Politics Today

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
16,707
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Cummings fails to provide the select committee with the evidence to back up his Hancock allegations.🙄
They said that on TV earlier, No evidence to back up his claim then it's a case of "He said, He said" Unlike the twattersphere, You need proof to back up your claims, Not just "Outrage"
 

Mr Jinx

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
9,349
Cummings fails to provide the select committee with the evidence to back up his Hancock allegations.🙄
Quel surprise. It therefore becomes nothing more than your typical ex-employees bitter rant.

A bit like Ginge & Whinge and their Royal Family being racist allegations.

If you're going to make allegations, back it up with something substantial FFS. Don't base your argument on little more than hearsay and tittle tattle.
 

Mr Jinx

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
9,349
Halloran is essentially UKIP so it makes sense.
UKIP are fielding a candidate incidentally. What the point of UKIP is now is beyond me? They pretty much turned into the BNP once Farage had left and probably attract that kind of voter, but from the far right there's also a candidate from For Britain.
 
Last edited:

Egg

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
6,642
Cummings fails to provide the select committee with the evidence to back up his Hancock allegations.🙄
His testimony, provided under oath, was evidence; what's he's yet to provide is proof to support that evidence.

And while I appreciate where you're coming from, witnesses at a trial aren't obliged to provide proof before their testimony is given any credence.

As I see it, Cummings is yet to provide any proof and, thus far today, Hancock seems to have a very convenient memory lapse when he's asked to explain how lots of critical decisions were arrived at.
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,041
His testimony, provided under oath, was evidence; what's he's yet to provide is proof to support that evidence.

And while I appreciate where you're coming from, witnesses at a trial aren't obliged to provide proof before their testimony is given any credence.

As I see it, Cummings is yet to provide any proof and, thus far today, Hancock seems to have a very convenient memory lapse when he's asked to explain how lots of critical decisions were arrived at.
Apologies, I worded my post poorly.
From memory DC was asked to provide written evidence to back up his very serious allegations about the HS. He agreed to do that and thus far has failed to do so. He is obliged to provide the evidence because he said he would.
That to me says more about the accuser than the accused.
 

Egg

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
6,642
Apologies, I worded my post poorly.
From memory DC was asked to provide written evidence to back up his very serious allegations about the HS. He agreed to do that and thus far has failed to do so. He is obliged to provide the evidence because he said he would.
That to me says more about the accuser than the accused.
If Cumming is anything he's a master tactician.

That being the case, if I was him I'd wait until after Hancock had provided his testimony before volunteering any proof I might have. Why give him an opportunity to see your hand and prepare his response accordingly if, as is clearly the case here, you're out to skewer him?!
 

tavyred

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
8,041
If Cumming is anything he's a master tactician.

That being the case, if I was him I'd wait until after Hancock had provided his testimony before volunteering any proof I might have. Why give him an opportunity to see your hand and prepare his response accordingly if, as is clearly the case here, you're out to skewer him?!
Yep.
I thought that too.👍
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
32,060
Location
Touring Central Java...
If Cumming is anything he's a master tactician.

That being the case, if I was him I'd wait until after Hancock had provided his testimony before volunteering any proof I might have. Why give him an opportunity to see your hand and prepare his response accordingly if, as is clearly the case here, you're out to skewer him?!
You seem very adept in the Machievellian arts of being a politician, Egg. But you make a good point
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
32,060
Location
Touring Central Java...

This is the first time I've seen this video.
It really is quite astonishing. Is Hancock really trying to suppress laughter, is he pretending to cry, is he overcome by hilarity by the mention of the name William Shakespeare? It really is the oddest thing, especially considering the context.
 
Top