Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
--
solar penguin
solar penguin wrote:
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Even a tin dog should have more brains than that!
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
On 2025-01-30 1:02 a.m., solar penguin wrote:
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
That is something I would expect from someone like binky, what
an idiot.
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-30 1:02 a.m., solar penguin wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
That is something I would expect from someone like binky, what
an idiot.
Actor who played an idiot acts like an idiot in real life!
Who'd have thought reality could meet fiction in such a way? ;-)
Idlehands wrote:^^^^^<-Leading paedophile talker noted
On 2025-01-30 1:02 a.m., solar penguin wrote:
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
That is something I would expect from someone like binky, what
an idiot.
Actor who played an idiot acts like an idiot in real life!
Who'd have thought reality could meet fiction in such a way? ;-)
On 30/01/2025 08:02, solar penguin wrote:
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Noel Clarke hasn't committed any crime. Let's hope he takes down the
Guardian and the rest of the FAKE NEWS legacy media for publishing lies
they made up about him.
--
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
On 30/01/2025 08:02, solar penguin wrote:
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
Noel Clarke hasn't committed any crime.
Let's hope he takes down the Guardian and the rest
of the FAKE NEWS legacy media for publishing lies
they made up about him.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/01/2025 08:02, solar penguin wrote:
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Noel Clarke hasn't committed any crime.
You've seen the evidence so, you have?
Let's hope he takes down the Guardian and the rest
of the FAKE NEWS legacy media for publishing lies
they made up about him.
I don't know if Noel Clarke is guilty or innocent. We'll find
out at the trial once all of the evidence is presented. But this
line from that article stood out...
“At trial, 32 witnesses are set to testify against Mr Clarke
under oath. We look forward to a judge hearing the evidence.”
On the balance of probabilities it's highly unlikely that all
thirty two women are telling lies. So while I can accept there
will be a few bandwagon jumpers looking for an easy pay-out,
they can't all be wrong!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/01/2025 08:02, solar penguin wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
Noel Clarke hasn't committed any crime.
You've seen the evidence so, you have?
Let's hope he takes down the Guardian and the rest
of the FAKE NEWS legacy media for publishing lies
they made up about him.
I don't know if Noel Clarke is guilty or innocent. We'll find
out at the trial once all of the evidence is presented. But this
line from that article stood out...
“At trial, 32 witnesses are set to testify against Mr Clarke
under oath. We look forward to a judge hearing the evidence.”
On the balance of probabilities it's highly unlikely that all
thirty two women are telling lies. So while I can accept there
will be a few bandwagon jumpers looking for an easy pay-out,
they can't all be wrong
The True Doctor wrote:
On 31/01/2025 14:42, Blueshirt wrote:this is not the stats
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/01/2025 08:02, solar penguin wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Noel Clarke hasn't committed any crime.
You've seen the evidence so, you have?
THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE! The police weren't given anything that would
even warrant and investigation.
Let's hope he takes down the Guardian and the rest
of the FAKE NEWS legacy media for publishing lies
they made up about him.
I don't know if Noel Clarke is guilty or innocent. We'll find
He's never been investigated because or lack of evidence let alone
charged.
out at the trial once all of the evidence is presented. But this
line from that article stood out...
THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE! Clarke is suing the Guardian for publishing
a pack of complete and utter lies.
“At trial, 32 witnesses are set to testify against Mr Clarke
under oath. We look forward to a judge hearing the evidence.”
Testify that he tried to chat them up? Chatting a woman up isn't a
crime. Why do you think the police won't even investigate? Because
there is no evidence Clarke has broken any law.
On the balance of probabilities it's highly unlikely that all
thirty two women are telling lies. So while I can accept there
This isn't about Clarke's guilt or innocence. It's about the Guardian
publishing a pack of downright lies against him which it has already
admitted and claiming that publishing these lies which it invented,
which the police said did not constitute evidence to even warrant
launching and investigation were in the public interest.
will be a few bandwagon jumpers looking for an easy pay-out,
they can't all be wrong
Yes they can because the Guardian made it all up. Let's hope the FAKE
NEWS Guardian is found guilty and goes bust as a result.
