egg

Previous results do not mean he avoids criticism. Defensive selection has been shocking this season and has cost us. Any other manager would rightly be pulled up for selecting a RB at LB, a CB at RB, and leaving our best LB on the bench. In the previous game the selection of Djenepo at LWB was equally nuts. His selection last night cost us the game, pure and simple.

Yep. Our 2nd best RB at LB, our best LB on the bench, our new CB at RB and Vester fecking gard at CB. Crazy selection.

I think it's a Bertrand thing, not a Danso thing. Bertrand is out for whatever reason and Danso is deemed the best option.

Wife

Only he knows the motivation behind his blacking up, ie was it just naive dressing up? This whole thing is being judged subjectively by people based on the standards that society makes people feel that they must adopt in 2019, rather than the intention / motivation by Trudeau at the time and based on acceptable social standards of the time. To my mind he saw nothing wrong and meant no harm. In that point, I have a white friend with a mixed race wife and kids. He blacked up at a party a few years back. Naive, yes, but not racially motivated although someone seeing the pics would scream racism.

Numbers

A car from ebay. Paid a PayPal deposit too. Was a shock in the morning.

What political party pitches their general election manifesto on their likely coalition stance?! The lib dems have adopted a clear position which will attract votes. Aside of brexit, the obvious need for change to the political landscape after recent chaos, and the shift further right of the tories and further left of labour, there is room for growth for a centre ish party. That plus the clear message that a vote for lib dems is a remain vote, I think its unwise to under estimate what may happen in the event of an election. That said, the dual lib dem and brexit party threat is not lost on Boris, and the knowledge that he could nullify their threat by exiting on 31/10 with no deal may actually make their threat an academic one.

Refuge

It really isn't. Fantasy footy stats don't look at whether a 6ft 6 centre back stands there statuesque while the ball drifts 4 inches over his head, or he wanders upfield like van Dijk, or takes a week to turn. He was appalling on Saturday, the criticism from the commentators embarrassing, but because of the collective team effort and a little luck he picked up a fantasy footy clean sheet bonus. Stats don't tell the whole story.

Blimey. Sadoldgit, this is really simple. Boycott has been convicted. It's not necessary or appropriate for you, me, or anyone, to question the evidence or reasoning behind that decision. Your request on the other thread calling for me to support that conviction, with evidence, was just odd and this new thread even odder. I'm not getting into the Evans debate. It's a different case on different facts but the reality is, unlike Boycott, the bloke has ultimately been acquited. As for your case, the reality is that you only put one side of the story but why you feel the need to share any of that in the public domain I'm not sure. Please do yourself a favour, ask that this thread be deleted and move on to other subjects.

I thought his signing was risky and before Saturday I hadn't changed my mind but he impressed me on Saturday. Really good movement, strong and good pace. Great technique for the shot that hit the post and unlucky with the chance that was saved.

Wow. Superb goal. Skill, strength, just brilliant.

How are we doing with daisies? I like a daisy.

For a case you claim to know so much about, you're wrong. The court accepted (twice) that she was hit about 20 times around the body and head. To answer your question, yes, she looks like she'd been knocked about. Again, i still don't understand your fascination with revisiting the case. The fella was found guilty and you're in no position to judge to the contrary, for whatever purpose. I've made my point, so have the last word mate.

Why do you feel the need to look for, or ask for, proof when a court has considered all the evidence and determined that there was sufficient proof to convict? I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to achieve here, and why. It's odd in the extreme.

Bass

I can't be any clearer than I have been. He has been convicted. I have no wish to comment on hypothetical matters, or indeed explore the evidence, or put forward evidence to prove something that's already been proven. Re the names. Your position and approach to this matter, imo, is stupid / moronic / ridiculous etc. I offer no apology if you disagree.

FFS!! You're nuts pal. I'm not calling to have his knighthood revoked, merely I think it's a surprising award given the serious conviction he has received from a French court. I have no need to, or interest in, attempting to re prosecute the case on a forum to a moron

Are you for real? I'm not the one judging him one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that a court have, and found him guilty. You seeking to play internet judge/jury is ridiculous.

He did beat her. The court concluded so. I mean no disrespect mate, but you are doing yourself no favours here. Sometimes it's best to walk away and stop digging.

If the theme of your posts are not questioning the conviction then I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but to my mind you're talking boll0cks. The fella was convicted by a court in a civilised country of hitting her like 20 times. His maintaining of innocence, and showing no remorse, makes it worse rather than better.

I followed the thread mate. The inconsistency is breathtaking. Seems to be one rule for cricketers, another for footballers. Boycott is a convicted woman beater who's shown zero remorse. That's not complicated.

Unexpected

Line