|
Post by Bath Gas on Jul 31, 2021 9:09:27 GMT
Exactly. Social media is just public bar chat gone public I disagree,some people say things on social media that they wouldnt say in a bar because they know that they wont get filled in for saying things online. Something said in a bar exists in that moment, social media posts are on record, and can come back to bite people on the behind.
|
|
|
Post by alftupper on Jul 31, 2021 9:23:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2021 10:14:19 GMT
What a puerile thing to say. So you think that without social media people wouldn't have formed these opinions. Get a grip of reality. Why is that peurile? I was recently involved in a court case where the defence had trawled through a witness' social media and linked in accounts and brought up all sorts of things to prove a certain mind set and attitude of said witness. Stuff written in haste on forums and other social media sites can be bombshell material if used correctly. I was responding to a claim that Punchy's defence team would claim that their client couldn't receive a fair trial due in part to the type of forum content that I quoted. So, by extension, the point being made was that the more crimes you commit and the more media attention you bring on yourself the less you should be prosecuted. Maybe puerile isn't the very best word, but it's an OK one in this situation. B*****'s next case is, as far as I'm aware, going to Magistrates court, I have no idea how many magistrates are likely to follow L2 clubs' forums, I know a couple, of course they are all individuals, but the ones I know aren't the sort of people you would normally expect to meet on a football terrace, and I can promise you, they most certainly wouldn't have their opinion of anything at all altered by the ramblings of you or I on an internet messageboard. But even if a jury were involved, if any jury members had an interest in football they would already know B*****, but regardless, the judge would instruct them to disregard anything they may already have learned via any form of media and to only consider the evidence presented in court.
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Jul 31, 2021 10:41:39 GMT
Usually in the street after closing time. These days you get sent viruses
|
|
|
Post by brizzleblue52 on Jul 31, 2021 17:04:09 GMT
My preference is for B***** to continue doing the job for which we employed him. His management team all have their own different roles within the set-up, I don't know how much upheaval it would cause to switch people around - sometimes it works for somebody to step up, sometimes it doesn't. I haven't heard enough about Clint Hill to make an informed judgement on his ability as a Manager. He was schooled under Warnock, Warnock Captain of choice. Played quite a bit at highest level, got some medals. I sense he won’t be a pushover in the dressing room, or soft on discipline. But he won’t be B*****. One of B*****’s big managerial failings, as flagged by Chris Sanigar, he knows how to criticise in public, does he know where and when to put an arm round or excuse others by taking blame himself - if Hill does then straight away he’s a better manager than B*****. what we know about Warnock sides, they give it a go, hence all the promotions. What we know about B***** sides is they like to keep the score down so they can go deep still in a game, just like Southgate going 5 at the back in the final, leaving his team unable to transition out of 5 4 1 for so much of the game, B*****’s 5 at the back screwed up our end of last season in just the same way. So if Hill tactics is more Warnock than B*****, that would also make Hill a far better manager. Bit’s and pieces I have seen of Hill on YouTube and other he comes across far better in front a camera than B*****. He has a bounce and a grin to his media style, but also a bit of a pause for thought that helps make what he says sound more trustworthy than B*****. A bit like Klopp in a way. Not that I like Klopp or rate his media style, but when he explains game he comes across as heartfelt though? I don’t dislike B*****’s post match media style, the excuse after excuse, the whinge after whinge - every game is winnable, and when you lose there is something to blame, quite often an officials decision. I would probably sound a bit like that myself. But on every final whistle when B***** marches over to the referee with a fake smile and something to say, that just comes across like B***** has a problem, it will be interesting to see how Hill handles full time whistles after a defeat, it’s an area where B***** is very weak and not getting better. I seem to remember that DC blamed officials rather a lot in his last season, and then we had some good ones it was the pitch. Cant say anyone will have that excuse this seaon
|
|
|
Post by brizzleblue52 on Jul 31, 2021 17:09:52 GMT
What a puerile thing to say. So you think that without social media people wouldn't have formed these opinions. Get a grip of reality. Why is that peurile? I was recently involved in a court case where the defence had trawled through a witness' social media and linked in accounts and brought up all sorts of things to prove a certain mind set and attitude of said witness. Stuff written in haste on forums and other social media sites can be bombshell material if used correctly. The police usually take the phones of the victim and the accused in such things like rape trials.
