Oh fucking *marvellous*
And Rasher, signing off with a post calling macca a fetish-loving arl git, simply proves his point
And Rasher, signing off with a post calling macca a fetish-loving arl git, simply proves his point
Another potential 6month loan deal?
- Thread starter keniget
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Look, this is bullshit. If it's a straight choice between Macca and Rashid, just ban Rashid now. Even if he hasn't actually done anything wrong yet.
I'm inclined to agree. There was less reason to get rid of rage than there would be to do that. IMHO of course.
I think any change to our first team personnel in January regardless whether on loan or by transfer would be a positive and may spark the squad.
Unless it was El Hadji Diouf obviously.
Unless it was El Hadji Diouf obviously.
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=37974.msg1016968#msg1016968 date=1261153297]
I think any change to our first team personnel in January regardless whether on loan or by transfer would be a positive and may spark the squad.
Unless it was El Hadji Diouf obviously.
[/quote]
We need a Gary Mac type spark to ignite the team!
I think any change to our first team personnel in January regardless whether on loan or by transfer would be a positive and may spark the squad.
Unless it was El Hadji Diouf obviously.
[/quote]
We need a Gary Mac type spark to ignite the team!
[quote author=Asbo link=topic=37974.msg1016986#msg1016986 date=1261155140]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=37974.msg1016968#msg1016968 date=1261153297]
I think any change to our first team personnel in January regardless whether on loan or by transfer would be a positive and may spark the squad.
Unless it was El Hadji Diouf obviously.
[/quote]
We need a Gary Mac type spark to ignite the team!
[/quote]
Not quite as old, but how about Joaquin on loan? He has looked good for Valencia recently..but is a sub these days.
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=37974.msg1016968#msg1016968 date=1261153297]
I think any change to our first team personnel in January regardless whether on loan or by transfer would be a positive and may spark the squad.
Unless it was El Hadji Diouf obviously.
[/quote]
We need a Gary Mac type spark to ignite the team!
[/quote]
Not quite as old, but how about Joaquin on loan? He has looked good for Valencia recently..but is a sub these days.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=37974.msg1016861#msg1016861 date=1261144120]
Look, this is bullshit. If it's a straight choice between Macca and Rashid, just ban Rashid now. Even if he hasn't actually done anything wrong yet.
[/quote]
Was just about to type this word for word.
Look, this is bullshit. If it's a straight choice between Macca and Rashid, just ban Rashid now. Even if he hasn't actually done anything wrong yet.
[/quote]
Was just about to type this word for word.
Kick this fucking cunt out of here Mods.
Nip it in the bud.
Macca >>>>>>>>> Rashid.
Nip it in the bud.
Macca >>>>>>>>> Rashid.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=37974.msg1017000#msg1017000 date=1261156035]
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
x2.
I would absolutely hate to lose macca but there hasn't been sufficient cause yet (past behaviour notwithstanding).
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
x2.
I would absolutely hate to lose macca but there hasn't been sufficient cause yet (past behaviour notwithstanding).
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=37974.msg1017000#msg1017000 date=1261156035]
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
Ditto.
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
Ditto.
S
Squiggles
Guest
Apart from the little thing called 'the past'.
And the fact he's a cock on *every* Liverpool site he visits.
And the fact he's a cock on *every* Liverpool site he visits.
[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=37974.msg1017007#msg1017007 date=1261156270]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=37974.msg1017000#msg1017000 date=1261156035]
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
x2.
I would absolutely hate to lose macca but there hasn't been sufficient cause yet (past behaviour notwithstanding).
[/quote]
But that's the key. Just how many "second chances" does a proven nutter get? And at what cost?
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=37974.msg1017000#msg1017000 date=1261156035]
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
x2.
I would absolutely hate to lose macca but there hasn't been sufficient cause yet (past behaviour notwithstanding).
[/quote]
But that's the key. Just how many "second chances" does a proven nutter get? And at what cost?
Well, seeing as we've changed the "rules" around here recently, I'd say one more. If it doesn't work out, no more chances.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=37974.msg1017017#msg1017017 date=1261156818]
[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=37974.msg1017007#msg1017007 date=1261156270]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=37974.msg1017000#msg1017000 date=1261156035]
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
x2.
I would absolutely hate to lose macca but there hasn't been sufficient cause yet (past behaviour notwithstanding).
[/quote]
But that's the key. Just how many "second chances" does a proven nutter get? And at what cost?
[/quote]
This does not sound like the stance you usually take about pre-judging in the justice threads that crop up JJ.
"Each case has to be tried on its own merits and it would not have been right for you on the jury to approach it with any preconceptions whatsoever."
"I have to disagree. Justice has to stand aside from any hint of prejudgement. Loosening that principle would be the start of a very slippery slope indeed."
"think the point ****** is trying to make is that it should be left to the jury to decide whether the accused's past record is relevant or not. Again, I understand that view but I don't agree with it, as it would seriously damage the principle of impartial consideration of hard evidence on which justice depends."
"If there was enough evidence, he should have been convicted anyway - if there wasn't, he shouldn't. Anything else detracts from the impartial justice we'd all expect if each of us were ever up on a charge."