On 31/01/2025 14:42, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 30/01/2025 08:02, solar penguin wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
Noel Clarke hasn't committed any crime.
You've seen the evidence so, you have?
THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE! The police weren't given anything that would
even warrant and investigation.
Let's hope he takes down the Guardian and the rest
of the FAKE NEWS legacy media for publishing lies
they made up about him.
I don't know if Noel Clarke is guilty or innocent. We'll find
He's never been investigated because or lack of evidence let alone charged.
out at the trial once all of the evidence is presented. But this
line from that article stood out...
THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE! Clarke is suing the Guardian for publishing a
pack of complete and utter lies.
“At trial, 32 witnesses are set to testify against Mr Clarke
under oath. We look forward to a judge hearing the evidence.”
Testify that he tried to chat them up? Chatting a woman up isn't a
crime. Why do you think the police won't even investigate? Because there
is no evidence Clarke has broken any law.
On the balance of probabilities it's highly unlikely that all
thirty two women are telling lies. So while I can accept there
This isn't about Clarke's guilt or innocence. It's about the Guardian >publishing a pack of downright lies against him which it has already
admitted and claiming that publishing these lies which it invented,
which the police said did not constitute evidence to even warrant
launching and investigation were in the public interest.
will be a few bandwagon jumpers looking for an easy pay-out,
they can't all be wrong
Yes they can because the Guardian made it all up. Let's hope the FAKE
NEWS Guardian is found guilty and goes bust as a result.
--
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
On 31/01/2025 14:42, Blueshirt wrote:
On the balance of probabilities it's highly unlikely that all
thirty two women are telling lies. So while I can accept
there will be a few bandwagon jumpers looking for an easy
pay-out they can't all be wrong.
Yes they can because the Guardian made it all up. Let's hope
the FAKE NEWS Guardian is found guilty and goes bust as a
result.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 31/01/2025 14:42, Blueshirt wrote:
On the balance of probabilities it's highly unlikely that all
thirty two women are telling lies. So while I can accept
there will be a few bandwagon jumpers looking for an easy
pay-out they can't all be wrong.
Yes they can because the Guardian made it all up. Let's hope
the FAKE NEWS Guardian is found guilty and goes bust as a
result.
<shocked face> Journalists making something up? Say it ain't so!
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.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 31/01/2025 14:42, Blueshirt wrote:
On the balance of probabilities it's highly unlikely that all
thirty two women are telling lies. So while I can accept
there will be a few bandwagon jumpers looking for an easy
pay-out they can't all be wrong.
Yes they can because the Guardian made it all up. Let's hope
the FAKE NEWS Guardian is found guilty and goes bust as a
result.
<shocked face> Journalists making something up? Say it ain't so!
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.
On 01/02/2025 13:31, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 31/01/2025 14:42, Blueshirt wrote:
On the balance of probabilities it's highly unlikely that all
thirty two women are telling lies. So while I can accept
there will be a few bandwagon jumpers looking for an easy
pay-out they can't all be wrong.
Yes they can because the Guardian made it all up. Let's hope
the FAKE NEWS Guardian is found guilty and goes bust as a
result.
<shocked face> Journalists making something up? Say it ain't so!
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.
Noel Clark is completely innocent of any crime. Because of this he is
taking the Guardian to court for defamation.
--
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
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.
Noel Clark is completely innocent of any crime. Because of
this he is taking the Guardian to court for defamation.
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
doesn't mean 'something' didn't happen.
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.
But I would still have done it!
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.
Judge AGA cannot say that Noel Clarke is completely innocent
though, just as I can't say that he's guilty, as neither of us
where there when any of these 'incidents' happened.
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
doesn't mean 'something' didn't happen.
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.
But I would still have done it!
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.
Judge AGA cannot say that Noel Clarke is completely innocent
though, just as I can't say that he's guilty, as neither of us
where there when any of these 'incidents' happened.
Blueshirt brilliantly brought forth:
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
doesn't mean 'something' didn't happen.
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.
But I would still have done it!
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.
Judge AGA cannot say that Noel Clarke is completely innocent
though, just as I can't say that he's guilty, as neither of us
where there when any of these 'incidents' happened.
