Sir Geoffrey Boycott

[sadoldgit]

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?

[badgerx16]

It's OK for the PM, so why not a bigoted old Yorkie f@rt.

[benjii]

No, because he's a ****. What's it for anyway?

[Sheaf Saint]

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?

 

That question really rests on whether or not he has earned one.

 

He was once a decent cricket player, and has been a bit of an obnoxious, outspoken bell end ever since. So, in my opinion, he hasn't.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The BBC have had Layla Moran on countless times and don’t bang on about her domestic violence arrest. Sir Geoffrey throughly deserves his knighthood for services to cricket and broadcasting.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[norwaysaint]

I actually like Boycott as a commentator. He is an expert on defensive batting, constructively criticising a team for not being able to bat defensively. I don't think being a good commentator should earn a knighthood though. If he had become a great coach or manager, I would back it, but not just giving it to him for successfully becoming part of the furniture on TMS. His big achievement was his batting. He was never choose for an honour for that and it was ages ago. Strauss, on the other hand, was a great captain and has gone on to play a big role in cricket and charity.

[benjii]

I actually like Boycott as a commentator. He is an expert on defensive batting, constructively criticising a team for not being able to bat defensively. I don't think being a good commentator should earn a knighthood though. If he had become a great coach or manager, I would back it, but not just giving it to him for successfully becoming part of the furniture on TMS. His big achievement was his batting. He was never choose for an honour for that and it was ages ago. Strauss, on the other hand, was a great captain and has gone on to play a big role in cricket and charity.

 

Good post.

[shurlock]

I actually like Boycott as a commentator. He is an expert on defensive batting, constructively criticising a team for not being able to bat defensively. I don't think being a good commentator should earn a knighthood though. If he had become a great coach or manager, I would back it, but not just giving it to him for successfully becoming part of the furniture on TMS. His big achievement was his batting. He was never choose for an honour for that and it was ages ago. Strauss, on the other hand, was a great captain and has gone on to play a big role in cricket and charity.

 

Apart from Boycott's commentary being utterly self-referential. Botham deserved a knighthood just for deliberately running him out against NZ and f**king up his average.

Edited 11 September, 2019 by shurlock

[shurlock]

[video=youtube;iPIjT-zdryY]

 

Still genius

[OldNick]

Bloody hell if Robert Mugabe was an ambassador for the UN i cant see the problem re Boycott

[shurlock]

Bloody hell if Robert Mugabe was an ambassador for the UN i cant see the problem re Boycott

 

Which was promptly cancelled.

[rallyboy]

He was Theresa May's cricket hero??

I can only recall him going on the attack once, and that was in a hotel.

The award says more about her than him.

But his isn't the first and won't be the last knighthood to be tainted or issued with poor judgement.

[OldNick]

He was Theresa May's cricket hero??

I can only recall him going on the attack once, and that was in a hotel.

The award says more about her than him.

But his isn't the first and won't be the last knighthood to be tainted or issued with poor judgement.

Lol, but for all his faults he was a bloody good opening batsmen and stood up to seriously fast bowling like Lillee , Thompson as well as the WI bowlers, most of the time without protective helmets.Could have done with him in the current Ashes that's for sure

[norwaysaint]

Lol, but for all his faults he was a bloody good opening batsmen and stood up to seriously fast bowling like Lillee , Thompson as well as the WI bowlers, most of the time without protective helmets.Could have done with him in the current Ashes that's for sure

 

This is the point. He may moan on and talk about what he would have done, but it genuinely is our problem that test batsmen aren't often enough prepared to grind out an innings. Ben Stokes is a great player, but imagine what he could do with someone like Boycott at the other end just refusing to get out. He doesn't deserve a knighthood for giving his opinions during cricket matches though.

[Tamesaint]

Lol, but for all his faults he was a bloody good opening batsmen and stood up to seriously fast bowling like Lillee , Thompson as well as the WI bowlers, most of the time without protective helmets.Could have done with him in the current Ashes that's for sure

 

No he didn't !!! His self imposed exile from the England team between 1974 and 1977 meant that Boycott missed Lillee and Thompson in 1975 and the West Indian quicks of 1976. It was left to men on their 40s like Brian Close to face the likes of Holding and Roberts. Boycott wimped out.

