Sir Geoffrey Boycott

[sadoldgit]

Its been to court and he was found guilty. I abhor any violence to women and have never partaken is such things. I think it is fair to say though I would have thought if she was punched in the face 20 times perhaps you would expect rather more injuries. I suspect that he hit her perhaps 3-5 times but in the fear she was going through it seemed a lot more.

 

Just one blow to the head can be fatal. 3 to 5 punches can leave a face in a right mess. There is a big difference between 3 to 5 and 20 or so. Even in a traumatic moment you would know the difference between a few punches and multiple punches and she made a big point about it being 20 or so. I spent 8 years working for the CPS and most mornings there would be a pile of files on my desk with pictures of people with facial injuries after fights. They are not pretty and a ferocious beating would more than likely involve fractured bones. A few months ago my wife passed out and fell into a flagstone floor. Her face ended up looking like that of Ms Moore’s and she also had a mosaic fracture of the right cheek bone and eye socket. It is possible that her injuries were caused by a fall. It is possible they were caused by a punch. The point is that that picture alone is not hard evidence against DV taking place, no matter how much Shurlock would like to pin a DV apologist tag on me.

[hypochondriac]

Absolutely unreal that self-appointed experts are speculating on if this woman is lying based on how messed up her face is. I'm amazed that this is soggy's stance, I would never have predicted he would go on this line of thinking before this thread started.

[Batman]

Absolutely unreal that self-appointed experts are speculating on if this woman is lying based on how messed up her face is. I'm amazed that this is soggy's stance, I would never have predicted he would go on this line of thinking before this thread started.

 

What is he saying, the lady is making it up?

How come the accuser in the chef Evans case was absolutely NOT making it up?

Edited 13 September, 2019 by Batman

[egg]

Who is apologising for domestic violence? My wife provided the police of pictures of bruising to her face that certainly weren’t caused by me. It is entirely possible to fall over and not use your arms to break your fall. No broken nose despite repeated beatings? Look at pictures of people who have been punched in the face repeatedly.

If he beat her he deserves all the criticism he gets. If he beat her. That is not apologising for domestic violence.

 

He did beat her. The court concluded so. I mean no disrespect mate, but you are doing yourself no favours here. Sometimes it's best to walk away and stop digging.

[sadoldgit]

I am not digging and I am glad you are 100% sure that he did.

[egg]

I am not digging and I am glad you are 100% sure that he did.

Are you for real? I'm not the one judging him one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that a court have, and found him guilty. You seeking to play internet judge/jury is ridiculous.

[hypochondriac]

What is he saying, the lady is making it up?

How come the accuser in the chef Evans case was absolutely NOT making it up?

Yes he reckons she lied for money odd that the believe all victims mantra becomes decidedly wobbly when it's about a crime that he has been accused of. I think the rules are if its a sexual assault case then it's definitely guilty regardless of what the court says and if it's a domestic violence case then it's at least enough doubt to suggest innocence despite a conviction. That's how it works isn't it?

[sadoldgit]

What is he saying, the lady is making it up?

How come the accuser in the chef Evans case was absolutely NOT making it up?

 

The accuser in the Evans case was the CPS based on the fact that the victim was intoxicated and had no recollection of where she was, how she got there are what happened to her. But given that you were present on the Evans thread you know that don’t you.

[hypochondriac]

I am not digging and I am glad you are 100% sure that he did.

Is Ched Evans 100% a rapist?

[shurlock]

That's the problem with the self-righteous - they think they're judge, jury and executioner.

[sadoldgit]

I’ll do you a deal Egg. He show me concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by a fist and could not possibly have been caused by a fall and I will join the call to have his knighthood revoked. Fair enough?

[egg]

I’ll do you a deal Egg. He show me concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by a fist and could not possibly have been caused by a fall and I will join the call to have his knighthood revoked. Fair enough?

FFS!! You're nuts pal. I'm not calling to have his knighthood revoked, merely I think it's a surprising award given the serious conviction he has received from a French court. I have no need to, or interest in, attempting to re prosecute the case on a forum to a moron

[hypochondriac]

I’ll do you a deal Egg. He show me concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by a fist and could not possibly have been caused by a fall and I will join the call to have his knighthood revoked. Fair enough?

