Lord Duckhunter

People are perfectly entitled to protest their innocence in what ever form they deem necessary, it’s not interfering with justice until they’ve been charged, and sub judice laws kick in. Perhaps the authorities shouldn’t go sounding off about whose being investigated, perhaps the law should be changed, but again people are basing their opinions on their like or dislike of individuals and their political stance . As for the BBC, I’d abolish it anyway. It’s not impartial (nor could it ever be) and it’s not subject to commercial considerations. If you objected to Sky giving him a platform , you could cancel your subscription. Enough people do that and they’ll re think next time. If you stop watching the BBC because of it, you’ve still got to pay them, and if you refuse to do so, will be locked up. That’s more ****ing disgusting than Banksie trolling remainers on Marr. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Someone can also be the victim of a miscarriage of justice following a false accusation Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those 8 players have really picked up since he left haven’t they? They’ve backed up their complaints with commitment & quality performances. Have you ever thought Puel was right to pi ss those twts off? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Or we could leave 5 mins before the end. ****ing thousands do that anyway, so we’re halfway there. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You’ve left Palace out. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is that the Clasie who got loaned out because he couldn’t get a game. Or is there a Clasie playing week in week out and depraving Harrison a place in the side? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly. We were impossible for Swansea to catch last game because they got 3 or 4 hammerings earlier in the season. With the top 6 rarely dropping points to the relegation candidates at home a 1-0 or 2-0 defeat is starting to become the modern equivalent of nicking a point. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The CPS don’t decide if someone is the victim of a crime, a court of law does. Being too drunk to consent to sex is rape, Evens was innocent of rape, ergo she had consensual sex. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It would be a straight choice between him & Austin imo. Long offers other things that neither of them do. Can play wide in a 3, & also offers a bit more pace. If you forget the price tag & just concentrate on whether he’s a better option than Austin, you’d probably say he was on the evidence of the season so far. However, in July most people would have backed Austin to bury more chances than he has. He seems to have fallen off a cliff. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

**** me, he won’t be much longer if that’s the standard of his signings. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the problem with trying to debate snowflakes. They’re so moral and righteous that they throw stupid accusations around. I don’t approve of anyone sexually assaulting chicks, anymore than you do. The independence of the justice system should be absolute in my opinion. If that means that judges and courts give rulings that allow people to get away with abhorrent stuff, so be it. Far better that than 2 bit washed up politicians over ruling them for a bit of virtual signalling. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t talk ****ing rubbish. People have always, and will always be perfectly entitled to defend themselves when accused of something. Clearly some things will become off limits when and if he’s charged, but until then he’s perfectly entitled to proclaim his innocence on whatever platform he wants. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So who decides the public interest? You, Hain,? What’s “ The public” . I’m sure the public would be interested in stuff that’s none of their damn business, so who decides. Here’s an idea, what about letting a court decide. This I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) was The Telegraphs case, that it was in the public’s interest to name the businessman that had used NDA’s. The court disagreed so made a interim ruling against them doing so. That’s the thing, the legal process hadn’t even been exhausted when Hain blundered in, which made his contribution even worse imo. So your argument is that Lords shouldn’t interfere in the legal process unless it’s in the public interest, but if an independent judiciary rule it’s not in the public interest, they can anyway because you think it is. Principled stand you’ve got there. I’ll put that in the “you have the right to free speech, provided I agree with you” bag. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You seem to be missing my point. Hopefully it’s deliberate, cause id be worried if you didn’t get it. It’s nothing to do with Green, what he’s allegedly done, or even what the offence he’s accused of is. It’s unelected Lords bypassing the justice system & overruling court rulings. We have the same problem with free speech in modern political debate, people are all for it provided people don’t say offensive things. Free speech should be absolute and you should defend Nick Griffins right to it as vigorously as anyone’s. Same here. Just because Green seems to be an odious man, accused of awful behaviour doesn’t alter my belief that parliamentarians have no business interfering in a legal process, especially one that not yet reached its conclusion. I’ll ask you again, if JRM stood up and named the bird who accused Ched Evens, would you defend him? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll tell you what, Claudio Ranieri has some class. Can’t be too many sacked managers that would turn up and publicly pay their respects. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dear god. He’s not good enough, end of. Stock making excuses for the guy & making ridiculous comparisons with players that are. Comparing him to Fabregas is like comparing Forster to Ederson. It’s nothing to do with his role, our formation or even a personality clash with the manager. Old fashioned as it seems, he’s not playing because he’s not good enough to get into the side. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He gets the chance every single day in training. You seem to imply that it’s no big deal he wasn’t enthused playing for the development squad. Personally, I think that just reinforces Hughes decision, bloke whose done **** all in the game not enthused because it’s not a first team game, shocking. At the end of the day, if he was anywhere near ready to play, he’d have been in given the duds we’ve got. The fact he’s not is because he’s nowhere near good enough at the moment. Instead of wondering why he’s not playing, you should be wondering how poor he must be that Austin, Long & Gabbi are seen as a better bet at the moment. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pony Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m the one who is advocating a fair justice system, not you. I want judges, juries and courts to determine justice, you’re happy for one individual to over ride that. This isn’t about individual cases, this is about a principle. Politicians, or even worse, unelected peers , shouldn’t ride roughshod over due process . Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you think Davo is “frozen out”. Who should he replace , Lemina, PEH? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love Davo, one of our best ever value for money buys & a fantastic pro. However, he’s over the hill and is deservedly not playing. Maya, probably deserves a start, but I can see why Hughes doesn’t rate him. A lot of pundits don’t rate him, and to be fair he’s not any better than we have. There’s no big conspiracy in either case. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More virtual signalling pony. It’s got **** all to do with #metoopony Hain is a second rate politician desperate for the limelight. What he did is only legal because of some archaic law. Historian David Starkey claimed on Friday that privilege was granted to parliamentarians to protect them from judges interfering with parliament, not to enable parliament to interfere with the process of law in an individual case. Alan Johnson said claimed it’s granted to be used “during your legislative duties”. What legislative duties was Hain engaged in? Forget the individuals, forget the alleged offence and concentrate on the principle. I’ve no doubt if JRM stood up and named a rape complainant you’d be wetting your knickers. You can’t pick and choose based on individual cases, it’s either right or wrong. Lords bypassing the legal process and undermining judges is wrong, no matter who is involved. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If some rich chick grabs my tackle it’s up to me whether I decide to report the matter to the police, not you or any other soft arsed leftie. I may decide that I’ll take a bung & get on with my life. We will see if Green is convicted of any offence, I seriously doubt he will be despite the “crime” being outed. There’s not even any evidence yet that he’s done anything illegal. You seem obsessed with the state controlling people’s lives.

What a load of pony. Firstly, there was only an interim injunction , it’s not for Hain to decide whether this should be broken. It’s contempt if he said it out of parliament. It’s not a blue v red issue, with Alan Johnson a former Labour home sec criticising him. Secondly, it’s not for you, Theresa May, Hain or anyone to decide whether victims can accept payment in return for silence. It’s a free country and if somebody doesn’t want the police involved who are we to insist they must. The alternative could be Green offering them **** all, employing high powered expensive lawyers to fight and get off any criminal charges (remember it’s beyond reasonable doubt). They could take out a civil case, but they’ll be up against the best lawyers money can buy. Provided they’re happy to take the cash and move on, why deny them that? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pony Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk