sadoldgit

Every club signs duff players. The point is who wouldn’t trade places with Leicester either last season or this?

I can’t be bothered, like you, to read back through your previous posts. Do you believe that OJ Simpson was innocent of killing his ex wife and her friend? As for Evans, no one was tripping over themselves to give him compensation so he has taken it upon himself to sue his own legal team. Good luck with that Ched. If he fails do you think anyone else will be busting a gut to see that he gets recompense? You seem to think that he has been hard done by. Perhaps you could start a whip round for him?

And I will repeat. He put himself in that position so instead of blaming his legal team perhaps he should think about his own responsibilities for his actions. If he doesn't go into that hotel room he doesnt leave himself open to what happened next. If you cant see that I really cant help you any more. Perhaps everyone should sue their legal teams if they dont get the verdict they want? Where do you think that would leave our justice system? If this was such a clear cut case why do you think that he was found guilty first time round and why do you think he was denied appeals? You might think that he has been hard done by. There are plenty of people who would disagree.

He took his time. Not sure what else they could do in the circumstances considering he admitted everything. He said he believed what happened was consensual which was the bottom line of their case. It isn't their fault that the new "witnesses" didnt appear until much, much later. Perhaps Team Ched should have got to work earlier? Still, if he wins his case you can come back and have a good gloat.

And if they are that decent why are they out of work?

Hughes doesn’t strike me as a man who would let senior management interfere with his team selections. I get that the club need to change this at the top and hopefully that will pay dividend long term. What we need right now though is a change short term. It is hard to see how sacking Reed and Hunter will change things significantly on the pitch today. Hughes doesn’t have a team that picks itself. Either Hughes or his replacement if he is sacked soon will have to find a way to make us hard to beat. Sadly that could mean that we end up with BFS. I know there are some here who would welcome him at the club. I can think of nothing worse. I also hope that this media talk of Hughes needing to beat Watford to save his job is just conjecture. Hughes’s future should be based on his ability to take this club forward. At the moment I would say that he hasn’t shown that he is what we need. Whatever happens in one match shouldn’t make a difference. Krueger says all the “right” things and in his position you shouldn’t expect anything else. People in his position have to talk corporate ********. At least now he and the board are demonstrating that they accept that changes are needed. His support of Hughes is the usual vote of confidence that all Chairman spout in these circumstances, hopefully! I never really subscribed to the view that Hughes should have been given the job because we stayed up. It seemed to be a most unlikely Saints appointment (as I think BFS would be). The next managerial change is massive and it is a worry that Krueger will need to take outside advice on any new appointment. Let’s hope he talks to the right people!

He served two and a half years in prison and lost his job at Sheffield United because he was found guilty of rape. When he was acquitted in the retrial he didn’t sue his club for wrongful dismissal did he? He didn’t get any recompense as part of his acquittal and I don’t see people queuing up to call for him to be financially recompensed for his time in prison by the general public. He is trying to blame his legal team for the fact that he was found guilty. That is basically what I take issue with. He still doesn’t understand that he put himself in that position by behaving in the way that he did. It was no one else’s fault. It would have been good to get some female perspective on this whole situation but given some of the responses on here I don’t blame them for steering clear. You talk about class UJ. Perhaps he should show some now, stop his supporters from hounding the other party, shut up and get on with his life. He is not a victim. No one has taken advantage of him.

And I am the classless one? Unbelievable, Jeff.

Ched himself had a view of what happened that differed from the prosecutions view of what happened. He lost out on those earnings because he was originally found guilty of rape. We dont know if Sheffield United would have kept him on even if he had been cleared. He is contesting the competency of his legal team for the advice they gave him. They dont agree. It will be interesting to see how that pans out. I know a great deal about this case because of what Evans and his mate told us. For example, it is common knowledge that he walked in, engaged in sexual activity with her, walked out and exited via the fire escape all without saying one word to her. If you want a sarcastic definition of "classy" UJ I would suggest that this is it. I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service for 8 years. For the last few years I managed the case working team in our RASSO unit (rape and serious sexual assault) so I know quite a lot about bringing cases like these to court. A senior prosecutor from that unit lives in my village and we still meet up and talk about these cases from time to time so I do some insight into what goes on. As for your definition of trolling UJ, are you being serious? I suggest you go back and read this thread from the beginning. I have been consistent about my view of the case all along. That is not trolling, that is expressing a view. I also have a view on people who think that taking advantage of others when they are incapacitated is ok. Again, that is not trolling. It seems to me you think that a troll is someone who says things that you disagree with? Instead of playing silly buggers, perhaps you would like to explain why it is seemingly ok to question the veracity of the OJ Simpson verdict but not so the veracity of the Evans appeal verdict?

