Could Ched still do a job for us?

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

Surely she’d have more of a filling than a covering?

I always thought (one of) CE’s greatest assets was his capacity to shoot early

Enough, already

 

[Gavlar]

He’s called Kabongo though, that’s got to be worth a punt. I’m sure some of our wittier songsmiths could work his name into a lively ditty.

Kabongo kabongo he should have played in the Congo…

 

[wavy-blade]

Jamie Vardy was 25 and never played above Conference when Leicester signed him.

Unbelievable this fact ended up winning prem and playing for England, old steptoe didn’t do to badly , mind you he’s got to go home to his missis every night

As for the Chesterfield striker kabongo tshimanga , I have watched him and he’s not a championship standard no where near , but then again we have a 20 mill striker with a strike rate of 57 appearances with 4 goals so what the fuck do I know .

 

[The Crab]

You know those players who you sign on football manager and they become a goal machine for you? This would be one of mine so based on that I'd love us to sign him.

Although looking back at how Arturo Lupoli did for us maybe my football manager career isn't the best way to judge potential signings.......

Just like Moose on FM21.

Goal machine on there.

In reality, not so much......

 

[JackSUFC]

It absolutely NEVER occurred to me that humble pie might be a dessert. Mind completely blown now. All those years imagining short-crust covered in gravy, with foul-tasting meaty filling (otherwise why would you have to be ‘forced’ to eat it?) …

The word humble pie comes from the Middle English umbles, or the edible entrails of animals. Yep, you read it right, it's a pie made of offal. Back in the day when only the wealthy could afford our favourite cuts of meat—and long before "nose-to-tail" eating was fashionable—the more humble classes were relegated to eating the off cuts and less desirable parts of the beast. The less you could afford, the lower the cuts of meat, until you were right at the bottom eating umble pie.

How to make a humble pie - what happens when a medieval dish gets a modern makeover

What happens when a nasty medieval dish gets a makeover

kitchen.nine.com.au

Well there you have it. Every day is a school day fellas.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Like how Ched could be found guilty and McDonald innocent.

Nobody has ever been able to explain this.

 

[Chingo]

Out of contract in the summer , looking shit hot with two goals today!
Hmmm

 

[Dkc]

Ideal replacement for Billy.

 

[Swinton Blade]

Out of contract in the summer , looking shit hot with two goals today!
Hmmm

Should have gone to World Cup.

 

[Frank the tank]

Should have gone to World Cup.

As long as we play blackburn every week

 

[Sheffsteel]

Nobody has ever been able to explain this.

Thought it was quite clearly explained and made full logical sense. It was about what is reasonable to believe they had consent.

Let’s assume the woman was very drunk and not in a fit state to consent. This type of thing happens 1000’s of times every weekend. Many women who have one night stands are severely drunk.

So they used the events leading up to the sexual act to explain why both players thought they might have consent.

McDonald can say. I chatted her up in the bar and we got on very well. She agrees to come back to my hotel room and we share a taxi. She followed me into the room and I assumed I’d pulled.

Whereas Ched was walking the streets when McDonald texted him with the message “I’ve found one and she’s up for threesome”. Ched saw she was very drunk but thought she’s not struggling so it must mean consent. However after the act he left via the fire escape suggesting he knew he’d done something wrong.

What McDonald did is pretty common however what Ched did is highly unusual and looks like plain opportunism like if a severely drunk women met you in the street & instantly begged you for sex then passed out before penetration. Ched would probably press ahead whereas a right minded person would think this isnt right.

 

[jt64]

Bring them all back! Surely Jordan Slew could still do a job? Nick Blackman? Clayton Donaldson (Sunderland away only)?

 

[programmechap]

Thought it was quite clearly explained and made full logical sense. It was about what is reasonable to believe they had consent.

Let’s assume the woman was very drunk and not in a fit state to consent. This type of thing happens 1000’s of times every weekend. Many women who have one night stands are severely drunk.

So they used the events leading up to the sexual act to explain why both players thought they might have consent.

McDonald can say. I chatted her up in the bar and we got on very well. She agrees to come back to my hotel room and we share a taxi. She followed me into the room and I assumed I’d pulled.

Whereas Ched was walking the streets when McDonald texted him with the message “I’ve found one and she’s up for threesome”. Ched saw she was very drunk but thought she’s not struggling so it must mean consent. However after the act he left via the fire escape suggesting he knew he’d done something wrong.

What McDonald did is pretty common however what Ched did is highly unusual and looks like plain opportunism like if a severely drunk women met you in the street & instantly begged you for sex then passed out before penetration. Ched would probably press ahead whereas a right minded person would think this isnt right.

I think the lies Evans told didn't help him. I mean "I didn't turn up at the hotel for sex, as I'm.local I was curious to know if I knew the girl".

Basically, he was in full penile dementia mode and on a mission to have sex. I don't think he would have gone ahead if she'd said "no", but in the absence of that, I don't think he gave a second thought to whether she consented or not.

