Undisputedtruth

A great article from Harry Redknapp where he talks about upcoming players.

A badly executed attempt.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only reason I posted > was because of your ridiculous patronising > attitude towards Otta and others, in circumstances > where it is clear that you have no particular > knowledge or insight. But that's obviously not > going to change. Otta has made a number of personal attacks on me so I think it's rather weird that you're supporting his cause. I don't particularly care whether you think I've got no knowledge or insight. Your statement is just a reflection of yourself in not understanding the bigger picture and on a mission to attack me. Also I was the first to mention balance of probabilities. Where was my credit? Oh no, no credit will ever be given to me it seems, but amazingly I've seen an attack based on a mere half a sentence towards me. How ridiculous is that? Sorry DaveR if you don't agree with my statements but it doesn't mean they're wrong.

DaveR, I suspect you will spend the rest of your poor existent life trying to prove me wrong with your irrelevant points. :)) I've got far more important things to do like tracking down Worcester sauce favoured Twiglets! But the fact you failed to understand is that a decision can be challenged in court and as a consequence the QC would have made his decision, given his expertise, based on a legal framework. Sorry if you think I failed to understand your points. The point is that I consider them irrelevant or low level detail at the best. Have a good Xmas too, DaveR.

The Dutch FA handled the situation well. I too questioned whether the keeper had used reasonable force. Then I concluded he should have kicked the fan harder.:))

Self defence - even for the subsequent kicks.

According to this month's PC Shopper magazine BullGuard wasn't the best on test. http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/software/1288573/bullguard-internet-security-2012

DaveR - but you're wrong on the legal framework argument. Here's an excerpt from a Union website: "From 6 April 2009 the Employment Act 2008 will come into force and remove the procedures from law, to be replaced by the code. While the code does encourage employers and employees to resolve workplace issues informally, its enactment means there will be a new legal framework for dealing with grievances and disciplinary issues at work where informal remedies fail." Hey DaveR, I bolded the relevant bits just for you. Looks like I'm right again. Damn you, Undisputedtruth. However there may be times when I'm wrong which usually results in some of my best ideas after a period of reflection. I think I'm going to take a break from the Suarez discussions since there is nothing for me to gain here. It's Xmas and I want to have fun.

I've a 128GB SSD with 64 bit Windows 7 but waiting for HDDs prices to fall to a reasonable level. Damn the Thai floods. The peformance of the SSD was well worth the money. :)) Another reason for partitioning is that it just makes it easier to reinstall the OS than to reinstall OS and programs. But I shall resign to the fact that the feature I wanted most is not happening.

Agree, subsequent sale is not conducted on a right to buy basis.

You're right of course with causing of problems. This is why I haven't done it with my current set up. My main motive is to have the OS stored on SSD while programs and media are stored on HDDs.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway, interesting report on Channel 4 news. They > did state that nothing was caught on camera in > this case (unlike Terry), so I can only surmise > that it was a case of Suarez's version of events > against Evra's. Not so much word against word, as > there is no denial that a word was used, but more > context vs context. > I also mention the case against case on this thread at 5.55pm. So nothing new here for me.

Defender was pre-loaded with my Windows 7. Never used it though. My machine has 8gb of RAM and should be adequate for virtualsation. These days RAM is dirt cheap. I don't like the fact that Windows 7 doesn't like programs installed on another partition to its operating system. Do you know if Windows 8 have the same issue?

No I didn't misread as I was expecting Otta to go off sulking. Nor is it worth my time in debating the issue further.

Dulwichfox, my understanding of the right to buy scheme is that the money raised is sent back to central government. Is this not the case?

I don't think that half a sentence is worth the time to debate. Don't you think? Besides, there are other forum members who regularly misread posts. I don't see you jumping on them.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Jah you're spot on re Suarez. One mans word > against another, quite how the authorities proved > this case is puzzling. It basically comes to who had the best case. Not sure about the one man's word against another bit. Previously, it was widely reported that Evra had written statements from his team mates and video evidence.

@DaveR I do recognised there are rules and regulations in place but I would expect the QC to take them into account for his decision making in any case. I made a distinction between a legal decision and a court decision. Not many employers have the luxury in using a QC. Even if the case went to court the legal argument would not be about who is right but whether the process and decision making was fair to Suarez. For many, this concept would be difficult to understand. Furthermore, the decision making would be weighing up the evidence on the balance of probability. So the decision could be as tight as 49 to 51. Even if employees have broken the rules it doesn't mean someone gets sacked automatically. Ultimately, it's always been the employer's decision to whether they would be willing to dismiss someone from their job. @Otta, Pretty much pointless in calling me an idiot as it seems you don't what the word means. The definition of an idiot is someone who does not know any better.

Evra had every right to stand up against racism. Just because the incident happened on a football pitc does not make the behaviour acceptable.

Sorry to see you leave Otta but it wasn't as though you knew the facts of the case. And your personal remarks towards me are really a reflection of your ignorance. Also, it seems you're confusing a legal decision to that from a Court. In order for the QC to arrive at his decision he would have to consider all the arguments in a legal framework.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes I do, but that doesn't make it a legal > decision. > > You're really not as bright as you think you are, > are you. I'm afraid it's you who is lacking in intelligence here and I haven't forgotten that you called me an idiot previously. I know I can be rude but I haven't shown that side yet as I tend to think you're someone who doesn't know any better. Also, it seems you're confusing a legal decision to that from a Court. In order for the QC to arrive at his decision he would have to consider all the arguments in a legal framework.

Otta, hearing your arguments is like watching a dog chasing his tail. Absolutely pointless and irrelevant. You cited lack of evidence yet you constantly ignore the players' statements and video of the incident. Also, the FA appointed person leading on the case is a QC. Do you know what a QC is, Otta?

Here's the link again. It's the first video which sums the situation nicely. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16262537.stm Otta, sorry to read about your lack of understanding on the Suarez case and how legal decisions are made.

Silverfox has been trolling for some time with his right agenda. ;-) tbf he's no different to what Marmora Man does. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My only issue with this is that it just seems to > be based on very little evidence. Perhaps the real issues are that you're poorly informed and a lack of understanding to how legal decisions are made. silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's better UDT, look what half-an-hour's > research can achieve. More like 2 minutes and that was before I saw your question. Perhaps you should do some research yourself. More importantly, get with it to 21st Century values rather than your 19th Century values.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A fairly balanced view from Tim Vickery, rather > appropriately (UDT take note) criticising a > holier-than-thou approach to the issue. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16262537. > stm It seems you've missed the first video report which sums up the case nicely. Tim Vickery's view just gives a South American perspective and pretty much irrelevant to the current case.