You didn't need concrete evidence that Ched Evans was a rapist before you referred to him as such after his verdict had been overturned. Why the double standard? Also ffs egg has already said he's not casting judgement either way, he's simply pushing back on your ludicrous comments that Boycott maybe isn't guilty despite losing an appeal in a court of law because you personally have doubts, a standard you haven't applied in previous cases when others pointed out doubts in a case.

 

Hypocrisy thy name is soggy.

[sadoldgit]

FFS!! You're nuts pal. I'm not calling to have his knighthood revoked, merely I think it's a surprising award given the serious conviction he has received from a French court. I have no need to, or interest in, attempting to re prosecute the case on a forum to a moron

 

I know that this was a magistrates court but just suppose it was a Crown Court case and you were sitting on the jury. You have heard both sides of the story. They clearly contradict each other. Without concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by Boycott and not a fall, would you still find him guilty? Oh, and we will get along better if you stop the childish name calling. This is supposed to be a grown up discussion

[hypochondriac]

I know that this was a magistrates court but just suppose it was a Crown Court case and you were sitting on the jury. You have heard both sides of the story. They clearly contradict each other. Without concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by Boycott and not a fall, would you still find him guilty? Oh, and we will get along better if you stop the childish name calling. This is supposed to be a grown up discussion

He's not trying to rerun the case. This isn't a courtroom it's a forum. Why is Ched Evans in your own words still a "rapist" despite no conviction, yet Boycott not a domestic abuser despite being found guilty?

 

You can't answer.

[benjii]

TBF, women are mental.

[hypochondriac]

TBF, women are mental.

She probably deserved a bit of a slap eh soggy?

[egg]

I know that this was a magistrates court but just suppose it was a Crown Court case and you were sitting on the jury. You have heard both sides of the story. They clearly contradict each other. Without concrete evidence that her injuries were caused by Boycott and not a fall, would you still find him guilty? Oh, and we will get along better if you stop the childish name calling. This is supposed to be a grown up discussion

I can't be any clearer than I have been. He has been convicted. I have no wish to comment on hypothetical matters, or indeed explore the evidence, or put forward evidence to prove something that's already been proven.

 

Re the names. Your position and approach to this matter, imo, is stupid / moronic / ridiculous etc. I offer no apology if you disagree.

[sadoldgit]

We have sent people to the gallows when their case had been proven, only to find out years later that they are innocent. I am glad that you are so sure. I would prefer that you could provide some actual hard evidence to back up your position. If there is some great. There are plenty of stupid people who have been proved right. If you ever found yourself in Boycotts position I hope that the people trying you make sure that they do so on hard evidence.

[Batman]

We have sent people to the gallows when their case had been proven, only to find out years later that they are innocent. I am glad that you are so sure. I would prefer that you could provide some actual hard evidence to back up your position. If there is some great. There are plenty of stupid people who have been proved right. If you ever found yourself in Boycotts position I hope that the people trying you make sure that they do so on hard evidence.

 

May I ask where this attitude was on the Ched Evans thread?

 

Cheers

[sadoldgit]

TBF, women are mental.

 

 

I’m not sure if you can use that as evidence in court Benjii!

[hypochondriac]

May I ask where this attitude was on the Ched Evans thread?

 

Cheers

Exactly. Shouting rape apologist and all sorts of disgusting slurs at anyone who even suggested the conviction of Ched Evans was not the slam dunk he was suggesting it was. Even went so far as to suggest the new witnesses in the appeal were bribed by the defence- an incredibly serious accusation based on zero evidence. Yet soggy gets hauled off to jail for allegedly bashing his wife's face in and suddenly he's all empathetic with Boycott and mistrusting of the justice system.

[CB Fry]

If Soggy dished out a few right handers to his missus, who are we to judge?

 

It's an interesting development in the backstory of this forum's most excruciatingly sanctimonious prig.

