Jump to content

Geoffrey Boycott Awarded a Knighthood.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

Did Boycott dispute the photographs of these injuries at the trial?

 

I thought he just said they were caused by a fall (which, looking at the photographs, seems well nigh impossible).

He didnt need to dispute the pictures,he said it was all a pack of lies and spent his life denying it.

It would take a pretty skilled knuckle artist to not hit the nose surely,some ageing ex batsmen,wouldnt surely be skillfull enough to hit the face so precisely,considering there was also a struggle at the time.

Moore was also reported to police for an attack on a male 1998 on the french riviera,just weeks after the trial,the capt and a crew member described her as a"Raging pitbull"

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

One conviction.

 

For a violent crime.

 

Therefore, a violent criminal 

He wouldnt be the first victim of a a miscariage of justice would he? It happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, staninoodle said:

He didnt need to dispute the pictures,he said it was all a pack of lies and spent his life denying it.

It would take a pretty skilled knuckle artist to not hit the nose surely,some ageing ex batsmen,wouldnt surely be skillfull enough to hit the face so precisely,considering there was also a struggle at the time.

Moore was also reported to police for an attack on a male 1998 on the french riviera,just weeks after the trial,the capt and a crew member described her as a"Raging pitbull"

He wouldnt be the first victim of a a miscariage of justice would he? It happens

He’s a convicted criminal.

 

Therefore he shouldn’t be knighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pettytom said:

He’s a convicted criminal.

 

Therefore he shouldn’t be knighted.

Glad to see you"ve dropped the word Violent from your post Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Padders said:

Glad to see you"ve dropped the word Violent from your post Tom.

He’s violent too 

 

I just don’t like to be repetitive 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

He’s a convicted criminal.

 

Therefore he shouldn’t be knighted.

Well seems the establishment dont think hes guilty either,otherwise he wouldnt have got knighted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, staninoodle said:

Well seems the establishment dont think hes guilty either,otherwise he wouldnt have got knighted

Then the establishment are stupid.

 

He’s a convicted, violent domestic abuser.

 

Feel free to keep on defending him, but don’t kid yourself that it is doing your reputation, or his, any good.

 

Did I mention, he’s guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pettytom said:

Then the establishment are stupid.

 

He’s a convicted, violent domestic abuser.

 

Feel free to keep on defending him, but don’t kid yourself that it is doing your reputation, or his, any good.

 

Did I mention, he’s guilty.

He was found guilty,but wether that was the correct verdict is open to every individuals interpretation.

Theres a bigger picture that wasnt available at the time of the conviction,which cast more than enough doubt over the verdict,and having worked in probation,I know from experience that certain judges on certain days can be absolute cretins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, staninoodle said:

He wouldnt be the first victim of a a miscariage of justice would he? It happens

No he wouldn’t, but in this case the conviction was safe.

 

Get over it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

No he wouldn’t, but in this case the conviction was safe.

 

Get over it!

Not according to at least 2 english newspapers its far from safe,its quite the opposite.

But its amusing watching the bile flow out of the usual suspects on here 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, staninoodle said:

He didnt need to dispute the pictures,he said it was all a pack of lies and spent his life denying it.

It would take a pretty skilled knuckle artist to not hit the nose surely,some ageing ex batsmen,wouldnt surely be skillfull enough to hit the face so precisely,considering there was also a struggle at the time.

 

He didn't dispute she had injuries did he?  I'm sure he said they were the result of a fall.

 

It's well nigh impossible to get injuries like that from a fall - and it's hardly precise hitting - looks like somebody's swung a few lefts and rights. And as for "ageing" - come on - how old was he at the time - mid 50's - hardly some weak old bloke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, staninoodle said:

Not according to at least 2 english newspapers its far from safe,its quite the opposite.

But its amusing watching the bile flow out of the usual suspects on here 🤣

Which English newspapers would they be then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Longcol said:

He didn't dispute she had injuries did he?  I'm sure he said they were the result of a fall.

 

It's well nigh impossible to get injuries like that from a fall - and it's hardly precise hitting - looks like somebody's swung a few lefts and rights. And as for "ageing" - come on - how old was he at the time - mid 50's - hardly some weak old bloke.

He was hardly a boxer either,lets face it he was never a prime fit looking sportsman,he was just some plodder that ran 22 yards!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.