CB Fry

Danny was my favourite.

Why would I ever need to "stand up in court" to testify on the Clarkson case? These are the ramblings of a bloody nutcase. Don't lecture me on legal terms if that's your argument. Nonsense. Pure and Simple. I'm pretty sure I've never said he punched someone. I don't really care because it makes eff all difference to the case and its outcome. Pure and Simple. It's just you, not me, wittering on whether or not it was a punch and you're oddly desperate to see totally private results of the investigation to satisfy your own need for gossip. Couch it in your faux-legal bulls hit if you like but it's just classless prying on your part. Pure and Simple. The investigation - agreed by all parties - described it as an "assault" and that the producer ended up in A&E. A crime, it will never end up in court, but a crime. Pure and Simple. The investigation reached it conclusion and it hasn't been challenged. It won't be. It's over. Pure and Simple. Maybe over time you'll reconcile yourself to the fact that whether or not a punch was thrown is of infinitesimal importance in this matter. Pure and Simple.

There is only one answer to this question.

Boo hoo stop bullying me.

What part of "But Pap wouldn't do that, though" don't you understand? Keep flogging it though. Keep flogging it.

Clearly it isn't "practically the very definition of wealth redistribution" but Delldays liked it so well done to you both.

A discount would be below market rate though, right? Kind of what the word discount means.

The ratio of council houses sold to new ones built is about 11 to 1 so let's not pretend this scheme is about building houses for people who need them. And fascinating use of the phrase "market rate" in support of a plan to flog houses with up to a £107k discount. What market rate is that then?

A six game winning streak going into the last game of the season? Not entirely sure how you can make a "fairly easy case" for that, but I am a miserable git*. *Note to self: avoid threads with "Just for fun" in the title.

Let's go back to where I joined the debate shall we? That post was nonsense then and it still is. The only nuances are your dead-fish flapping as you desperately try and formulate a position to prove your foolish assertion right. From pompous (I learnt long ago never to believe the papers, I did) to lying (about not speculating to almost immediately speculating like mad about what type of punch was thrown) to crying (boo hoo CB Fry is a bully). Despite those nuances of your shape-shifting from anti-speculator to speculator-in-chief (was it a haymaker??) the fact remains that the Clarkson affair was not hearsay, and Jeremy Clarkson himself and the witnesses and the producer could all easily stand up in court and tell you that. They won't ever need to as the whole affair is done and dusted and people have moved on. You've struggled to move on, but you crack on pretending it was "hearsay" where the facts of the case are being disputed. It was not, they are not. I was right umpteen posts ago and still am leaving me to devote all my energy to mocking you. You seem to have missed that nuance but then you aint too bright.

Many people also said Everest would never land on the moon.

This. I don't need to do a prediction thing to know we won't finish fourth. 6th or 7th, hopeful of a Tottenham collapse and we make 6th. And that's your brilliant season right there.

While Delldays and co get all dewy eyed about Thatchers 80s revolution the reality is this policy is a monumental fu ck you to hundreds of thousands of hardworking young (and not so young) people working hard and paying huge sums to private landlords and saving for deposits. £70k and £100k giveaways to a handpicked selection of lucky people doesn't strike me as particularly fair to all those private renters spending years saving up but it all feels like something Maggie would have done so obviously it's brilliant.

Perfect. There's the expert explanation as to why this policy is horrific as I said this morning. And it is horrific for all those reasons. I especially like the argument about it these houses aren't the Government's to sell anyway. If, say, the Green Party announced a right to buy for anyone privately renting house or flat from any private landlord they'd get laughed out of town as nutcases.

England International standard players = generally better players than the average = this and their English-ness mean they have high market value = high earning potential for individual players = bigger clubs pay higher wages and provide opportunities to play CL and/or win things = players move on.

Fair's fair, the Conservative plan to flog housing association housing is beyond horrific. Cynical and completely counter-productive with regard to the housing challenge. Can imagine it receiving a rapturous response from some on here though, so mission accomplished.

What "misinformation on the internet"? You've been complaining about the BBC's official statement on the matter. Verbal has very effectively dealt with your muddled and contradictory complaints about that already. Far from it being an opportunity to agree to disagree you just come across as incredibly confused and incorrect. If anyone is dishing out "misinformation on the internet" I'd say it was you.

Sometimes I don't even need to try. You're a walking talking self-parody.

We will have to accept that one season they will come up to the dizzy heights of L1. Annoyingly Waddock does seem perfectly capable of delivering it.

So then, what is the second side to the story being that Clarkson, the BBC and the producer are on one side together in agreement. Who is on the other side and what is it? And If I am mocking Whitey it is because he doesn't actually have an opinion on this subject. He is just flailing about looking for something to get upset with but he can't work out what. Anyone dismissing the matter as media "hearsay" on one hand then demanding to be told intimate gossip like what type of punch was thrown ("was it a haymaker??") on the other is a deeply confused individual. The pair of you are picking at non existent or irrelevant threads on this matter but neither of you seem to have any specific point to make apart from a strange need to turn something that has been resolved and dealt with into an unsolvable mystery. It's bizarre, not an "opinion" that needs to be "respected" and I'll happily mock you for it.

Still trying that eh? Fk me you're boring.

That's nice, dear.

Awful lot of waffle there but really not making any particular point. Great work. Almost like you are desperate to find fault in something that all parties involved have agreed on and moved on from. Your "I know about disciplinary procedure, I do" stuff really only becomes relevant if one of the parties subsequently makes a complaint. Guess what, they aren't going to. Not Clarkson, not anyone else. There is no great mystery and nothing contentious in this affair, but well done on your desperate digging around to find something to get upset about.

I think as a Saints supporter I "really really want to beat" every club we play in the league, be it Burnley, Villa, Liverpool or Arsenal. So Bournemouth would be the same, but I'd want them to stay up and do well in the league elsewhere. That isn't a rivalry.

I'd agree with Jenas on it. But if he had given a red, then I wouldn't blame the ref, I'd blame Pelle for flailing his arms about. Sometimes clumsiness deserves punishment but our boy got away with it.