[sadoldgit]

I have been trying to find the medical report with no joy and I think I have spent too much of my day in Sir Geoffrey. I did find an interview with the judge in the case though and his behaviour throughout the trial clearly did not help his case. The word arrogant was used s lot and apparently he was very rude to the prosecutor. Gotta love a dyed in the wool Yorkshireman.

[sadoldgit]

On Sir Geoffrey rather than in

[hypochondriac]

I have been trying to find the medical report with no joy and I think I have spent too much of my day in Sir Geoffrey. I did find an interview with the judge in the case though and his behaviour throughout the trial clearly did not help his case. The word arrogant was used s lot and apparently he was very rude to the prosecutor. Gotta love a dyed in the wool Yorkshireman.

A convicted domestic violence commiting Yorkshireman but you like him so he's probably not really guilty.

 

Cuddly old Sir Geoff is just a funny character rather than a convicted criminal. Not like some of those awful lads in Maidstone.

[benjii]

I have been trying to find the medical report with no joy and I think I have spent too much of my day in Sir Geoffrey. I did find an interview with the judge in the case though and his behaviour throughout the trial clearly did not help his case. The word arrogant was used s lot and apparently he was very rude to the prosecutor. Gotta love a dyed in the wool Yorkshireman.

 

I don't think anyone's denying he's a knob!

[Unbelievable Jeff]

We have sent people to the gallows when their case had been proven, only to find out years later that they are innocent. I am glad that you are so sure. I would prefer that you could provide some actual hard evidence to back up your position. If there is some great. There are plenty of stupid people who have been proved right. If you ever found yourself in Boycotts position I hope that the people trying you make sure that they do so on hard evidence.

 

Mate, stop. This is really not working for you.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

On Sir Geoffrey rather than in

 

To be fair, the way you're defending him I think you were correct first time.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

We have sent people to the gallows when their case had been proven, only to find out years later that they are innocent. I am glad that you are so sure. I would prefer that you could provide some actual hard evidence to back up your position. If there is some great. There are plenty of stupid people who have been proved right. If you ever found yourself in Boycotts position I hope that the people trying you make sure that they do so on hard evidence.

 

TBF, Boycott is also a Brexiteer, so that increases the chances that he did it.

[sadoldgit]

To be fair, the way you're defending him I think you were correct first time.

 

Harsh. Interesting that you say I was defending him. I guess you read what you want to read. I would prefer to see more evidence concerning her injuries. Doesn’t mean I am defending him at all. Having been in that situation myself I understand that in DV cases there is often an assumption that the man is guilty straight away. Perhaps you should go back and read what I have actually said.

[sadoldgit]

If Soggy dished out a few right handers to his missus, who are we to judge?

 

It's an interesting development in the backstory of this forum's most excruciatingly sanctimonious prig.

 

Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

[hypochondriac]

Harsh. Interesting that you say I was defending him. I guess you read what you want to read. I would prefer to see more evidence concerning her injuries. Doesn’t mean I am defending him at all. Having been in that situation myself I understand that in DV cases there is often an assumption that the man is guilty straight away. Perhaps you should go back and read what I have actually said.

 

Actual lol. Yes there is often an assumption that the man is guilty straight away isn't there???

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Harsh. Interesting that you say I was defending him. I guess you read what you want to read. I would prefer to see more evidence concerning her injuries. Doesn’t mean I am defending him at all. Having been in that situation myself I understand that in DV cases there is often an assumption that the man is guilty straight away. Perhaps you should go back and read what I have actually said.

 

You are throwing doubt on her injuries and testimony - that is defending him and his case.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Soggy has done more to build mistrust in the CPS over the last few years than the last 20 years of wrongful prosecutions.

[hypochondriac]

Soggy has done more to build mistrust in the CPS over the last few years than the last 20 years of wrongful prosecutions.

Of all the people he could have chosen, Geoffrey Boycott is a really odd hill to die on.

[shurlock]

[hypochondriac]

"Honest Mr Policeman, she slipped she did. I know Mrs Soggy claims I slapped her about a bit but it's nasty lies. Look at the bruising on her face, I'd have definitely broken a bone or two if I'd punched her twenty times like she claimed."

