Least surprising news of the year

[PSRB]

Ched Evans, not guilty

[Yesterday Once More]

Ched Evans, not guilty

Apparently The Donald has already got his barrister's phone number.

[World's End Stella]

Ched Evans, not guilty

I'm looking forward to all the sanctimonious ****s who wanted him hung, despite the fact that the judicial process had not fully completed, admitting they were wrong to be so premature and issuing apologies that are as public as their condemnation was.

I'm looking at you, Henry Winter. You appalling c*nt.

[PSRB]

I'm looking forward to all the sanctimonious ****s who wanted him hung, despite the fact that the judicial process had not fully completed, admitting they were wrong to be so premature and issuing apologies that are as public as their condemnation was.

I'm looking at you, Henry Winter. You appalling c*nt.

The Guardian are already pretty much saying the retrial was weighted in his favour

[Burney]

I'm looking forward to all the sanctimonious ****s who wanted him hung, despite the fact that the judicial process had not fully completed, admitting they were wrong to be so premature and issuing apologies that are as public as their condemnation was.

I'm looking at you, Henry Winter. You appalling c*nt.

It's 'hanged'

[Sir C]

I'm looking forward to all the sanctimonious ****s who wanted him hung, despite the fact that the judicial process had not fully completed, admitting they were wrong to be so premature and issuing apologies that are as public as their condemnation was.

I'm looking at you, Henry Winter. You appalling c*nt.

We don't know how he is hung, it never came out at the trial. As it were.

[World's End Stella]

It's 'hanged'

I'll take your word for it. Although I'd be embarrassed if I had got that correct. Grammar is for girls. :-)

[World's End Stella]

We don't know how he is hung, it never came out at the trial. As it were.

True. But either way it was always a decision which seemed to me to be very unclear, it could have gone either way as what is or is not, consent, is rather nebulous.

Given that, I was shocked at how vehement the condemnation of young Chad was given that an appeal process was underway and he seemed to have a very strong argument. It's almost as though some small-minded muppets quite liked the chance to jump up on their soapbox and come across all holier than thou.

[Pokster]

True. But either way it was always a decision which seemed to me to be very unclear, it could have gone either way as what is or is not, consent, is rather nebulous.

Given that, I was shocked at how vehement the condemnation of young Chad was given that an appeal process was underway and he seemed to have a very strong argument. It's almost as though some small-minded muppets quite liked the chance to jump up on their soapbox and come across all holier than thou.

Or perhaps he had been found guilty and they thought it was OK to comment... seeing as he served 2 1/2 yrs for this I don't think his defence was that clear cut to begin with.

Good luck to him, still shocked his g/f stood by him no matter what he had done

[Monty92]

True. But either way it was always a decision which seemed to me to be very unclear, it could have gone either way as what is or is not, consent, is rather nebulous.

Given that, I was shocked at how vehement the condemnation of young Chad was given that an appeal process was underway and he seemed to have a very strong argument. It's almost as though some small-minded muppets quite liked the chance to jump up on their soapbox and come across all holier than thou.

Especially as most of the condemnation was over his refusal to apologise and express remorse, even though doing so would have denied him the possibility of the appeal that has now proven him to be an innocent man.

[Burney]

True. But either way it was always a decision which seemed to me to be very unclear, it could have gone either way as what is or is not, consent, is rather nebulous.

Given that, I was shocked at how vehement the condemnation of young Chad was given that an appeal process was underway and he seemed to have a very strong argument. It's almost as though some small-minded muppets quite liked the chance to jump up on their soapbox and come across all holier than thou.

I think it's more that he was one of the few high-profile(ish) footballers to actually be convicted of rape in this type of case, which meant he became the go-to case when people wanted to condemn the extremely dubious sexual attitudes and behaviours that appear to exist among some footballers.

Personally, I would be extremely wary of anyone who chooses to get on their high horse in his defence, since I suspect their agenda quite as much as I suspect the agendas of those who lined up to condemn someone who was, in fairness, a convicted rapist.

