jimsleftfoot

The 5S Battery life seems quite palatable to me, though I do stick it on recharge once a day.

If you're not too bothered about upgrading, you could always get a cheaper tarrif for a bit until Iphone 6 comes down in price.

Also, in terms of prices, are you looking at your current provider only? If so, have a look what the cheapest price is elsewhere and haggle.

Think he can move permanently but not on loan to anyone else.

Cheers just spotted Scapegoats comments.

The only way I can see us getting DJ until the end of the season is if Villa want to keep him and offer him an extended contract. If that is the case then I think he will then stay out on loan - either with us or Chesterfield.

 

If Villa don't want to keep him, then they will look to sell in January to recoup some cash and based on his performances this season for us and Chesterfield I cannot see them stuggling to pick up a six figure fee from either a Championship or wealthy League One club that is willing to shell out £100k plus for a 2 or 3 year contract.

 

Whilst he looks a great player, I am not sure that he is PL quality - so the latter is more likely. If that is the case there is a possiblilty that SC could take the view that this could be a Baxter type situation - gamble £100k (if we can find it - getting to the 3rd Round and a good draw this weekend would help) on him hoping that you could sell him on in the summer if needed to balance the books. However I think there are a number of reasons that this is unlikely to happen:

 

1) We have only seen him for a handful of games on loan. Wouldn't be the first time a player has been outstanding in a few loan games and then dropped to average when signed. The perceived value might drop away after a longer run of games, and SC thinks its too much of a risk.

 

2) He could get injured - huge amount of money for a club like us to gamble with.

 

3) By signing a 2 or 3 year deal with a club that is arguably below the standard he can play at is unlikely to be in his thoughts.

 

4) He'd be better getting a deal at a club that not only can afford the asking price, but also the wages that he could demand. We might scrape a fee together, doubt we could find the wages to match other interested parties.

 

 

I think make the most of DJ whilst we can, but expect that he leaves in Jan. Whereby a rested Winnie can step back in and hopefully play as well as he did earlier in the season.

Don't quote me but I have heard there is an issue with him being registered with 3 clubs and therefore cannot go to a 4th in a season? In which case its us or Chesterfield.

Though I may be wrong.

I love/hate the 'look at his website' argument.

 

There's books, articles, websites that make arguably convincing arguments that the Holocaust didn't happen. They entirely ignore all the obvious and indisputable evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying for one second the two are on anything remotely like a par. But if someone can try and explain away the extermination of millions of people, it's not difficult to do a similar exercise on one incident in a hotel room.

 

A jury of twelve independent individuals sat through a long trial and found him to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Some seem to think it madness his mate was found not guilty and Evans was, and that is apparently in itself evidence of Evans' likely innocence - what is in fact is is a sign of just how bang to rights the jury thought Evans was.

 

But some people know better because they've seen 'the evidence'.

Indeed!!!

Ched's website is just his defence team's view and misses out the valuable input of the prosecution. Of course if someone reads his website it looks shaky, it's hardly going to try to be objective. It's usefullness has some major limitations and can only be partly relied on. To get a fuller picture, the prosecution's case also needs to be heard.

Anyone who wants to believe Ched based on his website alone seriously should look at themselves and ask whether are the sort of people that get conned easily.

Need to read the case mate

I have read the case summary of why he wasn't given leave to appeal and it doesn't look that Ropey to me.

 

I know it says all that but it doesn't really make sense to me.....if Evans is indeed guilty of rape then McDonald is surely guilty of something pretty serious if he sat there and watched while a girl was raped....it presumably would need a separate charge and trial but the way it was presented and tried just seems very, very odd.

Perhaps there should or could have been a seperate charge, though for whatever reason the prosecution didn't alledge that Mcdonald had assisted in the rape of the girl, so the option could not be considered.

As per why one was guilty and one was not, the transscript states:

'Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency.'

They were asked by the FA to do so, they couldn't say no without running the risk of being sued due to right not to be restricted from trade. Now they can demonstrate it has cost them money, therefore the risk of being sued is much, much less.

How could they be sued in the first place?

Sharp was in charge for 2 1/2 seasons.....!!!! The only decent thing I recall him doing was bring Gerry Creaney in on loan who scored a back heel that helped us pull clear of relegation the year before we were doomed.

He was hardly prolific, was that his only goal... and he missed the penalty which Goalkeeper Beckford should have took Vs Wolves.

The season Graham Sharp was in charge , the football was tedious beyond belief , and we just got worse and worse .

 

When Mendonca made it 3-0 for Grimsby I was actually pleased , that is how desperate I was for the manager to leave.

I felt it would be the goal that ended the management regime .....and it was .

 

Still can't believe Morrissey didn't write a song about that season.

Hooray, hooray

Graeme Sharp resigns

Hooray, hooray

Graeme Sharp resigns

And nobody cries

Nobody cries

Because we all want the Oldham to survive

The FA would do themselves a favour by making sure that we have more friendlies against the home nations. Knowone is arsed about friendlies against Chile and the Ukraine. If we are playing in major tournaments we will have to play against a variety of sides, however having friendlies against 2 home nations per year would ensure the public take an interest in the national side.

