Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

CAPSLOCK wrote:

Lord Kangana wrote:So if someone else admitted to doing it, help me out as to why they shouldn't ask for the release of the person who's doing the time for it, quite possibly wrongly?

Tell ya what

I committed the crimes Sutcliffe is serving time for

Lets let him out, too

JUSTICE FOR NORRIS

Now the Fiver is simple folk - we can't even spell M Night Showaddywaddy, never mind understand his films - but after a wasted life of rifling through Spot The Difference puzzle books, there is one thing we're good at. And after hours of staring REALLY HARD at our ZX81 screen, we've spotted the difference between the cases of David Norris and Liverpool FC. Norris was fined £5,000 for a gesture in support of a man convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Liverpool FC today went unpunished for their collective gesture in support of a man convicted of attempted murder.

The Michael Shields case is one of the most sensitive and emotive in this country's history, and a judicial review will begin tomorrow. We have no idea if he is guilty or not: we're simply not in a position to comment with even a smidgen of authority (so what's new etc). But surely we are entering extremely uncomfortable territory if we allow public perceptions of a miscarriage of justice to supplant that which has been established in a court of law. A lot of people think Police Academy 4: Citizens On Patrol is a good film; it doesn't mean it is. (Actually it's a belter, the pick of a blisteringly funny series, but you get the point.)

Besides, are the players really so familiar with the minutiae of the case that they can wear such T-shirts with a clear conscience? Does Alvaro Arbeloa, say, have a theory as to why a number of witnesses came forward to say they saw Shields batter Martin Georgiev over the head with a seven-pound paving slab, fracturing his skull? And given what happened to Norris, are we to assume it's one rule for 27-year-old midfielders called David who play in East Anglia and one rule for the rest?

"We understand that Michael Shields's case is one that many Liverpool players and fans feel strongly about," said an FA spokesman, as the Kenny Dalglish pin-badge he had just hidden down his pants accidentally pierced his swingers, splashing blood all over the journalists' buffet, not that they'd mind. "Having heard the club's explanation we will not be taking any formal action, and we are satisfied that they understand the sensitivities around football matches being used as a platform for political messages." If that was the case we wouldn't be writing this, would we?

Verbal wrote:from about three years ago...take from it what you will

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urder.html

Verbal wrote:11?

bobo the clown wrote:

Verbal wrote:11?

Well, there's me ... and I just need 11 more for a jury full.

I'll accept a majority verdict.

Verbal wrote:from about three years ago...take from it what you will

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urder.html

Lord Kangana wrote:Seeing as the only evidence we have is opinionated journalism against the words of parents and friends, I personally abstain. Enjoy your holier than thou lynching all the same.

Tombwfc wrote:I'll sit on the fence with LK. Theres no real evidence either way.

William the White wrote: i think there's more evidence than that - a deeply flawed id parade, a confesion by someone arrested before shields... no evidential reason for the bulgarian police to arrest shields (they originally went looking for sankey! couldn't find him, went into the room next door. Sherlock it wasn't. Shit it was).