the accused. That's just good law practice.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I beg your pardon then. It was indeed, equally, a bit of hearsay in a newspaper.

The point stands though, that it's a piece of hearsay in a newspaper that is fine by Livia because it confirms her predisposition to believe the testimony of "poor old men" over that of ... Others.

I mean of course, when it's a case of one person's word against another's, it's only logical to automatically believe the accused. That's just good law practice.

The trust banned the man based on one accusation and did not speak to the clockwinder before sending him a solicitors letter one night

that is scurrilous and cowardly behaviour

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

The trust banned the man based on one accusation

"Members of the trust interviewed a number of witnesses about the incident"

Ffs LT, that's from your own link. Selectively choosing to cut it out of the part you chose to quote, because it doesn't fit in with your preferred narrative, doesn't mean it's magically deleted from the article too .

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Members of the trust interviewed a number of witnesses about the incident"

Ffs LT, that's from your own link. Selectively choosing to cut it out of the part you chose to quote, because it doesn't fit in with your preferred narrative, doesn't mean it's magically deleted from the article too .

so they say but they carried out this "investigation" without once speaking to the accused so draw from that what you will. They were happy enough to lie to members of the public about the clock so adding a few "extra" ear witnesses seems right up their strada.

or do you agree that he should not have been involved?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

so they say but they carried out this "investigation" without once speaking to the accused so draw from that what you will. They were happy enough to lie to members of the public about the clock so adding a few "extra" ear witnesses seems right up their strada.

or do you agree that he should not have been involved?

I agree that he should have been spoken to face to face rather than in a letter, yes. On the other hand it's a voluntary thing that he's doing and, to be frank, if he wanted to continue doing it he should have had a greater understanding of the fact that you can't expect to spout all of your views while you are representing a larger body.

Do you think I say the stuff I do on here to staff or customers at work? Nope. Because I would end up facing disciplinary action. I appreciate that coz I'm not an entitled li'l snowflake like Ol' Clock Bob.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree that he should have been spoken to face to face rather than in a letter, yes. On the other hand it's a voluntary thing that he's doing and, to be frank, if he wanted to continue doing it he should have had a greater understanding of the fact that you can't expect to spout all of your views while you are representing a larger body.

Do you think I say the stuff I do on here to staff or customers at work? Nope. Because I would end up facing disciplinary action. I appreciate that coz I'm not an entitled li'l snowflake like Ol' Clock Bob.

I would love to know what he said but i would imagine that is he was a garrulous racist he would not have lasted 13 years.

Lets see the picture and testimony of the grass and we can then judge

of wait we cant as they are somehow being protected

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Members of the trust interviewed a number of witnesses about the incident"

Ffs LT, that's from your own link. Selectively choosing to cut it out of the part you chose to quote, because it doesn't fit in with your preferred narrative, doesn't mean it's magically deleted from the article too .

I posted that this afternoon, it means nothing, the silly rant about nothing will rumble on regardless, any reference to courts and juries are pointless and baseless.
The trust just don't want some alf garnettesque outbursts in their visitors centres, which is perfectly acceptable.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I posted that this afternoon, it means nothing, the silly rant about nothing will rumble on regardless, any reference to courts and juries are pointless and baseless.
The trust just don't want some alf garnettesque outbursts in their visitors centres, which is perfectly acceptable.

Don't you be bad mouthing Alf. He's a distinguished member of his community I'll have you know.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I posted that this afternoon, it means nothing, the silly rant about nothing will rumble on regardless, any reference to courts and juries are pointless and baseless.
The trust just don't want some alf garnettesque outbursts in their visitors centres, which is perfectly acceptable.

and you know it was this how?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and you know it was this how?

By reading the link in the OP.