I think it was Tony Grieg who summed it up as "where Geoffrey Boycott is , the fast bowlers arent".

[Danbert]

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?

 

He wasn't "allegedly involved," he was convicted in a court of law.

[sadoldgit]

He wasn't "allegedly involved," he was convicted in a court of law.

 

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.

[egg]

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's not one word against the other, it's the court finding him guilty thus he isn't innocent. I haven't got an issue in principle with convicted criminals getting a knighthood, time moves on and people should as well, but his ongoing unwillingness to accept his conviction makes his knighthood a no no for me.

[benjii]

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.

 

#freeChed

[hypochondriac]

#freeChed

Lol. Exactly. We believe the accusers don't we soggy? Presumably you can't complain if people applied that same standard to your ex wife? If she claims you battered her why should we be believing the accused over the accuser? Makes you think. Edited 11 September, 2019 by hypochondriac

[sadoldgit]

It's not one word against the other, it's the court finding him guilty thus he isn't innocent. I haven't got an issue in principle with convicted criminals getting a knighthood, time moves on and people should as well, but his ongoing unwillingness to accept his conviction makes his knighthood a no no for me.

 

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

[sadoldgit]

It's not one word against the other, it's the court finding him guilty thus he isn't innocent. I haven't got an issue in principle with convicted criminals getting a knighthood, time moves on and people should as well, but his ongoing unwillingness to accept his conviction makes his knighthood a no no for me.

 

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.

[egg]

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

 

So you're retrying his case based on what yiu read now? Nuts. Ched Evans is different altogether. Firstly it's a completely case with entirely different facts so of no relevance to any other case, plus its was successfully appealed. Boycott case was years ago and the conviction stands. I have no opinion on what happened in that hotel, but a conviction is a conviction, and you're in no position to deem the conviction unsafe cos he said he didn't do it.

[shurlock]

I thought soggy had principles. They might have been misguided and self-righteous but they were, at least, consistent. It turns out he’s just a contrarian, attention-seeking nob.

[hypochondriac]

So you're retrying his case based on what yiu read now? Nuts. Ched Evans is different altogether. Firstly it's a completely case with entirely different facts so of no relevance to any other case, plus its was successfully appealed. Boycott case was years ago and the conviction stands. I have no opinion on what happened in that hotel, but a conviction is a conviction, and you're in no position to deem the conviction unsafe cos he said he didn't do it.

He's willing to take the word of Boycott despite a conviction and a failed appeal yet still refers to Ched Evans as a rapist despite similar denials and a successful appeal. It seems that soggy's principles change like the weather depending on if he likes the person involved or not.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

I see the obsessed playground bullies are out in force on this thread... sad and funny

[Winnersaint]

As some have pointed out he was MIA in the 70s. Always thought he was a boring, overrated cricketer, a pompous opinionated commentator and pundit and ill deserving of the 'hero' status that many give him. In my mind, take that away what is left that deserves a knighthood?

[Sheaf Saint]

As some have pointed out he was MIA in the 70s. Always thought he was a boring, overrated cricketer, a pompous opinionated commentator and pundit and ill deserving of the 'hero' status that many give him. In my mind, take that away what is left that deserves a knighthood?

 

Has he ever made any donations to the Tory party, perhaps?

 

Just wondering.

[whelk]

Has he ever made any donations to the Tory party, perhaps?

 

Just wondering.

 

He’s a tight arsed Yorkshireman so doubt it

[sadoldgit]

So you're retrying his case based on what yiu read now? Nuts. Ched Evans is different altogether. Firstly it's a completely case with entirely different facts so of no relevance to any other case, plus its was successfully appealed. Boycott case was years ago and the conviction stands. I have no opinion on what happened in that hotel, but a conviction is a conviction, and you're in no position to deem the conviction unsafe cos he said he didn't do 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

[sadoldgit]

he is guilty or not.

If this makes me a “nob” then so be it.

[CB Fry]

Arise Sir Ched.

[hypochondriac]

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

Just read this reply and then go and read soggy's responses in the Ched Evans case. I had a chuckle.

[egg]

Just read this reply and then go and read soggy's responses in the Ched Evans case. I had a chuckle.

I followed the thread mate. The inconsistency is breathtaking. Seems to be one rule for cricketers, another for footballers. Boycott is a convicted woman beater who's shown zero remorse. That's not complicated.

