Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

1…187188190192193…334

Comments

  • #5672
    jaykay74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,610 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Hopefully this video evidence he's on about will pop up soon.

    I dunno, the video evidence was clear in the Barca Real game on Marcelo but it didn't really make any difference. Marcelo obviously lied about it since Biscuits was found innocent :)


  • #5673
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Keno 92 wrote: »
    People like Bamboozling are the reason why OJ got off.
    But he was innocent! He was not found guilty therefore he HAS to be innocent!!!!

    LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA LA LA


  • #5674
    bamboozling
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭bamboozling


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Having insufficient evidence and lies are not one and the same.
    jaykay74 wrote: »
    you so crazy :pac:
    Keno 92 wrote: »
    Or that it could not be proven?? Derp.

    Evra went off making wild, baseless accusations which could not be proven. Allegations which could have destroyed the personal and working life of the groundsman. He couldn't prove them. Since he couldn't prove them we have to assume that the accused party is innocent and that the allegations were untrue. Otherwise the principles of justice and fainess are absolute, complete and utter bullshít.
    Keno 92 wrote: »
    People like Bamboozling are the reason why OJ got off.

    No, people like Robert Kardashian ensured OJ was found not guilty.
    DOC09UNAM wrote: »
    Presumed guilty, I'm happy with that.

    Forgot my 'not!!' :pac:


  • #5675
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    bamboozling wrote: »
    Evra went off making wild, baseless accusations which could not be proven. Allegations which could have destroyed the personal and working life of the groundsman. He couldn't prove them. Since he couldn't prove them we have to assume that the accused party is innocent and that the allegations were untrue. Otherwise the principles of justice and fainess are absolute, complete and utter bullshít.

    But that doesn't make him a liar like you implied earlier. The notion that racism ahould only be highlighted if there's absolute proof is boll*x btw.

    No one but the groundsman and Evra know what happened that day: acusing Evra of lying is just as bad as any alleged racism and equally making it up is just as bad as actually doing it.


  • #5676
    Kylo Ren
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,366 ✭✭✭✭Kylo Ren


    Go on Fla!

    knockout%20gallery%207.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #5677
    bamboozling
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭bamboozling


    flahavaj wrote: »
    But that doesn't make him a liar like you implied earlier. The notion that racism ahould only be highlighted if there's absolute proof is boll*x btw.

    No one but the groundsman and Evra know what happened that day: acusing Evra of lying is just as bad as any alleged racism and equally making it up is just as bad as actually doing it.

    According to law logic if it cannot be proved it must be assumed that the defendent is not guilty. Evra was the one who got the fine and ban and his version of events was found to have holes. It leads me to believe Evra was telling fibs, which I also believe happened this time. Whenever he has a run in, Evra likes to cry wolf and shout; 'RACISM!!!'

    The fact that he has previous makes it difficult in the extreme to believe the quite serious allegations that Evra has made against the good character of Luis Suarez.


  • #5678
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    bamboozling wrote: »
    According to law logic if it cannot be proved it must be assumed that the defendent is not guilty. Evra was the one who got the fine and ban and his version of events was found to have holes. It leads me to believe Evra was telling fibs, which I also believe happened this time. Whenever he has a run in, Evra likes to cry wolf and shout; 'RACISM!!!'

    The fact that he has previous makes it difficult in the extreme to believe the quite serious allegations that Evra has made against the good character of Luis Suarez.

    LOL Jaysus!!!


  • #5679
    Professey Chin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 51,054 ✭✭✭✭Professey Chin


    bamboozling wrote: »
    According to law logic if it cannot be proved it must be assumed that the defendent is not guilty. Evra was the one who got the fine and ban and his version of events was found to have holes. It leads me to believe Evra was telling fibs, which I also believe happened this time. Whenever he has a run in, Evra likes to cry wolf and shout; 'RACISM!!!'

    The fact that he has previous makes it difficult in the extreme to believe the quite serious allegations that Evra has made against the good character of Luis Suarez.

    In law not guilty and innocent are very different things. You just like to talk through the wrong hole between cheeks a lot.

    Also "good character of Luiz Suarez"
    tumblr_lshw4w5Thj1qhe380.png


  • #5680
    jaykay74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,610 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    bamboozling wrote: »
    According to law logic if it cannot be proved it must be assumed that the defendent is not guilty. Evra was the one who got the fine and ban and his version of events was found to have holes. It leads me to believe Evra was telling fibs, which I also believe happened this time. Whenever he has a run in, Evra likes to cry wolf and shout; 'RACISM!!!'

    The fact that he has previous makes it difficult in the extreme to believe the quite serious allegations that Evra has made against the good character of Luis Suarez.

    Let wait and see if theres any evidence maybe :pac:

    Some juror you'd be :D


  • #5681
    #15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    Would anyone really be surprised if Suarez said something racist? He seems a malicious sort, on the pitch anyway.
    Maybe he is ok off it.

    bamboozling wrote: »
    Since they were not proven one would have to assume that it was lies.

    That is an amazing abuse of logic.


