George, in your otherwise splendid polemic against the church (if I understood you correctly) were you right to say Paula Vennels (as she desires to be) was vilified, hugely or otherwise? I am not aware of any ad hominem attacks and simple sustained or even barbed commentary on her role as a CEO is hardly vilification. Relying on, and pointing out evidence, is not vilification. On the other hand, are you vilifying the hapless Stephen Bradshaw by describing him as 'ludicrous'? I did wonder, in the absence of detail, what aspect of the witness was ludicrous. Were his answers to Kay Burley like questions ( do you want to say sorry now...) from the phalanx of Kings Counsel, his black shirt and tie perhaps?Of course it was not his Liverpool accent, was it? Bradshaw was simply a low hanging foot soldier firing bullets made far higher up the foot chain.
The real shame is that Paula didn't see how much shame she would bring to the church. She has to bear that now till she dies.
George, in your otherwise splendid polemic against the church (if I understood you correctly) were you right to say Paula Vennels (as she desires to be) was vilified, hugely or otherwise? I am not aware of any ad hominem attacks and simple sustained or even barbed commentary on her role as a CEO is hardly vilification. Relying on, and pointing out evidence, is not vilification. On the other hand, are you vilifying the hapless Stephen Bradshaw by describing him as 'ludicrous'? I did wonder, in the absence of detail, what aspect of the witness was ludicrous. Were his answers to Kay Burley like questions ( do you want to say sorry now...) from the phalanx of Kings Counsel, his black shirt and tie perhaps?Of course it was not his Liverpool accent, was it? Bradshaw was simply a low hanging foot soldier firing bullets made far higher up the foot chain.