Stevenage

[Ollessendro]

Bloody hell, you are unnecessarily provocative.

Brentford still have an outside chance of the play offs so they do have something to play for and Wednesday failed to win at Colchester who did indeed have nothing to play for. This has a draw written all over it and only a typically manic depressive United fan would not see that.

I'll donate £10 to the forum if Wednesday do not win. Care to take that on? Mind you, I am still waiting for the pints you owe me for Porter outscoring Beattie ......

 

[Darren]

I'll donate £10 to the forum if Wednesday do not win. Care to take that on? Mind you, I am still waiting for the pints you owe me for Porter outscoring Beattie ......

If you recall, you turned down that bet because even you thought Beattie would outscore Porter.

If you want to donate £10 to the forum if Wednesday don't win, feel free.

 

[oldblade]

That is nonsense. Brentford are 8th and Wednesday are 3rd, Wednesday are on a fantastic run and Brentford have lost 2 on the bounce, the Pigs have something to play for and they do not. This has away win written all over it. Only a red and white spectacle wearing fool would expect any result for Brentford.

I agree that Wednesday are likely to beat Brentford, but don't exaggerate! Brentford have not lost two on the bounce. Their defeat at Stevenage was their first defeat after a seven game unbeaten run

 

[judge]

And they missed two penaltys

 

[oldblade]

I'll donate £10 to the forum if Wednesday do not win. Care to take that on? Mind you, I am still waiting for the pints you owe me for Porter outscoring Beattie ......

He hasn't outscored him yet. There are still two games to go......

 

[super_pig]

I'll donate £10 to the forum if Wednesday do not win.

put it toward your new speedo's olle

 

[Darren]

He hasn't outscored him yet. There are still two games to go......

We could look at it this way:

Brentford have got 36 points from their home games and Wednesday 35 from their away games - that must point towards a draw

 

[ghandi]

Bloody hell, you are unnecessarily provocative.

Brentford still have an outside chance of the play offs so they do have something to play for and Wednesday failed to win at Colchester who did indeed have nothing to play for. This has a draw written all over it and only a typically manic depressive United fan would not see that.

I am a blade with a bi-polar condition

 

[Darren]

...Whereas we have 52 points from our home games and Stevanage have 32 from their away games, which must point to a home win.

 

[Ollessendro]

If you recall, you turned down that bet because even you thought Beattie would outscore Porter.

If you want to donate £10 to the forum if Wednesday don't win, feel free.

So you are too much of a pussy to take on the challenge. Or maybe you have learnt from your mistakes (i.e. Olle is right). I am guessing that you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is, because deep down you know that the red and white specs cloud everything ....... even your professional opinion!!??

 

[Darren]

So you are too much of a pussy to take on the challenge. Or maybe you have learnt from your mistakes (i.e. Olle is right). I am guessing that you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is, because deep down you know that the red and white specs cloud everything ....... even your professional opinion!!??

What challenge? I am not aware of one. You offered to donate £10 to the forum if Wednesday didn't win, which was very kind of you, but you didn't ask me to do anything.

Oh, and anyone who refers to themselves in the third person just looks a monumental egotistical arse.

 

[Ollessendro]

What challenge? I am not aware of one. You offered to donate £10 to the forum if Wednesday didn't win, which was very kind of you, but you didn't ask me to do anything.

Oh, and anyone who refers to themselves in the third person just looks a monumental egotistical arse.

My definition of a monumental egotistical arse is someone who goes out of their way to 'educate' many and offers their professional opinion, only to get things spectacularly wrong (allegedly).

So Ollessendro is saying to mr hot shot lawyer, care for a bet on the outcome of the Pigs game?

 

[Darren]

My definition of a monumental egotistical arse is someone who goes out of their way to 'educate' many and offers their professional opinion, only to get things spectacularly wrong (allegedly).

So Ollessendro is saying to mr hot shot lawyer, care for a bet on the outcome of the Pigs game?

You do talk bollocks don't you. As it happens I was 50% right and as it also happens I said on nurmeous occasions that I hadn't heard all the evidence and juries were unpredictable etc etc. And if people were not interested in my opinions I wouldn't have offered them. You will recall that people kept asking Pinchy and I what our views were, thanked us for our contribution etc etc. I flatter myself that on a subject I know something about I was able to inform people and add to their understanding of the whole process.

Perhaps I will discuss things like the Brentford game with you when you start to be a bit less offensive and express yourself less like an 11 year old.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

DISLIKE

Darren & Pinchy's professional opinion was greatly valued the last couple of weeks. And pretty much throughout the trial, they were always offering the caveat that's it's up to the jury. The five other defence lawyers that i spoke to about the case were also of the opinion that Evans would be acquitted.

