egg

My guess is that they've been taking legal advice to see if there was enough procedural irregularity to litigate. Having been told no, they had a public moan about the panel to get their thoughts out there, and followed it up with a "let's move on" message from Solak.

I genuinely don't think anyone saw it as an issue...he may have hated Boro for only giving him one game, who knows, but the point is that he had no interest in the case thus he could sit. I take your point though, this discussion was easily avoided.

Yep, spot on. Although I don't accept that Tonda wouldn't have known the rule, and that his position probably is untenable, there comes a point where you've got to pick a lane and either back your man or otherwise. Decision made. Move on.

Duplicate.

I can't agree with that. The approach to panels and arbitrations is the same as it is for the judiciary. Judges frequently hear cases involving former partners or colleagues from their firms if they were solicitors, or colleagues from chambers if they were barristers, even former trainees/pupils of theirs, their mates, etc. None of that ordinarily gives the judge a sufficient interest in the case to have to recuse themselves. Sure, I get how it looks, but this Winnie lad kicking ball for Boro a million years ago does not get close to being challengeable.

Yep. The club would have been better advised not to bother putting out that nonsense yesterday, and just left it to Solak.

I'm not sure how the lawyers advice falls on Parsons. Someone decided to swerve Paris Smith, and instead instructed the firm who represented Notts Forest in their PSR disciplinary defence. That was a solid piece of judgement. Its from there it seemed to go downhill. It's fair to assume that the solicitors recommended Counsel, and picking a criminal specialist for a sports disciplinary of this magnitude was mental. Whatever Parsons may have got wrong, he can't be blamed for the legal advice and approach.

Yep, terrible from the copper. As for the PM, take the knee for black lives, but stay silent about the murder of a white man at the hands of a Sikh for almost 6 months, and as Osvoldoramo says, only speaking out under pressure from the speaker. Shameful.

Player

That was a horrendous case, and the police were a disgrace. Life sentence, and 21 year minimum term though, so some kind of justice has been done.

Austerity, slashing the public sector, no benefits for immigrants or the mentally ill, scrap the NHS and replace with something unspecified, and magically stop brown people crossing the channel. I think that's it.

You're assuming what I'm arguing. I'm assuming you agree that a triple locked state pension is unaffordable, or is that the part of the welfare state that you'll get one day so would like to keep?

Indeed. I'm struggling to understand why anyone thinks that a bloke who wants to form a government based on borrowing is the solution to a government borrowing crisis.

It didn't help, but Major's government doubled the debt between 90 and 95 in their attempts to deal with the recession and recovery, then Brown's put 50% on between 2008 and 2010 for similar reasons. It's been downhill from there for a variety of reasons, but Christ knows why anyone would think Lowe is the answer.