Guest 3701- Registered: 19 Jul 2020
- Posts: 38
Well I’m going to put it out there - based on the evidence to date (albeit the jury has heard more) - guilty. He has lied. To police, wife, electorate. He has abused the office he was elected to. He has assaulted two young women. Not some minor infraction in the pursuit of a relationship, but sustained and totally inappropriate behaviour.
We will wait and see whether the jury agrees.
I also think that our new MP cannot escape scrutiny given her decision to back him in spite of the evidence.
Next few days will be interesting.
Dover Pilot likes this
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,569
We have only really heard one side
Although if thats factual hes lied and that wont help his case
Jan Higgins likes this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 3701- Registered: 19 Jul 2020
- Posts: 38
Bollocks
He had spent all this week giving his evidence. He had chosen not to call his wife as a witness - as is his perogative, but it says something. He has called no other witness. He has called no character witness - presumably because the defence has been advised that there are contrary witnesses on character. He has reduced it to a he said she said case and the rest is there for all to see.
That anyone can seriously defend his behaviour is extraordinary to me. He is a disgrace.
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 2,900
Sardine wrote: He had chosen not to call his wife as a witness - as is his perogative, but it says something.
No.
(Not my real name.)
Dover Pilot- Registered: 28 Jul 2018
- Posts: 332
His wife told him to change his defence just a few weeks ago when she discovery 1,000s of text messages. She is complicit and has also neglected parliamentary duties since the end of June.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,656
Sardine wrote:Bollocks
He had spent all this week giving his evidence. He had chosen not to call his wife as a witness - as is his perogative, but it says something. He has called no other witness. He has called no character witness - presumably because the defence has been advised that there are contrary witnesses on character. He has reduced it to a he said she said case and the rest is there for all to see.
That anyone can seriously defend his behaviour is extraordinary to me. He is a disgrace.
What a charming way to start a post.
Whilst I agree so far things do not look good for Charlie we are only getting the
media reports who certainly love to sensationalise. I prefer not to judge until both sides are reported accurately, at the moment I find the accounts of the behaviour from his so called victims somewhat strange.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dover Pilot- Registered: 28 Jul 2018
- Posts: 332
Jan Higgins wrote:What a charming way to start a post.
Whilst I agree so far things do not look good for Charlie we are only getting the
media reports who certainly love to sensationalise. I prefer not to judge until both sides are reported accurately, at the moment I find the accounts of the behaviour from his so called victims somewhat strange.
Both sides and only getting media reports? We have only heard Charlie's side all week and the court proceedings are in the public domain
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,475
For various reasons I have/and have had less than total support for 'our' Charlie while he was our MP, supporting the party rather than the man.
I sent him a message the other week wishing 'best of luck' as I would to anyone about to appear in court.
I've no idea what is going on chez Elphicke BUT have a lot of respect for Natalie for loyalty and also believing that marriage is 'for better or for worse'.
'If no one went no faster than what I do there'd be a sight less trouble in this world'
Dover Pilot- Registered: 28 Jul 2018
- Posts: 332
An interesting read from 2018 'Charlie Elphicke and his wife Natalie Elphicke; the latter founded and runs the sinister Housing & Finance Institute with a little help from her City of London chums.'
https://reclaimec1.wordpress.com/2018/04/19/the-sex-offence-allegations-against-city-connected-mp-charlie-elphicke/Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,656
Dover Pilot wrote:Both sides and only getting media reports? We have only heard Charlie's side all week and the court proceedings are in the public domain
Life at my age is far to short to plough through what are probably very boring long winded court proceedings. I prefer to keep an open mind (unlike some) and rely on the jury who can actually see the people concerned.
Just Sioux and Reginald Barrington like this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,569
Agreed jan
Jury will decide
Jan Higgins and Reginald Barrington like this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 3701- Registered: 19 Jul 2020
- Posts: 38
Keith - talk about stating the bloody obvious. Of course the jury decides. Muppet.
As for Jan. Your various posts throughout this topic always come back to you, and pithy anecdotes of your youth. Well here’s a hint. It’s not about you. It’s about the women who claim they have been assaulted. And here’s another thing for you to ponder in your old age - as that appears to justify disregarding the evidence to date - choosing to ignore the reporting doesn’t make you open minded it makes you ignorant. The best example of this is a Mr DJ Trump and his “fake news” mantra. The reporting is what it is. It records the basic facts of the case and allows a well informed reader to form a view. A jury clearly has the benefit of more info but that’s not the point.
Now go and have a cup of tea.
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,205
"A jury clearly has the benefit of more info but that’s not the point."
So that begs the question, what is?
Arte et Marte
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,205
"The reporting is what it is. It records the basic facts of the case and allows a well informed reader to form a view."
And you call Keith a Muppet, now that's funny!
Just Sioux and Jan Higgins like this
Arte et Marte
Guest 3701- Registered: 19 Jul 2020
- Posts: 38
RB - I can’t help it if you are simply unable to digest the proceedings.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,656
Sardine
I never drink tea and am not ignorant unlike yourself going by your biased comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 3701- Registered: 19 Jul 2020
- Posts: 38
So it’s biased to have an opinion based on reporting from the national press on a trial of a former MP.?Please. Get a life.
A forum to discuss, share or simply present a point of view does not equate to bias just because it doesn’t accord with your view.
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,205
Sardine wrote:RB - I can’t help it if you are simply unable to digest the proceedings.
Maybe you are right? Makes me wonder though why we have a 12 person jury when we only need one person's perception of proceedings to make an informed judgement, what a waste of a lot of peoples time and our money!
Arte et Marte
Guest 3701- Registered: 19 Jul 2020
- Posts: 38
Oh dear RB. You missed the bit about recognising that the jury makes the decision. It doesn’t prevent others forming an opinion.
Perhaps we should all hold off on expressing an opinion on anything. After all there is always someone better qualified. Suggest you going and have a read of some John Stuart Mills.
Pablo- Registered: 21 Mar 2018
- Posts: 614
The national media is not and has never been a reliable source of the complete unvarnished truth. Every publication or TV/radio channel has an agenda. Most are clever enough to hide their agenda in order to subtly influence the thinking of the greatest possible number of their consumers. The only way to get unbiased information about this case is to be there in the courtroom. He who gets all his information from the newspapers or TV news is poorly informed indeed.