Spy or not.. aint she gorge??

[darkeyes]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10486696.stm

Been following this lil story since it broke and have no intentions of commenting upon the rightness or wrongs of any of it or the guilt or otherwise of those who are alleged to have "done it". And I don't care either way.. nations have done it since time immemorial and it always brings more sadness and tragedy upon the world..

But if I may be flippant for a moment.. isn't Anna Chapman bloody gorge? :bigrin: She could ask me owt she liked an me wud melt..:tong:

[fredtyg]

Yep. Absolutely gorgeous. I think she took the queer out of me, at least temporarily.

[void()]

Sweet, and yeah I'd probably do her. But really not interested beyond saying, yeah she's hawt.

[jamieknyc]

Judging from the amatuerish way they went about things, these people seem to have watched too many spy movies.

[nwmscurious]

Why is it that I can see an upcoming Playboy spread, "Spy Girls of Moscow"?

[jamieknyc]

"From Russia With Love" was supposed to be just in the movies.....

[darkeyes]

Judging from the amatuerish way they went about things, these people seem to have watched too many spy movies.

They been proved guilty then Jamie? No presumption of innocence?? Tsk tsk an from a lawyer 2...

..who cares if they did it an they wer amateur or owt else..she remains.. GORGE!!!!:bigrin:

[darkeyes]

She's rather plain, has a horse face, and is what some people call a butterface.

Not to mention she's a spy! A dumb one at that too.

Why people keep obsessing over how subjectively "hot" she is, is rather tiresome.

Well.. thats 1 divvie me don havta worry 'bout as competition then.. gr8 thing 'bout peeps wiv no taste they leave gorge peeps 'lone..:bigrin:

..an ALLEGED spy sweetie..always memba that until an if an accused is found guilty..;) Dumb? Mayb.. anotha judgement wich yas not qualified 2 make..:rolleyes:

..an am not obsessed as it happens.. am howeva mitily attracted.. ther a world a difference..:):tong:

[Annika L]

What for you call me spy, Comrade?

Oh, you mean her! Oh yeah, she's cute too. :tong:

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

She is rank Amateur...she has no Moose and Squirrel.......
And, as far as the looks department, Rough..to each his/her own. :}
Cat

[tenni]

Yes :tongue:
She is very attractive and that is a sexy pose....but not as sweet and tarty purty as darkeyes.

*feels smack to the back of my lesser mortal head coming :bigrin:

[citystyleguy]

okay, in the looks department, too hooked on the posing; now if you want a hot lady in the spy trade, there is one and only one, Natasha!!! now that is my kind of lady, but her taste in men? fearless leader, boris, yuck!

Natasha, Ms. Adams (of the Adams family) now those are two ladys to lust after, i know i did back when! oh, hell, who am i kidding, this boy still does!:rolleyes:

[Pasadenacpl2]

Attractive? Yes.

Should be in a very dark hole for a very long time? Also, yes.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

Attractive? Yes.

Should be in a very dark hole for a very long time? Also, yes.

Pasa

Tut tut tut Pasa.. am surprised at u.. fine upstanding pillar a the community assumin guilt like that.. wot happened 2 due process?

..but if she found guilty..Cuba not the only island nation wich has dark holes for "enemies of the state".. me has fine attic an also ther is the plonk cella.. will gladly share 'em.. me has cuffs an otha restraints jus like 'merican nicks..an believe me.. am always quite happy 2 use 'em.. often... an cctv has otha uses than jus helpin make sure she is securely locked away..:tong: Will havta put a lock or 2 on doors an mayb even nice bars on attic windas but ther ya r.. God Pasa.. me wud save ya a fortune outa ya precious taxes.. gladly put 'er up for nowt..

..yea me knos Kate will hav summat 2 say.. but u let me worry bout 'er..:bigrin:

[darkeyes]

Yes :tongue:
She is very attractive and that is a sexy pose....but not as sweet and tarty purty as darkeyes.

*feels smack to the back of my lesser mortal head coming :bigrin:

Ya ole smoothie, Tenni..

*gives Tenni affectionate pat on top of head*:)

*Puts cricket bat back in games room*:bigrin:

[Pasadenacpl2]

Tut tut tut Pasa.. am surprised at u.. fine upstanding pillar a the community assumin guilt like that.. wot happened 2 due process?

Fran...where there's smoke...

If a court determines them innocent, all well and good. But, we don't make espionage cases against people unless we know we can make it stick. The only thing worse than admitting a spy was in your country is making a mistake about admitting it.

Presumption of innocence only means that if a case cannot be proved, that they must be set free. It's a legal term. It doesn't apply to anything else.

