sadoldgit

Now there’s an image that is going to haunt me for the rest of the day!

There were 2 different milkshake incidents. I was quoting what the person involved in one of them made of the incident. It sounds like this was the other incident.

Flushed out another Yaxley-Lennon supporter I see.

You tell me Delldays. You don’t seem to have a problem with the far right.

It is interesting that those of a far right persuasion seem to play down the level of racial abuse still endemic in this country. Despite high profile footballers coming out and saying that it is still an issue, there are regular reports that this is still a big issue here. This morning I was reading about the problem reported to Leicester FA about children as young as 7 being targeted for racial abuse and the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Football Forum has started to collate grassroots experiences from across the country. There have been monkey chants and Islamophobic remarks made towards players at kids games. One team of Asian children were told that they should be "blowing things up, not playing football." One parent offered a kid a banana saying that he should be used to it. We are used to high profile racism as practiced by the likes of Tommy Robinson. Apparently one of his milkshake episodes was caused by him constantly berating an innocent Asian guy about Asian rape gangs to the extent that the guy got fed up with him and emptied his milkshake over him. This heinous act has since caused the guy to receive death threats on top of the beating that he received from Tommy and his thugs at the time. Sadly we are used to these things happening on our streets, but when you hear of racist abuse being aimed at young kids it is very clear that there is still a strong racist element in this country. To pretend that we dont have the depth of problem here that they have elsewhere is not only foolish, it is covering up the threat that the far right still poses in the UK.

To be fair, it is not difficult to be morally superior to far right supporters like you hypo. Funny too that you ignore the others who post supposedly “morally superior” posts. I guess you are afraid that they will give you are harder time than I do.

This is what will really happen:- The Board will be reshaped. The squad will be reshaped within our financial constraints. We will finish midtable. The usual suspects will continue to snipe at every decision made by the club.

I didn’t know that we were wearing yellow and wore a yellow jumper. It wouldn’t have been a problem if I hadn’t been sitting in the United end! What an amazing day.

Remember, he also thought that Pelle was cr ap. Ings is a quality player and well worth £20m if we can keep him fit.

Don’t get why some don’t rate Ings. He is a quality player. The only problem is keeping him fit.

It looks like Sheffield United are up so delighted for Sharp, McGoldrick and Cranie. I wonder how many of them will be retained next season though?

Be careful Dusic, Shurlock and hypochondriac were very upset when I bumped a thread in the Lounge on the same theme of a Saints player written off far too soon. The player in question was Jan Bednarek.

Now would seem to be as good a time as any. Forum gold.

If Grealish goes, it will be to a bigger club than Palace.

Thanks for sharing your viewing material Duckie. No wonder you don’t have time for Facebook!

Your comments are straight out of the Tommy Robinson speech book mate. I joined Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family and particularly like any of the political guff that finds its way onto my page. I have blocked loads of extremist guff from both sides, but mainly from the far right because they have sent most of it! A lot of it still gets through because people I know share it. Do you think it is okay that organisations promoting hatred can send unsolicited stuff out on social media? Do you think it is ok for ANY political organisations to tell blatant lies through social media? As for being a good person, isn’t it better to aspire to being good than to aspire to being an ar5sehole?

If you were Putin why wouldn’t you want Trump to be POTUS? TV and radio have regulatory bodies, why not privately owned social media bodies. Are you not aware of the recent issues over a girl’s suicide which her father feels was prompted by stuff on Instagram?

Smoking too much week again Duckie?

It’s not that simple though, is it? Millions of people use these and millions of people are being targeted with unsolicited information, not all of which is kosher. During the EU referendum I got all sorts of stuff sent through from the Brexit camp, much of it untrue. We know that Russia used social media used social media to try and influence the American presidential elections. These platforms are being used more and more to inform and try and change opinions. To say they can do what they like leaves us open to unchallenged propaganda on a global scale. The fastest and most effective way of spreading information/misinformation is via social media. Saying they can do what they want leaves the door open to all kind of problems. Ok, they decide to ban far right organisations, but what if they also had decided to ban Brexit organisations at the time of the referendum? I don’t particularly like censorship, but surely there must be some kind of regulatory body to ensure that social media is not misused? People use social media to keep in touch with friends and relatives. Is it realistic to expect people to leave things like Facebook in droves because they don’t like some of the content?

I am not talking about those of either side of the spectrum who are clearly off the scale! And where do you get this "the left are full of hate" from? You sound like hypochondriac with his "socialism is dangerous" nonsense. I thought that you were smarter than that?