 

[Darren]

DISLIKE

Darren & Pinchy's professional opinion was greatly valued the last couple of weeks. And pretty much throughout the trial, they were always offering the caveat that's it's up to the jury. The five other defence lawyers that i spoke to about the case were also of the opinion that Evans would be acquitted.

Thanks for that. I suspect Olly counts this sort of thing as "banter", but I am a bit too old for such juvenilia....

 

[Selly]

DISLIKE

Darren & Pinchy's professional opinion was greatly valued the last couple of weeks. And pretty much throughout the trial, they were always offering the caveat that's it's up to the jury. The five other defence lawyers that i spoke to about the case were also of the opinion that Evans would be acquitted.

Although it is worth pointing out that of the 2 high profile legal cases in which SUFC have been involved in the past 5 years, he has called both wrong...

 

[Darren]

Although it is worth pointing out that of the 2 high profile legal cases in which SUFC have been involved in the past 5 years, he has called both wrong...

That can't be right, I have red and white tinted glasses remember....

 

[Bladesman]

If we can play our quick passing game despite not having Evans in the side then we should do OK against Stevenage.

Just want to avoid giving them corners especially with Simmo in net.

 

[Ollessendro]

Touch a nerve did I Darren??! I actually appereciated Darren and Pinchy's comments and found that thread fascinating. However I did notice that Pinchy was a lot cagier about predicted a result and held a lot more reservation about getting acquitted than good owd Dazzler. I guess it just comes down to experience/skill/judgement.

 

[Pinchy]

I am a blade with a bi-polar condition

Oh you poor thing, that's awful. Delighted to hear it,

 

[SwissBlade]

DISLIKE

Darren & Pinchy's professional opinion was greatly valued the last couple of weeks. And pretty much throughout the trial, they were always offering the caveat that's it's up to the jury. The five other defence lawyers that i spoke to about the case were also of the opinion that Evans would be acquitted.

Agreed, I really appreciated their views they spoke about the law and the legal proceedings. Darren's legal background has been well documented in the past, so he continued to provide an excellent insight into law and all that stuff.

My opinion of Pinchy really went up as he finally managed to provide substance to his posts.

 

[GAZBLADE]

Agreed, I really appreciated their views they spoke about the law and the legal proceedings. Darren's legal background has been well documented in the past, so he continued to provide an excellent insight into law and all that stuff.

My opinion of Pinchy really went up as he finally managed to provide substance to his posts.

DITTO that Swiss.
Cheers Guys.
COYRWW

 

[Ollessendro]

You are confusing 2 issues boys. As stated, I really enjoyed that thread and found it very insightful. Darren and Pinchy's contributions were interesting and helped many with understanding. I appreciate that. Doesn't change the fact that despite his knowledge Darren's judgement was monumentally wrong.

Anyway, back to the issue. I wonder if the weather might effect things on Sat-di. It has been horrid in both London and Sheffield. Pissing it down and very blustery. In West London at 3pm there will be a spot of rain and it will be very windy. It looks like it will be blustery in Sheffield too, but with no rain. I think the conditions are less likely to affect the Pigs, but will it impact on our passing game. We've already heard (the opinion of a Stevenage fan) that if we get dragged into a direct battle then they'll get some thing, but if we play passing football we're likely to win. Will the horrible weather have an impact on United's game and could Stevenage use this?

 

[Darren]

You are confusing 2 issues boys. As stated, I really enjoyed that thread and found it very insightful. Darren and Pinchy's contributions were interesting and helped many with understanding. I appreciate that. Doesn't change the fact that despite his knowledge Darren's judgement was monumentally wrong.

Anyway, back to the issue. I wonder if the weather might effect things on Sat-di. It has been horrid in both London and Sheffield. Pissing it down and very blustery. In West London at 3pm there will be a spot of rain and it will be very windy. It looks like it will be blustery in Sheffield too, but with no rain. I think the conditions are less likely to affect the Pigs, but will it impact on our passing game. We've already heard (the opinion of a Stevenage fan) that if we get dragged into a direct battle then they'll get some thing, but if we play passing football we're likely to win. Will the horrible weather have an impact on United's game and could Stevenage use this?

Mounmentally wrong? I thought it likely (on the basis of what I knew of the evidence) both men would be acquitted. So did virtually everyone else who paid any attention to the case. Neither I (nor anyone else) said they would definitely be acquitted.

As it happened I was half right and as it also happens there is serious concern about the apparent inconsistent nature of the verdicts (concern apparentl shared by Evans' lawyers, hence the appeal).

