brummie

Our match is hilarious. Palace are absolutely brimming with energy and constantly running at us. We, by comparison, look half asleep, and are unable to keep the ball beyond two passes, we just constantly give it back to them and they run at us again. Fortunately, they have next to no cutting edge, and we had a moment of genius from Benteke. No way is this staying 0-1 though. Not a prayer.

A point, but one won totally artlessly. Okore played quite well, as did Clark, most of the rest of them were fucking rubbish. The club is as moribund as I ever remember it being, and I saw most of the 86-87 relegation season. Still, Lambert's brigade of cheerleaders in the media will continue to talk him up. Fucking hopeless.

Looking to hold on to a win for 15 minutes? Obvious, take midfield physical presence off, and bring on a fat, immobile has-been striker.

Yeah he's been rubbish. Shame how his career has turned out In fairness, he snapped his achilles tendon, which is only a slightly worse injury than having your face kicked off, but he showed hardly anything before that and nothing after.

I wish he'd take N'Zogbia off. Quite clearly does not give one tenth of one single fuck.

Lots of mentions in the media tonight about this being Lambert's 100th game in charge. Not so many of them mentioning the fact he's lost 49 of them so far. Also, some shite on the BBC site about "Villa fans criticising Lambert, you don't know what you've got till you lose it" Fucking hell. That's the Pardew paradox.

We're going to get a spanking this evening. My prediction is that this is rock bottom for us. The crowd will be truly awful, and those fans who are there will turn on Lambert en masse for the first time. Fucking love football, me.

I struggle to imagine winning 6 games in a season, let alone in a row. I appreciate the sort of mental turmoil this puts you lot in, though.

This is genius by the way. Indeed it is.

Ergo any sex with someone who is intoxicated (to any degree) is sex without consent and is therefore by definition rape should that person later decide they would not have made the same decision if sober. That is the logical conclusion of this line of argument, and I'd suggest that if that is the case, then there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of non-convicted rapists (of either sex) walking the streets of Britain today. Some of these rapists will be famous footballers, pop stars, actors, etc, others will be treating you at the doctors or in hospital, and many will even be teaching your children. Frightening. This is the actual stance of the law btw: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/ and this would seem to be the most relevant section to this case: It would seem that the jury decided that at the point of getting into the taxi and going back to the hotel the woman was capable of offering consent, but subsequently lost that capacity later in the evening without further consumption of alcohol or drugs. Hang on, though, it wasn't just two people, one of whom was arseholed, having sex, was it? It was sex while his mate took part, too, and two others watched them. That gives a pretty good indication of the "dynamic" of the events.

We have to rely on the legal system, though. He has been through the legal process, tried, found guilty and convicted. He even had the right to an appeal turned down. Evans and another bloke had sex with a woman too drunk to consent whilst two other men watched. That is the top and bottom of it. Calling it infidelity just makes it sound like what it would be if you or I started shagging someone behind our partner's back. Evans can call it what he likes, but that doesn't mean that is what it is. Somewhere there is the victim listening to this, or maybe there are other women who have been raped and scared to go to the police about it, being put off by Evans's brushing it off as infidelity. CCTV footage of the evening apparently showed she could barely stand, she was so off her face. He might not think he's raped anyone, but the law thinks otherwise. I can't help but think that, if he came to terms with what had happened and stopped trying to minimise it, people might be more understanding in allowing him to rebuild his life. Why do we have to rely upon the legal system in this instance? I mean obviously yes, in the grand scheme of things our society has to, but when it's still questionable there's no reason to... How is it questionable? It isn't. By the definition of what our legal system defines as rape, there's no question here. Whether or not he plays again is a different argument, and I can see both sides of that, but have no doubt about it, Ched Evans is a convicted rapist, no matter what spin he wants to put on it. I can't see any situation in which there is no reason to rely on the legal system in cases like these.

We have to rely on the legal system, though. He has been through the legal process, tried, found guilty and convicted. He even had the right to an appeal turned down. Evans and another bloke had sex with a woman too drunk to consent whilst two other men watched. That is the top and bottom of it. Calling it infidelity just makes it sound like what it would be if you or I started shagging someone behind our partner's back. Evans can call it what he likes, but that doesn't mean that is what it is. Somewhere there is the victim listening to this, or maybe there are other women who have been raped and scared to go to the police about it, being put off by Evans's brushing it off as infidelity. CCTV footage of the evening apparently showed she could barely stand, she was so off her face. He might not think he's raped anyone, but the law thinks otherwise. I can't help but think that, if he came to terms with what had happened and stopped trying to minimise it, people might be more understanding in allowing him to rebuild his life.