|
|
towngas
Joined: February 2021
Posts: 566
|
Post by towngas on Jul 31, 2021 17:37:50 GMT
Why is that peurile? I was recently involved in a court case where the defence had trawled through a witness' social media and linked in accounts and brought up all sorts of things to prove a certain mind set and attitude of said witness. Stuff written in haste on forums and other social media sites can be bombshell material if used correctly. I was responding to a claim that Punchy's defence team would claim that their client couldn't receive a fair trial due in part to the type of forum content that I quoted. So, by extension, the point being made was that the more crimes you commit and the more media attention you bring on yourself the less you should be prosecuted. Maybe puerile isn't the very best word, but it's an OK one in this situation. B*****'s next case is, as far as I'm aware, going to Magistrates court, I have no idea how many magistrates are likely to follow L2 clubs' forums, I know a couple, of course they are all individuals, but the ones I know aren't the sort of people you would normally expect to meet on a football terrace, and I can promise you, they most certainly wouldn't have their opinion of anything at all altered by the ramblings of you or I on an internet messageboard. But even if a jury were involved, if any jury members had an interest in football they would already know B*****, but regardless, the judge would instruct them to disregard anything they may already have learned via any form of media and to only consider the evidence presented in court. Once an idea or a prejudice has been planted a judges instruction to ignore it won’t make a bit of difference. As for Magistrates somehow occupying a kind of upper stratosphere where fevered debate passes them by well, I don’t think that’s very likely. look, if he is found guilty of this then he should be fired and WAQ has said he will be. Do you want to be a part of the reason if he gets off?
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Jul 31, 2021 17:58:27 GMT
I was responding to a claim that Punchy's defence team would claim that their client couldn't receive a fair trial due in part to the type of forum content that I quoted. So, by extension, the point being made was that the more crimes you commit and the more media attention you bring on yourself the less you should be prosecuted. Maybe puerile isn't the very best word, but it's an OK one in this situation. B*****'s next case is, as far as I'm aware, going to Magistrates court, I have no idea how many magistrates are likely to follow L2 clubs' forums, I know a couple, of course they are all individuals, but the ones I know aren't the sort of people you would normally expect to meet on a football terrace, and I can promise you, they most certainly wouldn't have their opinion of anything at all altered by the ramblings of you or I on an internet messageboard. But even if a jury were involved, if any jury members had an interest in football they would already know B*****, but regardless, the judge would instruct them to disregard anything they may already have learned via any form of media and to only consider the evidence presented in court. Once an idea or a prejudice has been planted a judges instruction to ignore it won’t make a bit of difference. As for Magistrates somehow occupying a kind of upper stratosphere where fevered debate passes them by well, I don’t think that’s very likely. look, if he is found guilty of this then he should be fired and WAQ has said he will be. Do you want to be a part of the reason if he gets off? Yes I agree. WAQ promise to sack on proven guilt should fundamentally change all this arguing. The way Wales handled similar thing with Giggs, wether that way is better than Rovers and Joey trying to tough it out without the gardening leave is a matter of opinion, arguable which is better, not provable. it is getting a bit boring saying the same things over and over at each other. I’m sure just about everyone on both sides of the debate think Joey is getting sacked regardless how we are doing when the Stendhal jury reports. I think some bartonista suspect that but don’t admit it publicly. But will it wreck our promotion chances? A promotion side got it together from 20th last year. So no. The Joeyless rovers in new year can still go up IF B***** recruits well enough this summer, yet manages badly till sackedlike he did here last season. The biggest problem for for us now probably isn’t Joey B*****, it’s if this squad not good enough to go up next season let alone this season.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2021 18:08:39 GMT
I was responding to a claim that Punchy's defence team would claim that their client couldn't receive a fair trial due in part to the type of forum content that I quoted. So, by extension, the point being made was that the more crimes you commit and the more media attention you bring on yourself the less you should be prosecuted. Maybe puerile isn't the very best word, but it's an OK one in this situation. B*****'s next case is, as far as I'm aware, going to Magistrates court, I have no idea how many magistrates are likely to follow L2 clubs' forums, I know a couple, of course they are all individuals, but the ones I know aren't the sort of people you would normally expect to meet on a football terrace, and I can promise you, they most certainly wouldn't have their opinion of anything at all altered by the ramblings of you or I on an internet messageboard. But even if a jury were involved, if any jury members had an interest in football they would already know B*****, but regardless, the judge would instruct them to disregard anything they may already have learned via any form of media and to only consider the evidence presented in court. Once an idea or a prejudice has been planted a judges instruction to ignore it won’t make a bit of difference. As for Magistrates somehow occupying a kind of upper stratosphere where fevered debate passes them by well, I don’t think that’s very likely. look, if he is found guilty of this then he should be fired and WAQ has said he will be. Do you want to be a part of the reason if he gets off? Utterly pathetic. So now you are trying to silence me in case I influence local magistrates in London. Have you any idea how ridiculous you are making yourself look.
