Anny Road

Managed 5 minutes of that video. Utter fucking shite.

On 13/03/2019 at 15:45, Anny Road said:

An interesting comment from the speaker in response to a point of order by Angela Eagle saying he would make a ruling if May keeps pushing for votes on her deal given that it has been twatted twice. He may boot it out.

1 hour ago, sir roger said:

Keep reading that Bercow's announcement has come without any warning or is a bolt from the blue , but I read at the weekend that Angela Eagle had made the exact point about reheating the same bill & asked him for a ruling.

That was on the 13th.

K

2 hours ago, TK421 said:

It would be easy for them to forge the creche records.  The fact that Kate's signature appears on the records when she says in her book that she pre-arranged for Gerry to collect them on 3rd May, for me that gives rise to a presumption that the records have been forged. 

 

The McCanns are on very friendly terms with Catriona Baker.  Here's a photo of them all larging it up in England.

 

  

22 minutes ago, TK421 said:

So would I, I agree.  The problem is that Baker can't say anything with a degree of certainty ("I don't know", "I can't remember").  And what she does say conflicts with Gerry and Kate's accounts of what happened. 

Those two posts suggest opposites. 1 she is part of the conspiracy as close pal. 2. She confirms non of the parents testimony.

1 minute ago, TK421 said:

Your default position is to believe everything the McCanns say, so I can see why you'd think that. 

 

My default position is that they're full of shit so we're never going to agree.  

You suggested and posted a picture that they were conspiring together. You then state she was not able to confirm anything either of the parents said. Which is it? You can’t hve it both ways.

2 minutes ago, TK421 said:

So would I, I agree.  The problem is that Baker can't say anything with a degree of certainty ("I don't know", "I can't remember").  And what she does say conflicts with Gerry and Kate's accounts of what happened. 

She is harldly in cahoots with them then as you suggest what with them larging it up together.

American Gods. This is getting boring.

Where is the body? With limited local knowledge that’s a hard trick to pull off.

Just now, A Red said:

Normandy cidre is very nice. I wouldnt get pissed on it and as i only drink to get pissed its of no use to me.

Lovely stuff. But as you say it’s about 2%.

2 minutes ago, Remmie said:

*dons real ale nerd hat*

 

Pear cider? You mean Perry 

Or Babycham as we used to call it.

One thing that has not been mentioned when discussing political pressure is the pressure the Portuguese Police were under to attribute blame and not have the spectre of a child killer stalking the highly important tourist resorts of the Algarve.

11 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

Is it possible that time will simply run out and we leave with no deal? Mays deal is dead and Europe say they will only grant an extension for a meaningful reason? Could be heading only one way with time running out quickly

The vote to rule out no deal is not binding. Leaving in 11 days or whenever is in law. Without legislation that’s what happens.

Again not to sound like broken record but in court I would be sick of shouting ‘Objection, opinion not fact’ you are linking things together which admittedly have some question marks and using them as evidence to reinforce the outcome you have already decided happened.

I assume the relevance of the above photo of them’larging it up’ means she is part of the conspiracy too.

2 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Agreed.  However, that doesn't explain the numerous contradictions arising from the statements of Gerry, Kate and Kat Baker.  Gerry said he was with Kate at 4:45 and together they walked to the Tapas area to meet the kids.  Kate says she pre-arranged for Gerry to collect the kids from the creche and went for a long run on the beach.  These two accounts are wholly at odds with each other. 

Agreed but the crucial evidence in this is she was signed in the creche. We know the parents are negligent at best and it comes as no suprise that they have no idea who was doing what. That is a given.

Nothing however leads us to concluded Maddy was dead or indeed missing.

I would have thought that day 1 lesson 1 when running a creche is to know who and how many kids are under your care.

Or thier recollection of events after thier daughter was abducted is somewhat foggy.

Not wanting to fall out or argue just taking an objective view.

Again non of that is evidence it is conjecture.

11 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Basically, this concerns inconsistent statements made by the McCanns and the creche nanny, Katriona Baker.  Baker says she can prove that she saw Madeleine on 3rd May at 5:30pm. 