[Sir C]

The Guardian are already pretty much saying the retrial was weighted in his favour

They're pretty much dismissing the verdict. Maniacs.

[Monty92]

Ched Evans, not guilty

Are we now allowed to call his accuser a lying slag without getting told off by feminists?

[Burney]

Are we now allowed to call his accuser a lying slag without getting told off by feminists?

Not really, no. Him being found not guilty does not axiomatically make her a liar.

[World's End Stella]

Or perhaps he had been found guilty and they thought it was OK to comment... seeing as he served 2 1/2 yrs for this I don't think his defence was that clear cut to begin with.

Good luck to him, still shocked his g/f stood by him no matter what he had done

I think his defence was very clear cut, he always said that she consented. Given that he always denied his guilt, that he had a reasonable defence, that the consent aspect of any rape conviction is a difficult one to prove and that an appeal process was underway; if I was going to 'comment' I would have held back a little on the sanctimony.

Many did. Many others did not. The latter now look a right set of muppets imo. I'm thinking primarily of those people who openly petitioned for him to not be signed by a professional football club even though his appeal was underway.

[Monty92]

I think it's more that he was one of the few high-profile(ish) footballers to actually be convicted of rape in this type of case, which meant he became the go-to case when people wanted to condemn the extremely dubious sexual attitudes and behaviours that appear to exist among some footballers.

Personally, I would be extremely wary of anyone who chooses to get on their high horse in his defence, since I suspect their agenda quite as much as I suspect the agendas of those who lined up to condemn someone who was, in fairness, a convicted rapist.

What about if that agenda is condemning the escalating trend of false rape accusations?

[Monty92]

Not really, no. Him being found not guilty does not axiomatically make her a liar.

Of course. But where would your money be?

[Pokster]

I think his defence was very clear cut, he always said that she consented. Given that he always denied his guilt, that he had a reasonable defence, that the consent aspect of any rape conviction is a difficult one to prove and that an appeal process was underway; if I was going to 'comment' I would have held back a little on the sanctimony.

Many did. Many others did not. The latter now look a right set of muppets imo. I'm thinking primarily of those people who openly petitioned for him to not be signed by a professional football club even though his appeal was underway.

Well until recently he was a convicted rapist... so not wanting your FC to sign him seems a normal thing to me.... would your company be happt to employ a convicted rapist if he was out on appeal?

[World's End Stella]

I think it's more that he was one of the few high-profile(ish) footballers to actually be convicted of rape in this type of case, which meant he became the go-to case when people wanted to condemn the extremely dubious sexual attitudes and behaviours that appear to exist among some footballers.

Personally, I would be extremely wary of anyone who chooses to get on their high horse in his defence, since I suspect their agenda quite as much as I suspect the agendas of those who lined up to condemn someone who was, in fairness, a convicted rapist.

What do you think is the agenda of those who defend him, exactly?

[Monty92]

Of course. But where would your money be?

I should probably add here that even if Evans' version of events is entirely true, I still consider that type of behaviour reprehensible.

[Burney]

Of course. But where would your money be?

I honestly wouldn't like to say without having been in court for both trials - which is sort of the point.

[Sir C]

Are we now allowed to call his accuser a lying slag without getting told off by feminists?

Would it not make more sense if we all stopped judging others, generally on the basis of very little direct knowledge, stopped hurling insults and abuse at each other, accepted that lives, actions and events may be complex and compromised, and occasionally checked our own eye beams/motes/whatevers?

[World's End Stella]

Well until recently he was a convicted rapist... so not wanting your FC to sign him seems a normal thing to me.... would your company be happt to employ a convicted rapist if he was out on appeal?

My issue isn't with the football clubs, it's with the people who felt it sensible to protest publicly against him while he was in the process of appealing his conviction. And, personally, I would only consider someone to be truly convicted of anything once the judicial process was fully complete.

And, as we know, in this case it was not. It's not unreasonable to expect the muppets to have considered this.