Oh do grow up. If posting an opinion on here constitutes trolling we are all guilty. Instead of playing childish games why don’t you tell me why you think I am wrong?

With Ched invading the Philip Green thread, following the news that he is suing his initial legal team for his lost earnings, perhaps it’s time to return him to his own thread and discuss the latest developments. Here’s a thought Ched. Instead of blaming others for your loss of earnings, perhaps you should question your own wisdom in going to that hotel room that night? You might have been eventually acquitted of rape, but you haven’t been acquitted of being a low life scum bag who deserved all he got. What happened to him was as a direct result of his actions that night rather than the legal competency of his team. It’s hard to see what more they could have done (other than possibly bribe some witnesses). The usual suspects will be supporting him no doubt, but the upside is the stain of what he did that night will never leave him. The days when women were supposed to be “asking for it” because the were flashing some cleavage, wearing a short skirt or incapacitated through drink or drugs is over and this case has done a lot to bring this issue to light. It cost you a lot of money Ched but perhaps you have learned a lesson? I hope that these new legal fees cost you a fortune and that you lose. You may then learn another lesson in humility. Ok Duckie, knock yourself out!

You don't believe that guilty people have walked away from court then? That UJ is bull****. Do you have a view on whether OJ Simpson killed his wife and her friend or do you just think that he must be innocent because a jury said so? Bringing this back to the subject matter, if Green is charged he will face a trial at which he will be either found guilty or innocent of those charges. If it were a normal person our names would already be in the media. He has lots of money and power and was able to gag the press. There are reasons why alleged offenders can be named pre trial and victims names cannot. One is to protect the victims and encourage them to go through a legal process (which by the way, can be very arduous). Another is to possibly prompt others who feel that they have a case against the same person to come forward. As we know from recent history, many abused people do not say anything. The #metoo unit shows that all too clearly (unless you think they are all lying - which is a possibility although unlikely). Green is clearly an odious individual but he is not being accused of being odious, he is being accused of being a bully and of sexual harassment. Privilege and power should not prevent him going through the same procedure as the rest of us. If you believe that it is okay to gag the press, then perhaps you should be campaigning for us all to have the same rights, not just the wealthy and the privileged?

Even by your low standards Duckie this is a very crass statement. Too much weed yesterday? Perhaps I should throw the OJ Simpson v Nicola Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman back at you? Still, at least you are prepared to accept that there are miscarriages of justice, which brings us back to Evans and his mate. The definition of a victim is someone who has been taken advantage of. CCTV footage shows that this woman could barely walk that night. She awoke the next day not knowing where she was or who she had been with the night before. Fair game? Maybe to you she was and clearly to Evans and his buddy. With the evidence they had the jury found Evans guilty of rape in the initial trial. They let his mate walk which surprised me as if she wasnt considered fit enough to consent to Evans how was she in a state to consent to his mate? Still, guilty he was found and he served his time after several attempts at appeal were over ruled. He then gets his retrial after two new witnesses come forward. Where were they either during or just after the first trial you ask yourself and why did their evidence sound so similar? The CPS believe that the Evans camp paid these witnesses, but the judge in the retrial didnt accept this. Fair enough, but the CPS just dont just pluck this stuff out of thin air and they and the police would have reasons to make their claim, even if they couldnt prove it to a judge. The Evans camp released the name of the victim on social media and I believe, continue to do so (illegal by the way). From the beginning they have been working hard to trash the name of the victim (who, by the way, did not bring this case to court). In the second trial he was found not guilty of rape and acquitted. All this means is that in the eyes of the law he did not rape the women. In the eyes of the law OJ Simpson did not kill his ex wife and her friend. In the eyes of the law the Birmingham Six were initially guilty. Everyone is entitled to have a point of view on these cases and their verdicts. Apparently, according to the usual suspects on here, I am not. Perhaps women who are off their heads on drink and or drugs are still fair game according to some. Personally I think it is good that the CJS is seeking to protect people who are in no fit state to make rational decisions. Still if you think that what Evans and his mate did does not constitute a violation and were perfectly entitled to do what they wanted with someone off their head, fair play to you. Anyway, you dragged Ched Evans onto a Philip Green thread so if you want to continue, perhaps you should take your defence of Evans back to his thread along with your buddies and let us get back to debating the rights and wrongs of Parliamentary privilege?

That is not what the first jury decided so it was clearly not as clear cut as you would like to think. Also it is entirely possible to be a victim of crime if the alleged perpetrator is found not guilty. If the woman in the Evans case had consensual sex, how come she had absolutely no idea of what happened to her? Perhaps you are the type who like your women unconscious or drunk or drugged out of their brains?

