KelvinsRightGlove

Sounds plausible. Saw the Oldham Chairman said earlier that he was surprised by the reaction. How on earth could you be surprised by this? Surely, it was effing obvious that people would be unhappy about this. It's not as if sh!t hasn't been following him around already. Surely you wouldn't touch the bloke with a barge pole, right now the bloke is toxic.

Who is our top earner?

Oldham have just put out a statement saying they are not making any official announcement yet. Seems slightly odd.

Guessing they decided to drop the idea to merge with Cleethorpes and become Grimthorpe then? Shame. Also, what pap said.

Big Vic has been immense all season for me. Not hearing so much talk of kicking him out for Cork of late, funny that. Toby has been an absolute rock too. The guy really is a quality player. Surprised we managed to land him really. Could certainly have helped shore up Arsenal, Utd or Liverpool. Would be a snip for all of them too, considering their budgets.

That doesn't really have much to do with this case, does it? Wrong decisions in the past, should have no bearing on making the right decisions now.

This just came on 6music. How do I always forget how much I love Pixies?

I cannot stand Peter Kay, but did like Phoenix Nights. Have to agree on Curb though, by some distance my favourite comedy show. Has me howling.

I don't think it's just that. Frankie Boyle has done alright on terrestrial TV, considering how off colour he is. Was never a fan of him, he just seemed to be offensive for the sake of it. I get it's a hard line to tread, and I do like people that can be offensive (I've done some major cringing, and flat out not liked some of what Doug Stanhope has said - who also gets time on the Beeb via Charlie Brooker - but still think he is v funny), but there needs to be a point to it. That may be what the problem is, comedians aren't very often trying to actually say anything now.

I imagine it will be for gamers, 4k TV. They were driving sales of HD TVs way before there was any significant amount of broadcast content in that format.

Additionally, I'm told by girls they can usually 'tell' when they have had sex the next day.

We have almost as similar taste in comedians as music TC

So, part of the reason may be that I saw him once years ago at a comedy night put on by an old teacher of mine. He picked on me basically because I was a teenager, the bit being pretty much, he's young he needs to go have a w*nk. No problem comedians taking the **** out of me, but at least be original/funny. The rest of it is just that silly face he is constantly pulling, that bizarre sped up waddle he does and the incessant head shaking. Eurgh.

Also glad to see people not loving Keith Lemon. My mates love Celebrity Juice, and think I'm weird for not liking it. It does nothing for me, just like The Inbetweeners. I've a much darker sense of humour I guess. Stewart Lee is the funniest around for my money.

Ah, meant to mention her too. Painfully unfunny. Again, I just don't get what people find funny about it.

Agree. As SoG says, it's pretty juvenile. It's weird, I saw the guy (name escapes me) on some Graham Norton and he was actually quite funny and pretty likable. The show is rubbish. Add Michael McIntyre to the list. I just don't get it, he's not funny.

Let's all pray for a speedy recovery.

Latest addition, errrm, The Dalai Lama. Really.

Oldham club sponsors, Verlin, say they will 'terminate any involvement with club' if they sign Ched Evans. According to Sky

I've yet to meet or see (on tele/in print) an American come up with a decent, reasonable argument for keeping the gun laws as they are. I'm lucky enough to have met many wonderful Americans, and as you say many of them know it is ridiculous - a lot cite it as a reason they move away (amongst others of course). On the other hands you just have constitutional obsessive, who I outlined above. Republicans, who from my experience working with briefly whilst I was in Philidelphia - who argue "well if we didn't have guns people would just stab each other like in the UK. And besides, guns being illegal doesn't mean everyone won't still have them". That is genuinely a paraphrased version of an argument I heard from them - they seemed genuinely perplexed when I said I did not know a single person that owned a gun, and I had never seen a real, functional gun first hand in my real. Or, you just have the angry shouty Alex Jones types, that deny there is any problem at all.

