CB Fry

You appear to have changed my name to another forum contributor when you've quoted me there. You're an odd one and no mistake.

I think you might need to actually work out what you are trying to say on this matter, because frankly you're all over the shop. Found that question mark for me yet?

We could have been in the Premier League managed by someone who had before Saints finished ninth in that division straight after promotion into it, plus got to cup final and qualified for Europe; and after leaving Saints finished fifth and qualified for Europe again with another club. And won LMA manager of the year. And seems to be doing okay at yet another Premier League club. Is that where we could have been? It's worked out fine for all involved but let's not pretend we'd have spent five years in L1 under Pardew. Where's that little short bloke now?

So no answer on the great question mark mystery then. No idea why you are getting so wound up about the precise details of the actual assault. As I've already said, It's a private internal disciplinary matter and absolutely none of your business. Just looks like gossip mongering on your part really. And it's pretty bloody obvious it bears no relationship whatsoever with the Prescott thing. The key word in the statement is "unprovoked". That statement has not been contested by Clarkson and as you yourself say in your previous post it was an "agreed" statement. You understand the English word "unprovoked", yes? Feel free to post up the YouTube of Prescott and try and convince me that punch was "unprovoked". I doubt you will, you'll probably just squinny off claiming I'm bullying you. It's not me "misunderstanding" things here.

Here's the post I replied to. Where is the question mark? Anyway. Do you still think that the incident was just "hearsay" in media? I'm asking you a question, as indicated by using the correct punctuation. A simple yes or no answer would be fine.

It wasn't that many Saints fans. Many knew he would have taken us up to the Championship that season.

See no other thread on this. Just wanted to recognise a) Sherwood you absolute c#@#. Thank you. b) Enjoyed Pardew going to Sunderland and winning at last, and spectacularly too. The Toon "faithful" won't know what to feel tonight, enjoying a Sunderland tonking but dished out by their nemesis. Well done Pards.

They're not going to make the play offs and they wouldn't even if they did win four in a row.

We've been certain of 7th for weeks and weeks.

Thankfully, there's no chance of them equalising and then scoring a winner in the last ten minutes.

Maybe because everyone agrees what happened? You seem to be suggesting there is something untoward. Funny really, when you positioned yourself as being above hearsay and speculation.

That will be your spin not mine, unless you want to point out in my post anything about life threatening or ambulances - do show me. In fact I compared it to similar instances up and down the country. The spin is people trying to make out it wasn't a crime. It was- a minor, pointless crime.

Punching someone so they end up in A&E is a crime. But probably not a crime worth dragging through the courts. Much like the various punch ups that happen across the UK every weekend. Not really sure who is going to say what happened wasn't a crime, and what difference it makes anyway.

If our Jeff was born in an African township he'd have still bought his first house in southern England by the age of 30. Just hard work innit.

If they come up I think we should follow their season in a dedicated thread, but entirely positively - celebrating when they win, commiserating when they don't. Basically the opposite of the P*mpey thread. Let's all enjoy and support our second team's great adventure. Come on the Cherries! Nothing would wind them up more.

Oh please do us another pompous speech about how you don't believe hearsay and speculation in the newspapers. You're so clever to be above all that. And then massively backtrack when it dawns on you that the Clarkson incident is not hearsay at all and is what normal human being call "something that actually happened and everyone involved accepts happened". I accept your apology.

Ha! I had you down for about 50. Well done then, you earned it all fair and square, anyone else that can't do it is clearly not working as hard as you then.

Are you in your late teens/early twenties? If no, I'm not sure how relevant your up - by - my - bootstraps story is. In your day, did council house lads have to pull together £30k just for a deposit on their first house? I mean the average first time buyer these days is about 30, but 20 years ago it was closer to 20. The only possible explanation is people worked much, much harder 20 years ago. Lazy beggars ain't they these days?

LOL. Just parroting an opinion the right wing press told him to have.

You started by describing the entire event as "hearsay" conducted by the media that clever old you learned many years ago to ignore. Now, was what Lord Hall said on the matter based on "hearsay" in the media? Yes or no? Or was what Lord Hall said on the matter based on an investigation involving all parties including witnesses? Are you finally coming round to accept this incident did actually happen now? Or is it still "hearsay" and "newspaper reports and media speculation" that other less clever people "blindly believe"? Lastly, for someone supposedly above rumours in the media that clever old you many years ago learned to ignore, you seem to be desperate to hear first hand reports from the two people involved to satisfy yourself it happened. Well, high profile personalities aside, this is an internal disciplinary procedure that quite frankly is none of your fu cking business to hear chapter and verse exactly what happened. However, If you're still after salacious gossip you just might find that in your favourite tabloid.

I think you wrongly used the phrase "no one knows what actually happened". This is just untrue.

Except, of course, you are speculating. The idea that "no one knows what happened" is total speculation and, indeed, total nonsense. As is the idea all we have to refer to is "media reports" - worse than speculation, this is just a lie on your part. The BBC have conducted a full investigation, speaking to everyone involved and reached conclusions and shared them, via the Director General. You think Lord Hall based all that on "media reports" and "hearsay"? As it stands Jeremy Clarkson has not contested this or sued anyone for libel. So you might think you are being all jolly clever by disregarding everything as hearsay but clearly it isn't and saying otherwise is pointless speculation on your part.

So you've strung together some utterly meaningless and facile platitudes/maxims. Have a peanut. What's your point?

I think you're speculating more than anyone else, living in some world where the Clarkson affair is some intricate web that requires a jury to decide what happened, rather than a grumpy TV presenter going off on one and lamping someone, and then reporting it, himself, to his bosses. How long do you think this fantasy island court case with a jury and everything would take to finally, finally unpick the mysterious truth of this enigmatic kaleidoscope of a crime? The OJ Simpson trial took ten months to work through - do you think a jury could make a decision in that time on this one, or is it just one of those cases we may never, ever solve?

They did indeed. I fact pretty much no one has denied what happened, especially Clarkson himself. Whitey is spectacularly wrong about most things, though, so let him live on his "it's all hearsay" fantasy island.