I would stick to real ale if I were you.

 

[Balham]

You are confusing 2 issues boys. As stated, I really enjoyed that thread and found it very insightful. Darren and Pinchy's contributions were interesting and helped many with understanding. I appreciate that. Doesn't change the fact that despite his knowledge Darren's judgement was monumentally wrong.

Anyway, back to the issue. I wonder if the weather might effect things on Sat-di. It has been horrid in both London and Sheffield. Pissing it down and very blustery. In West London at 3pm there will be a spot of rain and it will be very windy. It looks like it will be blustery in Sheffield too, but with no rain. I think the conditions are less likely to affect the Pigs, but will it impact on our passing game. We've already heard (the opinion of a Stevenage fan) that if we get dragged into a direct battle then they'll get some thing, but if we play passing football we're likely to win. Will the horrible weather have an impact on United's game and could Stevenage use this?

Rain and wind affect long ball teams more than passing teams. It's only when the conditions affect the surface of the pitch that it starts to impact on the latter. That's why there's sprinklers at the Lane (amongst others) which we put on the half we're attacking.

I'm with Darren here: I think Wednesday will slip up at Brentford, who are a good side. They were held at arms length by us but didn't play particularly well and we killed off the game scoring very early in each half.

On the other subject: Darren and Pinchy: your insight on the Evans case was much appreciated; not least because you made me realise how much I'd forgotten from my degree (and, in fact, how much I remember.

 

[Darren]

Rain and wind affect long ball teams more than passing teams. It's only when the conditions affect the surface of the pitch that it starts to impact on the latter. That's why there's sprinklers at the Lane (amongst others) which we put on the half we're attacking.

I'm with Darren here: I think Wednesday will slip up at Brentford, who are a good side. They were held at arms length by us but didn't play particularly well and we killed off the game scoring very early in each half.

On the other subject: Darren and Pinchy: your insight on the Evans case was much appreciated; not least because you made me realise how much I'd forgotten from my degree (and, in fact, how much I remember.

I think if you asked any neutral who was more likely to win - United at home to Stevenage or Wednesday at Brentford, they would say the former.

Doesn't mean that this will happen, of course...

 

[Ollessendro]

Mounmentally wrong? I thought it likely (on the basis of what I knew of the evidence) both men would be acquitted. So did virtually everyone else who paid any attention to the case. Neither I (nor anyone else) said they would definitely be acquitted.

As it happened I was half right and as it also happens there is serious concern about the apparent inconsistent nature of the verdicts (concern apparentl shared by Evans' lawyers, hence the appeal).

I would stick to real ale if I were you.

I had a little look through the Evans case thread and have pulled out a few quotes:


“I am actually quite surprised this case made it to trial …… I can't see how the prosecution could have thought there was a reasonable prospect of conviction (cases should not be brought to trial unless there is such a prospect) in this case. At the moment, I would't be at all surprised if this case were not thrown out at half time” (post 266)

“To be guilty in that situation a nominal reasonable person observing the girl would have had to have realised that she was incapable of consenting no matter what she did or said. That, to me, seems virtually impossible to prove” (post 305)

(compared to a much wiser Pinchy comment: “It is dangerous to draw firm conclusions until all the evidence has been heard.” Post 312)

(Pinchy again: “We should remember there are three parties to this case: The Crown, Ched and Clayton McDonald. The defendants are separately represented and inevitably the evidence for and against the two will not be exactly the same”)

Darren in post 355 (when talking about the prosecution case) “seems rather flimsy to me”

Darren in post 545 “it would seem to be pretty unlikely that a jury could be sure that she was so drunk as to be incapable of giving consent and/or that the a reasonable person would have realised she was in this state”

Pinchy in post 720 “On the evidence so far, it has the feel of an acquittal, but:

1. The Jury have the enormous advantage of observing the witnesses and how they give their evidence, not just what they say.
2. There is more evidence to come. It is not unknown for the Prosecution case to get stronger when defence witnesses (including the defendant) are questioned.
3. It will be interesting to discover whether either or both of the defendants are of good character. That can make a difference.
4. I have attended a few Crown Court Trials. I have seen convictions in cases I thought weak, and acquittals in some I thought strong.
5.There is a human element. At his trial Ken Dodd and a few of his mates put on a show. He was acquitted. Lester Piggott didn't know any jokes.”

Darren in post 897 “Logic says that this must inevitably lead to a not guilty verdict as the jury could not possibly be sure that she did not have the capacity to consent”
Sad bastard I might be, but on Evans (the thread was about him and not McDonald) I maintain you got it monumentally wrong.