[egg]

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

If the theme of your posts are not questioning the conviction then I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but to my mind you're talking boll0cks. The fella was convicted by a court in a civilised country of hitting her like 20 times. His maintaining of innocence, and showing no remorse, makes it worse rather than better.

[hypochondriac]

I followed the thread mate. The inconsistency is breathtaking. Seems to be one rule for cricketers, another for footballers. Boycott is a convicted woman beater who's shown zero remorse. That's not complicated.

The thing is I really don't know the details of the boycott case so I can't say for certain either way. It's just absolutely hilarious that he'd take boycotts word for it yet continue to call Ched Evans a rapist. I'm more convinced he is a troll every time he posts.

[sadoldgit]

If the theme of your posts are not questioning the conviction then I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but to my mind you're talking boll0cks. The fella was convicted by a court in a civilised country of hitting her like 20 times. His maintaining of innocence, and showing no remorse, makes it worse rather than better.

 

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.

[shurlock]

 

#slipperyfloor

 

Is she an armless amputee who couldn't break her fall? Strange that she's just got black eyes.

 

Sickening that we have apologists for domestic violence on here.

Edited 13 September, 2019 by shurlock

[shurlock]

Domestic violence killings in UK at five-year high

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/13/domestic-violence-killings-in-uk-at-five-year-high

[Batman]

What is soggy on about here?

[OldNick]

 

#slipperyfloor

 

Is she an armless amputee who couldn't break her fall? Strange that she's just got black eyes.

 

Sickening that we have apologists for domestic violence on here.

Its been to court and he was found guilty. I abhor any violence to women and have never partaken is such things. I think it is fair to say though I would have thought if she was punched in the face 20 times perhaps you would expect rather more injuries. I suspect that he hit her perhaps 3-5 times but in the fear she was going through it seemed a lot more.

[hypochondriac]

Is it worth reading those long paragraphs from soggy? I haven't yet but I guess it's him trying to justify the unjustifiable.

[hypochondriac]

Its been to court and he was found guilty. I abhor any violence to women and have never partaken is such things. I think it is fair to say though I would have thought if she was punched in the face 20 times perhaps you would expect rather more injuries. I suspect that he hit her perhaps 3-5 times but in the fear she was going through it seemed a lot more.

3-5 times doesn't really lessen the offence does it!

[hypochondriac]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/13/domestic-violence-killings-in-uk-at-five-year-high

Sickening. Not surprising though when attitudes like soggy displays is still in wider society.

[sadoldgit]

 

#slipperyfloor

 

Is she an armless amputee who couldn't break her fall? Strange that she's just got black eyes.

 

Sickening that we have apologists for domestic violence on here.

 

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.

[shurlock]

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.

 

 

Boycott was found guilty by a court of law. By contrast, your post reeks of excuses, innuendo and unsubstantiated claims. I thought being an apologist for Les Reed and Pellegrino was bad enough; but this takes the biscuit pal.

Edited 13 September, 2019 by shurlock

[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?

[sadoldgit]

Boycott was found guilty by a court of law. By contrast, your post reeks of excuses, innuendo and unsubstantiated claims. I thought being an apologist for Les Reed and Pellegrino was bad enough; but this takes the biscuit pal.

 

 

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.

[hypochondriac]

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.

So why in your mind was the Ched Evans conviction beyond doubt and anyone who questioned the verdict were rape apologists yet you questioning a conviction which was never overturned doesn't make you an apologist for domestic violence?

 

It seems you are the self-appointed arbiter of what verdicts can be questioned (despite losing an appeal) and which are beyond reproach (despite being overturned.)

 

Really makes you think...

Edited 13 September, 2019 by hypochondriac

[Batman]

So why in your mind was the Ched Evans conviction beyond doubt and anyone who questioned the verdict were rape apologists yet you questioning a conviction which was never overturned doesn't make you an apologist for domestic violence?

 

It seems you are the self-appointed arbiter of what verdicts can be questioned (despite losing an appeal) and which are beyond reproach (despite being overturned.)

 

Really makes you think...

 

His head has gone. And by some distance!

 

After his stance on the Ched thread, to read this crap, I am actually stunned.

 

Doesn’t he (or at least previously) work in the Justice system?

My god!