[Sir C]

I should probably add here that even if Evans' version of events is entirely true, I still consider that type of behaviour reprehensible.

What type of behaviour are you objecting to? If his evidence is true, he engaged in casual sex with a girl in the company of his friend. Are you claiming some moral sexual high ground here? :hehe:

[Burney]

I think his defence was very clear cut, he always said that she consented. Given that he always denied his guilt, that he had a reasonable defence, that the consent aspect of any rape conviction is a difficult one to prove and that an appeal process was underway; if I was going to 'comment' I would have held back a little on the sanctimony.

Many did. Many others did not. The latter now look a right set of muppets imo. I'm thinking primarily of those people who openly petitioned for him to not be signed by a professional football club even though his appeal was underway.

So let's say it's another offence - kiddie-fiddling or child porn, maybe. If your club were threatening to sign someone convicted of it, would you be perfectly happy for them to do so on the basis that he was appealing his conviction and had been punished enough?

Of course not - and neither would the thousands of knuckle-draggers who've been shouting his case all this time. He'd be untouchable. And that's the problem: there's a double standard in operation because it was 'just' rape and she was 'just a slag'.

[Sir C]

Well until recently he was a convicted rapist... so not wanting your FC to sign him seems a normal thing to me.... would your company be happt to employ a convicted rapist if he was out on appeal?

Are you saying that convicted criminals, having served an approrpiate sentence, should be denied employment for life?

Golly.

[World's End Stella]

Would it not make more sense if we all stopped judging others, generally on the basis of very little direct knowledge, stopped hurling insults and abuse at each other, accepted that lives, actions and events may be complex and compromised, and occasionally checked our own eye beams/motes/whatevers?

Yes, absolutely. And the sanctimonious muppets calling for him to never work in football again did precisely the opposite.

[Sir C]

Yes, absolutely. And the sanctimonious muppets calling for him to never work in football again did precisely the opposite.

Of course they did. Everyone must be seen to be virtuous, ideally more virtuous than the next bloke.

I call this syndrome 'Ian Harvey'.

[Monty92]

What type of behaviour are you objecting to? If his evidence is true, he engaged in casual sex with a girl in the company of his friend. Are you claiming some moral sexual high ground here? :hehe:

Oh you make it sound so wholesome and genteel! Running round the back of the hotel to spy through be window on a pissed chick ****ing your mate? Not for me, Clive.

[Burney]

Yes, absolutely. And the sanctimonious muppets calling for him to never work in football again did precisely the opposite.

Different rules apply in the public eye. All poor old Frank Bough did was have a taste for coke and hookers and the poor sod never worked again. See also Ron Atkinson, Andy Gray, Richard Keys, etc, etc.

[Sir C]

Oh you make it sound so wholesome and genteel! Running round the back of the hotel to spy through be window on a pissed chick ****ing your mate? Not for me, Clive.

I'm just interested that you, of all people, should have discovered the concept of decency, or morals.

Have you suffered a blow to the head recently?

[World's End Stella]

So let's say it's another offence - kiddie-fiddling or child porn, maybe. If your club were threatening to sign someone convicted of it, would you be perfectly happy for them to do so on the basis that he was appealing his conviction and had been punished enough?

Of course not - and neither would the thousands of knuckle-draggers who've been shouting his case all this time. He'd be untouchable. And that's the problem: there's a double standard in operation because it was 'just' rape and she was 'just a slag'.

My view would be that neither my football club nor myself should do or say anything until the judicial process was completed. There is a difference between that viewpoint and saying 'Ched Evans is a convicted rapist who should never work in football again'.

[World's End Stella]

Of course they did. Everyone must be seen to be virtuous, ideally more virtuous than the next bloke.

I call this syndrome 'Ian Harvey'.

:clap:

10 f* cking characters

[Burney]

I'm just interested that you, of all people, should have discovered the concept of decency, or morals.

Have you suffered a blow to the head recently?

