Sour Mash

That's the whole point of this forum. To put across what you think. To state your opinion or ideas. It would be pointless and a bit boring if we just confirmed the facts and nothing else.

And just leading on from that article, I think many under-estimate how vital Pelle is to everything we do. Tadic would be a massive blow if we lost him for any games, but to me Pelle is the centrepoint that so much goes through, they use the term "pivot" in that article and I can't see anyone else in our squad coming close to offering what he does.

Yep, in Lallana's defence, how many chances would he have created if playing with Pelle? Most likely less than Tadic still, but we're not quite comparing like with like. Great stats though.

Just repeating a fact that we all know and agree (that he is convicted) doesn't add anything to the discussion.

So you wouldn't hold it against Sheff Utd and be critical of them if they chose to continue to employee him?

Is that a response to me? I haven't and I'm not sure if anyone else on this thread has, stated that he's not guilty. Just having an interesting discussion on one of the more grey, complex areas of the law. It is an interesting case I'm sure you'd agree, that Evans was found guilty, but McDonald not-guilty.

So all Saints move, but I can't think of any/many non-Saints? As I said in my post, I guess it can be viewed as a compliment in a round about way.

The season started relatively late.

I wonder how the change in Inter Milan management will affect Osvaldo's situation? Ramirez is a weird one. He's not exactly getting loads of football at Hull, he would have been very useful back up/squad member for us.

So if he showed remorse you think he should be allowed to play professional football again?

What am I defending? Don't try and put words into my mouth you confused child.

Yes, I know he was convicted, I was asking what the parameters and definitions are.

Spot on. Solicitors should be treated differently because of their position within the legal industry and the position of trust and influence they have within it. Not really relevant to footballers. Which professions do you think someone like Ched Evans should be allowed to work in?

How many times have the press reported a similar move of a member of backroom staff? I can't think of any. Guess take it as a compliment in a round about way.

Latest news from the England camp is even more unlucky for Bertrand really. Only one left back considered fit and available for tomorrow's game.

one tweet from a random weirdo isn't it?

Why would anyone have a problem with someone else appreciating a decent advert on the tv? It's a good ad, no surprise people have enjoyed this and the John Lewis one.

So, how in a case such as this can it be proven that the victim was drunk to the point whereby they were unable to give consent?

Where have I said I'm suggesting that. Try to have a rational discussion, or don't bother. As you're the expert on the law, what is the definition?

WHich no-one is disputing, so I'm not sure what your point is.

But who defines who is "too drunk"? I know people that can seem hammered after only a couple of drinks. And isn't the law a bit lop-sided in many ways on this; If I get really p****d, do something illegal, but can't remember and was so hammered I say I really didn't have a clue what I was doing - that is no defence, I'm still guilty am I not?

And thousands out on a night out most weekends, abroad on Lads Holidays, Freshers weeks etc.

Amazing effort, even more so when you consider when it was designed, built and launched.

But you're over-simplifying the point - how do you prove that someone has got another person "blind drunk" with the purpose of raping them? Going well off the subjuect of Saints here anyway.

Exactly that really. Such a hard area of the law to get right or ever really "know" if the verdict is right or not. Loads of people sleep around when very drunk, some remember everything they do, others lose their memory after a few drinks. Such a difficult miefield to get right.