This is why I also struggle to understand the whole, she must be lying angle. Or that all these girls are just making up being raped. For what reason, what benefit? Seems some posters on here are trying to frame that actually its the men we need to worry about, as these rampant evil nasty lying women are going to have us all locked up as rapists. Never mind the thousands of unsolved sexual attacks that happen (mostly against women, but men also) every single year. No, we must frame the men as the real victims here, woe is us fellas! And yeah, fûck Oldham or Barnsley or whoever signs him to be honest. The man is scum. I don't care what anyone says about served his time, blah blah. That does not give you the right to return to your coveted job. How many other people would be able to stroll back into any job of their choosing after a rape conviction? I wouldn't, and I doubt many others would.

No no no SoG, that's the wimens lib movement got into your head mate. No such thing as institutional sexism, no sir. Must be true, the man who worships the man who leads a party that voted against making it illegal for a man to rape his wife (or vice versa) said so. Edit: You know, this is a really sexist view point. It's one we should find more offensive. Not just because of how crass and disgusting it is to blame a victim for her attack. But, also because of how it paints men. This is a common levelled accusation against victims (goes with the points below, why would anyone submit themselves to that for fun?), but what it really is saying is Men are rapists in waiting. Men are slaves to their sexual desires, if we see a woman dressed in a slightly revealing manner - we will attack. We have not one ounce of self-control, if we see a female body, we lose all control. Frankly, that is disgusting and yes, awfully fúcking sexist. I am not some animal that cannot control myself if I see a girl dressed in a certain way, and I'd like to think most other men are the same.

I agree with much of this, Pap. I always found the American mindset of clinging blindly to a constitution written over 200 years ago on the back of a war utterly bizarre. The world is an entirely different place. It leads to bizarre arguments that have no relevance today. For example, the First Amendment (Free Speech) is now used as a defence for Child Pornography, Racism, Sexism and many other straight up and hateful things. Never mind the First Amendment was designed as a tool to allow people to speak out against a tyrannical regime (as Pap outlines above), and has never meant you can say or do what you want without consequence. The Second Amendment stuff I agree with Pap, so don't have a great deal to add. Other than it's worth mentioning the power of the NRA (National Rifle Association) in the States. It is a huge industry, that has to self sustain. Heck, this is a nation that gives serious credence to the argument "To stop shootings in schools, we need more guns in schools" after yet another school shooting. Oh, but they will willingly forget all about the Eighth Amendment: Now, I've been making this argument about Lethal Injection for years. It seems to me, that strapping someone to a chair (in plenty of cases adults with the mental age/IQ of a child) and then injecting them with a solution that paralyses then systemically shuts down every organ in the body qualifies as cruel and unusual - nevermind the revelations of recent use of and methods of torture. 'Murrica is scary yo.

I think you've missed my point, or I didn't explain clearly enough - if so apologies. Forget alcohol completely. What I was trying to get at was, it may possibly be seen that (sober or not) if the girl was engaged in sexual activities with man #1, another man turning up whilst they were in the act, trying to get involved with another group of guys watching on may have caused undue pressure or coercion. She may have felt like she had no choice but to give consent. She may have feel intimidated by the entire situation. As I said, these are two professional athletes (I believe the first guy was a footballer too? Sorry if I have this incorrect) so it's a fair assumption to think they are two pretty strong guys, you can see why somebody may have felt intimidated in that scenario. Again, this is hypothetical speculation. I do not know if this is exactly how it happened, and I am not saying this is exactly how it happened. In my opinion, IF this is how it happened I would suggest the first guy was also culpable of some offence (I'm not a legal expert by any stretch, and do not claim to be). However, I guess it could be possible that the court may see his act as consensual due to him having met her first and her having (supposedly) consented to going to the hotel with him.

I'm not so sure on them both being guilty. It was my understanding that she met the first guy, went back to the hotel with him and then Ched Evans (totally sober btw) showed up after being told the first guy was going to to a hotel with a drunk girl. It's conceivable that she did consent to the first guy, but not CE. Heck, even if he did come into the room whilst the other two were at it and asked if he could join in you would still have to question whether she is really in a state to give full consent. If she was naked and drunk in a room with two men (athlete's nonetheless) with their mates outside trying to film (I'm not 100% on if she was aware of this) she not really have felt she could have said no anyway. Just to clarify THIS IS PURELY SPECULATION, and a possible reason why one man may have been found guilty and the other not.