 

[Bladesman]

I had a little look through the Evans case thread and have pulled out a few quotes:


“I am actually quite surprised this case made it to trial …… I can't see how the prosecution could have thought there was a reasonable prospect of conviction (cases should not be brought to trial unless there is such a prospect) in this case. At the moment, I would't be at all surprised if this case were not thrown out at half time” (post 266)

“To be guilty in that situation a nominal reasonable person observing the girl would have had to have realised that she was incapable of consenting no matter what she did or said. That, to me, seems virtually impossible to prove” (post 305)

(compared to a much wiser Pinchy comment: “It is dangerous to draw firm conclusions until all the evidence has been heard.” Post 312)

(Pinchy again: “We should remember there are three parties to this case: The Crown, Ched and Clayton McDonald. The defendants are separately represented and inevitably the evidence for and against the two will not be exactly the same”)

Darren in post 355 (when talking about the prosecution case) “seems rather flimsy to me”

Darren in post 545 “it would seem to be pretty unlikely that a jury could be sure that she was so drunk as to be incapable of giving consent and/or that the a reasonable person would have realised she was in this state”

Pinchy in post 720 “On the evidence so far, it has the feel of an acquittal, but:

1. The Jury have the enormous advantage of observing the witnesses and how they give their evidence, not just what they say.
2. There is more evidence to come. It is not unknown for the Prosecution case to get stronger when defence witnesses (including the defendant) are questioned.
3. It will be interesting to discover whether either or both of the defendants are of good character. That can make a difference.
4. I have attended a few Crown Court Trials. I have seen convictions in cases I thought weak, and acquittals in some I thought strong.
5.There is a human element. At his trial Ken Dodd and a few of his mates put on a show. He was acquitted. Lester Piggott didn't know any jokes.”

Darren in post 897 “Logic says that this must inevitably lead to a not guilty verdict as the jury could not possibly be sure that she did not have the capacity to consent”
Sad bastard I might be, but on Evans (the thread was about him and not McDonald) I maintain you got it monumentally wrong.

1-0 to you then.

Hope you feel better posting that.

Any more thoughts on the Stevenage game?

 

[Darren]

I had a little look through the Evans case thread and have pulled out a few quotes:


“I am actually quite surprised this case made it to trial …… I can't see how the prosecution could have thought there was a reasonable prospect of conviction (cases should not be brought to trial unless there is such a prospect) in this case. At the moment, I would't be at all surprised if this case were not thrown out at half time” (post 266)

“To be guilty in that situation a nominal reasonable person observing the girl would have had to have realised that she was incapable of consenting no matter what she did or said. That, to me, seems virtually impossible to prove” (post 305)

(compared to a much wiser Pinchy comment: “It is dangerous to draw firm conclusions until all the evidence has been heard.” Post 312)

(Pinchy again: “We should remember there are three parties to this case: The Crown, Ched and Clayton McDonald. The defendants are separately represented and inevitably the evidence for and against the two will not be exactly the same”)

Darren in post 355 (when talking about the prosecution case) “seems rather flimsy to me”

Darren in post 545 “it would seem to be pretty unlikely that a jury could be sure that she was so drunk as to be incapable of giving consent and/or that the a reasonable person would have realised she was in this state”

Pinchy in post 720 “On the evidence so far, it has the feel of an acquittal, but:

1. The Jury have the enormous advantage of observing the witnesses and how they give their evidence, not just what they say.
2. There is more evidence to come. It is not unknown for the Prosecution case to get stronger when defence witnesses (including the defendant) are questioned.
3. It will be interesting to discover whether either or both of the defendants are of good character. That can make a difference.
4. I have attended a few Crown Court Trials. I have seen convictions in cases I thought weak, and acquittals in some I thought strong.
5.There is a human element. At his trial Ken Dodd and a few of his mates put on a show. He was acquitted. Lester Piggott didn't know any jokes.”

Darren in post 897 “Logic says that this must inevitably lead to a not guilty verdict as the jury could not possibly be sure that she did not have the capacity to consent”
Sad bastard I might be, but on Evans (the thread was about him and not McDonald) I maintain you got it monumentally wrong.

Well done for being good at cherry picking. You might also want to dig out the posts where I said juries are completely unpredictable and nothing was certain and note that even the quotes you have dug up are heavily qualified ("at the moment", "pretty unlikely", "logic says" etc etc).

Oh and you will note that all the posts you quote apply equally to the case against MacDonald as to the case against Evans. So again, 50% right.

 

[Kenilworth]

I think you two should settle this in a BDSM session