Pasa

[Annika L]

Fran...where there's smoke...

If a court determines them innocent, all well and good. But, we don't make espionage cases against people unless we know we can make it stick. The only thing worse than admitting a spy was in your country is making a mistake about admitting it.

Presumption of innocence only means that if a case cannot be proved, that they must be set free. It's a legal term. It doesn't apply to anything else.

Pasa

This kind of thinking genuinely frightens me.

Where there is smoke, there could be fire, or just some idiot with a smoke bomb, or it could actually be steam we're seeing and it just looks like smoke, or it might just be a trick of the light on some wisps of cloud, or....

We don't make espionage cases against people unless we know we can make it stick?? Just like we never make frivolous charges of any other kind? No, our government (or anybody else in our society) would never *ever* charge someone with a serious crime just to discredit them or to punish them for unpopular or undesirable (but completely legal) actions.

It is a very short trip from this kind of attitude to saying, "hey, since we don't charge people unless we know we can prove them guilty, why do we need these trial and jury things, really? Can't we just skip that whole step and save ourselves a lot of time and money?"

If a courtroom determines them innocent, all well and good? Really? I think OJ Simpson would have something to say about that...he was tried for Nicole Simpson's murder and determined innocent, and yet because of the media portrayal and how sure everyone was of his guilt, there was a pure shit-storm of outrage by people across the country who never had the opportunity to see the actual evidence and arguments presented in the courtroom! If Anna Chapman is determined innocent in court, how many will say "oh, I guess we were wrong then", vs. how many will say, "OMG, what a travesty of American justice, when we can't even nail an obviously guilty spy for espionage!!"? I mean, what conclusion do you draw, anyway...if we don't accuse unless we're sure we can convict, then when we fail to convict...must we conclude that the accusation didn't really happen? Surely not...the only solution is that the conviction was wrongly thwarted!

When you are assuming guilt of *anybody* for *anything* based on the media portrayal of evidence against them, you are walking down a dangerous road. And that road is getting more crowded every year. And that scares me.

[tenni]

...bbb...but Pasa and Annika
I thought that this entire thread was about who was hotter..Anna or darkeyes?...lol :tong:

Then we have cityguy trying to bring in Natasha as hotter...lol

* disclaimer. In no way is the sponsor of post #19 stating that darkeyes is a spy... She could use franspeak to confuse the enemy though when sending messages back to mother Scotland.

[Annika L]

bbb...but Pasa and Annika
I thought that this entire thread was about who was hotter..Anna or darkeyes?...lol :tong:

*k'pah'fnerkle* Fran is clearly hotter...not much to discuss there. I was just commenting was all.

[Pasadenacpl2]

This kind of thinking genuinely frightens me.

Where there is smoke, there could be fire, or just some idiot with a smoke bomb, or it could actually be steam we're seeing and it just looks like smoke, or it might just be a trick of the light on some wisps of cloud, or....

We don't make espionage cases against people unless we know we can make it stick?? Just like we never make frivolous charges of any other kind? No, our government (or anybody else in our society) would never *ever* charge someone with a serious crime just to discredit them or to punish them for unpopular or undesirable (but completely legal) actions.

It is a very short trip from this kind of attitude to saying, "hey, since we don't charge people unless we know we can prove them guilty, why do we need these trial and jury things, really? Can't we just skip that whole step and save ourselves a lot of time and money?"

If a courtroom determines them innocent, all well and good? Really? I think OJ Simpson would have something to say about that...he was tried for Nicole Simpson's murder and determined innocent, and yet because of the media portrayal and how sure everyone was of his guilt, there was a pure shit-storm of outrage by people across the country who never had the opportunity to see the actual evidence and arguments presented in the courtroom! If Anna Chapman is determined innocent in court, how many will say "oh, I guess we were wrong then", vs. how many will say, "OMG, what a travesty of American justice, when we can't even nail an obviously guilty spy for espionage!!"? I mean, what conclusion do you draw, anyway...if we don't accuse unless we're sure we can convict, then when we fail to convict...must we conclude that the accusation didn't really happen? Surely not...the only solution is that the conviction was wrongly thwarted!

When you are assuming guilt of *anybody* for *anything* based on the media portrayal of evidence against them, you are walking down a dangerous road. And that road is getting more crowded every year. And that scares me.

You are taking this to an extreme that was not in any way what I said.

I said, VERY specifically, that they don't charge people with espionage without knowing they can make the case. I limited my comment to espionage, and not other crimes. Why? Because Espionage charges carry the additional weight of having international political ramifications. You don't make the charge, much less make it public, unless you have the goods. Why? Because the reduction in ability to work with other nations if they are wrong far outweighs letting a spy continue to work until you can prove it.