The poor chap's wife has recently given birth and I'm guessing is going a bit short of oats, which can incline a chap to the po-faced.

Given which, it also seems rather unkind to use the words 'blow' or 'head' around him.

[redgunamo]

Not really, no. Him being found not guilty does not axiomatically make her a liar.

Similarly, being found guilty didn't make him a rapist?

glwtp, imo.

[Burney]

My view would be that neither my football club nor myself should do or say anything until the judicial process was completed. There is a difference between that viewpoint and saying 'Ched Evans is a convicted rapist who should never work in football again'.

So in other words you're claiming you'd be happy for your club to employ a convicted *****phile and let him run out on the pitch with a Junior Gunners, etc, etc?

Bullshít would you.

[Sir C]

The poor chap's wife has recently given birth and I'm guessing is going a bit short of oats, which can incline a chap to the po-faced.

Given which, it also seems rather unkind to use the words 'blow' or 'head' around him.

:hehe: I don't wish to appear unkind, but I'm not listening to lectures on morality from that repugnant little misanthrope. (That's not to say that I don't love him very dearly, of course, the wee scamp.)

[redgunamo]

My view would be that neither my football club nor myself should do or say anything until the judicial process was completed. There is a difference between that viewpoint and saying 'Ched Evans is a convicted rapist who should never work in football again'.

Short career, football, though, ain't it. There's the rub.

[Sir C]

So in other words you're claiming you'd be happy for your club to employ a convicted *****phile and let him run out on the pitch with a Junior Gunners, etc, etc?

Bullshít would you.

Hold on, if said peedofiddler had served the appropriate sentence, surely he is entitled to return to his profession? Isn't prison supposed to be about rehabilitation?

You and your mates round the podiatrist's tonight with the flambeaux, are you?

[redgunamo]

I'm looking forward to all the sanctimonious ****s who wanted him hung, despite the fact that the judicial process had not fully completed, admitting they were wrong to be so premature and issuing apologies that are as public as their condemnation was.

I'm looking at you, Henry Winter. You appalling c*nt.

Virtue Signalling, if that's the correct term, does not need to depend on facts, I think.

[Burney]

Hold on, if said peedofiddler had served the appropriate sentence, surely he is entitled to return to his profession? Isn't prison supposed to be about rehabilitation?

You and your mates round the podiatrist's tonight with the flambeaux, are you?

This isn't about the individual's entitlement, it's about the attitudes that surround the two crimes and the way in which said attitudes would affect the likelihood of his future employment. In the case of a nonce, there is absolutely fùck all chance that any club would re-employ him just because he said he wasn't guilty and was appealing - let alone a chance that thousands of fans would take up his case.

And yet, because it's rape, the attitudes are totally different. That discrepancy worries me not a little, since it speaks of some nasty underlying attitudes.

[TheCurly]

Hold on, if said peedofiddler had served the appropriate sentence, surely he is entitled to return to his profession? Isn't prison supposed to be about rehabilitation?

You and your mates round the podiatrist's tonight with the flambeaux, are you?

The Arsenal's Robin van Persie - stitched up by a lying slaaaaag
Man United's Robin van Persie - he got away with rape thon ****

[Burney]

Virtue Signalling, if that's the correct term, does not need to depend on facts, I think.


Check you out with the hip terms, r!

[redgunamo]

Check you out with the hip terms, r!

:hehe: I know. I blame the kids.

[Sir C]

The Arsenal's Robin van Persie - stitched up by a lying slaaaaag
Man United's Robin van Persie - he got away with rape thon ****

In fairness, she did say, 'no'.

So I've heard, anyway.

[World's End Stella]

So in other words you're claiming you'd be happy for your club to employ a convicted *****phile and let him run out on the pitch with a Junior Gunners, etc, etc?

Bullshít would you.

No, as I said, I would not want my football club to do anything, including offering him a position, until the appeal process was over. However, I would not feel it was my position to publicly condemn the man in the process.