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Jul 31, 2021 19:04:51 GMT
Once an idea or a prejudice has been planted a judges instruction to ignore it won’t make a bit of difference. As for Magistrates somehow occupying a kind of upper stratosphere where fevered debate passes them by well, I don’t think that’s very likely. look, if he is found guilty of this then he should be fired and WAQ has said he will be. Do you want to be a part of the reason if he gets off? Utterly pathetic. So now you are trying to silence me in case I influence local magistrates in London. Have you any idea how ridiculous you are making yourself look. [insert sigh emoticon] Last time we got out of here, sure Bodin and browner scored we did our bit but all sorts didn’t go in the nilnil up the road. The time before trolls side also came out bottom half table with late run. In the middle, conference bounce back began so unconvincing the training ground visited by bog roll charity, even then it doesn’t go to 5.4 pens if the keeper rightly sent off early on. What does this mean. If we are eighteenth when B***** sacked in November we can still go up. Yet, building a top 3 side is still best route out of this division, late runs and play offs can be years of stuck here. So I agree with towngas, up until those courts verdict the blogs main talking point and scrutiny now should be on Joey’s reset, his tactics and game management.
|
|
towngas
Joined: February 2021
Posts: 566
|
Post by towngas on Aug 1, 2021 6:52:47 GMT
Once an idea or a prejudice has been planted a judges instruction to ignore it won’t make a bit of difference. As for Magistrates somehow occupying a kind of upper stratosphere where fevered debate passes them by well, I don’t think that’s very likely. look, if he is found guilty of this then he should be fired and WAQ has said he will be. Do you want to be a part of the reason if he gets off? Utterly pathetic. So now you are trying to silence me in case I influence local magistrates in London. Have you any idea how ridiculous you are making yourself look. I'm not trying to silence you. It's a free country and we still have freedom of speech, of a sort. You are entitled to say what you want, all I'm doing is asking you to consider what you are saying and consider a possible outcome if you continue. With regard to our views, we have both made them crystal clear, both have merit. I don't think there is anything else I can say so I think I will retire from this discussion and await the court verdict. In the meantime I will continue to support the club, starting with a tortuous rail journey to Mansfield next Saturday. Off to work in a minute so speak later.
|
|
|
Post by brizzleblue52 on Aug 1, 2021 13:10:39 GMT
I was responding to a claim that Punchy's defence team would claim that their client couldn't receive a fair trial due in part to the type of forum content that I quoted. So, by extension, the point being made was that the more crimes you commit and the more media attention you bring on yourself the less you should be prosecuted. Maybe puerile isn't the very best word, but it's an OK one in this situation. B*****'s next case is, as far as I'm aware, going to Magistrates court, I have no idea how many magistrates are likely to follow L2 clubs' forums, I know a couple, of course they are all individuals, but the ones I know aren't the sort of people you would normally expect to meet on a football terrace, and I can promise you, they most certainly wouldn't have their opinion of anything at all altered by the ramblings of you or I on an internet messageboard. But even if a jury were involved, if any jury members had an interest in football they would already know B*****, but regardless, the judge would instruct them to disregard anything they may already have learned via any form of media and to only consider the evidence presented in court. Once an idea or a prejudice has been planted a judges instruction to ignore it won’t make a bit of difference. As for Magistrates somehow occupying a kind of upper stratosphere where fevered debate passes them by well, I don’t think that’s very likely. look, if he is found guilty of this then he should be fired and WAQ has said he will be. Do you want to be a part of the reason if he gets off?If he is not guilty. then yes.
|
|