It is a very, very specific circumstance I am referring to. It does not apply across the board. You may not like that it applies even here. But not liking it doesn't change the fact that this is the way things work in the really real world.

Pasa

[Annika L]

Pasa,

I am encouraged that your statement was only meant to include charges of espionage. Thank you for clarifying that.

Let me revise my post in light of this information:

This kind of thinking genuinely frightens me.

Where there is smoke, there could be fire, or just some idiot with a smoke bomb, or it could actually be steam we're seeing and it just looks like smoke, or it might just be a trick of the light on some wisps of cloud, or....

We don't make espionage cases against people unless we know we can make it stick?? No, our government would never *ever* charge someone with espionage just to discredit them or to punish them for unpopular or undesirable actions, if they thought it was worth their while.

It is a very short trip from this kind of attitude to saying, "hey, since we don't charge people unless we know we can prove them guilty, why do we need these trial and jury things, really? Can't we just skip that whole step and save ourselves a lot of time and money?"

If a courtroom determines them innocent, all well and good? Really? If Anna Chapman is determined innocent in court, how many will say "oh, I guess we were wrong then", vs. how many will say, "OMG, what a travesty of American justice, when we can't even nail an obviously guilty spy for espionage!!"? I mean, what conclusion do you draw, anyway...if we don't accuse unless we're sure we can convict, then when we fail to convict...must we conclude that the accusation didn't really happen? Surely not...the only solution is that the conviction was wrongly thwarted!

When you are assuming guilt of *anybody* for *anything* based on the media portrayal of evidence against them or (especially) on faith in your government, you are walking down a dangerous road. And the fact that so many are willing to walk that road scares me, since the longterm consequences can impact us all.

[DuckiesDarling]

To answer the original post. Not particularly, but neither do I find her ugly. She looks like a real person of Russian origin based on photos of Russian people I've seen over the years.

To anything else...if she and her friends are guilty that will be dealt with, but at least they are entitled to a fair trial.

[darkeyes]

To answer the original post. Not particularly, but neither do I find her ugly. She looks like a real person of Russian origin based on photos of Russian people I've seen over the years.

To anything else...if she and her friends are guilty that will be dealt with, but at least they are entitled to a fair trial.

Yep she dus look Russian.. kno a few Russians who liv 'ere.. don kno ne ugly 1's tho hav seen sum on telly n stuff.. do kno..an hav seen sum gorge 1's.. an Anna the luffly certainly fits inta the gorge category.. :bigrin:

[darkeyes]

You are taking this to an extreme that was not in any way what I said.

I said, VERY specifically, that they don't charge people with espionage without knowing they can make the case.

It is a very, very specific circumstance I am referring to.

Pasa

Nope Pasa..thats not wotya sed hun.. an in justice it shudn matta who ya mite upset 2 get 2 truth of the matta..

Peeps r presumed innocent until proven guilty.. but far 2 many pay that lip service cos they think like u an don believe it.. that ther is no smoke wivout fire.. wich as we all kno is a rite loada bollox.. thats the attitude of gossips an gossip has broken many peeps.. an its the attitude of far 2 many wen it cums 2 crime an the justice system.. its the attitude a states wen they wanna ruin peeps or persecute 'em, wetha it b individually or collectively....

.. but me has been havin lil bitta fun 'ere.. yea..me fancies 'er rotten but me fancies lotsa peeps rotten.. an serious game as it can b.. hav nev been able 2 take spyin.. espionage as u put it... seriously... evry 1 dus it an every 1 gets all hot n bothad wen ther country is sposed 2 hav been spied gainst.. then they don believe it wen ther lot get caught.. nice innocent businessman or preacher woman, kids, family an nice house lotsa m8's..... they wudn do that wud they? But on otha hand.. ya don think states set up peeps for reasons of ther own?? Dunno wetha Anna Chapman an the othas wer set up or did the deed.. me prefers.. WOTEVA THE SERIOUSNESS OF ALLEGATIONS.. to await the evidence an the result of any trial... thats the justice system wich exists in both our countries...

Espionage is all a big joke, an unfortunately its a big joke wich costs lives an is destructive 2 foreign.. no... human relations....