It’s interesting how Aggy repeatedly accuses RTD of being a
sexual predator on zero evidence, but demands proof for
the accusations against Noel Clarke.
Double standards? Why am I not surprised?
Blueshirt brilliantly brought forth:
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
doesn't mean 'something' didn't happen.
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.
But I would still have done it!
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.
Judge AGA cannot say that Noel Clarke is completely innocent
though, just as I can't say that he's guilty, as neither of us
where there when any of these 'incidents' happened.
It’s interesting how Aggy repeatedly accuses RTD of being a
sexual predator on zero evidence, but demands proof for
the accusations against Noel Clarke.
Double standards? Why am I not surprised?
--
solar penguin
On 02/02/2025 14:11, solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt brilliantly brought forth:
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
doesn't mean 'something' didn't happen.
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.
But I would still have done it!
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.
Judge AGA cannot say that Noel Clarke is completely innocent
though, just as I can't say that he's guilty, as neither of us
where there when any of these 'incidents' happened.
It’s interesting how Aggy repeatedly accuses RTD of being a
sexual predator on zero evidence, but demands proof for
the accusations against Noel Clarke.
There's plenty of evidence against RTD. It's in almost everything he
makes. He's even admitted it himself when he said that he gets thrilled
every time someone tells him that he discovered as a boy that he was gay >after watching something Davies wrote or produced.
Double standards? Why am I not surprised?
The only double standards are those of the woke.
Why was John Barrowman cancelled for showing his cock on set on Doctor
Who, which was part of his job description, when it was the pervert RTD
who told him to strip naked on order to film a scene where he pulled a
gun out of his arse in a children's TV programme? Why wasn't Davies
cancelled as well? Why did the pervert Chris Chibnall ask Barrowman to
strip naked on Torchwood? Why wasn't Chibnall also cancelled?
--
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
The True loon lost it again:
On 02/02/2025 14:11, solar penguin wrote:
You forgot to change it to ‘solar imbecile’ again. Please try harder.
It’s interesting how Aggy repeatedly accuses RTD of being a
sexual predator on zero evidence, but demands proof for
the accusations against Noel Clarke.
There's plenty of evidence against RTD. It's in almost everything he
makes. He's even admitted it himself when he said that he gets thrilled
every time someone tells him that he discovered as a boy that he was gay
after watching something Davies wrote or produced.
Even if that’s true, it’s still not enough for the police to charge
him with anything, which is your standard for claiming Clarke
innocent.
Like I said, double standards.
Double standards? Why am I not surprised?
The only double standards are those of the woke.
Why was John Barrowman cancelled for showing his cock on set on Doctor
Who, which was part of his job description, when it was the pervert RTD
who told him to strip naked on order to film a scene where he pulled a
gun out of his arse in a children's TV programme? Why wasn't Davies
cancelled as well? Why did the pervert Chris Chibnall ask Barrowman to
strip naked on Torchwood? Why wasn't Chibnall also cancelled?
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not Clarke did anything wrong?
(I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s guilt
somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only possible for
just one companion to be played by a sex pest!)
--
solar penguin
The True Doctor wrote:
On 02/02/2025 14:11, solar imbecile wrote:
You forgot to change it to ‘solar imbecile’ again. Please try harder.
It’s interesting how Aggy repeatedly accuses RTD of being a
sexual predator on zero evidence, but demands proof for
the accusations against Noel Clarke.
There's plenty of evidence against RTD. It's in almost everything he
makes. He's even admitted it himself when he said that he gets thrilled
every time someone tells him that he discovered as a boy that he was gay
after watching something Davies wrote or produced.
Even if that’s true, it’s still not enough for the police to charge
him with anything, which is your standard for claiming Clarke
innocent.
Like I said, double standards.
Double standards? Why am I not surprised?
The only double standards are those of the woke.
Why was John Barrowman cancelled for showing his cock on set on Doctor
Who, which was part of his job description, when it was the pervert RTD
who told him to strip naked on order to film a scene where he pulled a
gun out of his arse in a children's TV programme? Why wasn't Davies
cancelled as well? Why did the pervert Chris Chibnall ask Barrowman to
strip naked on Torchwood? Why wasn't Chibnall also cancelled?
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not Clarke did anything wrong?
