egg

Some have but I take your point. The points though are that he will never be tried now he's dead, and that in any event a not guilty verdict in a criminal court does not equate to innocence. People misunderstand the second point, e.g. John Terry. We can't assume he ain't guilty as he hasn't, and can't be, convicted.

What's a fair price to pay for lessons, and how many would be advisable for a complete novice to pick up the basis?

Hypo,I avoid debate with you due to your deliberately misquoting and/or inability to read all the words. If you read what you've quoted you'll see the word "apparently". Hardly an expression of sir jim being guilty.

Er, where did I say that. I've offered no opinion on his guilt, just an observation that people seem willing to give sir jim the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't labelled anyone a paedophile. I also haven't labelled him innocent which many seemingly have. If that's the general thought process it's no wonder abuse gets brushed under the carpet.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I respect the criminal justice but there is a world of difference between being found not guilty in a court and actually having committed the crime. I ran a successful criminal defence practice for years and the cast majority of my clients who avoided conviction were in fact guilty of the crime. In this case people have come forward saying that awful things have been done to them. I find it sad that people jump to the conclusion that these people must be fantasists and that sir Jim must have been an angel.

What, so a paedophile once dead ceases to be a paedophile? Do murderers suddenly stop being murderers when they die too? Ridiculous thing to say.

Everything. Who says every allegation must be based on truth? Some are false, but many cases where there is guilt do not result on conviction. Only the naive would think differently.

Abused children are given a life sentence. Many abusers who have done appalling things to children avoid conviction.

JD?

So jacko, oj, grobelaar et al were all innocent because they weren't found guilty?

Plenty of evidence coming out. I don't know the truth but I'm stunned that he is being given the benefit of the doubt rather than "victims".

Why the support for someone who has apparently abused kids? Dead or not, a paedophile is a paedophile.

Surely if someone can be pardoned posthumously, they can be exposed? Just out of interest, has anyone seen evidence that the transcript is a spoof and/or that Paul Merton has distanced himself from it?

True, but none of us know who NA prefers in that position. Everton certainly seemed like an audition for Reeves and I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the side on Sunday. Does anyone know if Shaw played the full 90 for the ressies yesterday, and if not who else played there?

He's decent. The lad played LB as youth player. He's only played further up since his introduction to the first team. Perhaps he's played in a more attacking role to develop that aspect of his game. The club have done that with Shaw too but he's still regarded as a LB. He's also played LB for the ressies recently. I wouldn't be surprised to see him there against Fulham with clyne at RB.

The Horns are showing the Everton game. Will find out if they will be showing others.

That's the million dollar question. I don't know the answer either. Certainly he has displayed racist tendencies. The analogy above about someone stealing once and thus being a thief is interesting though.

Who's saying that Terry is a racist per se? He's been found to have used racist abuse and frankly anyone with eyes and ears would agree with that. I find it difficult that anyone can say that because this happens on a football pitch then its ok.

Joe is right, well overpriced. http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/prices/used/volkswagen/golf/hatchback-1997/24534/?yearplate=72

Not sure where you're going with this. If we give JT the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was a one off use of racist abuse are you saying that this means that he shouldn't be described as a racist?

None of us know if he's a racist as such. This isn't about that, it's about whether he racially abused someone. He did. The op makes a decent point. The Suarez ban was ridiculous in comparison to Terry's.

I would rather see younger players play, but at the right club where they will be coached properly and play proper football. Man utd, for example, send loads of players on loan as they recognise that there is no substitute for playing. In the case of players like dickson who clearly have no future with us, we have to help them move on. To do that we will have to subsidise wages otherwise we end up with a player drawing a full wage which suits neither us or the player.

He needs to go on loan but I can't see it happening as it leaves us with only 3 cb's. Unless there's a free agent on his way.

I'm not so sure. I know of an out of favour player some years ago who was denied a loan. He had a bonus linked to games played. A few games on loan would have put him over the games threshold and triggered the bonus. He also had a standard pfa contract which said that if he was injured in the field of play then every game he missed with that injury was deemed an appearance. If our contracts contain similar clauses it may explain why so few players go out on loan.