Phill v Holly - Guest starring Ched Evans

[egg]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Having an affair and having it off with someone junior to him at work.

Both wrong but both a million miles from raping kids.

Again, who's labelled him a rapist? A paedo? Compared him to saville? Copy and paste the posts, or accept that you're making shit up and stop talking bollox. 

[aintforever]

On 31/05/2023 at 19:25, aintforever said:

It's obviously creepy and he's clearly a rat

on page 1

[aintforever]

On 26/05/2023 at 21:11, bpsaint said:

Absolutely, she knew this was all about to leak and tried distancing herself to save her career. There’s no way on earth she can say she didn’t know. 
 

 

[aintforever]

On 31/05/2023 at 06:57, Weston Super Saint said:

That's how it started with Rolf and Jimmy.

 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Whereas in your world facts don't seem to matter.

Are you familiar with the concept of balance of probabilities? Objective assessment? Morality? Common sense? Or do you have a binary guilty/not guilty criminal court mentality? 

[egg]

Just now, aintforever said:

 

Very true, it did. That's a statement of fact. Nothing more. 

[aintforever]

On 31/05/2023 at 09:20, AlexLaw76 said:

Groomed a child?

 

[aintforever]

Just now, egg said:

Very true, it did. That's a statement of fact. Nothing more. 

Obvious implications.

[egg]

Just now, aintforever said:

 

If you agreed with that comment I'd have a modicum of respect for you. 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

 

When there's a question mark, it isn't a statement that needs hard evidence, it's merely a question.

No wonder you're struggling with this.

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, egg said:

The evidence is there if you open your eyes, ears and mind.

Met and friended him as a kid, got him the job he wanted, made the first move on him, went to all sorts of lengths to lie about it, and conceded that the lad is (and undoubtedly always was) vulnerable. 

Sure, the adult sex was consensual, but you've gotta be some sort of idiot to gloss over the events beforehand. 

Is also continuing to fund his legal fees which is pretty suspicious as well. 

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Is also continuing to fund his legal fees which is pretty suspicious as well. 

Which begs the question 'why would the other man need legal fees if nothing illegal had happened'?

[Turkish]

53 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Which begs the question 'why would the other man need legal fees if nothing illegal had happened'?

The facts man, the facts. He hasn’t done anything illegal stop comparing him to Jimmy Saville, it’s not rocket science 

[egg]

9 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Is also continuing to fund his legal fees which is pretty suspicious as well. 

He's a very kind and selfless man that Phil. Getting youngsters jobs, treating them to a bit of him in the dressing room, then paying their lawyers when the truth comes out.

Gotta wander what legal services are needed though. Possibly warnings to the press and websites etc or injunctions against them, or similar to protect the lads reputation. That's understandable. 

It's hard to think what else it could be. If there has been a request from Phil for an NDA or an injunction, then the lad would need lawyers. Even if he wasn't opposed to any action, he'd need independent legal advice. Unless I've misread Phil didn't say that there was no NDA. He was asked the simple question "do you know if he has signed an NDA". In reply he said “Did I make him sign an NDA? No, absolutely not" - he answered a different question, and didn't say that there wasn't one that that the lad agreed or even volunteered to sign. I read nothing in the interview to say there was no injunction against the lad either, just a press injunction. 

Note to Phil's fan boys. I make no allegations. I'm using the words from Phil only. 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Which begs the question 'why would the other man need legal fees if nothing illegal had happened'?

Only begs a question if you are thick as shit. It's obvious to anyone with a working brain why they would both want legal advice. They are having their personal lives scrutinised by the gutter press and face all sorts of allegations online.

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, egg said:

He's a very kind and selfless man that Phil. Getting youngsters jobs, treating them to a bit of him in the dressing room, then paying their lawyers when the truth comes out.

Gotta wander what legal services are needed though. Possibly warnings to the press and websites etc or injunctions against them, or similar to protect the lads reputation. That's understandable. 

It's hard to think what else it could be. If there has been a request from Phil for an NDA or an injunction, then the lad would need lawyers. Even if he wasn't opposed to any action, he'd need independent legal advice. Unless I've misread Phil didn't say that there was no NDA. He was asked the simple question "do you know if he has signed an NDA". In reply he said “Did I make him sign an NDA? No, absolutely not" - he answered a different question, and didn't say that there wasn't one that that the lad agreed or even volunteered to sign. I read nothing in the interview to say there was no injunction against the lad either, just a press injunction. 

Note to Phil's fan boys. I make no allegations. I'm using the words from Phil only. 

Phil’s fan boys? Seriously? This is the sort of remark we expect from Batman. You should know that there is a huge difference between being a “ fan boy” and pointing out a mob pile on based on zero evidence of child grooming. If and when evidence of child grooming actually comes to light then knock yourselves out. The only thing you, the rest of the pile on crowd and the rest of us know for a fact is that an older man had a sexual relationship with a younger man in the workplace and lied about it. I suppose we can expect now that every time work colleagues with a big age differences and lie about it to their colleagues and family’s they will be hounded by the mob and have their careers destroyed too.