Why am I not surprised that you posted this. What do you think the percentage of false accusations are against non false accusations? Over the years do you think that “birds” and “chicks” have just been asking for it and rapists have been hard done by? Of course there have been some false accusations over the years, but perhaps you ought to get your Stone Age brain around the fact that countless rapes and sexual assaults have gone unpunished for centuries. I am guessing that you don’t have any daughters?

City 7 shots on target 6 goals. Saints 6 shots on target 1 goal. Says it all.

Depends how you define victim though doesnt it. The CPS obviously though a women who was so drunk that she had no recollection of what happened to her was a victim. Just a normal night out for you though eh?

I am struggling to understand why you think that anyone would name a victim? Surely what Hain is trying to do in this instance is to try and ensure there are no more victims in the first place. If there is no bullying and no sexual harassment there is no need for what follows. If Green is guilty of doing such things and now stops doing them because of Hain, isnt that a good thing? If he does get pulled up on charges and is found guilty, isn't that a good thing? If it stops others trying to do what the Weinstein's of this world have been doing for years, isn't that a good thing? Or do you have such a low opinion of "birds" and "chicks" that you think they are fair game?

I am not missing the point at all. Hain has done nothing wrong. You might not agree with the whole Parliamentary privilege thing or the use of it in the case, but it is not illegal and is part of the checks and balances that we employ in our democracy. I am more concerned over the practice of using money to buy victims silence and avoiding justice to be honest. If Parliamentary privilidge was used all the time I might agree with you, but it is used very sparingly. If Hain helps to bring about the end of NDAs through his actions then fair play. No one should avoid justice through buying silence.

Completely different situations. The CPS decided to prosecute Evans based on the evidence they had. No one is prosecuting Green at the momemt and if they do it will be because of the evidence against him. Again, why are you getting so upset?

I wonder if you would be so defensive of Green if you had a BHS pension duckie? This has got nothing to do with justice or whether he is guilty or not. It has everything to do with people with power and money gagging the press. Why should they be allowed to do that when the likes of you and I can’t? It should be the same for all.

Bottom line. You may well not agree with Hain’s actions (many do by the way) but has he done anything illegal? No. Has Green? Possibly. If he hasn’t it either will not go to court or it will and he could well be found innocent. I think your problem here is that Hain, in your eyes, is a leftie pinko who is fighting a class war. Frankly the more people who stand up against bullying and the abuse of power the better. If that means the power of NDAs is reduced I think that can only be a good thing. We read more and more about people who have had their silence bought only for it to affect their mental well being for years to come. The whole point of the #metoo movement is that people want to be heard. That point seems to have slipped the likes of you and Trump by. Do you really still think it is ok to call women chicks?

Apart from the fact that we actually finished higher after he left.

I have shoe horned Yaxley-Lennon (his real name not his assumed name) into this because you shoe horn "lefties" and "pinkos" into most of your non football related posts Duckie. What about the principle of all of being treated equally? Is it ok with you that those with money and power can effectively gag the press? From what I can see he is hardly in the Harvey Weinstein category anyway and it seems really odd that he is handing out seven figure sums to shut people up for a bit of "banter!" Hain is a seasoned politician who, I would imagine, gave this matter serious consideration and probably took legal advice before making his announcement. You would prefer to think he is just having a pop at a rich bloke who has rubbed the "lefties" up the wrong way. You may well think that it is not in the public interest to name someone in a position of power and privilege who has been accused of sexual harassment and racial abuse. Would you say the same of the likes of Jimmy Saville (who by the way did not ever stand trial for his alleged crimes)? Wealth, privilege and power should never, ever, stand in the way of justice. As I said before, if he is as innocent as he says, he has nothing to worry about does he? I'll ask you again, would you kick off as much if a right wing Lord had outed an alleged Asian or Muslim offender?

No surprise to see you going into bat for the odious Philip Green. No doubt if his name was Mohammad you wouldnt have an issue with it. I dont recall you getting all upset when Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was filming Asians entering court before they had been found guilty. Still you righties need to stick together in the face of all these pinkos eh? Why exactly should Green not be subject to the same conditions as everyone else just because he has money and status? If it really is just all "banter" then he will have nothing to worry about will he? You lot dont go in much for equality do you? Hain has not cheapened Parliamentary privilege in the least. Those with money or in power should not be able to gag the press - that is the real privilege. They should be treated like everybody else. It will no more compromise his possible future trial (if it comes to that) any more than it does every other individual who has been named before their trials. Oh, and it wasn't the "chick" who accused Ched Evans of rape. It was the CPS who decided that he should be prosecuted on the grounds that the woman involve was in no condition to consent. She says she had no recollection of what happened.