Howay

Aye it's the way footy is now, would love us to sign players permanently but when teams like Man City have spent a lot of money on good players like Rodwell and Sinclair it'd cost more than I'm sure Ashley is willing to pay in transfer fees and wages to bring them in permanently.

Had half the Arsenal side telling him it was Oxlade-Chamberlain in all.

Did the ref really just send Gibbs off for Chamberlain handballing it!! Fucking hell

Aye it's utter class, the Shaman battle ffs.

Fucking hell, to be honest I'd love for these lads to come through and eventually play for the first team regularly but they're not going to be ready by next season are they, so we still need to buy. Unless they just think we can keep skating by on loans until these lads are ready...

Man Utd lost 450,000 likes on their facebook page in the 24 hours after their loss to Liverpool . No doubt all die hard Liverpool, Man city, Chelsea etc fans by now.

Aye it was hard giving up Butters like, Stan's nails though.

I caved and bought this, it's class Had me creased from the start, when you have to type in a name, I chose to fight with Stan and Kyle did anyone choose Cartmans side? does it make much difference? I liked the bit where you fight the underpants gnomes, took me a second to realize all their attacks were doing 2 damage and mine were doing 5800 because of the size difference.

Aye I saw that, what a fucking joke, who cares? Even a good amount of their 'fans' don't care now, they're already die hard city fans.

Aye but he'd have to work in the premiership, he'd be able to swan about at a quarter of his current level and he'd still look head and shoulders above everyone else in the MLS

He's a total thug but he's a canny defender tbh

I do know, it isn't the Jury's job to believe the defence or prosecution. You said the Jury believed the defence which is completely wrong, like I said before the defence successfully proved doubt in the prosecutions case or the prosecution couldn't prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Belief doesn't enter into it and neither do assumptions. What the individuals in the jury believed is completely irrelevant, they made their judgement based on what was proven in court.

Because they didn't believe the defences case, that isn't what happened, the defence successfully showed there was doubt or the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime happened. That's what happened in the eyes of the law, which is what we are talking about. There may have been people in the jury who believed the defence and people in the jury that believed the prosecution but as a whole the jury came together and decided that the prosecution did not have a strong enough case, belief did not come into it.

Because that's not how the law works, the defences job isn't to have the jury believe them, it's to weaken the prosecutions case to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It's not about assumptions or beliefs it is about proof and evidence.

They didn't believe the defences case though, it's simply that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent.

Again that simply isn't how the law works, judgement's are not passed on assumptions, you have to prove your case. If the defence solicitor turned up and used them going to a hotel room and the assumption that they were consenting to have sex as his only evidence his case would have lost.

No, an assumption is without proof, the defence will have had to prove it was consensual and the prosecution will have had to prove it wasn't, they don't just go off assumptions. The going to the hotel room together would have been used as one part of the defences case to prove consent, it wouldn't have been a the only point or else it would have been an assumption and too weak.

No they assessed all of the evidence of the trial and passed a judgement, they didn't just take an assumption that because they went into a hotel room together they were both consenting to sex.

No it doesn't man, the jury didn't all just sit there and go "well there you go they went into a hotel room together so it's 100% certain they both were consenting". Also the initial point was you saying the police shouldn't have took the case further and pressed charges against her because of footage of them going to a hotel room together, which is would have been using an assumption, which they didn't because the law doesn't work on assumptions.

The law doesn't work on assumptions.

It's not burying my head, chances are she went there to have sex with him (providing she was able to make decisions and from Ewerk's point about her level of inebriation, she wasn't at a level where she could give consent) but that isn't enough, you can't just throw a case out because it seems like they were both off to have sex, that's an assumption and isn't strong enough to throw a case out.

Going into a hotel room with someone isn't consent to have sex is it? that's why they can't just leave it there and charge her with wasting police time. Also you can't just change the law like you said, as Ewerk said it'll pressure genuine cases even more than they already are. Rape is often extremely hard to prove, so there are cases where rapists get off the same as there will be cases where innocent people will be locked up. It's an extremely sensitive issue, that's why it is taken so seriously in all cases.

He was one of the ones that booked man.

Them Chelsea TV commentators are a right pair of wet farts like "if there's any justice we'ww win 94-1" . Hell of a whip on that free kick like, wouldn't have been far off going in without the touch off the hand especially with the keeper's positioning.

Surprisingly lighter than I thought it would be. Was it Mourinho that had a stadium (or touchline) ban and hid in a laundry basket to get into the changing room and give the team talk?