sadoldgit

You apparently are super smart Shurlock, perhaps you can answer these questions for me? Did a doctor examine Ms Moore immediately after the event? I ask because the impression I get is that a doctor reported on the pictures when in court rather than providing a report immediately after the occurrence. It doesn’t sound like she was hospitalised as Boycott testified that they spent the next 2 nights together (and had sex). It would appear no broken bones then? Not that bruising isn’t bad enough but hardly consistent with being pinned down and repeatedly punched 20 or so times. I have tried to find evidence of a post attack examination but no joy so far. Given that you are trying to show that I am a DV apologists perhaps you can find something that provides solid proof that she received the injuries from a fist rather than a fall?

Who is apologising for domestic violence? My wife provided the police of pictures of bruising to her face that certainly weren’t caused by me. It is entirely possible to fall over and not use your arms to break your fall. No broken nose despite repeated beatings? Look at pictures of people who have been punched in the face repeatedly. If he beat her he deserves all the criticism he gets. If he beat her. That is not apologising for domestic violence.

I have already said that his response to this has done him no favours. Boycott is not an easy man to like and I am certainly not a fan. Margaret Moore may well be telling the truth and as I said earlier, I really dont have a view one way or the other, but there are a number of things in this case worth considering. As you say, she maintains that she was hit in the face with his fist some 20 times. I guess you have seen the pictures? If you are repeatedly punched in the face it would end up a bloody, pulped mess and there is every likelihood that your nose would be badly broken. She had brusing but apparently that was it. He had a bruise on his arm where he says he also fell, apparently no damage to his fist or fingers. Punch someone once and you can break bones in your hand. Do it 20 times and see what happens. There is evidence that she had money problems and her business actually went into administration. There is also evidence that she requested the sums of £150,000 and £1m from Boycott to keep quiet. As he said, he was being blackmailed. Her friend said that Moore told he that she fell and hit her head on the floor. A relative of hers said that she always wore high heels and had fallen before. She also said she didnt believe Moore's version of events. Boycott has a zero record of violence towards women. In a British court a judge accused Moore of a "deliberate lack of truthfulness" and a consultant forensic psychiatrist quoted in court papers relating to Boycott's case concluded that she was "probably a pathological liar" and had "a personality disorder with hysterical and psychopathic features." Having been married to someone with those personality traits I know what it is like first hand to live in what often seems like a parallel universe. There was a long and interesting report in The Mail the other day describing how Moore wanted more out of the relationship and was upset that Boycott refused to discuss marriage with her. It suggested that this could be a case of o woman scorned getting her own back. Could be nonsense but when you look at the situation as a whole I really dont think it is that clear cut. As for hypocrisy regarding Evans, the law says it is rape to have sex with a person who is too intoxicated to consent. The Crown offered compelling evidence that the woman was too drunk to consent (so much so that he was originally found guilty of rape). His case was overturned on evidence provided by two men who came forward when money was made available by Evan's fiancée's family. The Crown believes that the family briefed the men with the evidence that apparently turned the case. You can believe what you want but my stance has not been hypocritical. I still believe, as does the CPS, that Evans was guilty of rape as the law stands. As for Boycott, as said, I really dont know, but having been the victim of a stich up by my ex wife and ex mother in law, I do have sympathy for him if his version of events is true. As an aside, I was arrested 3 times by the East Sussex police and never convicted of wrongful behaviour. One policeman told me that in domestics if there are children involved, they always remove the man from the scene (no matter what has happened and who the aggressor is). I spent three separate nights in the nick for not doing anything. My wife has punched me in the face, pulled my hair and ripped my shirt. My mother-in-law assaulted me with a bunch of keys, leaving my arm scratched and bleeding. She then laid down and pretended that I had assaulted her. I did not touch her. As I was being led away I heard my ex wife tell a PC that I took drugs. I have never taken drugs (other than those prescribed by my doctor) in my life. It was all orchestrated to get me out of the family home. Yes, most domestic violence is carried out by men on women and for that reason it is very easy to get tarred with the same brush, but every case must be taken on its own merits. There are plenty of men who fall victim of DV who are too embarrassed to say anything and also plenty of men who get stitched up by women but there is a natural assumption that the man is always guilty. Boycott may be guilty and was found guilty, but whilst his attitude in court probably did him no favours, being an arse is not a criminal offence. Dig out the article in The Mail the other day, it is worth a read.

he is guilty or not. If this makes me a “nob” then so be it.

