[quote Martianworld]@KidneyBeans. Your whole tone is aggressive. Lots of short, sharp questions. Maybe it's because you're angry, and maybe you don't realise it but it is. And then you call me a misogynist. Why? You and I are two women debating. I didn't call you a misogynist, so why are you calling me one? Because I don't like someone to be aggressive towards me? I have had debates with other people on the thread and some things we have agreed on, but we have been respectful over things which we've disagreed .
In your first post time you wrote...
"Plus VR has attempted criminal proceedings against PA and been thwarted"
Now you're saying...
"which judge was this? There hasn't been a case brought. No idea which judge you're talking about as no charges have ever been pressed against PA"
You seem to be contradicting yourself here so I don't know what you do or don't know, so let me enlighten you.
In 2015 Virginia Roberts tried to join a lawsuit against Epstein and have included evidence against PA. The judge denied her right to join the lawsuit and she struck out any claims she made against PA.
"At the moment she's,saying she can't remember dates,and places, only daces.
no idea what a dace is"
(I could make an aggressive comment on where you've put your asterisks, but I won't! I just think it would be a typing slip.) So sorry for the typo. I meant face. Here you go...
"I might be wrong on dates absolutely and I might be wrong on places even, sometimes. But one thing that I can tell you is you never forget the face" That's why courts like to hear evidence as soon after the fact as possible when evidence is fresh and can be proved or disproved. My legal qualifications are that I used to take civil prosecutions to court.
"do they? My understanding is they prefer it when the evidence has been thoroughly collated and analysed"
Well of course, they want evidence to be tested. And they want evidence to be sound. And they don't rule out cases that happened years ago if they are within statute of limitations. But the fact is that memories fade, change, harden, can be manipulated or just be misremembered the more time passes. Do you remember the William Roache trial and the shambles that turned into? Also it's fairer on the accused to answer charges as written evidence is easier to get hold of when an allegation is recently made.(This is just a general point about courts nothing to do with this case.)
So first you asked me about the timing of her suing so I responded to that.
Why does this matter? You keep bringing it up - why?
So then you accused me of going on about that when I was just replying to what you asked me. Seems harsh. (But in keeping with your whole tone. 😂 )
Finally, by the "me too movement" comment I mean that in the past she has been looking for justice and has come up again brick walls. But recently there has been a shift in public opinion after Weinstein affair and women complaining about men has been given more oxygen. This might give her more hope that now she might be listened to.[/quote]
Ugh! Response didn't post.
Basically: I didn't call you a misogynist - but I do wonder why you'd describe another woman as 'angry' and aggressive' when by your own admission 'we're just 'two women debating'
Unless you just like calling other people names?
VR brought a complaint to the Met police - it wasn't pursued by the police or CPS - that's why it wasn't thrown out by a judge, so thanks for 'enlightening me' but i'm good thanks.
I don't presume to know why she's brought her case now but it seems sensible to do so before the SOL expires. What I'm struggling with is why it seems to bother you so much? Why do you care when a survivor of trafficking chooses to bring her case and why do you presume to know the evidence better than the lawyers bringing it? Just seems an odd thing to get het up about 