[Sir C]

This isn't about the individual's entitlement, it's about the attitudes that surround the two crimes and the way in which said attitudes would affect the likelihood of his future employment. In the case of a nonce, there is absolutely fùck all chance that any club would re-employ him just because he said he wasn't guilty and was appealing - let alone a chance that thousands of fans would take up his case.

And yet, because it's rape, the attitudes are totally different. That discrepancy worries me not a little, since it speaks of some nasty underlying attitudes.

What if the charge had been shoplifting? Would you allow for a two-tiered attitude then?

Either you have some respect for the justice system, or you don't, in which case it's pitchforks at dusk all the way to the castle gates.

[Burney]

What if the charge had been shoplifting? Would you allow for a two-tiered attitude then?

Either you have some respect for the justice system, or you don't, in which case it's pitchforks at dusk all the way to the castle gates.

Yes. There is a clear moral difference between a crime of violence and a crime against property.

[Burney]

No, as I said, I would not want my football club to do anything, including offering him a position, until the appeal process was over. However, I would not feel it was my position to publicly condemn the man in the process.

So in effect you would agree with those people who didn't want him re-employed by Sheffield United or another club, then? :shrug:

[redgunamo]

it speaks of some nasty underlying attitudes.

Yes, principally envy, I reckon. Nobody wants consequences anymore and professional footballers etc. would appear to have cracked it.

What sick ridiculous puppets we are and what gross little stage we dance on. What fun we have dancing and ****ing. Not a care in the world. As the man said.

[Sir C]

No. There is a clear moral difference between a crime of violence and a crime against property.

:sigh: Headbutting another yob in a kebab shop?

If you start making these judgements, you allow others to make such judgements, and you might not like how others judge. Especially when they start judging you.

[Burney]

:sigh: Headbutting another yob in a kebab shop?

If you start making these judgements, you allow others to make such judgements, and you might not like how others judge. Especially when they start judging you.

I'm not the one making the judgements. I'm just questioning the motivations that underlie this double standard.

[Sir C]

I'm not the one making the judgements. I'm just questioning the motivations that underlie this double standard.

Rich white men? The patriarchy? All men are rapists? All PIV is rape? That sort of thing? We could ask Suzanne Moore.

[World's End Stella]

So in effect you would agree with those people who didn't want him re-employed by Sheffield United or another club, then? :shrug:

'the case is still before the courts and there should be no action taken until the appeal process is complete'

'Ched Evans is a convicted rapist who should never work in football again'

You honestly don't see a difference between those two statements?

[redgunamo]

I'm not the one making the judgements. I'm just questioning the motivations that underlie this double standard.

You mean you're not the presiding judge in the case or that you have no firm opinion on the matter either way?

[redgunamo]

Rich white men? The patriarchy? All men are rapists? All PIV is rape? That sort of thing? We could ask Suzanne Moore.

What on earth is PIV? :-(

[PSRB]

They're pretty much dismissing the verdict. Maniacs.

Yep, was just about to post that.

[Sir C]

What on earth is PIV? :-(

Well, when the daddy and the mummy love each other very much, sometimes daddy's winky goes stiff and he puts it in mummy's secret pocket and they have a special cuddle, see? And then baby Jesus brings a tiny new baby to the family.

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

[Burney]

'the case is still before the courts and there should be no action taken until the appeal process is complete'

'Ched Evans is a convicted rapist who should never work in football again'

You honestly don't see a difference between those two statements?

Well actually, for quite a long time, the case was not before the courts, he was simply preparing to appeal his conviction - not the same thing.

The furore, as I recall, arose when it emerged that Sheffield United were planning to take him back on their books. And you have admitted you didn't think that would have been the right thing to do. Only the most extreme voices were calling for him never to work in football again.
Besides, by saying that you think not employing him when he'd been found guilty was the right thing to do, you are essentially saying that, had his conviction been upheld today, it would have been correct never to employ him in football again.