Which seems to support what I said. Ken Marsh, chairman of the Met. Police Federation is quoted as saying, "This is very, very difficult for us because my colleagues have never come across the situation that they are faced with at the moment. They are dealing with very, very passive people who dont want confrontation whatsoever with the police or anyone else but are breaking the law." Not something you hear said about right wing gatherings, to be fair.

You don’t seem to get the same issues with those of the far left. What is it about those of the far right that makes them so unpleasant, anti social and often psychopathic? As you often see on threads on here, those of a far right persuasion will argue constantly and unsympathetically against anything vaguely liberal. Once you move further left than liberal (mind you, they seem to think that anything closer to the middle ground from their position is fair game) then they ramp it up. Tribalism kicks in across the board of course, but the far right seems to attract the more unpleasant specimens of society.

This will no doubt upset a few of the regular posters here, but what does this mean for freedom of speech? I am all for getting rid of these people from social media platforms, but if they don’t transgress the law, is it right?

Not anti men Duckie. Just anti rapists, terrorists, anyone who makes the lives of others miserable etc. But then you right wingers don’t like us liberals do you? I will give it a rest for now but think it a shame that you do not seem remotely bothered that there is a possibility that the new evidence was bought and orchestrated. If I were a defence counsel in sex cases there are a few people on this thread who I’d love to have on a jury.

Dangerous talk? Why? Evans made decisions that evening that led to him being prosecuted for rape. If he had made different decisions the chances are he wouldnt have been. No it is not illegal to go to a hotel room. But it is what happened when he went into that hotel room that led to him being prosecuted for rape. If it is not illegal to have sex with a p*ssed up stranger why was he originally found guilty of rape? If he was the victim of an inadequate defence, why did'nt the Evans camp just change their legal team? Instead they put up a reward of £50,000 and it was this money that swung the case is their favour. As you say, they settled out of court. You might think that was because his original team thought that they would lose. Here is another thought. Perhaps they estimated that fighting the case would cost them £1.25m. Perhaps they took the pragmatic approach and saved themselves thousands by settling out of court? This is a quote from Brabners, his original legal team: "We are glad that Ched Evans has agreed not to pursue this case which we believe was entirely without merit. Brabners put forward a strong defence of Mr Evans' claim following a thorough process and we were prepared to vigorously defend our handling of the case." Apparently Evans tried to sue them for £21m. UJ - I believe that you know exactly what the difference is and are being deliberately being obtuse. If you dont, then you really are not vert bright, are you? Either way, I will leave you to play your silly games on your own. So, for those who realise that fine margins apply in the Criminal Justice System just as much as they do in football matches, here are something that came out after the appeal that are worth knowing:- During the appeal case that led to the retrial, layers for the Crown suggested that the two new witnesses (that came forward when the reward was offered) may have been "fed" information by those close to Evans. This claim was rejected by Evans's side and by the appeal court. The appeal court judges expressed "a considerable degree of hesitation" before allowing the new evidence of the former partners because it would result in the complainant's sexual behaviour being subject to forensic scrutiny. Sexual offence prosecutors fought for years to protect rape victims from this and there is a real fear that this ruling has set a precedent and the prosecution of rape and serious sexual assault cases could be set back years. Evans's girlfriend, Massey, was accused in legal argument during the second trial of offering an "inducement" to a key witness. The prosecution said that this had "the flavour of a bribe." The trial judge disagreed. The complainant continues to be named and abused on social media, even though the law grants her lifelong anonymity. The police are investigating at least one blog that identified her during the trial. She changed her identity and her new identity was circulated through Twitter and other forms of social media by what are thought to be people close to Evans. Some of these people have already been fined and warned. You probably know this already but it also emerged that Evans's younger brother and another man were trying to film what was happening from outside the room. More, Rachel Krys of End Violence Against Women Coalition said after, "We are very concerned at the precedent which might have been set. In addition to this there are reports that the defence offered a "bounty" for such testimony. This is extremely worrying." Polly Neate, chief executive of Women's Aid said, "There is a big risk that this case overall has a negative impact on reporting. Only this week the CPS figures revealed a quarter of women (already in the system) are not pursuing cases. If you look at the surrounding maelstrom about this case, it's easy to see why that is the case." "A woman's past sexual history bears no relevance on whether or not they have been a victim of rape. There is a need to challenge pervasive cultural assumptions that equate a woman's former sexual history with her likelihood of being a victim of rape." (This is particularly relevant in the Evans case and the evidence in the second trial).