Just so we are absolutely clear, I don’t watch This Morning and have rarely seen anything that Schofield has been in. I am certainly not a “fan boy” and if he is found to have done anything illegal then I am more than happy for him to face justice.Nobody deserves to have this level of judgement placed upon them based on their sexuality and what some people think might have happened. As said before, if it had been a female then people would probably think good in you Phil.

By the way, I used to be part of a team at The Guardian that visited schools and gave young teenagers presentations about the paper and the newspaper industry in general. Further down the line some of them would get back in touch and ask for a work experience placement. Does that make us child groomers? 

Edited 9 June, 2023 by sadoldgit
Added text

[egg]

44 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Phil’s fan boys? Seriously? This is the sort of remark we expect from Batman. You should know that there is a huge difference between being a “ fan boy” and pointing out a mob pile on based on zero evidence of child grooming. If and when evidence of child grooming actually comes to light then knock yourselves out. The only thing you, the rest of the pile on crowd and the rest of us know for a fact is that an older man had a sexual relationship with a younger man in the workplace and lied about it. I suppose we can expect now that every time work colleagues with a big age differences and lie about it to their colleagues and family’s they will be hounded by the mob and have their careers destroyed too.

Just so we are absolutely clear, I don’t watch This Morning and have rarely seen anything that Schofield has been in. I am certainly not a “fan boy” and if he is found to have done anything illegal then I am more than happy for him to face justice.Nobody deserves to have this level of judgement placed upon them based on their sexuality and what some people think might have happened. As said before, if it had been a female then people would probably think good in you Phil.

By the way, I used to be part of a team at The Guardian that visited schools and gave young teenagers presentations about the paper and the newspaper industry in general. Further down the line some of them would get back in touch and ask for a work experience placement. Does that make us child groomers? 

So your focus in the face of facts, based on what Schofield has said himself, is a tongue in cheek "fan boy" comment. I would say that you're better than that SoG, but I'm an honest man. 

[Turkish]

47 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Phil’s fan boys? Seriously? This is the sort of remark we expect from Batman. You should know that there is a huge difference between being a “ fan boy” and pointing out a mob pile on based on zero evidence of child grooming. If and when evidence of child grooming actually comes to light then knock yourselves out. The only thing you, the rest of the pile on crowd and the rest of us know for a fact is that an older man had a sexual relationship with a younger man in the workplace and lied about it. I suppose we can expect now that every time work colleagues with a big age differences and lie about it to their colleagues and family’s they will be hounded by the mob and have their careers destroyed too.

Just so we are absolutely clear, I don’t watch This Morning and have rarely seen anything that Schofield has been in. I am certainly not a “fan boy” and if he is found to have done anything illegal then I am more than happy for him to face justice.Nobody deserves to have this level of judgement placed upon them based on their sexuality and what some people think might have happened. As said before, if it had been a female then people would probably think good in you Phil.

By the way, I used to be part of a team at The Guardian that visited schools and gave young teenagers presentations about the paper and the newspaper industry in general. Further down the line some of them would get back in touch and ask for a work experience placement. Does that make us child groomers? 

 

Amazing what they let admin people do in those days. However I guess it depends if you asked them if they "want to have a go on my stapler?".....

[Weston Super Saint]

30 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 

Amazing what they let admin people do in those days. However I guess it depends if you asked them if they "want to have a go on my stapler?".....

He was there making sure they had enough pens and paper....

[egg]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

Only begs a question if you are thick as shit. It's obvious to anyone with a working brain why they would both want legal advice. They are having their personal lives scrutinised by the gutter press and face all sorts of allegations online.

I think it's only that simplistic "if you are as thick as shit". 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

By the way, I used to be part of a team at The Guardian that visited schools and gave young teenagers presentations about the paper and the newspaper industry in general. Further down the line some of them would get back in touch and ask for a work experience placement. Does that make us child groomers? 

I'm assuming you didn't then go on to have sexual relationships with them in an office.

Once again, this paragraph shows the reason why you don't understand the "pile on".

A couple of weeks into this saga now and Soggy still hasn't got a fucking clue!

[aintforever]

37 minutes ago, egg said:

I think it's only that simplistic "if you are as thick as shit". 

You don't think it's obvious that they both would want legal advice. Wow.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

You don't think it's obvious that they both would want legal advice. Wow.

But they haven't done anything IlLEgAl

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

But they haven't done anything IlLEgAl

Wether they have or not they still have the press trawling through their private lives and untold stuff written about them online.