(I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s guilt
somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only possible for
just one companion to be played by a sex pest!)
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 02/02/2025 14:11, solar imbecile wrote:
You forgot to change it to ‘solar imbecile’ again. Please try harder.
Done!
It’s interesting how Aggy repeatedly accuses RTD of being a
sexual predator on zero evidence, but demands proof for
the accusations against Noel Clarke.
There's plenty of evidence against RTD. It's in almost everything he
makes. He's even admitted it himself when he said that he gets thrilled
every time someone tells him that he discovered as a boy that he was gay >>> after watching something Davies wrote or produced.
Even if that’s true, it’s still not enough for the police to charge
him with anything, which is your standard for claiming Clarke
innocent.
There wasn't any evidence to charge Barrowman with anything either.
Davies and Chibnall were the ones who wrote those perverted scenes. Why >weren't the both sacked along with Barrowman?
Like I said, double standards.
Woke double standards.
Double standards? Why am I not surprised?
The only double standards are those of the woke.
Why was John Barrowman cancelled for showing his cock on set on Doctor
Who, which was part of his job description, when it was the pervert RTD
who told him to strip naked on order to film a scene where he pulled a
gun out of his arse in a children's TV programme? Why wasn't Davies
cancelled as well? Why did the pervert Chris Chibnall ask Barrowman to
strip naked on Torchwood? Why wasn't Chibnall also cancelled?
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not Clarke did anything wrong?
Clarke didn't do anything wrong. That is an absolute fact.
(I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s guilt
somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only possible for
just one companion to be played by a sex pest!)
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show? Davies, Chibnall,
and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his arse on Doctor Who as well.
--
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
Makeing for the nearest nuclear bunker ...
The Doctor wrote:
Makeing for the nearest nuclear bunker ...
I don't know about a nuclear bunker, but with Donald Trump and
his trade tariff's the Yadallee Republic might need to start
building bigger walls!
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The only double standards are those of the woke.
Why was John Barrowman cancelled for showing his cock on
set on Doctor Who, which was part of his job description,
when it was the pervert RTD who told him to strip naked on
order to film a scene where he pulled a gun out of his
arse in a children's TV programme? Why wasn't Davies
cancelled as well? Why did the pervert Chris Chibnall ask
Barrowman to strip naked on Torchwood? Why wasn't Chibnall
also cancelled?
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not Clarke did
anything wrong?
(I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s guilt
somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only possible
for just one companion to be played by a sex pest!)
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show? Davies,
Chibnall, and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his arse on
Doctor Who as well.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The only double standards are those of the woke.
Why was John Barrowman cancelled for showing his cock on
set on Doctor Who, which was part of his job description,
when it was the pervert RTD who told him to strip naked on
order to film a scene where he pulled a gun out of his
arse in a children's TV programme? Why wasn't Davies
cancelled as well? Why did the pervert Chris Chibnall ask
Barrowman to strip naked on Torchwood? Why wasn't Chibnall
also cancelled?
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not Clarke did
anything wrong?
(I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s guilt
somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only possible
for just one companion to be played by a sex pest!)
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show? Davies,
Chibnall, and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his arse on
Doctor Who as well.
Alleged sex pests! I don't recall any of them being investigated
by the Police, let alone charged and/or convicted. Isn't
everyone presumed innocent?
If it's good enough for Noel Clarke...
In article <xn0p1nmfw1pa1j003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s
guilt somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only
possible for just one companion to be played by a sex
pest!
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show?
Davies, Chibnall, and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his
arse on Doctor Who as well.
Alleged sex pests! I don't recall any of them being
investigated by the Police, let alone charged and/or
convicted. Isn't everyone presumed innocent?
Until PROVEN Guilty.
Blueshirt brought forth a blinder:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Why was John Barrowman cancelled for showing his cock on
set on Doctor Who, which was part of his job description,
when it was the pervert RTD who told him to strip naked on
order to film a scene where he pulled a gun out of his
arse in a children's TV programme? Why wasn't Davies
cancelled as well? Why did the pervert Chris Chibnall ask
Barrowman to strip naked on Torchwood? Why wasn't Chibnall
also cancelled?
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not Clarke did
anything wrong?