  • Advertisement
  • #5682
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    bamboozling wrote: »
    According to law logic if it cannot be proved it must be assumed that the defendent is not guilty. Evra was the one who got the fine and ban and his version of events was found to have holes. It leads me to believe Evra was telling fibs, which I also believe happened this time. Whenever he has a run in, Evra likes to cry wolf and shout; 'RACISM!!!'

    The fact that he has previous makes it difficult in the extreme to believe the quite serious allegations that Evra has made against the good character of Luis Suarez.


    So evidence is only required to vindicate a United player when a Liverpool player should just be believed without evidence is what you're trying to say?

    Glazers Out!



  • #5683
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    bamboozling wrote: »
    According to law logic if it cannot be proved it must be assumed that the defendent is not guilty. Evra was the one who got the fine and ban and his version of events was found to have holes. It leads me to believe Evra was telling fibs, which I also believe happened this time. Whenever he has a run in, Evra likes to cry wolf and shout; 'RACISM!!!'

    The fact that he has previous makes it difficult in the extreme to believe the quite serious allegations that Evra has made against the good character of Luis Suarez.
    Chelsea got a fine too for the groundsman's conduct, they were both guilty. It just wasn't proved that the guy made racist remarks.

    Not proved guilty ≠ proven innocent.

    I'm not sure how you're not understanding such a simple concept.


  • #5684
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    flahavaj wrote: »
    But that doesn't make him a liar like you implied earlier. The notion that racism ahould only be highlighted if there's absolute proof is boll*x btw.

    No one but the groundsman and Evra know what happened that day: acusing Evra of lying is just as bad as any alleged racism and equally making it up is just as bad as actually doing it.

    The FA was quite harsh when delivering their verdict & said that the witnesses on the Utd side all contradicted eachother & it gave plenty of reason to believe that the accusations were fabricated.


  • #5685
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    bamboozling wrote: »
    According to law logic if it cannot be proved it must be assumed that the defendent is not guilty. Evra was the one who got the fine and ban and his version of events was found to have holes. It leads me to believe Evra was telling fibs, which I also believe happened this time. Whenever he has a run in, Evra likes to cry wolf and shout; 'RACISM!!!'


    The fact that he has previous makes it difficult in the extreme to believe the quite serious allegations that Evra has made against the good character of Luis Suarez.

    This isn't court. It is quite possible that Evra was abused racially at Stamford Bridge it was one man's word gainst another. It is quite possible he wws abused similarly at Anfield today. None of us know the truth. Wading in and saying he's a liar based on something you couldn't posible know is just as retarded as saying outright Suarez is definitely a bigot. Saying either simply points to a pre-existing bias on the part of the person saying it. And at the end of the day its you saying this which only adds to my previous point.


  • #5686
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    The FA was quite harsh when delivering their verdict & said that the witnesses on the Utd side all contradicted eachother & it gave plenty of reason to believe that the accusations were fabricated.

    Exactly. And in fairness Al, it wouldn't need much for you to believe what you want to in the case of a United player.


  • #5687
    #15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Exactly. And in fairness Al, it wouldn't need much for you to believe what you want to in the case of a United player.

    Or in the case of Utd buying success either.


  • #5688
    Lukker-
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,405 ✭✭✭Lukker-


    the boy who cried wolf


  • #5689
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    #15 wrote: »
    Or in the case of Utd buying success either.

    I'm confused by this, could you expand on it please?

    Glazers Out!



  • #5690
    jaykay74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,610 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    Wonder what was said :confused:

    suarezlq5f.gif


  • #5691
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    I actually have a beef with anyone who makes such serious allegations against someone because they stick & always do iregardless of the verdict.

    For example, people are saying innocent until proven guity....right?

    Yet the Chelsea groundsman was found innocent yet here we are, people saying, "ahhh well you never know, it might have happpened!"

    It's total bull****.


  • Advertisement
  • #5692
    bamboozling
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭bamboozling


    #15 wrote: »




    That is an amazing abuse of logic.

    How?
    nullzero wrote: »
    So evidence is only required to vindicate a United player when a Liverpool player should just be believed without evidence is what you're trying to say?

    Innocent until proven guilty and here I'm assuming that Suarez is innocent, especially after looking at Evra's previous incidents of alledged racism.
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Chelsea got a fine too for the groundsman's conduct, they were both guilty. It just wasn't proved that the guy made racist remarks.

    Not proved guilty ≠ proven innocent.

    I'm not sure how you're not understanding such a simple concept.

    They did get a fine but not for the racial abuse that was fabricated by Manchester United. It wasn't proved. Hence we assume that it didn't happen. That is how the law works.

    Not guilty = proven innocent of the charges. It is an extremely simple concept.
    flahavaj wrote: »
    This isn't court. It is quite possible that Evra was abused racially at Stamford Bridge it was one man's word gainst another. It is quite possible he wws abused similarly at Anfield today. None of us know the truth. Wading in and saying he's a liar based on something you couldn't posible know is just as retarded as saying outright Suarez is definitely a bigot. Saying either simply points to a pre-existing bias on the part of the person saying it. And at the end of the day its you saying this which only adds to my previous point.

