Armchair Feminists, who never normally watch Sport, will be going bananas at the spectacle.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Whoever suggested the BBC is blameless? They accepted that their protocols weren't adequate and addressed those shortcomings. No organisation is perfect and none incapable of learning and improving. What is wrong is the suggestion that the BBC were culpable in the events surrounding Savile or that they deliberately covered it up. There is simply no evidence of that.

McDonalds seem to be in the same position but in 2023, not 1973. Times have changed and businesses ought now be more aware of the need for robust arrangements so that staff can complain without fear and know that their situation will be taken seriously.

I don't hate McDonalds as a business, although I am not a fan of any fast food. I suspect that many other fast-food chains are having kittens now as they examine their own arrangements.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It has nothing at all to do with any opinion of mine. It is what is being suggested by analysts much more experienced in these things than me. You can easily find them if you really want to know, rather than just want, as usual, to try to have a pop at me. You really are a very sad man.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Edwards has not said anything himself. Apparently he is in hospital. His wife has though made a statement.

Whilst the parents don't appear to have withdrawn anything their son, the one who is actually involved, has. There is your red flag.

That the statement was issued via a top solicitor only adds credibility to it. No major firm would risk telling lies.

Who might be paying them is a moot point. They may well have funds themselves. It could be Edward's wife, who knows the truth. It could be one of his friends, or they could have worked for the Edwards family in the past and were asked to help, pro bono.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

In summary, what you posted was incorrect, never change.

"The oldest continuous temperature record is the Central England Temperature Data Series, which began in 1659, and the Hadley Centre has some measurements beginning in 1850, but there are too few data before 1880 for scientists to estimate average temperatures for the entire planet."

Source : NASA

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Are you serious? Do you really know nothing about the legal system in the UK? I thought this line was satire

The rest of your post adds nothing to the question

Never change

Edited by HKOwen (19 Jul 2023 10.24pm)

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

That this is a commonly held opinion here, and places populated by others of a similar ilk, doesn't make this true.

In my opinion, it is totally wrong in every particular. Especially concerning evidence. There's innuendo by the bucket, but no actual evidence. If there is evidence, where are the court cases?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That's alright then.

As that seems to confirm, rather than deny, what I suggested, it appears you are being deliberately pedantic. Which isn't unusual.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I have had much more experience with the legal system in the UK than ever I wanted to. In fact I had a meeting with a solicitor
this morning. I was the MD of a business, and owned two of my own. It's impossible to avoid having to aquire some legal knowledge in those circumstances. So yes, I do and of course I am being serious. No solicitor, let alone a barrister, would risk telling an untruth. They will ensure they know the truth by asking detailed questions of the client and then decide how best to present it. That will involve what to emphasise and what to ignore, so that the overall picture is seen in the most postive way for their client.

In this case there was a simple, straightforward denial. That must be true.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.