 

Geoffrey should have used the soggy defence and he'd be off scot free.

[sadoldgit]

You are throwing doubt on her injuries and testimony - that is defending him and his case.

 

It is not defending him. It is looking for definitive proof that something has happened the way someone claims it has. A statement and a picture is not conclusive proof, but I’m sure you know that, you are just looking for an argument, as usual.

[Batman]

It is not defending him. It is looking for definitive proof that something has happened the way someone claims it has. A statement and a picture is not conclusive proof, but I’m sure you know that, you are just looking for an argument, as usual.

 

Where was this attitude in the Ched Evans thread?

[hypochondriac]

Where was this attitude in the Ched Evans thread?

He smeared everyone with that attitude as a rape apologist.

[sadoldgit]

Where was this attitude in the Ched Evans thread?

 

The CPS felt they had definitive proof as evidenced by the guilty verdict in the first trial.

[hypochondriac]

The CPS felt they had definitive proof as evidenced by the guilty verdict in the first trial.

So the CPS are infallible and any prosecution they bring is evidence of guilt? Presumably whoever adjudicated the Boycott trial felt they had definitive proof as evidenced by the guilty verdict and failure of the appeal. What's the difference other than Boycott actually losing his appeal so his conviction stood up to scrutiny twice. Edited 14 September, 2019 by hypochondriac

[Batman]

The CPS felt they had definitive proof as evidenced by the guilty verdict in the first trial.

 

Are you a domestic abuse apologist?

[egg]

It is not defending him. It is looking for definitive proof that something has happened the way someone claims it has. A statement and a picture is not conclusive proof, but I’m sure you know that, you are just looking for an argument, as usual.

 

Why do you feel the need to look for, or ask for, proof when a court has considered all the evidence and determined that there was sufficient proof to convict? I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to achieve here, and why. It's odd in the extreme.

[sadoldgit]

Why do you feel the need to look for, or ask for, proof when a court has considered all the evidence and determined that there was sufficient proof to convict? I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to achieve here, and why. It's odd in the extreme.

 

Why is it odd to be curious about why a verdict has been reached in a court case? Weren’t you curious to know why OJ Simpson was acquitted? I just think the pictures do the injuries reflect the result of being punched in the face 20 times. Do you?

[sadoldgit]

Are you a domestic abuse apologist?

 

 

Where have I apologised for domestic abuse. Even by your standards that is a very weird post. Go off and find the evidence.

[egg]

Why is it odd to be curious about why a verdict has been reached in a court case? Weren’t you curious to know why OJ Simpson was acquitted? I just think the pictures do the injuries reflect the result of being punched in the face 20 times. Do you?

 

For a case you claim to know so much about, you're wrong. The court accepted (twice) that she was hit about 20 times around the body and head. To answer your question, yes, she looks like she'd been knocked about. Again, i still don't understand your fascination with revisiting the case. The fella was found guilty and you're in no position to judge to the contrary, for whatever purpose. I've made my point, so have the last word mate.

[hypochondriac]

Where have I apologised for domestic abuse. Even by your standards that is a very weird post. Go off and find the evidence.

Were those who questioned the verdict of Ched Evans rape apologists? Because that's what you called them for doing exactly what you are doing here.

[sadoldgit]

For a case you claim to know so much about, you're wrong. The court accepted (twice) that she was hit about 20 times around the body and head. To answer your question, yes, she looks like she'd been knocked about. Again, i still don't understand your fascination with revisiting the case. The fella was found guilty and you're in no position to judge to the contrary, for whatever purpose. I've made my point, so have the last word mate.

 

I do not understand your fascination with my “fascination” (the word I used is curiosity) in the case. Why are you getting so worked up about it? And where do I say I want the case revisited?. Yes he has been found guilty but why are you so worked up about me having an opinion about the verdict. I am not saying it is wrong, I am just curious as to how the magistrate came to her decision. I do not know a great deal about the case other than what I have read recently, which is why I am curious about the medical evidence. Oh, and some reports say she was hit in the face 20 times and others the face, arms and body. You really need to chill mate.