[PSRB]

Oh you make it sound so wholesome and genteel! Running round the back of the hotel to spy through be window on a pissed chick ****ing your mate? Not for me, Clive.

FFS, we used always burst into a room where a friend was having high jinks with a lady friend, it would have been rude not too

[redgunamo]

:sigh: Headbutting another yob in a kebab shop?

If you start making these judgements, you allow others to make such judgements, and you might not like how others judge. Especially when they start judging you.

We can't help ourselves though, it's only natural. If one is not directly concerned in these matters, it's all just harmless banter and gossip with no consequences.

I always thought the initial verdict was harsh and wrong, but didn't think the charges were made with any particular malicious intent; I'm perfectly prepared to believe that young dolly felt she had been raped and maybe she always will.

[Burney]

Rich white men? The patriarchy? All men are rapists? All PIV is rape? That sort of thing? We could ask Suzanne Moore.


Mock all you like, but there's a serious question there. The problem is that the more ridiculous Guardian types make it too easy to dismiss as just another petty SJW whinge.

Sometimes - just sometimes - it's OK to be on the same side as Suzanne Moore.

There. I've said it. :hide:

[Burney]

We can't help ourselves though, it's only natural. If one is not directly concerned in these matters, it's all just harmless banter and gossip with no consequences.

I always thought the initial verdict was harsh and wrong, but didn't think the charges were made with any particular malicious intent; I'm perfectly prepared to believe that young dolly felt she had been raped and maybe she always will.

Quite. And some people would do well to remember that the law tests guilt, it does not prove innocence.

[Sir C]

Mock all you like, but there's a serious question there. The problem is that the more ridiculous Guardian types make it too easy to dismiss as just another petty SJW whinge.

Sometimes - just sometimes - it's OK to be on the same side as Suzanne Moore.

There. I've said it. :hide:

I'm not in the least surprised. You've always had this penchant for outrageous, deafening holier-than-thousim.

How well i remember you leading the calls for poor Ron's head to roll. :shrug:

[redgunamo]

Well, when the daddy and the mummy love each other very much, sometimes daddy's winky goes stiff and he puts it in mummy's secret pocket and they have a special cuddle, see? And then baby Jesus brings a tiny new baby to the family.

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

So, that's where I've been going wrong.

[Burney]

I'm not in the least surprised. You've always had this penchant for outrageous, deafening holier-than-thousim.

How well i remember you leading the calls for poor Ron's head to roll. :shrug:

I'm not having that. You can't tar me with the Harvey brush while pretending you're Mr Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged. :hehe:

[World's End Stella]

Well actually, for quite a long time, the case was not before the courts, he was simply preparing to appeal his conviction - not the same thing.

The furore, as I recall, arose when it emerged that Sheffield United were planning to take him back on their books. And you have admitted you didn't think that would have been the right thing to do. Only the most extreme voices were calling for him never to work in football again.
Besides, by saying that you think not employing him when he'd been found guilty was the right thing to do, you are essentially saying that, had his conviction been upheld today, it would have been correct never to employ him in football again.

It is those most extreme voices that I was referring to, Henry Winter as an example.

And there is a logical flaw in your last paragraph. Saying that no decision should be taken until the judicial process is complete does not preclude the possibility of offering him a position once it is complete, regardless of the outcome. If he is found innocent, there is clearly no issue whatsoever, if he is found guilty then the club would have a decision to take.

[Burney]

It is those most extreme voices that I was referring to, Henry Winter as an example.

And there is a logical flaw in your last paragraph. Saying that no decision should be taken until the judicial process is complete does not preclude the possibility of offering him a position once it is complete, regardless of the outcome. If he is found innocent, there is clearly no issue whatsoever, if he is found guilty then the club would have a decision to take.

No, sorry, but if your reason for not employing him is that there is a question of guilt hanging over him, there can be no possible excuse for then employing him when his guilt is proved once again. That's a total nonsense.

[redgunamo]

Quite. And some people would do well to remember that the law tests guilt, it does not prove innocence.

