sadoldgit

Exactly how many matches had we won this season before beating Arsenal? It might not be a "miracle" but I am not going to whinge about winning back to back matches for the first time in how long exactly? FFS what is wrong with some people here? The Board have given us an excellent early Christmas present in Ralph. Make the most of it because he looks like he is destined for bigger and better things!

Well said.

Unless you are right of Attila The Hun you aren't going to get a good word from Duckhunter. You dont expect any respect from someone who still calls women "chicks" in 2018.

Is it appropriate to ask someone who has just won a sporting award if she bends over and grinds her butt in someone guy's groin? I think you know the answer to that already Cabbage. But once your wife has cooked your meal, cleaned your home and washed your pants, I am sure she will give you her opinion.

I do have an issue with it, but after what has happened in the Middle East recently I also have an issue with some Arabs! We both know that things can easily get out of hand on these sites and maybe we should all ease up a bit as it is Christmas? As for your sad news GM, I am really sorry to hear that. Please accept my deepest condolences. We met several years ago before a match with the old Saintslist crowd. All the best to you.

We can't even get on with each other. Little wonder that we can't get on with the EU or "migrants." Give it a rest and get back on subject please UJ. You have made your point several times over and are in danger of becoming the new hypochondriac. It would seem that the way forward post EU is just to spend hours slagging each other off!

It sounds like they are not getting a replacement in until the end of the season. If Ralph does well for us.......

Adrian Durham on Talksport was giving it large on what a huge mistake it was to sell him and what a great player he is earlier tonight.

Perhaps it is time to start a "Theresa May and the death of the Conservative Party" thread?

Well, on the plus side it gives the Reed haters plenty more opportunities to vent their spleen. Many of these players have played at international level. Perhaps they need to look at their own contributions and show us why we bought them in the first place. Reed is well out of the picture now. Even Eric Black no longer gets a mention. The people on the pitch are paid to do a job. They need to start earning their wages. Blaming Reed just let’s them off the hook.

Pesky predictive text! I prefer Ant myself!

Of course we shouldn’t. As you well know it is an offence to get behind the wheel of a car if you are drunk. It is also rape if you have Dec with a woman who is too drunk to give consent.

So have you ever been so drunk that you have no recollection of what you did the previous night? You sound like you are in the 6% and your responses are what you would expect from someone who think that women are fair game whatever the circumstances (apart from being totally unconscious). The whole point is that you don't make rational choices when you are "very drunk." You are probably not even aware of what "choices" you have made.

The defence have got nothing to do with it. If the CPS think that the defendant has the kind of "previous" that will swing the balance of probabilities in their favour they can apply to the court for what is called a Bad Character application. The judge will make the call about whether or not the defendant's previous convictions will be allowed as part of the prosecution case.

The BBC published the results of a survey carried out by the End Of Violence Against Women coalition today and it makes worrying reading. A third of the people surveyed said that there had to be violence for it to be rape. More pertinent to this particular case, 6% (235 people out of 3922) said that it is not rape if the women is very drunk or asleep. Little wonder that it is still so hard to get rape convictions in court.

But not strange at all that you told us yesterday that it had fallen through? As Cabbage would say......mess

A former player who played under Hughes and his coaching team at Blackburn sung his praises and used very similar words to the above when discussing that management team. Perhaps it had changed, perhaps this bunch of players didnt respond? Who knows? Either way, it didnt work out and it looks like we have made a positive change.

Put him on ignore, it will save you a lot of grief!

More so because the perceived wisdom on here said that no manager would be interested in our job!

Did Krueger say we would definately not be spending in January? I got the impression that he said that he didn't think that we needed to because they were happy with the depth of the "roster." That isn't saying that in any given set of circumstances, they definately wouldn't spend.

And had a third disallowed.

Still people are *****ing about Puel yet we finished 8th and did brilliantly well in the cup final. There really is no pleasing some people. If Puel had stayed I think we would still be a mid table side, but we will never know because the club bottled it. We had four consequatibe top 10 finishes but you wouldn’t know it to read the doom and gloom on here at the time. Now we really have something to moan about and many of the wrist slitters have vanished. Go figure?

That would be different to the forum dimples creaming their pants about Big Fat Sam then?

If you decide that someone probably did something have you not made that decision based on beyond reasonable doubt? You also need to look at the way some judges advised their juries. There are some clear cut decisions but many not so clear cut. Do you really believe that juries always reached their verdicts based on absolute certainty? The following quotes are from a current legal journal - "In the unusual civil case, the law does not favour either party, expect that it slightly prefers the status quo. 'More probable than not' with the burden of getting over equipoise, satisfies society's need for stability and is relatively easy for the jury to understand." "In the criminal case, the law tilts in favour of the defendants; it prefers that some guilty go free rather than that some innocents be convicted. The questions are (1) how high the minimum probability should be set and (2) how should the test be articulated." Notice the use of the word "probability?"

My point is that there are people who walk free from court when they are guilty and there are people who get banged up who are innocent. It is my belief that both Evans and his buddy were guilty of sexually abusing someone who was in no fit state to give consent. So in answer to your question I believe that Evans got what he deserved. As for the Birmingham 6, there are processes to recommence those who are found guilty of a crime and then exonerated. I don’t know if they went through a process or whether they received compensation. If they were entitled to it and got it, fair play. I don’t recall them suing their own legal team. If Evans loses his case against his legal team do you believe that the public should recompense him for his loss of earnings? I don’t really think that the Birmingham 6 are a good example. You need to find an example of someone who has been acquitted after serving their sentence where it just comes down to an interrogation by a jury of what happened. Re press coverage, when Evans came to trial there was a great deal in the media from his side painting him as innocent. The second trial was very different in that the Evans team produced 2 witnesses who clearly swayed the jury. The jurors in the second case would also have been aware of the press during and after Evans initial conviction. Jurors are asked to convict on the basis of probability. They might be conflicted but if they can’t be persuaded that the prosecution case isn’t probable in their minds they have to acquit. This leads to many guilty people walking free. Should they all get their loss of earnings paid back to them in every case? Clearly if someone had absolutely nothing to do with a crime and have had their lives hugely disrupted, there is a moral case for recompense. Where there is a fine line between guilty and not guilty perhaps not so much? In Evans case it would appear that he didn’t seek recompense through the courts for his loss of earnings. Instead he has gone down the route of suing his legal team. I can only assume he has been advised not to do the former as he had less chance of winning and if that is the case, it speaks a lot about how this case has been viewed in terms of his innocence. I didn’t see a massive outpouring of relief from the general public when he won his appeal, did you? Was anyone apart from the Evans camp screaming there had been a miscarriage of justice? Very different to the Birmingham 6 case. He will win his case or he won’t. I won’t lose any sleep if he does as he has already demonstrated to the world what kind of man he is and if he is delusional enough to continue to believe he is a victim in all this then nothing will ever change in his own head no matter what the rest of us think. Time to move on.