egg

I don't know about Dickson but I know from speaking with a manager that Saints expect the other club to cover all wages. Seems odd - much better to be paying 50% of a players wages than 100% if he's surplus to requirements.

I don't know. You continue to give the impression that you do. If you know anything please share - you can do that without revealing sources However, If you know nothing please stop trying to give the impression that you know stuff. Asking people to draw conclusions from loaded questions doesn't help anyone.

Anyone know if the Horns is a stream or satelite?

That's nonsense. You can reveal stuff without blowing someones cover. The problem is that you imply that you know stuff but don't say anything. I'm not gonna speculate as to whether you actually know anything (you haven't said that you do) but why give all the innuendo if you're not prepared to give any actual information?

It depends. Eg, you want to buy or loan a player from us why should NC play the nice guy? You want to tender to do building work, why should NC be a nice guy? In any dealings would anyone criticize NC if he structured deals to receive payment sooner than we ourselves were prepared to make payment? Again, without any facts from you or anyone it's impossible to put your point into context.

Because you have insinuated that you have factual information about various matters that you refer to. When pressed for detail you put up the shutters and give a load of old waffle. If you know nothing, don't imply that your a fountain of knowledge.

You have hinted that you have knowledge about certain matters, not least the training ground situation. You insinuate that NC is a factor. Do you actually know anything? If so, share.

I agree, but if people claim to know answers they should say more, ie say what you know or keep it zipped. Corky Morris has told us what he knows and hasn't embarrassed anyone, if others really know stuff then do the same.

Ms Symonds came on the scene way after the split iirc. In between times Mlt was knocking around with a then colleague of mine. It was years ago but I'm as sure as I can be that it was that way around. Got fook all to do with the thread though.

first bit is also incorrect.

No idea. Perhaps several of those people weren't up to scratch. Anyone could speculate why to to all of the above but if you know the answer please share (sources not needed, so no excuses).

I get the need to preserve sources, but I don't believe that precludes sharing more without the source or specifics being identified. Saying "I know stuff but can't say" is just daft. It's not difficult to give information but avoid blowing someones cover and/or making defamatory remarks.

What model mate, and what HD? I'm at Rownhams so could pop in tomorrow on the way home. PM your details.

How much for just the box? Whereabouts are you?

That's a long winded way of saying that there are degrees of severity of noncery. That we agree on. Where I disagree with others is that I don't think its ever acceptable, morally or legally.

Agree with the above, it's a fine thread Mrs Egg (she's read a few chapters, but is too slim to be eligible to read it all) is grateful for an opportunity to know how the story unfolds. Hopefully other non obese women will learn of this opportunity to "read" this book and will tune in? Cheers Mr Bearsy, you're fulfilling a very kind public service. Keep it up.

The shades of grey go to mitigation, not culpability. Stealing a can of petrol isn't as bad as stealing the car to put it in but it's all dishonesty. There is no grey area with sexual offences towards kids, just degrees oF severity.

Wtf does that have to do with this thread? Saville was a nonce by all accounts, who f^cked and molested kids. Peel admitted getting blow jobs off kids. Peel admitted he didn't ask so by your rationale he's better than those who actively seek out children. Your grading dog sh!t into different categories of dog **** but it's all brown and smelly.

Yeah, ones wrong and the other is wronger. Are you trying to say that you believe that if you don't bother asking it's ok to f^ck a kid? Frankly you ain't making much sense to me.

That's not my reading of a few of the posts above.

That was my opinion. I agree with the legal position.

You're guilty of statutory rape. A minor can't consent.

You assume that these people don't know that these kids are kids. John Peel said that the girls were as young as 13. Jimmy Saville visited schools and childrens hospitals, met kids who wrote to his show, had dancers on top of the pops from schools. Assuming he had sex with one or more of these people, can it really be said that he had no idea that they were minors?

The old trainspotting situation. That's very different to what's being talked about in this thread, and in the few posts above. There's a difference between being ignorant/turning a blind eye and being duped but it's an offence either way. In your scenario it would be hard to not be sympathetic if you had blatantly been lied to, particularly if you had met in a club or a bar where people are likely to have been id'd.

Your initial point was that if a groupie threw herself at a star for "favours" then it's fine, regardless of age. It's not. You now try to justify it by saying that if they're 15 then it's ok. It's not. The point you also seem to make is that if the statutory rape is between a rock star and a child, then its ok. It's not. You interpret what you believe to be my position but you'll see I've not said that at all. My point, simply, is that it's wrong for a grown man to have sex with a minor, ie a child under 16 irrespective of the circumstances.