Thick as fuck.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

 

Nobody deserves to have this level of judgement placed upon them based on their sexuality and what some people think might have happened. 

 

Fucking hell, written by the bloke who continues to claim Ched Evans is a rapist, despite being not guilty. 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Phil’s fan boys? Seriously? This is the sort of remark we expect from Batman. You should know that there is a huge difference between being a “ fan boy” and pointing out a mob pile on based on zero evidence of child grooming. If and when evidence of child grooming actually comes to light then knock yourselves out. The only thing you, the rest of the pile on crowd and the rest of us know for a fact is that an older man had a sexual relationship with a younger man in the workplace and lied about it. I suppose we can expect now that every time work colleagues with a big age differences and lie about it to their colleagues and family’s they will be hounded by the mob and have their careers destroyed too.

Just so we are absolutely clear, I don’t watch This Morning and have rarely seen anything that Schofield has been in. I am certainly not a “fan boy” and if he is found to have done anything illegal then I am more than happy for him to face justice.Nobody deserves to have this level of judgement placed upon them based on their sexuality and what some people think might have happened. As said before, if it had been a female then people would probably think good in you Phil.

By the way, I used to be part of a team at The Guardian that visited schools and gave young teenagers presentations about the paper and the newspaper industry in general. Further down the line some of them would get back in touch and ask for a work experience placement. Does that make us child groomers? 

If those young teenagers had kept in contact with you and you'd followed them on twitter and then they'd ended up in a job working for you as a PA and then later on we found out you'd been rogering them in the changing room then I'd say there's a big argument to say it does. Do you have something to tell us soggy? 

[hypochondriac]

44 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fucking hell, written by the bloke who continues to claim Ched Evans is a rapist, despite being not guilty. 

Soggy apparently knows what happened when it went back to court for some reason. He knows better than the people judging the case! 

[egg]

57 minutes ago, aintforever said:

You don't think it's obvious that they both would want legal advice. Wow.

Of course they would, but highlighting the simple is, umm, simple.

[Weston Super Saint]

51 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Wether they have or not they still have the press trawling through their private lives and untold stuff written about them online.

Thick as fuck.

Have you got any evidence that "untold stuff written about them online" would need legal action to be taken?

If not, aren't you jumping to conclusions without proof?

[egg]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Soggy apparently knows what happened when it went back to court for some reason. He knows better than the people judging the case! 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Soggy apparently knows what happened when it went back to court for some reason. He knows better than the people judging the case! 

I imagine the barristers involved in the case confided in soggy when they went to get some additional stationery from him....

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, egg said:

So your focus in the face of facts, based on what Schofield has said himself, is a tongue in cheek "fan boy" comment. I would say that you're better than that SoG, but I'm an honest man. 

If you are an honest man then perhaps you can give us the information that leads you to believe that Schofield groomed this person. You will doubtless have the evidence so perhaps you can share with us the number of times that Schofield was in touch with this person and the nature of their communications from the ages of 15 to 18. It should not  be too difficult, you being an honest man and all and will have all the information that you base your conclusion about cast iron grooming at your finger tips.

Having never groomed anybody I don’t know what it entails but suspect that it involves more than a couple of WhatsApp messages over a number of years.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If you are an honest man then perhaps you can give us the information that leads you to believe that Schofield groomed this person. You will doubtless have the evidence so perhaps you can share with us the number of times that Schofield was in touch with this person and the nature of their communications from the ages of 15 to 18. It should not  be too difficult, you being an honest man and all and will have all the information that you base your conclusion about cast iron grooming at your finger tips.

Having never groomed anybody I don’t know what it entails but suspect that it involves more than a couple of WhatsApp messages over a number of years.

For a bloke who writes so much SoG, you appear to have lost the ability read or think. It's all here of you open your eyes and mind mate. 

[sadoldgit]

44 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Soggy apparently knows what happened when it went back to court for some reason. He knows better than the people judging the case! 

I and many thousands of people are of the opinion that OJ Simpson killed his ex wife and her friend. He could not have possibly done it though because we weren’t there and the 12 who found him not guilty were.

You are as thick as Duckie if you think that a jury verdict is the sole arbiter of what actually happened.

No, I wasn’t at either of the Evans’ trials but on both occasions the CPS were. They studied all of the evidence and decided that the woman was incapacitated by drink/drugs and that she was not in a fit state to consent. I guess you and the rest of your crew have to resort to drugging women in order to have sex, but guess what, it is illegal. You can dig me out all you like, but experience lawyers came to this decision and just because 12 people were not convinced in the trial, it doesn’t mean that the lawyers got it wrong.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You are as thick as Duckie if you think that a jury verdict is the sole arbiter of what actually happened.

 

Yet you seem to be suggesting that Schofield has only done something wrong if there's "cast iron" evidence or he's convicted in a criminal court.