 

Plus the players would prefer it Jack Wiltshire came of the pitch and said he loved every minute of it last night. Would he have said that had we played at wembley against Ghana?

I think they would have had more of such matches if it wasn't for the Ireland match in '95.

I'm sure we all admit not every England game is a thrilling 90 minutes entertainment. Personally I believe home games should be taken on the road and I feel some of the ticket prices are nothing short of scandalous.

 

But one thing that I find amusing are those hypocrites who are the first to fly the St George's flag out of their house come Major Tournament time then feeling the need to shout from the rooftops in November how little they care about the same team.

Apparently England is going to be chucked out of Wembley as Wembley will be home to an Amercan Football Team.

At risk of stating the searingly obvious, there's no such thing as non-violent rape. It's disturbing that a solicitor doesn't know that.

I agree. On a very basic level, a 'non-violent' rape could occur by using the threat of significant violence.

 

No, no - not that at all. I take it from your posts on this thread that I'll wager this will fall on deaf ears, but:

 

It's unbelievable because I'm amazed the PFA have decided to release such an ill thought-out and poorly worded statement on this most delicate of subject matters.

 

IMO, all they have done is show themselves up to be the old school boys club that they've tried to move away from.

 

I mean, the bit that said, 'we don't scale rape, but this was on the lo end; there was no violence and she can't remember it' - come on people. It's 2014 FFS, that's only an extra line away from saying....'and Ched's a big lad, so what's she got to complain about, bet she had a right good seeing too and loved every minute of it'. It's pub talk at best, and in no way should have been released. 'It could have been worse, he could have smacked her around a bit too' - awful sentiments.

 

The bit that digs at Jessica Ennis-Hill and Charlie Webster too. Smacks of the male-dominated changing room talk ' these silly girls don't know what their talking about'. There was no need or context to make the statement about climbing off their moral high horse.

 

 

It's an awful press release, and I'm not surprised they've taken it down.

 

Anyone who finds themselves nodding along and agreeing with it was they read, needs to give their own heads a very firm wobble...

Well said, though its the Irish PFA (my fault).

Unbelievable because....it's the truth?

No it's just a (poorly written) opinion which his employee had decided not to back.

He wasn't drawing any comparisons other than to say that people vilified in public and by he media have had their cases overturned. That was the only point made by bringing up the Guilford Four and Birmingham Six. But quite typically the BBC threw some spin on it and turned it into an outrageous headline.

Not just the BBC, pretty much every news agency going.

The (edit - Irish) PFA have taken down the article (I wonder why?)

Though I have it here:

'The difficult element of this discussion, though, is the part about the scale of the crime. There are people who will say rape is rape and degrees shouldn’t come into it but in sentencing these issues matter. This crime, as alleged, was at the bottom end. There was no violence and thankfully the victim has no recollection of it. This, I hasten to add, does not make it right, or anything close to it, but it is nonetheless a mitigating factor.

From Jessica Ennis-Hill to Charlie Webster and pretty much every media commentator who has waded into this mire, the horses most of these pundits have mounted are so high, they’ll need a parachute to get down. When sanctimony takes over, there is rarely any real room for serious debate.

It’s not easy to muster up too much sympathy for Evans but there is surely nothing worse than being accused of a crime which you genuinely believe you didn’t commit.

The argument against that is that a jury convicted him of the crime. That’s right. And the same applied to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. They got no public sympathy either.

Maybe he is guilty or perhaps he’s innocent, none of us knows for sure. Surely, either way, he deserves a chance at redemption. Don’t we all?'

Why should he apologize for a crime he believes 100% that he did not commit? Courts have been known to get convictions wrong from time to time.

 

In his current predicament, he cannot get back in to football until his case has been reviewed.

You're right, but by society's norms, until it is now proven otherwise, he is guilty and people have the right to question his lack or remorse. If the Inquiry goes against him, I would imagine that no one will touch him with a barge pole.

Is consent when sober the same as consent when inebriated?

Indeed - i'd argue that you need a higher level of consent if the person is inebriated that would be a lot harder to obtain for someone who had just walked in.

I've not heard of this story at all. But unless there's an important detail that i'm not aware of, I can't think of a reason that a rape scene shouldn't be in a play.

As I understand, it was actually less of a rape scene and more of a scene that makes fun of rape in what is more of a pantomime than a play.

Yes she was always very helpful. I hope she has a good retirement.

As an ex teacher believe me youngsters copy so called role models as its ok to be like that. Totally agree it should be earned but more often it is a responsibility they stuff up with as not always very bright in a life skill sense or qualification way. Odd exceptions like Dowie and Simpson.

I agree, role models come in many shapes and forms and aren't always good.

I'll have a celebratory drink tonight I think - what a damn fine day to be alive.

Indeed - Well done Rose and Phil!!!

Danny's playing well by all accounts. Long may it continue.

So why have we sent him on loan...to a comet?

He's been getting a lot of the assists for Doyle. I believe Chesterfield couldn't resign him after their loan so hes with us in January, then presumably either us or Chesterfield can sign him until the end of season or he goes back to Villa?

First out of the draw against erm ourselves.

Changed to 'unique values' and got us V Dale/Cobblers at home.