BoxRec

Surely on a forum we reserve the right to comment on them....?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Surely on a forum we reserve the right to comment on them....?

What? 11 a-side moustaches, or my questions?

Both, hopefully....

Fair enough, I shouldn't have said "either answer them or ignore them" of course you have a right to comment. Sorry.

FlawedGenius wrote: Priff et al,
I asked a series of questions, either answer them or ignore them.

Your question doesn't make any sense.
"Why do British people not stick up for there own?" was your question.
Assuming the alleged victims ARE British, the Britsh people on this thread ARE indeed sticking up for there own. As are the authorities by arresting Booth.

My subtly put question to you was, what made you think the victims weren't British? I assumed they weren't anglo-saxon, but why not British?

Priff.
Are you on drugs? Of course my question makes sense.

"Why do British people not stick up for their own?"

I don't know what you are on about.

It annoys me that as a nation we are happy to assume that alleged criminals are guilty until proven innocent which goes completely against what we are supposed to believe. A good example is those lads who've been in Guantanemo Bay for two and a half years, why did we not demand Blair to put pressure on the Americans to let them out sooner or charge them, especially when in at least one case (the black backpacker) it was obvious to all but the most stupid he was wholly innocent.

Flawed Genius wrote:Why do British people not stick up for their own?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Were you sticking up for Ian Huntley before he was found guilty?

I was sticking up for him in the respect that until the evidence convinced the jury he was guilty, he should not have had his face plastered all over the papers etc.

Yeah right.

What do you mean "Yeah Right"?

Until you've been found guilty of something there should be a ban on your name being publically released in connection with the alleged crime. the British people should demand this be enforced, but sadly they won't.

If you got accused of something, like being a flasher for example, and before you'd even been to court your name had been splashed all over the paper, how would you feel if you were innocent?

FlawedGenius wrote:What do you mean "Yeah Right"?

Until you've been found guilty of something there should be a ban on your name being publically released in connection with the alleged crime. the British people should demand this be enforced, but sadly they won't.

If you got accused of something, like being a flasher for example, and before you'd even been to court your name had been splashed all over the paper, how would you feel if you were innocent?

f.g. actually has a point, BUT this would be in an ideal world and we dont live in one, otherwise such crimes and such people wouldnt exist Im afraid.
While the principles are admirable, they are somewhat idealistic.
I do however feel that the press has too much to do with high profile cases but again in an ideal world we wouldnt need them to report it, its a sad fact that crime, grime and sensationalism sells papers, especially tabloids. Look at the recent events involving sportsmen and celebreties, guys are tried, prosecuted and hanged before a case is even brought to trial.
In the booths case, it seems that there is no smoke without fire, which being fair is usually the case, these people have to put themselves in the situation to get caught so its not an inhuman reaction to think silly twat gets what he deserves shouldnt have been there.
Similarly you could say that of the Leic footballers whom i hasten to add I think are innocent.
What is undeniable is that they opened themselves up for such accusations by entertaining these dubious ladies when they all had family lives to return to. But being weak isnt something you should do a ten stretch for.
.
just my take. (and please dont think Im defending huntley in any way cos he should rot forever for what he did.)

J wrote: f.g. actually has a point, BUT this would be in an ideal world and we dont live in one, otherwise such crimes and such people wouldnt exist Im afraid.
While the principles are admirable, they are somewhat idealistic.

Of course the public get a buzz from sensationalism and speculation, and I am aware that that will probably never change.

However, it is not complicated to ban the Police from naming crime suspects who have been charged but not yet found guilty.

Always had the feeling one tooth booth would be in trouble with the law someday. Some of their post fight comments have been horrendous, and they like uk garage they used to come in to the ring to that rubbish all the time.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I know it's not always right to judge a book by it's cover, but if I were a victorian criminologist I think one look at the brothers booth would have then both swinging from the gallows. Either one of them may be whiter than white, but I would give them a wide berth if I saw either of them in a boozer.

Ditto.
There's a real 'deliverance' look to them.

Any guy in his early 20s who thinks a 'tache is cool should be banged up.

007 wrote:Any guy in his early 20s who thinks a 'tache is cool should be banged up.

Poetically put my friend.

I was calling it 'bum fluff' on Saturday night but I like 11 a side too.

007 wrote:and they like uk garage they used to come in to the ring to that rubbish all the time.

I'm sorry, but what has this type of music got to do with how they are as people?

mrbassie wrote: Ditto.
There's a real 'deliverance' look to them.

You mean like the film deliverance?

Well this thread certainly got out of topic (and hand) in a hurry

Southpaw Stylist wrote:

007 wrote:and they like uk garage they used to come in to the ring to that rubbish all the time.

I'm sorry, but what has this type of music got to do with how they are as people?

A joke.

007 wrote:Any guy in his early 20s who thinks a 'tache is cool should be banged up.

Its a good job Hitler was cracking on a bit or he would of been really evil