You're all over the place.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I imagine the barristers involved in the case confided in soggy when they went to get some additional stationery from him....

maybe Soggy caught one of them smashing one of his work experience kids over boxes of post it notes and they bought his silence with the truth about Ched Evans?

Edited 9 June, 2023 by Turkish

[Turkish]

On a separate note im assuming this thread quashes any lingering rumours that soggy is actually a genius troll and him and his sidekick aintclever have got us all on a string?

[egg]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

On a separate note im assuming this thread quashes any lingering rumours that soggy is actually a genius troll and him and his sidekick aintclever have got us all on a string?

Yep. That idea has been well and truly smashed. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Of course they would, but highlighting the simple is, umm, simple.

Don't blame me. I'm just trying to explain the obvious to Weston Super-Mare's dumbest pensioner.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I and many thousands of people are of the opinion that OJ Simpson killed his ex wife and her friend. He could not have possibly done it though because we weren’t there and the 12 who found him not guilty were.

You are as thick as Duckie if you think that a jury verdict is the sole arbiter of what actually happened.

No, I wasn’t at either of the Evans’ trials but on both occasions the CPS were. They studied all of the evidence and decided that the woman was incapacitated by drink/drugs and that she was not in a fit state to consent. I guess you and the rest of your crew have to resort to drugging women in order to have sex, but guess what, it is illegal. You can dig me out all you like, but experience lawyers came to this decision and just because 12 people were not convinced in the trial, it doesn’t mean that the lawyers got it wrong.

If the standard by which we judge innocence and guilt is purely down to what the CPS think, we might as well not have a trial. Considering you're supposedly an ex employee of the CPS, I hardly think they're the most competent or impartial people to be ruling on cases. 

[hypochondriac]

27 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. That idea has been well and truly smashed. 

I think that was clear about 5 years ago after the whole bit about Christian nazi belt buckles, Katie Hopkins, Tommy Robinson, Corbyn, his black barber etc etc. 

[Weston Super Saint]

46 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Don't blame me. I'm just trying to explain the obvious to Weston Super-Mare's dumbest pensioner.

Pensioner 🤣🤣🤣

[egg]

47 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Pensioner 🤣🤣🤣

Late 70's?

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

 

You are as thick as Duckie if you think that a jury verdict is the sole arbiter of what actually happened.

No, I wasn’t at either of the Evans’ trials but on both occasions the CPS were. They studied all of the evidence and decided that the woman was incapacitated by drink/drugs and that she was not in a fit state to consent.

Dear God….

The jury decide beyond reasonable doubt whether a person is guilty, not the fucking CPS or whoever is in charge of the prosecution case. Their success rate is approx 76%, which means if you had your way thousands of innocent people would be in jail. There would be thousands of innocent people losing their jobs, homes and families. Do you really think you should be calling people thick when you come out with pony like this, you’re embarrassing yourself yet again. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I think that was clear about 5 years ago after the whole bit about Christian nazi belt buckles, Katie Hopkins, Tommy Robinson, Corbyn, his black barber etc etc. 

he has come out with some absolute belters over the years and not for the reason he thinks. 

[petermcpete]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I and many thousands of people are of the opinion that OJ Simpson killed his ex wife and her friend. He could not have possibly done it though because we weren’t there and the 12 who found him not guilty were.

You are as thick as Duckie if you think that a jury verdict is the sole arbiter of what actually happened.

No, I wasn’t at either of the Evans’ trials but on both occasions the CPS were. They studied all of the evidence and decided that the woman was incapacitated by drink/drugs and that she was not in a fit state to consent. I guess you and the rest of your crew have to resort to drugging women in order to have sex, but guess what, it is illegal. You can dig me out all you like, but experience lawyers came to this decision and just because 12 people were not convinced in the trial, it doesn’t mean that the lawyers got it wrong.

Unbelievable.

Are you suggesting that we scrap the English law system, and move to a new system of "if the police say they dun it, they dun it, no trial required"?

Bit North Korea isn't it?

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Pensioner 🤣🤣🤣

I just assumed you were some old git with a few marbles left rattling around, the only explanation I could think of for the bollocks you post on here.

[Weston Super Saint]

33 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I just assumed you were some old git with a few marbles left rattling around, the only explanation I could think of for the bollocks you post on here.

That's what happens when you try to think...

[The Kraken]

6 hours ago, aintforever said:

Wether they have or not they still have the press trawling through their private lives and untold stuff written about them online.

Thick as fuck.

It’s ‘whether’. Not wether. Probably a good thing to get that correct before you have a go at someone else’s intelligence. But you do you, rocket man.

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, The Kraken said:

It’s ‘whether’. Not wether. Probably a good thing to get that correct before you have a go at someone else’s intelligence. But you do you, rocket man.

Cheers Mr Spellcheck, great contribution as usual. 👍