hypochondriac

Yep. Unfortunate that soggy is trying to turn it into his usual demonisation of the "right." Like you say its been a disgrace from both sides and it needs addressing because 99% of people would agree that content like that should not be being published.

That was also disgusting. The newspapers need to take a look at themselves. I'd support regulation.

So I see the Sun has published details of a Stokes family tragedy from years ago. I was shocked that a newspaper is still allowed to act in this manner and stick something on their front page that surely cannot be newsworthy? Digging up a family tragedy from decades ago and trying to sell the newspaper off the back of the celebrity involved is disgusting behaviour and whilst I support freedom of the press, there should be a limit in my opinion.

Tbf if he actually answered the questions put to him I guess people would be more civil.

Only the guillable with character weaknesses would say that. It's akin to a gambling addict rationalising his choices after he's lost it all. You got suckered in.

I would say you've definitely helped people on here. You're a living cautionary tale.

Can you imagine soggy talking to his ex wife with the same pompous manner he displays on here? I don't blame her, I'd get arsey too.

It's more the fact that he clearly cares so deeply about persuading random people on a forum about his incredibly misguided point of view. You've already pointed out the clear contradictions and why people are peeved at him yet he either doesn't understand or more likely is too haughty to admit to it. Bizarre behaviour and it does speak to some psychological issues. In summary: saintsweb is serious business.

Yep. I think it speaks to a deep weakness of character to allow yourself to get entangled with someone willing to make false accusations about you. Some definite soul searching and analysis of your character required once that's run it's course.

Absolutely this. Notice how he claims others don't answer his questions yet he will not reply directly to your post or address the points raised. He knows he has egg on his face over this issue yet his answer is to double down and get disturbingly personal about his own issues as if that gives his contradictory stances on the two cases some sort of legitimacy. As someone else has said, you'd be better off deleting this thread and pretending it never existed. I'm starting to worry that soggy is having a little bit of a breakdown.

What sort of narcissist starts their own thread just to talk about themselves? Guilty conscience perhaps?

You mean like those questioning the Ched Evans verdict were doing? But that made them rape apologists?

Blimey. Also when the BBC run a headline like Everton hit four past United. I go to the article only to be confronted with the fact its womens football. They are running some sort of womens sports campaign this year which probably explains the sleight of hand.

Admirable attempt to drain the toxic swamp that is this thread.

He's a superb player. Great buy well done sfc.

Superb three points away from home. Good performance from saints and we should hopefully finish comfortably in mid table this year.

No I'm just curious about the case. I'd have to request hard evidence before I believe you.

Were those who questioned the verdict of Ched Evans rape apologists? Because that's what you called them for doing exactly what you are doing here.

So the CPS are infallible and any prosecution they bring is evidence of guilt? Presumably whoever adjudicated the Boycott trial felt they had definitive proof as evidenced by the guilty verdict and failure of the appeal. What's the difference other than Boycott actually losing his appeal so his conviction stood up to scrutiny twice.

He smeared everyone with that attitude as a rape apologist.

"Honest Mr Policeman, she slipped she did. I know Mrs Soggy claims I slapped her about a bit but it's nasty lies. Look at the bruising on her face, I'd have definitely broken a bone or two if I'd punched her twenty times like she claimed." Geoffrey should have used the soggy defence and he'd be off scot free.

Of all the people he could have chosen, Geoffrey Boycott is a really odd hill to die on.

Actual lol. Yes there is often an assumption that the man is guilty straight away isn't there???

The withdrawal agreement is unacceptable because it locks us into something potentially forever and we have no way of leaving. My point was that this is unacceptable for a sovereign nation to accept so it is semantics what you choose to call it. I'm not arguing hypotheticals.

The point about whether it's a brexit deal or a brexit transition deal is really semantics in the context of what I was talking about. It was clearly unacceptable and raises questions about the motives of the people who negotiated it. It's certainly debatable whether no deal violates the GFA, I note yesterday that the court case arguing that was dismissed in Northern Ireland.