[BI BOYTOY]

i just want to taste her cum. yep i know im crude

[darkeyes]

i just want to taste her cum. yep i know im crude

No arguments from me on that hun.. :tong:

[jamieknyc]

The point some people were trying to make was as follows (and I am speaking as being probably the only person here who has any actual experience with federal criminal prosecutions):

Federal prosecutors do not act like revolving-door state district attorneys. Like baseball players, they get graded on percentages, and they do not bring indictments unless they believe their investigators have produced sufficient evidence to get a conviction. That does not mean that good defense lawyers can't pick holes in the U.S. Attorney's evidence, and of course juries always have the right to set someone free even if they are guilty as hell (what the law calls 'jury nullification"). However, in most criminal cases there is no dispute that the defendant did the conduct that he or she is accused of, and the case is really about what crimes they can be convicted of based on that condyuct and what the sentence should be.

[darkeyes]

The point some people were trying to make was as follows (and I am speaking as being probably the only person here who has any actual experience with federal criminal prosecutions):

Federal prosecutors do not act like revolving-door state district attorneys. Like baseball players, they get graded on percentages, and they do not bring indictments unless they believe their investigators have produced sufficient evidence to get a conviction. That does not mean that good defense lawyers can't pick holes in the U.S. Attorney's evidence, and of course juries always have the right to set someone free even if they are guilty as hell (what the law calls 'jury nullification"). However, in most criminal cases there is no dispute that the defendant did the conduct that he or she is accused of, and the case is really about what crimes they can be convicted of based on that condyuct and what the sentence should be.

Most Jamie? Possibly.. not all by a long chalk..

It is quite right that prosecution services do not proceed until they believe they have the evidence to prove the guilt of an individual or individuals.. then they have to convince a jury.. it may well be as you say that defence lawyers believe their client guilty,, and that a trial, such as it is pans out just as you say.. but not all.. not by a very long way indeed. Some defendants will be found not guilty who are as guilty as sin, or the trial will founder on some technicality.. equally some defendants are found guilty who are innocent of any crime.. some of those will be aquitted on appeal or because new evidence has turned up..some will languish in jail until their sentence is done.. and many are found not guilty because surprise, surprise, they were and are not guilty of any crime..

Thats why we have presumption of innocence and the principle of trial by jury to as far as we can protect the innocent and putting the onus on the prosecution to convince that jury on the evidence that the defendant was indeed guilty of the crimes for which he had been charged beyond reasonable doubt.. and all your lawyer waffle doesnt alter that fact... there is not always smoke without fire, and I really wish those of you who believe in proper justice would stop trying to tell us otherwise..

[darkeyes]

Found this hysterical.. mayb havta arrange lil hol 2 Moscow...:bigrin:

On serious note.. cynical ploy 2 get back ther own or justified arrests of delish yummie an chums.. so much for locked way in a dark place for long time..well Moscow can b pretty dark an dim place at times.. tee hee.. so much for cast iron case.. we'll nev kno now...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10564994.stm

[darkeyes]

Yep bloody hysterical..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10564236.stm

[darkeyes]

Seems Home Secretary is urgently reviewin lil spy lady's British citizenship.. God Tories r gonna b rite buncha spoilsports me can c it now...lil gorge yummie wonts 2 cum back an liv 'ere... can me make offer a puttin 'er up an bein guarantor for 'er future behaviour??

Now me not sayin jus wot kinda behaviour.. suffice 2 say it wud involve lotsa fun an giggles... 'n stuff...

Wots that? She str8? Merely easy peasy obstacle 2 b ovacum... no probs 2 lil tart lady:bigrin:.. howeva.. do hav a ver serious obstacle 2 ovacum...:eek: naggy knickered lady... persuadin 'er that me is ver trustworthy 2 b left 'lone wiv lil Russian gal is quite 'notha matta altogetha...:(

O well... will wait 'n c how the land lies wen we get back from France...:tong:

[shybibbw]

I totally would :tong:;)

[CuddlyKate]

Seems Home Secretary is urgently reviewin lil spy lady's British citizenship.. God Tories r gonna b rite buncha spoilsports me can c it now...lil gorge yummie wonts 2 cum back an liv 'ere... can me make offer a puttin 'er up an bein guarantor for 'er future behaviour??

Now me not sayin jus wot kinda behaviour.. suffice 2 say it wud involve lotsa fun an giggles... 'n stuff...

Wots that? She str8? Merely easy peasy obstacle 2 b ovacum... no probs 2 lil tart lady:bigrin:.. howeva.. do hav a ver serious obstacle 2 ovacum...:eek: naggy knickered lady... persuadin 'er that me is ver trustworthy 2 b left 'lone wiv lil Russian gal is quite 'notha matta altogetha...:(

O well... will wait 'n c how the land lies wen we get back from France...:tong:

You won't you know, darling. And Naggy Knickers will not be persuaded! As you well know.

[darkeyes]

You won't you know, darling. And Naggy Knickers will not be persuaded! As you well know.
aaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww... Kate... *sniff*:(