Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So when I am in town next weekend I dont need to pay attention to the miserable looking manc telling me what he is going to do to me

but I need to beware the elbows of the gangly french pensioner in an anorak zipped down to his ankles?

If I call you a :censored: and threaten to knock you out, that's not worse than if I pushed you and actually put my hands in you.

 

Or are you saying it's not possible for old people to commit assault because of their age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So when I am in town next weekend I dont need to pay attention to the miserable looking manc telling me what he is going to do to me

but I need to beware the elbows of the gangly french pensioner in an anorak zipped down to his ankles?

Well yes, to be frank. As I said, shades. But what if you accidentally lost your balance, fell and smacked your head on the concrete and knocked yourself out (with a bit of a shove rather than accidental) or even worse, the person could actually potentially be up for manslaughter. Of course, I am not remotely saying that in this specific case, but that is why the physical contact is the next level up or more on par with more a bit of menace.

I am not saying I agree with it, or that words should not be treated seriously as there are many examples of that, just how it is.

Edited by singe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I call you a :censored: and threaten to knock you out, that's not worse than if I pushed you and actually put my hands in you.

 

Or are you saying it's not possible for old people to commit assault because of their age?

I think you mean putting your hands on him. Not in him well I hope so at least. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view on both situations. Shez is out of order for it but I still pissed myself when I read it especially the my kids won't be getting any Christmas presents part.

The ban was reflective of the offence imo.

I hadn't seen the wenger push so I went on YouTube before to have a look. It's clear to see that the push wasn't really very hard but ultimately he's laid his hands on the 4th official and should get a lengthy ban, although I doubt very much this would happen.

It seems he has form for this too. There was another video titled Wenger pushes 4th official but that was against stoke and uploaded a month ago, although I couldn't be arsed watching it so can't confirm.

As for the bloke from the times clearly just a bell end isn't he.

I can't stand the premier league for the blatant biased to the "bigger teams" imo.

I'd love to see latics in the championship but tbh I wouldn't be so keen on us getting to the money league in my own selfish way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, to be frank. As I said, shades. But what if you accidentally lost your balance, fell and smacked your head on the concrete and knocked yourself out (with a bit of a shove rather than accidental) or even worse, the person could actually potentially be up for manslaughter. Of course, I am not remotely saying that in this specific case, but that is why the physical contact is the next level up or more on par with more a bit of menace.

I am not saying I agree with it, or that words should not be treated seriously as there are many examples of that, just how it is.

I really dont think that we can upgrade Wenger's to a push. It couldnt even be described as handbags, more like a hand off with a limp wrist.

With a Kenneth Williams voiceover 'ohh go away!'

It reminded me of a recently departed player. Over to you Leeslover.

Wenger will get a ban-for not leaving the techncal area. He will have to apologise for the manhandling. I will try not to laugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What does itotally mean?


It means that when Somebody is on trial in court 2 the jury decides on evidence presented in court 2. The evidence from different cases in courts 3 4 and 5 is irrelevant and indeed inadmissible in deciding guilt or not. Once the jury decides guilty or not guilty the judicary decide on the sentence and include precedence and tariff guidelines in that decision. This thread is about whether Sheridans actions have any defence....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means that when Somebody is on trial in court 2 the jury decides on evidence presented in court 2. The evidence from different cases in courts 3 4 and 5 is irrelevant and indeed inadmissible in deciding guilt or not. Once the jury decides guilty or not guilty the judicary decide on the sentence and include precedence and tariff guidelines in that decision. This thread is about whether Sheridans actions have any defence....

Enjoy your holiday. Edited by opinions4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What does itotally mean?[/quote

 

It means that when Somebody is on trial in court 2 the jury decides on evidence presented in court 2. The evidence from different cases in courts 3 4 and 5 is irrelevant and indeed inadmissible in deciding guilt or not. Once the jury decides guilty or not guilty the judicary decide on the sentence and include precedence and tariff guidelines in that decision. This thread is about whether Sheridans actions have any defence....

 

Ah. For a minute there I thought you had spent a day calling people think and then made a couple of top notch SPG errors. That would have been embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of garbage. They sacked him because of results. He was 4 games into a 5 game ban. Surely if he was sacked for his actions that led to the ban he would have left 4 games earlier. A full month passed between the Wycombe game and them dismissing him. I struggle to believe that an internal investigation would take that long and if they were genuinely so disgusted he would have been suspended during any investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of garbage. They sacked him because of results. He was 4 games into a 5 game ban. Surely if he was sacked for his actions that led to the ban he would have left 4 games earlier. A full month passed between the Wycombe game and them dismissing him. I struggle to believe that an internal investigation would take that long and if they were genuinely so disgusted he would have been suspended during any investigation.

While I agree with your assessment that they used it as a way to bin him off for poor form, a discipliniary process can take weeks.

 

They probably waited for the FA report. Then gave notice of an internal hearing (minimum seven days?). Then a few days to make a decision. Then an appeals process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...