As it happens though, I would have acquired him first time round as, given his and his mates assertion about her enthusiastic consent and her having no memory of the incident , I couldn't have been sure he didn't have at least a reasonable belief in consent.

 

[Dkc]

Thought it was quite clearly explained and made full logical sense. It was about what is reasonable to believe they had consent.

Let’s assume the woman was very drunk and not in a fit state to consent. This type of thing happens 1000’s of times every weekend. Many women who have one night stands are severely drunk.

So they used the events leading up to the sexual act to explain why both players thought they might have consent.

McDonald can say. I chatted her up in the bar and we got on very well. She agrees to come back to my hotel room and we share a taxi. She followed me into the room and I assumed I’d pulled.

Whereas Ched was walking the streets when McDonald texted him with the message “I’ve found one and she’s up for threesome”. Ched saw she was very drunk but thought she’s not struggling so it must mean consent. However after the act he left via the fire escape suggesting he knew he’d done something wrong.

What McDonald did is pretty common however what Ched did is highly unusual and looks like plain opportunism like if a severely drunk women met you in the street & instantly begged you for sex then passed out before penetration. Ched would probably press ahead whereas a right minded person would think this isnt right.

But under the law, McDonald was still as guilty as Ched if the woman was too drunk to consent, regardless of what he believed.

 

[BushBlade]

Fucking Hell.

 

[Gyp the blade]

WTF people people people whatever your taking please send me some immediately I’ll pay whatever u want

 

[Houston_Blade]

We should move heaven and earth to sign Ched, Whiteman and Woodburn in January.

 

[FMBlade1]

Fucking Hell.

And I hadn't even commented on this thread

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

But under the law, McDonald was still as guilty as Ched if the woman was too drunk to consent, regardless of what he believed.

No, that's not what the law says. If ched and MacDonald had reasonable belief in consent (and implicitly, the capacity to consent) then that is a defence.

From his own testimony, Ched didn't even talk to the lass before sticking his rod in.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Thought it was quite clearly explained and made full logical sense. It was about what is reasonable to believe they had consent.

Let’s assume the woman was very drunk and not in a fit state to consent. This type of thing happens 1000’s of times every weekend. Many women who have one night stands are severely drunk.

So they used the events leading up to the sexual act to explain why both players thought they might have consent.

McDonald can say. I chatted her up in the bar and we got on very well. She agrees to come back to my hotel room and we share a taxi. She followed me into the room and I assumed I’d pulled.

Whereas Ched was walking the streets when McDonald texted him with the message “I’ve found one and she’s up for threesome”. Ched saw she was very drunk but thought she’s not struggling so it must mean consent. However after the act he left via the fire escape suggesting he knew he’d done something wrong.

What McDonald did is pretty common however what Ched did is highly unusual and looks like plain opportunism like if a severely drunk women met you in the street & instantly begged you for sex then passed out before penetration. Ched would probably press ahead whereas a right minded person would think this isnt right.

I very much suspect Walthy was on the windup there.

 

[Sheff de party]

I very much suspect Walthy was on the windup there.

He definitely was.

 

[Sheff de party]

No, that's not what the law says. If ched and MacDonald had reasonable belief in consent (and implicitly, the capacity to consent) then that is a defence.

From his own testimony, Ched didn't even talk to the lass before sticking his rod in.

View attachment 149145

In the original trial, I think Ched and Clayton both said the other one asked the girl if Ched could join in and that she said yes.

The jury must have concluded that they were lying.

 

[Sheff de party]

But under the law, McDonald was still as guilty as Ched if the woman was too drunk to consent, regardless of what he believed.

This isn’t correct. See “reasonable belief.” It’s perfectly possible for one to be convicted and the other to be acquitted.

Basically you can be too drunk to consent and the person accused still gets off if they reasonably believed you consented.

 

[Gavlar]

Nobody has ever been able to explain this.

Apart from the hundreds that have.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Apart from the hundreds that have.

Name one.

 

[blade67]

Ideal replacement for Billy.

Indeed 28 championship career goals at 33 demonstrates his credentials for that role.

Bring it on. Surely there will be no one else with a better record available.

 

[Chingo]

Indeed 28 championship career goals at 33 demonstrates his credentials for that role.

Bring it on. Surely there will be no one else with a better record available.

My bump on this thread yesterday was a bit of a wind up that triggered a few … but he’s hardly had a normal “career” has he?

 

[Jimmy Fleck]

No. Close thread.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Need some ticket marshalls on the kop

 

[blade67]

My bump on this thread yesterday was a bit of a wind up that triggered a few … but he’s hardly had a normal “career” has he?

yes , I see that the whole "how can it be possible for two blokes...." has kicked off again. No doubt, someone will call someone else a cunt soon and get banned. Well done

But his....

28 goals in 143 games in the championship @ 1 goal every 5.2 games and....
65 goals in 106 games in league 1 @ 1 goal every 1.6 games

tells it's own story. He'd be a better fit for Wednesday or Sunderland