Where have I said the conviction was unsafe? Yes he was found guilty. He has always maintained his innocence. A friend of the women has said she told her she fell and hit her face on the floor. We know that no justice system is perfect and that innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent. We are all entitled our own views on the outcome of a trial. I have no view either way on whether

Duckie grades women by how many pints he would need to drink before he would deign to have sex with them. Or in his case I suspect, how many pints of vodka and coke that women would need to drink before having sex with him.

The court found him guilty. He maintains he is not guilty. As we discovered with the Ched Evans case, guilt is not always set in stone.

The evidence would appear to be her word against his. There were no witnesses.

Fair comment, although he still maintains his innocence and it would appear that it is one word against the other. Having been falsely accused of assaulting my ex wife I do have some sympathy for him if he is innocent. There is a natural tendency to believe the women in cases of domestic violence and I found straight away there was an assumption that I was the guilty party even though I was the one who was assaulted.

It appears to be kicking off big time and he probably hasn’t helped his cause with his response to claims that he shouldn’t be given a knighthood as he was allegedly involved in domestic violence but he still maintains that he is innocent. There is also a statement from a friend of the lady involved that she slipped on the marble floor. So he either held her down and punched her 20 times or she slipped while trying to throw his clothes over a balcony? Either way, it was over 20 years ago. Should he be given his knighthood or not?

Wes, if life was so awful it was “endured” in the EU years, why weren’t there mass rallies calling for an exit every week? I can’t recall public unrest along the lines of the poll tax riots.

Remind us about your moral compass again Duckie. Pulled any nine pinters lately? Talking of extremists, would you say that kicking out long established members of your own Party, shutting down Parliament for 5 weeks so that the opposition have less time to deal with some very serious issues and inferring that you will ignore the instructions of your own House was extreme behaviour?

Whether Johnson is Islamophobic or not, saying that Muslim women look like letter boxes and bank robbers probably wasn’t wise was it for someone aiming for the job of PM?

Which is where Cameron fckd up in the original referendum. As it was originally “advisory” it should have stipulated that a substantial majority in favour of leaving would trigger Brexit. Still, the genie is out of the bottle now and there is no going back. I would prefer that there was a second referendum. We know more about the issues and inherent problems now and I think it is fair to say that democracy is better served by a more informed electorate. Remainders are saying that people have changed their minds. If true then the vote will show that. If the Leavers win again, especially by a larger majority, Parliament will have to get on with it, no matter what the majority of the MPs think. The unfortunate thing is that it will be a one issue election yet there are many domestic issues that it should also be fought on but will be sidelined.

So Parliament now closes down for 5 weeks thanks to Boris. It isn’t as if there is anything important going on that needs to be dealt with or anything.

Perhaps if May had bothered to instigate cross party talks and involved all of Parliament from day 1 we wouldn’t be in such a mess now?

You have said several times that the opposition do not want, or are afraid of calling an election.

You have inferred several times that the opposition do not want a GE. They clearly do, but not on the terms of a man they do not trust.

You have inferred several times that the opposition do not want a GE. They clearly do, but not on the terms of a man they do not trust.

Duckie, you seem to be the only person on the planet who thinks that there wont be an election this year.

They get away with it because the lies support people like Duckie and his far right buddies view. There are a lot of these people about and they are more than willing to park any moral judgement because it suits their agenda. The fact that that they still support Johnson and his cronies despite the fact that they have made it clear that they don’t respect the law says it all. And a certain poster has told us that Socialism is dangerous

When someone refers to people with a moral backbone are described as “chumps” you pretty much know that there is no point in arguing with them. The upside is that the more that people like Duckie stick their heads above the parapet and spout their right wing nonsense, the more normal, decent people can see them for what they are and can cast their votes accordingly. As one very senior and well respected Tory said recently, this is rapidly becoming the Brexit Party and will suck in the UKIP fraternity. The GE can’t come soon enough.

Bless him, he really doesn’t like it when you attack the far right. Apparently it is perfectly ok to lie to and mislead the people you are paid to represent.