(I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s guilt
somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only possible
for just one companion to be played by a sex pest!)
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show? Davies,
Chibnall, and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his arse on
Doctor Who as well.
Alleged sex pests! I don't recall any of them being investigated
by the Police, let alone charged and/or convicted. Isn't
everyone presumed innocent?
If it's good enough for Noel Clarke...
Yeah. The more Aggy tries to deflect from his double standards, the
more he just highlights them.
There’s no point in me replying to him because he’s already making
my point for me!
--
solar penguin
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p1nmfw1pa1j003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s
guilt somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only
possible for just one companion to be played by a sex
pest!
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show?
Davies, Chibnall, and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his
arse on Doctor Who as well.
Alleged sex pests! I don't recall any of them being
investigated by the Police, let alone charged and/or
convicted. Isn't everyone presumed innocent?
Until PROVEN Guilty.
Yes Dave... and neither Steven Moffat, Chris Chibnall or RTD
have been found guilty of anything. That was the point!
More news of the upcoming trial.
Noel Clarke lawyers’ claims against Guardian journalists unacceptable, >judge says >https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/feb/05/noel-clarke-lawyers-claims-against-guardian-journalists-unacceptable-judge-says?CMP=share_btn_url
--
solar penguin
More news of the upcoming trial.
Noel Clarke lawyers’ claims against Guardian journalists
unacceptable, judge says
In article <vnvs1r$2dqgs$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
Blueshirt brought forth a blinder:
If it's good enough for Noel Clarke...
Yeah. The more Aggy tries to deflect from his double
standards, the more he just highlights them.
There’s no point in me replying to him because he’s already
making my point for me!
The Geiger Counter is going up.
solar penguin wrote:
More news of the upcoming trial.
Noel Clarke lawyers’ claims against Guardian journalists
unacceptable, judge says
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/feb/05/noel-clarke-lawyers-claims-against-guardian-journalists-unacceptable-judge-says?CMP=share_btn_url
Yep, it all seems to be going well for the tin dog...
Although The Guardian are hardly impartial reporters of this
case. I wonder how they'll cover this case if they 'lose' it?
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vnvs1r$2dqgs$1@dont-email.me>,
solar penguin <solar.penguin@gmail.com> wrote:
Blueshirt brought forth a blinder:
If it's good enough for Noel Clarke...
Yeah. The more Aggy tries to deflect from his double
standards, the more he just highlights them.
There’s no point in me replying to him because he’s already
making my point for me!
The Geiger Counter is going up.
You like to imply that Judge AGA is some fearsome foe of the
people and we should all be fearful of him... when the reality
of RADW is that he's only a pussy cat that likes a bit of banter
with [reasonably] intelligent people as a way to pass his time
before he goes online and plays games.
I can't work out why you don't seem to be on his discussion
list, he rarely replies directly to any of your posts!
Maybe you are the "tin dog" of RADW?
In article <xn0p1pcfn2saelx000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
The Geiger Counter is going up.
You like to imply that Judge AGA is some fearsome foe of the
people and we should all be fearful of him... when the
reality of RADW is that he's only a pussy cat that likes a
bit of banter with [reasonably] intelligent people as a way
to pass his time before he goes online and plays games.
I can't work out why you don't seem to be on his discussion
list, he rarely replies directly to any of your posts!
Sp and AGA are trying to nuke each other off of here.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p1pcfn2saelx000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
The Geiger Counter is going up.
You like to imply that Judge AGA is some fearsome foe of the
people and we should all be fearful of him... when the
reality of RADW is that he's only a pussy cat that likes a
bit of banter with [reasonably] intelligent people as a way
to pass his time before he goes online and plays games.
I can't work out why you don't seem to be on his discussion
list, he rarely replies directly to any of your posts!
Sp and AGA are trying to nuke each other off of here.
As long as they are only nuking each other off...
I'm not sure I would like to envision anything else!
More news of the upcoming trial.