Of course, and public opinion and underlying attitudes are always gong to impact these things. No doubt that poor young woman now knows very well that prison ain't the only place they can send you to suffer. Young Ched too can expect a warm, hearty welcome at Elland Road or wherever on any future visits.

Unless she *is* actually a lying slag, of course.

[redgunamo]

No, sorry, but if your reason for not employing him is that there is a question of guilt hanging over him, there can be no possible excuse for then employing him when his guilt is proved once again. That's a total nonsense.

Anyway, he'd be in jail, wouldn't he.

[Sir C]

I'm not having that. You can't tar me with the Harvey brush while pretending you're Mr Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged. :hehe:

:shrug: You seem to be rather more fixated on my beam than your mote.

[Burney]

:shrug: You seem to be rather more fixated on my beam than your mote.

You know where you can stick your beam, don't you?

[Sir C]

You know where you can stick your beam, don't you?

Abuse now, is it? I see.

[Burney]

Abuse now, is it? I see.

Not at all. Some pleasant joshing is all.

My anniversary dinner tomorrow, followed by Sushi with E and her latest chap on Sunday. I'm terrified I'll call him by the old one's name :-(

[Sir C]

Not at all. Some pleasant joshing is all.

My anniversary dinner tomorrow, followed by Sushi with E and her latest chap on Sunday. I'm terrified I'll call him by the old one's name :-(

Ah yes, happy anniversary to you both. Going somwhere special?

Do give my salaams to the dear girl; it's been simply ages.

[Burney]

Ah yes, happy anniversary to you both. Going somwhere special?

Do give my salaams to the dear girl; it's been simply ages.

Not really sure. Somewhere nearby, I think. G booked it.

Will do.

[Sir C]

Not really sure. Somewhere nearby, I think. G booked it.

Will do.

Two years, eh? How quickly time passes! Two years. Tch. :1000yardstare:

[Burney]

Two years, eh? How quickly time passes! Two years. Tch. :1000yardstare:

Yes. And *AHEM* talking of people who haven't seen one another in a long time...

[Sir C]

Yes. And *AHEM* talking of people who haven't seen one another in a long time...

I'm on it :nod:

[redgunamo]

I'm looking forward to all the sanctimonious ****s who wanted him hung, despite the fact that the judicial process had not fully completed, admitting they were wrong to be so premature and issuing apologies that are as public as their condemnation was.

I'm looking at you, Henry Winter. You appalling c*nt.

In fairness, the modern football reporter must be rather torn.

On the one hand, they are doing better than ever; both important and self-important, making so much money and so on. But on the other, they are keenly aware that they are essentially parasites and ticks on the hide of the sort of oiks, wastrels and guttersnipes they've always been raised to despise and sneer at, and who are actually doing a million times better.

It can't be easy for them.

[World's End Stella]

No, sorry, but if your reason for not employing him is that there is a question of guilt hanging over him, there can be no possible excuse for then employing him when his guilt is proved once again. That's a total nonsense.

Because the reason for not employing him now does not necessarily have to be the guilt hanging over him. It could be that you think that the appeal process itself might reveal evidence that impacts your decision regardless of the outcome. It could be a question of practicality; why take a difficult decision now when you could take an easy decision in the near future. You may wish to gauge how public opinion does or does not change over the course of the appeal, there are a number of reasons.

[dismalswamp]

Didn't that stupid Ennis-Hill bint make a public show of condemning Evans and using her celebrity status to shame Sheffield United into removing some kind of ****ing bench with her name on or something?

[eastgermanautos]

It's 'hanged'

Not for me it ain't, dude. :badumpum-pish:

[redgunamo]

Didn't that stupid Ennis-Hill bint make a public show of condemning Evans and using her celebrity status to shame Sheffield United into removing some kind of ****ing bench with her name on or something?

She was put in a difficult spot, in fairness. And anyway, the presumption of innocence precedes the trial and doesn't apply to the review; at the time she said dem fings, he *was* a convicted rapist.