kidder_wolf_II
Just doesn't shut up
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 8,905
- Reaction score
- 3,728
Any updates on this?
All seems rather quiet?
All seems rather quiet?
Exactly normally the opposing club offer to support the accusing club with their investigationNo comment from wolves no further comment from forest all a bit odd
Sounds like they have no evidence once again…..
Scum club forest
How do we know it’s true? They lied about Podence spitting. They try to drag everyone else down.That's a hell of a leap to make.
And how would be a victim of racial abuse, but having no evidence, make someone "scum"?
How do we know it’s true? They lied about Podence spitting. They try to drag everyone else down.
Pathetic club. If someone done it ban them.
Hard to believe them without evidence in todays society
Was he so small that he went under the radar?I'm not sure I should really share this information as it's still under investigation but I've heard a little tidbit from the same source who previously helped with the Max Kilman Futsal undercover info, so I feel safe in sharing it with you, my compadres and sufferers on Molineux Mix.
The reason for the delay is because The Nottingham Forest team of investigators who handle these things have found that the alleged perpetrator immediately left the stadium and indeed town as soon as he realised he'd been spotted. Not only that but he's left the country and went to Greece of all places! Bet that will slow everything down even more.
Apparently he's a football player on loan at Olympiacos and quite a good one by all accounts as he played and scored today.
Hopefully they can extradite him and throw the book at him.
Because they lied about Podence…. That’s bad enough…..How do we know it's not? And yet you're happy enough to stick your neck out and call a club scum, when it could well be that they're just a victim of abuse. IMO, that's pretty scummy behaviour, as you've no way of knowing.
What's your theory, they just invented this completely because... reasons?
If a Wolves player had claimed to have been racially abused, I wonder how many people would be rushing to say "if true", or calling him scum if he couldn't prove it 10 days later?
The stuff relating to Podence was very poor from them.Because they lied about Podence…. That’s bad enough…..
As I say if it’s proven ban the person because it’s unacceptable.
However without evidence and no update you have to question the credibility.
Stop trying to make me look a bad person for questioning their authenticity of such claims
That small he went under the turnstiles without a ticket so unfortunately the club have no details on him.Was he so small that he went under the radar?
Because they lied about Podence…. That’s bad enough…..
As I say if it’s proven ban the person because it’s unacceptable.
However without evidence and no update you have to question the credibility.
Stop trying to make me look a bad person for questioning their authenticity of such claims
No comment mr prosecutor. Let’s see what happens shall we. I don’t trust forest and if it’s proven then ban them. At the moment nothing is proven either way.Oh, do you not like me making an assumption?
That's a bit rich.
If someone accuses another person of racial abuse which is a serious offence then the accused will have severe consequences and a lot of stress in the interim period before being chargedThat's a hell of a leap to make.
And how would be a victim of racial abuse, but having no evidence, make someone "scum"?
Your question de facto assumes that the allegations are correct. I believe that the scum comment came in the context of the allegations being false.That's a hell of a leap to make.
And how would be a victim of racial abuse, but having no evidence, make someone "scum"?
If someone accuses another person of racial abuse which is a serious offence then the accused will have severe consequences and a lot of stress in the interim period before being charged
If that someone who reported it is making a deliberate false allegation then yes I would call them scum
Your question de facto assumes that the allegations are correct. I believe that the scum comment came in the context of the allegations being false.
Not enough evidence doesn’t convict people, to that end it becomes a false allegationWe weren't talking about deliverate false allegations though, he said if there wasn't enough evidence.
For a criminal prosecution it's beyond reasonable doubt. For civil litigation it's the balance of probabilities.Not enough evidence doesn’t convict people, to that end it becomes a false allegation
The longer we hear nothing the less likely anything is to happen. I think that its recent history with Trees (and MGW) which is fueling the current resentment.Talk about arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Daniel Podence actually could dance on the head of a pin.Talk about arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
We don't actually know who has made the allegation do we? Might even have been a Wolves fan?
Just think about what you're saying, the same way I would be regarding the use of any words that could be deemed racist.
Both are equally abhorrent, if that clears it up for you.
As I understood it though it was supposed to be aimed at MGW, but he didn't claim to have heard anything. There are no charges (which frankly would have been ridiculous) at him for inciting the fans. So the only possible sources really are stewards or police in our end, or other away fans.Unlikely I’d say as I would expect Wolves to have made a comment with or in response to the Forest allegation.
It’s too early to say it’s made up, and if it’s legitimate, then ban the idiot(s). But as a few have commented, Forest do have form for making up stories, and MGW was found to be an unreliable witness last time. As to why they might make up such a story, as I pointed out before, MGW might be facing charges for inciting the Wolves fans with his gesture after scoring. If so, spreading a story about that there was potentially racial slurs being shouted might be used to mitigate or wave away such a charge as he could claim he had been provoked by more than just “banter”. Even an unproven report might be enough to cast sufficient doubt so as to have a charge waived away.
It's three, no ifs no buts.Talk about arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
That's it for me. Forest and Gibbs White have form for making unfounded allegations.How do we know it’s true? They lied about Podence spitting. They try to drag everyone else down.
Pathetic club. If someone done it ban them.
Hard to believe them without evidence in todays society
Without evidence my barrister would say, pure hearsay and at the moment that’s all it is.
Anyone can make allegations but at least have something to back it up
Forest are distasteful club.Clear difference with the Podence thing is that it a) 'happened' on the pitch and b) was inferred to be a way to disrupt our season.
Whatever you think about Forest, applying the same logic to an alleged off field incident in the stands is either a) a bit of a stretch or b) distasteful.
It has nothing to do with football.
Ask DaniTalk about arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.