😉
regards
[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=37974.msg1017007#msg1017007 date=1261156270]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=37974.msg1017000#msg1017000 date=1261156035]
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
x2.
I would absolutely hate to lose macca but there hasn't been sufficient cause yet (past behaviour notwithstanding).
[/quote]
But that's the key. Just how many "second chances" does a proven nutter get? And at what cost?
[/quote]
This does not sound like the stance you usually take about pre-judging in the justice threads that crop up JJ.
"Each case has to be tried on its own merits and it would not have been right for you on the jury to approach it with any preconceptions whatsoever."
"I have to disagree. Justice has to stand aside from any hint of prejudgement. Loosening that principle would be the start of a very slippery slope indeed."
"think the point ****** is trying to make is that it should be left to the jury to decide whether the accused's past record is relevant or not. Again, I understand that view but I don't agree with it, as it would seriously damage the principle of impartial consideration of hard evidence on which justice depends."
"If there was enough evidence, he should have been convicted anyway - if there wasn't, he shouldn't. Anything else detracts from the impartial justice we'd all expect if each of us were ever up on a charge."
😉
regards
I thought this thread was about potential loan deals. Can we not leave the bickering to the more sensitive forum members.
I'd have Gudjohnsen in a flash, he's got to be a better bet than an Icelandic bank at least.
I'd have Gudjohnsen in a flash, he's got to be a better bet than an Icelandic bank at least.
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=37974.msg1016861#msg1016861 date=1261144120]
Look, this is bullshit. If it's a straight choice between Macca and Rashid, just ban Rashid now. Even if he hasn't actually done anything wrong yet.
[/quote]
*2
Look, this is bullshit. If it's a straight choice between Macca and Rashid, just ban Rashid now. Even if he hasn't actually done anything wrong yet.
[/quote]
*2
What do you get if you cross Macca with Rashid?
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=37974.msg1017084#msg1017084 date=1261164770]
What do you get if you cross Macca with Rashid?
[/quote]
Someone pretty average at life.
What do you get if you cross Macca with Rashid?
[/quote]
Someone pretty average at life.
Stulikeswarnings
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=37974.msg1017053#msg1017053 date=1261161785]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=37974.msg1017017#msg1017017 date=1261156818]
[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=37974.msg1017007#msg1017007 date=1261156270]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=37974.msg1017000#msg1017000 date=1261156035]
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
x2.
I would absolutely hate to lose macca but there hasn't been sufficient cause yet (past behaviour notwithstanding).
[/quote]
But that's the key. Just how many "second chances" does a proven nutter get? And at what cost?
[/quote]
This does not sound like the stance you usually take about pre-judging in the justice threads that crop up JJ.
"Each case has to be tried on its own merits and it would not have been right for you on the jury to approach it with any preconceptions whatsoever."
"I have to disagree. Justice has to stand aside from any hint of prejudgement. Loosening that principle would be the start of a very slippery slope indeed."
"think the point ****** is trying to make is that it should be left to the jury to decide whether the accused's past record is relevant or not. Again, I understand that view but I don't agree with it, as it would seriously damage the principle of impartial consideration of hard evidence on which justice depends."
"If there was enough evidence, he should have been convicted anyway - if there wasn't, he shouldn't. Anything else detracts from the impartial justice we'd all expect if each of us were ever up on a charge."
😉
regards
[/quote]
Crumbs, you have done your homework. ;D *Somewhat* different context of course, and I maintain that the loss of macca is too high a price to pay for the kind of open door policy which has let Rasher back in, but it's a fair point nonetheless.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=37974.msg1017017#msg1017017 date=1261156818]
[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=37974.msg1017007#msg1017007 date=1261156270]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=37974.msg1017000#msg1017000 date=1261156035]
As much as I think Macca is a far superior addition to the forum than Rashid, I think this suggestion is still preposterous until he's actually done something worthy of banning.
[/quote]
x2.
I would absolutely hate to lose macca but there hasn't been sufficient cause yet (past behaviour notwithstanding).
[/quote]
But that's the key. Just how many "second chances" does a proven nutter get? And at what cost?
[/quote]
This does not sound like the stance you usually take about pre-judging in the justice threads that crop up JJ.
"Each case has to be tried on its own merits and it would not have been right for you on the jury to approach it with any preconceptions whatsoever."
"I have to disagree. Justice has to stand aside from any hint of prejudgement. Loosening that principle would be the start of a very slippery slope indeed."
"think the point ****** is trying to make is that it should be left to the jury to decide whether the accused's past record is relevant or not. Again, I understand that view but I don't agree with it, as it would seriously damage the principle of impartial consideration of hard evidence on which justice depends."
"If there was enough evidence, he should have been convicted anyway - if there wasn't, he shouldn't. Anything else detracts from the impartial justice we'd all expect if each of us were ever up on a charge."
😉
regards
[/quote]
Crumbs, you have done your homework. ;D *Somewhat* different context of course, and I maintain that the loss of macca is too high a price to pay for the kind of open door policy which has let Rasher back in, but it's a fair point nonetheless.
I come from the Canadian revolving-door system of justice. Sentences are optional (hell, frowned on seems like sometimes)! Any surprise I'm lenient when it comes to Internet punishing?
- Status
