Re: Mickey the idiot

On 02/02/2025 11:41, Blueshirt wrote:

The True Doctor wrote:
 

On 01/02/2025 13:31, Blueshirt wrote:

>
I'd still find it unlikely that all of the 32 women's stories
are made up. But even if The Guardian does lose the case, I
doubt they will go bust.

>
It is not just likely but an absolute fact as determined by
the police that all of these women made it all up since the
police did not have enough evidence against Clarke to even
warrant an investigation let alone charge him with a crime.

 That's not how it works, not having enough evidence to prosecute

That is exactly how it works.

doesn't mean 'something' didn't happen.
 

Yes it does. It's called PRESUMED INNOCENCE! It didn't happen unless it is proven. There was no evidence, even evidence below the threshold of the balance of probabilities, to even warrant a investigation because no crime has been committed even if there was evidence.

If I whip my cock out in my office and shove it in a woman's
face and say "suck this if you want a job" and she runs out of
the room and goes to the police, if there's no witnesses, CCTV
footage or sound footage to back up her claims, then there will
be no evidence for a prosecution. He said, she said.

Which is why the police would be obliged to conduct an investigation in order to collect evidence. In the case of Noel Clarke the fact that the police did not investigate proves that the allegations against him were not criminal acts as defined by the law. Asking a woman at a bar for a date is not a crime. Trying to chat up a woman driving you home from work is not a crime either. And so on and so on... Clark was not even asked by the police to explain himself. Because what he was accused of was not a crime.
If the woman you spoke to makes an unproven allegation in public like publishing it in a newspaper then it's called defamation even if it did happen. The only defence is public interest and that means that the allegations must be criminal and provable and you must be a public figure.
If the woman is a prostitute then you would not even be committing a crime by asking her to suck your cock since it's in the job description as one of the services provided by prostitutes. It would be the woman that committed the crime by soliciting sex with you.

 But I would still have done it!
 

It doesn't mean it's a crime.

Noel Clark is completely innocent of any crime. Because of
this he is taking the Guardian to court for defamation.

 Which he might win, or he might lose... he certainly hasn't got
off to a great start anyway if that article is correct.
 

The article is a pack of made up lies as admitted by the Guardian itself. That's defamation and lies are not in the public interest.

Judge AGA cannot say that Noel Clarke is completely innocent

Yes he can. The judge and jury in the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard liable case said Depp was completely innocent and that all of Heard's allegations against him personally were complete and utter lies.

though, just as I can't say that he's guilty, as neither of us
where there when any of these 'incidents' happened.
 

Wrong! Noel Clarke is completely innocent of any crime unless he is proven guilty. THAT IS THE LAW! It's time for the sick, degenerate, moronic woketards of cancel culture and the FAKE NEWS learn that.
Even the pervert Huw Edwards had to be presumed innocent until he admitted his crimes, and the BBC and far left FAKE NEWS kept it a secret for almost a year after finding out.
The allegations against Clarke are not even crimes as deemed by the law.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." -William Shatner