Search results

I haven't commented on this aspect of the thread so far, but I have to say i have been quite surprised by the number of posters who are only now showing their true colours, when i considered SBT to be generally quite a reasonable, accepting, humane and liberal (not necessarily politically) group...

But what is the benefit in naming him? So they can go and torch his parents' house instead? His name is not relevant at this point in time - it will just fuel the racist mobs: "we told you he was an illegal immigrant", etc.

We'll have to see what the law says at that time, won't we? But it wasn't in the King's Speech so not happening for a while.

Correct, which is why i haven't. But while it will be used as an excuse for horrific acts, it will be important for the motivating factors to be understood, in case there are lessons to be learnt.

No, the law of this country states he should not be named until and unless a judge in the Crown Court lifts the reporting restrictions on identifying a minor. And as he has been charged, it is now in the judicial process. Anyone who names him will be in contempt of court. That includes on here...

For what match?

Any game not on a Saturday is B or C, except West Brom, penultimate game on a Friday night. That's probably sensible. First game against Oxford should be C to fill the place.

Should be a Cat C to fill the place rather than cashing in (given that many will have shelled out 55 quid for a shirt for Xmas)

With only the Thames in between!

How about insulting the memory of the poor children and those still fighting for their lives? EDIT: To be clear, I'm not having a go at you, Steve.

The rioters are no more Christian than the Dalai Lama. They are xenophobic, misinformed hooligans, end of story! Attacking the mosque puts them on a par, for me, with the intelligence level of the pitchfork brigade who fire-bombed the house of a paediatrician a few years back, mistaking him for...

Course he's got a fucking mental health issue, irrespective of any other motive he might have!

See also "Brexit"

I would suspect they could use the defence of self-defence, and their actions would probably be regarded by a reasonable person as being proportionate to the circumstances. There was an eye-witness being interviewed yesterday, not long after the hideous events, who said that "the boy was lucky...

I'm hoping you mean vertically. Must have landed on his head!

I'd happily sign a petition to award him the George Cross.

Who are you to say that they, too, don't have a disability that is not visible?

OK - that's not what Grendel's post said.

Agree - it's not his place to comment at all