to post a link to an Oldham sponsor that will continue to support them even with Ched Evans?

[mrleebob]

If it would be, please ignore this.

If not, here it is. www.cmsolicitors.co.uk

Plenty of contact details too. :-)

I think boycotting a company's products for ethical, moral or political reasons is a fairly well established form of protest.

I suspect mrs T thought she had to give up on the poll tax because of mob rule.

Protest has always existed - the only difference now is the speed and efficiency with which opinions can be expressed.

Alice when you have to criticise someone because of the iPads auto-correct your losing the argument. I'm just pointing out that laws of defamation, libel and slander apply as much here as they do anywhere.

Just some friendly advice, take it or leave it.

It is well-documented that CE's family hold and promote that view, btw.

That's okay. You obviously didn't take my advice regarding the use of "your" vs the use of "you're" so I think I'm pretty safe not worry about your advice.

shakey ground

Gosh Alice are you not getting the message that you should be quiet and know your place

JH-B made it very clear she had read extensively about the case and would not not have found Evans guilty of rape as victim claimed obviously

Please remember though BOF that as per the statement today the people to whom you refer are in absolutely no way his supporters!!!

Alice certainly was not the only one who got that impression.

And as for your "friendly advice" I for one will leave it. If you feel anyone has said anything defamatory you're free to report. I'm sure MNHQ will appreciate your concern.

Well Alice, let's just be grateful there isn't a law against smugness for YOUR sake.

I don't think it's defamation to say that you feel somebody has implied something. On a discussion forum.

Think about it

I wish they'd quite saying "supporters"... always makes me think of a jock strap... "athletic supporters"...

lurker when there are NUMEROUS people on here saying the same as me, why are you determined to go after me over this? Seriously, back off. I think you're being unnecessarily hostile here, and IMO you are skirting into personal attack territory.

It's a Yes Minister irregular verb, isn't it?

I'm expressing a valid opinion.
You're banging on too long.
They're a hysterical mob.

Alice, if you think I'm entering personal attack territory I can only suggest you report me immediately to MNHQ.

Just to ease your concern, when I worked for the D&C constabulary, I don't recall ANYONE being arrested for being smug, so I doubt it's a huge issue.

I wonder if white coat will get any negative feedback about her comments on QT. I'd like to think she will get some complaints. It was highly irresponsible of her to blatantly state that the jury's judgement was wrong.

I'm still in shock over what she said, Alice. But she's a columnist though, so can pretty much say what she likes. The MPs were far more measured and intelligent. (for a change!) I liked the American guy, who was he?

Not sure. Do you mean the Wikipedia guy? He seemed pretty intelligent. I liked his comment about "he's finding it hard to get a job? Oh well, that's what happens..."

I noticed Vince Cable basically said CE should wait until he finds out whether or not he will get a shot at an appeal, and go from there, before he tries to get back into football. If he gets an appeal, focus on that first, and see what the outcome is. If he doesn't, that's it then. He's done. Find another job.

Anyway, it's late, and I need to get some sleep. I'll be interested to see what others thought of the QT programme tomorrow.

Yes, it must have been the wikipedia guy - I was only half watching the beginning, but heard him introduced.

lurker, there is no way on God's earth that Alice or anyone else would be found guilty of libel on the basis of an expression of opinion about how someone came over on TV.

And your suggestion that the laws of slander apply in relation to written material clearly demonstrates that you do not know nearly as much about those laws as you make out.

Wow. Cannot believe JHB's comments.

I mean - seriously?

She has evidently done very little if any reading into the case. Her comments are not only inaccurate but bloody inflammatory. How on earth, if she really HAD read about it in the detail she claims to have done, how the actual fuck can she reach the conclusion that the jury was wrong to find him guilty?

I always thought she was supposed to be intelligent. She really has shown herself up very, very badly.

Interestingly the female MP (Liz somethingorother?) and the wiki guy (and even at times Cable) came out of it rather well. Loved the comments from the wiki chap especially.

I found JHB's comments that "if we arrested every drunk male for having sex with a drunk female, our courts would be filled" and especially "you can't really do that when it's his word against hers" were particularly distasteful!! In the CE case, it was HIM that said they had sex, NOT hers! (so obviously not that familiar with the case, is she?) And sadly, even when there is actual physical evidence, it STILL comes down to his word against hers - and so often, hers is not believed, and the victim blaming begins.

I'm with you all the way Alice. Havnt seen QT and doubt I will as it'll just make me too angry.

I think that comment from JHB displays the widely held misconception that a case would get to court if it were simply a case of he said/she said and that this is an example of such a case.