Jump to content

PHILINFRANCE

Members
  • Posts

    5,893
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

PHILINFRANCE last won the day on October 23 2018

PHILINFRANCE had the most liked content!

About PHILINFRANCE

Recent Profile Visitors

5,050 profile views

PHILINFRANCE's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

3.2k

Reputation

  1. I don’t want to take sides here, but Goodness; I’d be pretty cheesed off if my jacket potato was burnt! Oh, and probably somewhat academic in the scheme of things, but I thought that young Alex Scott was excellent.
  2. Indeed, it was the possible libel issue that was annoying me when the issue was first being discussed on here on the weekend. JB had been charged with ‘assault by beating’; not to be trivialised, but at the lower (lowest?) end of assault charges, and reference was made simply of the ‘victim’ being a woman, i.e. she had not been identified. For all anybody on here knew, the ‘victim’ could have been a neighbour, yet there were some on here who were suggesting that he had attacked or beaten up his wife. Whilst I am sure we all had our suspicions, Sunday was not the time to air them on this forum nor, indeed, would it be prudent to do so at any time prior to the conclusion of his trial. Having said that, I should be astonished were he to be found Not Guilty - his guilt or otherwise will be decided by an experienced magistrate and not a jury of his peers, thus somebody who is less likely to be swayed by his legal team’s argument - for the threshold is very low and he (JB) seems to be suggesting simply that the allegations have been exaggerated. To take a slightly different scenario, if one were to defend oneself against a similar charge by saying ‘Yes, I pushed him, but not as hard as he claims’, surely that would be sufficient to be found guilty of ‘assault by beating’. Time will tell.
  3. I would doubt very much that the club’s legal advisor saw the statement before it was published as, in addition to the ‘victimless crime’ wording, the statement even referred to the matter as being ‘sub judicial’, when the correct term is, of course, sub judice.
  4. As it turned out, an extremely important wicket as well.
  5. Thank You both for your insight. 1. As it has been bothering me since the original Bristol Rovers statement, can either one of you confirm that their suggestion (statement) that the JB incident was a victimless crime (rather than a victimless prosecution) was a crass error? 2. Given that the forthcoming trial will be be held in a magistrates court, rather than Crown Court, i.e. no jury, obviously our comments on this thread as to JB's character and potential guilt are not subject to the usual constraints (possible libel notwithstanding), but are either of you able to advise why JB was granted bail? As @NcnsBcfc says, JB was already on Crown Court bail following the Stendel case and, presumably, there were conditions attached to this bail.
  6. A bit harsh, especially as Glamorgan have only lost a few of their first choice eleven to the 100 or the Test team - we have lost 10, including Jack Leach! With all due respect to the team playing today, we are currently Somerset youth or 'reserves', and we most certainly got the wrong end of the toss - on, off, on throughout our innings. Nevertheless, we got an ultimately very respectful 180 - from only 37 overs, remember - and currently have Glamorgan at 57/4; three of the wickets having been taken by our young bowlers, all of whom are debutants in 50 over cricket.
  7. I suppose it's all about personal taste, but it is one of my wife's favourite events. I imagine it is of more interest if you have ridden horses - I haven't, but my wife has, and when she explains to me just how difficult it is to make your horse go sideways or even (especially!) backwards, it al becomes more interesting. And, remember, all this is carried out in time to music!
  8. À propos Rolls and The Carpenters: ’The best love songs are written with a broken arm’. Well, that’s what it always sounded like to me.
  9. I really like Taylor Moore, and not just for his ideal son-in-law qualities. As you say, he looked quality bringing the ball out from defence and also looked pretty solid in his main role as a defender. This is not the first time he has showed such qualities; he has done so on many occasions, but generally when we have been on top or been playing against weaker opposition. As many on here have said, he often seems to just switch off mentally (Think the goal against Middlesbrough, when he failed to react to DB's throw) or to simply have a mistake in him (again against Middlesbrough, when he misjudged his header following a long clearance, allowing Assombalonga through, leading to another goal). I am sure he would benefit from a run in the side, but it is difficult to see how he is going to get that this season, unless there are injuries.
  10. Yet another (positive) mention of City's fitness levels. This is in direct contrast to last season, and I wonder how much is really due to the change in medical staff, rather than perhaps a change in training routine (led by NP).
  11. I thought both, together with Bakinson, have played very well - 'only' Exeter, but nevertheless...
  12. Unfortunately not. I have work to do and, in any event, it is not allowed before 18H00 on weekdays - house rules.
  13. I may be wrong, but I suspect the comparison to JET was in reference to the way he took the penalty. Ha. I see that @CHAZ MICHAELS thought the same - but obviously types far quicker than me .
  14. Out of curiosity, I checked directly on YOUTUBE and, whilst not brilliant, the reception and pictuer is far better than the original link.
×
×
  • Create New...