Chomper Higgot

Deliberately misrepresenting the truth again Jonny.

Farage’s blagged on himself with his lies on the matter: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/humiliated-nigel-farage-backs-down-33837487.amp

The people of Clayton never get to see Farage.

The first question the court will ask is, does the court have jurisdiction over the case (or is it still with the public prospector/a criminal matter)? The second question will be “does the litigant have standing in the case?” Farage might better spend his time visiting his constituency and finding out if there’s anything the people of Clacton need him to address in Parliament on their behalf.

Once you’ve had your coffee have ago at answering this question:

The guy who has provided zero corroboration of the conversation he alleges. Not one witness mentioned or named.

It certainly has. The events surrounding the collapse of peace talks are clearly what brought about that collapse. Not some alleged conversation to which no witnesses are named and is confirmed by nobody…. Although Putin does repeat it.

It also has a very narrow subject coverage. So not much use for an understanding of broad issues.

He’s dead. But the same question to you that nobody on the rightwing seem able to answer. What news source do you recommend as reliable.

Oh, almost 100 years ago a single reporter who had obviously gone bush.

Any witnesses to the alleged conversation?

He denied what Putin is also saying. And you forget Ukraine rejected negotiations as a direct result of atrocities committed by the Russians in in Bucha, Irpin, Borodianka, Azovstal. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/12/un-report-details-summary-executions-civilians-russian-troops-northern

Already debunked.

You didn’t answer the very easy question I asked.

So how about you telling us the reliable news sources you use?

Assange was not subjected to ‘torture’ nor was he ever going to be, although I’m sure his tooth ache wasn’t pleasant. ’Plot to have him assassinated’?

That was not your claim Jonny. Your statement was: Let’s see you provide actual statements from the investigation that make this claim. If that’s what the investigation findings state you’ll have no problem quoting ‘the investigation report’.

Can you please tell us which news channels you believe are reliably telling the truth?

It’s not deflection Jonny, it’s reminding you and others of the breadth of the problems uncovered by the investigation. You would like to portray a narrow view, so yes I do understand why you don’t like those broader issues to be discussed. That’s a starling claim. Can please provide evidence to back it up, an actual report finding that makes that claim, not your own interpretation .

The report said a lot of other things too, stuff like believing the victims. Do you police should believe the victims? Do you think police officers blaming the victims ‘for what is going wrong in society’ is acceptable? Do you think victims of child sexual abuse who report their abuse should be accused of ‘attention seeking’ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gang-victims-authorities-iicsa-b2005083.html

He didn’t not hand himself in, he absconded and hid. There is no right to not answer a court summons and hence that was another law he broke.

I’ve no idea. Neither do you.

I think it’s more accurately described as an unhealthy fixation on misrepresenting truth.

I’m not sure you are aware, but when an individual breaks the law they don’t get to have a say in the sentence.

So I provide you with the actual DOJ record of what Assange actually pled guilty to and you post Assange’s statement that interestingly makes no mention of what he pled guilty to.