Quote Originally Posted by Wales-Bales View Post
I'm not me being rich with the facts, it's more a case of you trying to find Worboys innocent because it suits your political agenda.

I actually based my assumptions of the source Telegraph article, where they referred to her as a victim. The reference to the 99.9% that was tacked onto the end in your link is from a completely different source.

From the Telegraph:

"Seeing that his spiked champagne had had no effect, Worboys stopped the cab and joined her in the back of the taxi to have a drink.

Miss Symonds started to feel uncomfortable: "I played the age card and told him I was very young, only 19, and needed to go home."

He tried another tack, praising her drinking capabilities and challenging her to down a shot of vodka for £50 and a free lift home.

"I downed it, which was stupid, as I just wanted to get home.From that point on I can't really remember what happened.

"He seemed to be this sad man who had no one to celebrate with him. I pitied him, I didn't feel frightened - I just thought he was weird."

When she finally did get home, Miss Symonds collapsed in front of her mother, vomiting and laughing hysterically before passing out until 3pm the next day.

"What I hate is that I lost control, having refused the champagne before," she said. "I got totally the wrong impression - I thought he was a sad loser while he thought he was a bit of a stud."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nds-story.html

From the above interview, she clearly had no recollection about what went on in the taxi, or afterwards.

Regarding the 99.9% quote, do you have a link to the original source video? How do you know that she wasn't in denial, or she just didn't want to discuss the details on national TV? I think you are pushing just a little bit too hard on this one Bob, and it's all a bit unsavoury to be honest.
Oh dear, oh dear. If ever there was a thread where you would be better off beating a tactical retreat to lick your wounds, it is this one, but instead, you opt to charge, Light Brigade style, back into the fray!

I honestly don't know where to start with the mess you have got yourself in, I suppose putting things in chronological order is as good a way as any, but, first, I must point out your past contention that you only ever deal in facts as a backdrop to what I say.

So, your utterly predictable defending of Boris Johnson started on the day after the story broke and you began as you meant to continue by getting a recorded quote from Carrie Symonds wrong. When this was pointed out to you, there followed suggestions from you that she was drunk and was trying to destroy the place. Attention was then switched by you to attacking the neighbour who reported the incident and a suggestion that Johnson was trying to calm down a "violent/unruly" partner soon followed.

Then, the following day, you come across the link between Carrie Symonds and John Worboys and so she who had "Probably a bit too much wine" and sounded like she was being "violent/unruly" was suddenly transformed into "a poor lady" as you started getting all moral about things just over a day after you were asking "was he humping her?".

You really surpassed yourself yesterday though after I had posted links to a couple of stories relating to Carrie Symonds and John Worboys, one of which contained a direct quote from her directly contradicting your claim that he was "her rapist" (Miss Symonds saying that she was 99.9 per cent sure that nothing had happened to her).

Incredibly, you've now gone on to compound your crass error by indulging in reckless speculation that I'm somehow offending public decency by pointing to a quote (which, despite your attempts to somehow question it's credibility because it is not in the source you used, has, surely, to be true because Miss Symonds would have have taken action against the site concerned if it wasn't) from the so called victim that she was 99.9 per cent sure that she had not been raped. As far as I can gather, the convicted serial rapist Worboys has never ever been charged with any offence, let alone rape, against Miss Symonds, so, even if I were somehow campaigning for Worboys' innocence (which I'm certainly not doing), it is a matter of fact that he is innocent in the eyes of the law of the offence against her that you, with complete certainty, stated had happened.

There's that word "fact" again. I've read through all of your contributions to this thread again as I've been typing this message and have struggled to find anything you have said that could be called factual. I'll concede that, although it appears that there is only her word for it, that Carrie Symonds did have an encounter with John Worboys in 2007 because I cannot believe that she would make the whole thing up and I'm sure it must have been a very traumatic experience for her, but that does not mean you can go drawing so many groundless conclusions, indulging in so much wild speculation and, to uise your word, making assumptions to bend this single fact around to the, deeply biased, viewpoint you have as to what happened on Friday morning.

I'll leave others to judge who has been guilty of the grubby behaviour in this thread, but my conscience is perfectly clear in that I don't feel I've done anything I should be ashamed of - as for you, all I'll say is that I can't shake off this suspicion that we'd see another change of approach from you in the matter of that row if Donald Trump was suddenly to withdraw his backing for Boris Johnson and start pitching for Jeremy Hunt.