Noel Clarke lawyers’ claims against Guardian journalists unacceptable, judge says https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/feb/05/noel-clarke-lawyers-claims-against-guardian-journalists-unacceptable-judge-says?CMP=share_btn_url
Blueshirt brought forth a blinder:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Why was John Barrowman cancelled for showing his cock on
set on Doctor Who, which was part of his job description,
when it was the pervert RTD who told him to strip naked on
order to film a scene where he pulled a gun out of his
arse in a children's TV programme? Why wasn't Davies
cancelled as well? Why did the pervert Chris Chibnall ask
Barrowman to strip naked on Torchwood? Why wasn't Chibnall
also cancelled?
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not Clarke did
anything wrong?
(I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s guilt
somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only possible
for just one companion to be played by a sex pest!)
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show? Davies,
Chibnall, and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his arse on
Doctor Who as well.
Alleged sex pests! I don't recall any of them being investigated
by the Police, let alone charged and/or convicted. Isn't
everyone presumed innocent?
If it's good enough for Noel Clarke...
Yeah. The more Aggy tries to deflect from his double standards, the
more he just highlights them.
There’s no point in me replying to him because he’s already making
my point for me!
In article <xn0p1p0rv2ck9c8000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p1nmfw1pa1j003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s >>>>>> guilt somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only >>>>>> possible for just one companion to be played by a sex
pest!
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show?
Davies, Chibnall, and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his
arse on Doctor Who as well.
Alleged sex pests! I don't recall any of them being
investigated by the Police, let alone charged and/or
convicted. Isn't everyone presumed innocent?
Until PROVEN Guilty.
Yes Dave... and neither Steven Moffat, Chris Chibnall or RTD
have been found guilty of anything. That was the point!
The point is made.
On 05/02/2025 15:28, solar penguin wrote:
More news of the upcoming trial.
Noel Clarke lawyers’ claims against Guardian journalists unacceptable,
judge says
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/feb/05/noel-clarke-lawyers-claims-against-guardian-journalists-unacceptable-judge-says?CMP=share_btn_url
So claims The Guardian the party that is being sued for defamation. Why >should anyone believe a word it says?
--
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
On 6/02/2025 2:08 am, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted.
In article <xn0p1p0rv2ck9c8000@post.eweka.nl>,Too bad YOU, Binky, can't seem to absorb it!!
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p1nmfw1pa1j003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s >>>>>>> guilt somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only >>>>>>> possible for just one companion to be played by a sex
pest!
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show?
Davies, Chibnall, and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his
arse on Doctor Who as well.
Alleged sex pests! I don't recall any of them being
investigated by the Police, let alone charged and/or
convicted. Isn't everyone presumed innocent?
Until PROVEN Guilty.
Yes Dave... and neither Steven Moffat, Chris Chibnall or RTD
have been found guilty of anything. That was the point!
The point is made.
--
Daniel70
On 05/02/2025 14:19, solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt brought forth a blinder:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 03/02/2025 13:07, solar imbecile wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Why was John Barrowman cancelled for showing his cock on
set on Doctor Who, which was part of his job description,
when it was the pervert RTD who told him to strip naked on
order to film a scene where he pulled a gun out of his
arse in a children's TV programme? Why wasn't Davies
cancelled as well? Why did the pervert Chris Chibnall ask
Barrowman to strip naked on Torchwood? Why wasn't Chibnall
also cancelled?
Which is all irrelevant to whether or not Clarke did
anything wrong?
(I assume you aren’t seriously suggesting Barrowman’s guilt
somehow proves Clarke’s innocence as if it’s only possible
for just one companion to be played by a sex pest!)
But it's ok to have 3 sex pests writing for the show? Davies,
Chibnall, and Moffat who had Matt Smith baring his arse on
Doctor Who as well.
Alleged sex pests! I don't recall any of them being investigated
by the Police, let alone charged and/or convicted. Isn't
everyone presumed innocent?
If it's good enough for Noel Clarke...
Yeah. The more Aggy tries to deflect from his double standards, the
more he just highlights them.
You are the one with the double standards. If you think Noel Clarke and
John Barrowman should be cancelled for following the example of the woke >perverts Russell T Davies, Steven Moffat, and Chris Chibnall, they why
aren't you demanding that Davies, Moffat, and Chibnall be cancelled too?
There’s no point in me replying to him because he’s already making
my point for me!
That you're a hypocrite.