 

When asked by police, Kat Baker says it was always the parents who brought and fetched Madeleine from the mini club at the creche.  She also said that there was a high tea at 5:30pm at which parents, children and creche nannies were all present.  She says this took place at the Tapas Bar area.  However, other witnesses do not confirm whether this practice of regular high tea took place so there is doubt about it.

 

In her book , Kate McCann says the following:  "having arranged for Gerry to meet the children, I opted to go for a run along the beach... I had finished my run by 5:30pm at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry".   However, the written creche records show that Kate McCann signed the twins out of their creche group at 5:25pm that day.  The creche records for Madeleine's group, known as "the Lobsters", show Kate McCann's signature signing out Madeleine at 5:30pm that day.  How is that possible if, as Kate claims in her book, she found Gerry and all of the children sitting having their tea at the Tapas area at 5:30pm?  And if she pre-arranged for Gerry to collect the kids from the creches, why is it her signature on the record for that day and not Gerry's?  These are clear contractions.

 

Gerry McCann does not mention anything in his various statements given to the police about collecting the twins and Madeleine from their respective creches and then returning to the Tapas area.  Either the McCanns are not being truthful about what happened during this period of time or the creche records are wrong, or both.  

 

Kat Baker's statement about that day is vague.  Asked who dropped Madeleine off at the creche that morning, she says she "doesn't know".   Asked who picked Madeleine up for lunch from the creche that afternoon, she answers "I can't remember".  Asked who picked up Madeleine from the creche that afternoon, she says it was Kate, and not Gerry, which contradicts what Kate says in her book.  

 

None of the other witness statements from the various witnesses at the holiday resort mention anything about a high tea that afternoon.  None of the waiters working in the Tapas area at 5:30pm can recall serving anyone resembling Madeleine.  No other parent on holiday at the complex that week mentions having high tea in the Tapas area that day.

 

When Gerry McCann was questioned for the second time by Portuguese police on 10th May (he had said nothing about it in his first statement), he said that the meal started at 5pm and ended at 5:30pm.  He says that the creche nannies brought Madeleine to him at the Tapas area at 5pm.  This contradicts what Kate said in her book, and also contradicts the creche records which say that Kate picked the kids up.  Kate says she was running on the beach at 5:15pm, but in Gerry's second statement he says he was with Kate at the tennis courts at 4:45pm and that they both went to the Tapas area together to meet the children for the meal.  Gerry does not mention Kate's long jog at the beach in his statement.  

 

In summary, there is no credible evidence that this high tea actually took place at all, so it can't be treated as confirmation that Madeleine was alive at that time.

But she was signed in and out of the creche?

1 minute ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Do the 6 tests meet the EU's requirements or is it more pipe dream stuff. Is what Labour is asking achievable?

We cannot be in the customs union and have single market access and negotiate independent trade deals

This will require a long extension of Art 50. As it stands that looks highly unlikely.

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

The obvious way out of the impasse - the only one which can honestly be said to be in the public interest - is to admit that this Government and this Parliament will never agree a Brexit deal (or agree to stop Brexit) so it's time for a General Election. 

Both main parties will stand on a leave platform. Gets us nowhere.

Best remain supports can hope for is 2nd referendum or Labours customs union proposed.

He says the wording is irrelevant it is the purpose of the motion. It’s doomed.

1 minute ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

But then you get into how Bercow is operationalising/interpreting “substantially” in this instance. Is it in the wording or the effect of the motion?

 

If the former, certainly a pointless bit of procedure they won’t bat an eyelid at.

 

If the latter, with the EU having said there’s nothing more they’ll  offer, a significantly trickier obstacle for the Maybot.

 

I’ve no doubt at all they’d cheerfully exploit any loophole and contort themselves into any shape required to get this through, in terms of their intentions. I’ve no idea as to which of the above applies or whether it’s subjective, in terms of whether they’ll be allowed to get away with it.

 

Does anyone else?

He has clarified saying a change of opinion or legal interpretation of the deal will not satisfy him. It needs fundamental change in terms.

He has just said that in order for the motion to be substantially different it would need the EU to have made a fundamental change in its position rendering the governments offer different.

They will have lawyers spinning another motion with essentially the same outcome worded in a different manor.

Stan and Olie very good little film well acted.

7/10