    It was more than one man's word against the other. The FA believed the the conflicting and contradicting statements from United was because they had fabricated the allegations.

    Evra has history and looking logically at this, until these horrible allegations of racism are proven, the name of Suarez shouldn't be sullied.

    Also your last line indicates a pre existing bias towards me and my posts. Surely my posts should just be taken on their merit? Ironic Flah, isn't it? :rolleyes:


  • #5693
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    We've just been Bamboozled.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/dec/05/premierleague-manchesterunited?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
    Evra was expected to argue to the commission that he was provoked by Bethell, who had himself been charged with improper conduct and using abusive language aggravated by reference to nationality and/or race. An independent commission subsequently cleared him, ruling that the FA did not have disciplinary jurisdiction over the groundsman because Chelsea had failed to inform him that he was subject to FA rules.

    The FA went on to charge Chelsea "for their failure to include the required provisions in his employment contract" and with "failing to ensure that Bethell conducted himself in an orderly fashion and/or refrained from any one or a combination of racist and/or abusive and/or provocative conduct and/or language".

    That charge appears to hinge on evidence to be heard from Phelan, a key witness as Evra claims he did not hear any racist comments during the incident. Chelsea have consistently denied there was any racist element to Bethell's conduct.

    From that it appears that the groundsman was only cleared because he was not under the FA's authority and that it wasn't even Evra who made the accusation!


  • #5694
    Mars Bar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 32,233 ✭✭✭✭Mars Bar


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    I actually have a beef with anyone who makes such serious allegations against someone because they stick & always do.

    For example, people are saying innocent until proven guity....right?

    yet the Chelsea groundsman was found innocent yet here we are, people saying, "ahhh well you never know, it might have happpened!"

    It's total bull****.

    You wrote this in the other thread, this is getting confusing!
    As I have said over there,

    Was the groundsman adjudged to have been innocent or was it deemed inconclusive on both sides?


  • #5695
    #15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    nullzero wrote: »
    I'm confused by this, could you expand on it please?

    There were a few people making ridiculous claims about Utd spending their way to titles.
    It's in yesterday's thread on Rafa Benitez, it's a long circular thread with the Rafa crew out in full flow.
    I'd advise giving it a miss, but it's here if you really want to wade through it
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056419743&page=13


  • #5696
    Peyton Manning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,658 ✭✭✭✭Peyton Manning


    jaykay74 wrote: »
    Wonder what was said :confused:

    suarezlq5f.gif

    He clearly called him a cheese eating surrender monkey.

    6 month ban imo.


  • #5697
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    mars bar wrote: »
    Was the groundsman adjudged to have been innocent or was it deemed inconclusive on both sides?

    This is EXACTLY my point.....there is no need to prove innocence.
    Only guilt.
    If he is not found guilty then there is an automatic assumption of innocence.


  • #5698
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    bamboozling wrote: »
    It was more than one man's word against the other. The FA believed the the conflicting and contradicting statements from United was because they had fabricated the allegations.

    Show me where they have said United fabridated the allegations?

    Evra has history and looking logically at this, until these horrible allegations of racism are proven, the name of Suarez shouldn't be sullied.

    Nor should Evra's.
    Also your last line indicates a pre existing bias towards me and my posts. Surely my posts should just be taken on their merit? Ironic Flah, isn't it? :rolleyes:
    There is little or no merit in any of your posts, Bam Man. Thats not a pre existingbias thats a valid informed by close examination of a long litany of attention seeking bluster.


  • #5699
    3hn2givr7mx1sc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,838 ✭✭✭✭3hn2givr7mx1sc


    jaykay74 wrote: »
    Wonder what was said :confused:

    suarezlq5f.gif

    You nagger.


  • #5700
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    This is EXACTLY my point.....there is no need to prove innocence.
    Only guilt.
    If he is not found guilty then there is an automatic assumption of innocence.
    In a world where everything is black and white maybe. There is also the possibility that the evidence was inconclusive.


  • Advertisement
  • #5701
    bamboozling
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭bamboozling


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Show me where they have said United fabridated the allegations?

    Nor should Evra's.

    There is little or no merit in any of your posts, Bam Man. Thats not a pre existingbias thats a valid informed by close examination of a long litany of attention seeking bluster.
    'Although, as already stated, we should not have expected entirely consistent recollections on details, such discrepancies on the sequence of key events cast more doubt on the reliability of a witness's evidence.'

    Before the violence erupted, Neville was said to have behaved in an 'abusive and provocative manner towards Chelsea ground staff'.

    While Evra's account of events was also said to be 'exaggerated and unreliable.'

    The commission also dismissed a claim by United coaching staff that a Chelsea groundsman had threatened to 'shove' his '******* fork up' Evra's 'arse'.

    You, and others, have shown a long history of pre existing bias towards my posts, failing to takr them on their merits, failing to deal with the topics debated and general ignorance and frankly rudeness towards me. I enter this forum to discuss football and I'm left feeling hurt and upset after the treatment dished out to me. It's not particularly fair Flah. I'd appreciate some empathy towards my plight.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement