sadoldgit

Funny you should say that, there is one with a passing resemblance to Arthur Scargill.

Arsenal gave another goal away trying to play out from the back. They clearly aren’t very good at it so why persist? They aren’t the only team to look uncomfortable using this tactic. Why do it?

I bailed on the LibDems when Clegg let the Tories in but pleased to see them as the only established Party with a definitive policy on Brexit.

Don’t worry Batman, you will be ok now that Tommy has been released from jail. No need to worry about the nasty liberals.

We have bees coming out of the cracks in our lawn. Never knew they lived underground.

Have you any hard evidence that you haven’t hit your wife? Anyway, the reason for starting this thread was to gauge reactions about the award for a knighthood for someone with a previous criminal conviction given that it was some 25 years ago . Has enough time elapsed? Should anyone be knighted if found guilty of a criminal act? Should the honours system remain in the modern age? The World Cup team were not honoured at the time and only some of them later. Should sportsmen and women be given this type of honour just for being good at games and if so, should they also lead blameless lives? It all seems a bit arbitrary and archaic to me. Perhaps when the Queen croaks it will be a good time to review the whole honours system and drag it into the 21st century?

Neighbours from hell. Most of the people here are lovely, friendly and very helpful. Unfortunately a couple have moved in next to us and they have been a nightmare. He is very pompous, looks down his nose at everyone else, thinks he knows better than everyone else about everything and sits back and snipes at people. He comes across as a cross between CB Fry and Shurlock. His wife tries to emulate his behaviour but doesn’t quite have the brain cells. She is like a cross between hypochondriac and Batman. Apparently he fractured his previous neighbours skull with a baseball bat so we keep out of their way as much as possible but that isn’t easy in a small village.

Are you inferring that I have hit my wife?

I do not understand your fascination with my “fascination” (the word I used is curiosity) in the case. Why are you getting so worked up about it? And where do I say I want the case revisited?. Yes he has been found guilty but why are you so worked up about me having an opinion about the verdict. I am not saying it is wrong, I am just curious as to how the magistrate came to her decision. I do not know a great deal about the case other than what I have read recently, which is why I am curious about the medical evidence. Oh, and some reports say she was hit in the face 20 times and others the face, arms and body. You really need to chill mate.

Where have I apologised for domestic abuse. Even by your standards that is a very weird post. Go off and find the evidence.

Why is it odd to be curious about why a verdict has been reached in a court case? Weren’t you curious to know why OJ Simpson was acquitted? I just think the pictures do the injuries reflect the result of being punched in the face 20 times. Do you?

The CPS felt they had definitive proof as evidenced by the guilty verdict in the first trial.

It is not defending him. It is looking for definitive proof that something has happened the way someone claims it has. A statement and a picture is not conclusive proof, but I’m sure you know that, you are just looking for an argument, as usual.

Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

Harsh. Interesting that you say I was defending him. I guess you read what you want to read. I would prefer to see more evidence concerning her injuries. Doesn’t mean I am defending him at all. Having been in that situation myself I understand that in DV cases there is often an assumption that the man is guilty straight away. Perhaps you should go back and read what I have actually said.

On Sir Geoffrey rather than in

I have been trying to find the medical report with no joy and I think I have spent too much of my day in Sir Geoffrey. I did find an interview with the judge in the case though and his behaviour throughout the trial clearly did not help his case. The word arrogant was used s lot and apparently he was very rude to the prosecutor. Gotta love a dyed in the wool Yorkshireman.

I’m not sure if you can use that as evidence in court Benjii!

We have sent people to the gallows when their case had been proven, only to find out years later that they are innocent. I am glad that you are so sure. I would prefer that you could provide some actual hard evidence to back up your position. If there is some great. There are plenty of stupid people who have been proved right. If you ever found yourself in Boycotts position I hope that the people trying you make sure that they do so on hard evidence.

I know that this was a magistrates court but just suppose it was a Crown Court case and you were sitting on the jury. You have heard both sides of the story. They clearly contradict each other. Without concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by Boycott and not a fall, would you still find him guilty? Oh, and we will get along better if you stop the childish name calling. This is supposed to be a grown up discussion

I’ll do you a deal Egg. He show me concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by a fist and could not possibly have been caused by a fall and I will join the call to have his knighthood revoked. Fair enough?

The accuser in the Evans case was the CPS based on the fact that the victim was intoxicated and had no recollection of where she was, how she got there are what happened to her. But given that you were present on the Evans thread you know that don’t you.

I am not digging and I am glad you are 100% sure that he did.

Just one blow to the head can be fatal. 3 to 5 punches can leave a face in a right mess. There is a big difference between 3 to 5 and 20 or so. Even in a traumatic moment you would know the difference between a few punches and multiple punches and she made a big point about it being 20 or so. I spent 8 years working for the CPS and most mornings there would be a pile of files on my desk with pictures of people with facial injuries after fights. They are not pretty and a ferocious beating would more than likely involve fractured bones. A few months ago my wife passed out and fell into a flagstone floor. Her face ended up looking like that of Ms Moore’s and she also had a mosaic fracture of the right cheek bone and eye socket. It is possible that her injuries were caused by a fall. It is possible they were caused by a punch. The point is that that picture alone is not hard evidence against DV taking place, no matter how much Shurlock would like to pin a DV apologist tag on me.

OJ Simpson was found innocent by a court of law. Do you think he was innocent. All I am saying is, from what I have read, the situation is not clear cut. You clearly think otherwise. Nice to see you dragging Read and Pellegrino into it. Given that we had back to back promotion and 4 top ten finishes under Reed it was hardly all bad was it? As for Pellegrino, I am sure he did the best that he could but clearly it wasn’t good enough. Not sure what either have to do with Boycott and DV, I guess you are just being a WUM as usual.