DuncanRG

I call it morally wrong, of course. But the number of false accusers is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of rapists who get away with it, and I am deeply suspicious of those who seem more concerned by the former than latter.

Sorry? He was never presumed guilty - he was innocent until proven guilty, then this was reversed. This is the attitude which stops women from speaking out and emboldens rapists. Women can go out where they like, wear what they like, sleep with whoever they like without deserving to be the victim of a horrible crime. Do not blame them, ever.

The fact there was an initial conviction should tell you there was enough to meet the threshold for prosecution. But yes, evidence is difficult when the defence case centres on consent rather than identity or whatever.

Even more disgusting that she's been named, abused, threatened. I wasn't aware she hadn't made the accusation herself, but that's not a reason not to prosecute. If there's evidence of a crime, it is the state's duty to pursue it, especially with an offence like rape when so many victims are afraid to speak out.

It's vile misogyny that sets people against victims and alleged victims, nothing else. There is absolutely no incentive to falsely accuse a famous and powerful man of rape, especially not knowing the abuse you will receive and traumatic trial process in the public eye. You don't win a cash prize when they go to jail or get any 'attention' when you're anonymous. The poor woman has had to move house five times.

That post is very good on some of the complexities - particularly on the relieving fact that the Evans case sets no precedent on admitting sexual history as evidence - but is not questioning enough of the law and whether it provides justice for victims. With such a pitiful conviction rate, it doesn't at the moment - though I pass no comment on this particular case. It is incredibly fishy that these two men came forward for cash and provided an account of identical behaviour to Evans - but that is the difficulty of rape prosecution and not necessarily a reason to question the result. The jury were aware of the payment and made their decision. No one can fully understand unless they were in the courtroom and deliberation room.

Nothing at all. PR team boredom during the international break.

Rose is better.

I like this phrase.

He's playing well but has more to offer. Don't agree with the Sterling comparisons - he doesn't have the same natural talent but hasn't had the crushing lack of confidence either.

Redmond's started twice as many games as Juanmi already. They've both come in as potential starters, not to replace individuals. Anyway, like everyone I'm excited to see Boufal. That extra attacking option would have come in useful at the hour mark today - Tadic for Boufal or vice versa would have given us a fresh injection going forward.

Except that they are going for him and Fonte himself has acknowledged it.

Goodness, Romeu had a good game today didn't he!

Erm...

Romeu has improved massively in the last few games. I wasn't confident he could fill Wanyama's shoes on his own but Puel is doing things differently and it's working.

We have a strong squad which is there to be used. If we'd played Stephens, Reed and McQueen I'd understand.

Nope, he didn't know they were reporters.

That guy must want the ground to swallow him up. If the reporters hadn't fooled him, they wouldn't have got Allardyce or Black.

The reporters didn't need to mind read. We can't criticise the club too much without knowing what reputation Black had on the inside track, but one suspects it wasn't squeaky clean. Indeed.

This is deeply embarrassing for us. Remember what Ralph Krueger the other day: "We are one of the most disciplined clubs in English football in terms of the way we deal with agents and youth academy players. "Staying within the rules is something we really - everything we do is based on that." Then our own assistant manager is caught recommending bribes? Come on. What does that say for our vetting? No way Saints keep him on, surely. They want a whiter than white image.

He was working for us at the time. Meeting on September 2 in the New Forest, video clearly shows him recommend a bribe to a Championship assistant manager. Story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/premier-league-coach-embroiled-in-bribery-scandal/

The simple reason for dropping hints is they needed to generate buzz about their series of revelations but couldn't spill the beans early. A long string of agenda-setting exposes is the absolute jackpot for newspapers, see also the expenses scandal

Filmed advising fake businessmen how to bribe lower league staff. Lovely.

Thing that interests me most is that the Telegraph mentioned this story on day one (without naming Black). Did he suspect he'd been rumbled at that point and did he tell the club what to expect?

Story imminent