--
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
In article <vo1aoa$2polk$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 15:28, solar penguin wrote:
Noel Clarke lawyers’ claims against Guardian journalists
unacceptable, judge says
So claims The Guardian the party that is being sued for
defamation. Why should anyone believe a word it says?
Someone will lose.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vo1aoa$2polk$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 15:28, solar penguin wrote:
Noel Clarke lawyers’ claims against Guardian journalists
unacceptable, judge says
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/feb/05/noel-clarke-lawyers-claims-against-guardian-journalists-unacceptable-judge-says?CMP=share_btn_url
So claims The Guardian the party that is being sued for
defamation. Why should anyone believe a word it says?
Someone will lose.
That's a blinding revelation Dave! How could we not have seen
that as being the possible outcome?
You clearly are a sleuth up there with Sherlock and Poirot when
it comes to solving mysteries and enlightening your audience.
In article <vo1af8$2polk$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 14:19, solar penguin wrote:
There’s no point in me replying to him because he’s already making
my point for me!
That you're a hypocrite.
I wonder if SP is full labour.
In article <vo1aoa$2polk$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 15:28, solar penguin wrote:
More news of the upcoming trial.https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/feb/05/noel-clarke-lawyers-claims-against-guardian-journalists-unacceptable-judge-says?CMP=share_btn_url
Noel Clarke lawyers’ claims against Guardian journalists unacceptable,
judge says
So claims The Guardian the party that is being sued for defamation. Why
should anyone believe a word it says?
Someone will lose.
On 6/02/2025 11:23 pm, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
In article <vo1af8$2polk$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 14:19, solar penguin wrote:
<Snip>
already makingThere’s no point in me replying to him because he’s
my point for me!
That you're a hypocrite.
I wonder if SP is full labour.
Gee! Whiz!! And YOU, Binky, seem to LOVE Solar Penguin soooooo much when
he agrees with YOU, Binky!!^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
Change YOUR mind, much.Binky??^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted
--
Daniel70
On 6/02/2025 11:24 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vo1aoa$2polk$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 05/02/2025 15:28, solar penguin wrote:
More news of the upcoming trial.https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/feb/05/noel-clarke-lawyers-
Noel Clarke lawyers’ claims against Guardian journalists
unacceptable,
judge says
claims-against-guardian-journalists-unacceptable-judge-says?
CMP=share_btn_url
So claims The Guardian the party that is being sued for defamation. Why
should anyone believe a word it says?
Someone will lose.
No!! YOU'RE joking, aren't YOU, Binky?? "Someone will lose"!! REALLY??
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
solar penguin wrote:
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Latest update...
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/mar/19/woman-carried-shame-for-years-after-noel-clarke-made-sexual-contact-with-her-court-told
solar penguin wrote:
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought againsthttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
the Guardian
Latest update...
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/mar/19/woman-carried-shame-for-years-after-noel-clarke-made-sexual-contact-with-her-court-told
On 20/03/2025 7:29 am, Blueshirt wrote:
solar penguin wrote:Why was she trying to make "sexual contact with her court" for??
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Latest update...
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/mar/19/woman-carried-shame-for-years-after-noel-clarke-made-sexual-contact-with-her-court-told
Oh!! Wait!! ;-P
--
Daniel70
In article <vrghjt$2p8gn$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 7:29 am, Blueshirt wrote:
solar penguin wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/mar/19/woman-carried-shame-for-years-after-noel-clarke-made-sexual-contact-with-her-court-told
Latest update...
Why was she trying to make "sexual contact with her court" for??
Oh!! Wait!! ;-P
You forgot the told!
On 20/03/2025 9:55 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vrghjt$2p8gn$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 7:29 am, Blueshirt wrote:
solar penguin wrote:Why was she trying to make "sexual contact with her court" for??
Actor Noel Clarke suffers blow in libel case brought against
the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/actor-noel-clarke-suffers-blow-in-libel-case-brought-against-the-guardian
Latest update...
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/mar/19/woman-carried-shame-for-years-after-noel-clarke-made-sexual-contact-with-her-court-told
Oh!! Wait!! ;-P
You forgot the told!
No I didn't, fool!!
--
Daniel70
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:16:18 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,291 |
| Posted today: | 1 |