The thing is, no matter what we might think of the case, going by what we read in the press, the bloke is a convicted rapist. He was found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, by a jury. There's no "may be" guilty about it - in the eyes of the law, he did it. Until a legal process takes place under which he clears his name, Ched Evans is a convicted rapist. The fact that the woman was drunk doesn't in any way suggest it was any more acceptable - it is no excuse whatsoever. My problem with Evans is, every time I have seen him on tv or read stuff he has said in the newspapers, he refers to it as "my infidelity" which his girlfriend has forgiven him for. This sort of thing: "Ched Evans: cheating on my girlfriend was unforgivable" - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/19/ched-evans-no-remorse-rape-woman It wasn't "infidelity", it was rape. There is nothing normal about this - two professional footballers have sex with a woman so drunk she can hardly stand up, whilst two other men watch. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about whether Sheffield United should have him back, I can see both sides of the argument, but I find the creeping acceptance (and I don't mean anyone here, I mean in general) of what he did as in some way not actual rape more than a little bit unpleasant.

Benteke deserved to get sent off in our game. I don't agree with "touch their face and you're off" but that is the way it is interpreted, so I understand it. The major problem i have is that, prior to that, Mason blatantly stuck his head in Benteke's face, another action which would similarly get a player sent off, but he didn't even get a yellow card. They should - by the common interpretation of the rules - both have been sent off.

We are incapable of beating anyone. We are down. Trust me, I remember 1986-7. I walked out of the first match, a hopeless 3-0 home loss to Spurs and said to my mate "take my word for it, I can smell relegation, and this club stinks of it, we're done for". And i was right. I smell exactly the same thing this season. This is a worse team than that year. Would you take relegation if it meant getting rid of Lambert and starting afresh with someone new? I appreciate I'm kind of dodging the question, but depressingly, I don't think he'd sack Lambert even if we went down. He's that fucking deluded. So I can't answer that because part of that sentence won't happen. What is so depressing is that it isn't the "if you went down" bit, it is the "starting afresh with someone new". The chairman has manifestly lost interest in the club. He's trying to sell it, he has admitted he wants out. He basically just doesn't care. Anyone sticking money on Lambert as next manager to go is absolutely wasting their money, he's just been given a four year contract. That's a manager who has lost 23 of our last 36 games. A manager who has the record for fewest home wins in a season in 139 years, and what's more, he also has the record for "second fewest home wins", too. A manager currently delivering our longest run of defeats in 47 years. At some point soon he will stop breaking our all-time shitness records, not because we'll be playing better, but because he'll run out of records to break. It isn't his shitness that irks me most, it is that the chairman doesn't give a fuck.

We are incapable of beating anyone. We are down. Trust me, I remember 1986-7. I walked out of the first match, a hopeless 3-0 home loss to Spurs and said to my mate "take my word for it, I can smell relegation, and this club stinks of it, we're done for". And i was right. I smell exactly the same thing this season. This is a worse team than that year.

Seen a few Newcastle fans slagging off Villa's crowds. This attitude of 'our attendances are better than yours' has to change in English football if fans want any power back. It was fine when games were £2 on the gate but not now, supporters deserve to see something back from their money, some sort of accountability for poor performance. This attitude of turning up out of 'loyalty' is just giving people like Lerner and Ashley licence to take the piss. At a certain point around 1992, the relationship stopped being "club and supporters" and became "club and customers". We stopped being an integral part of the clubs, it became a business relationship, and that meant them treating us no different to the way M&S treat their shoppers. This whole thing was entirely of their making. if people don't turn up week in week out to watch a load of offensive shit, then that's a direct result of them changing the relationship, with all the enormous price inflation that meant. They can't have it both ways.

I think your crowds are freakishly good. There's plenty to admire in that. However, I just know too many people who are of exactly the same opinion as me and have had enough. This is the year we get relegated, I can tell. I saw it happen the last time and all the same signs are there.

But Lambert has just, apparently, been on Sky Sports and said we were "excellent".

38% possession against a side as poor as Spurs, and just the one shot on target.

Another new record smashed today. Longest run of defeats for 47 years, which takes it just outside my life time.

Incidentally, Spurs are the worst team I've seen at Villa Park this season, and that possibly includes even us, they were truly feeble. The fact we let them win is just staggering. That Mason is an absolute cunt, mind. He had his head right in Benteke's face, and the minute he reacts, he runs straight to the ref. What a cunt. Benteke was fuckign stupid and was always going to get sent off, but Mason should have gone as well.

Last 36 games - lost 23 of them. Goal difference = -34. Safest manager in the league.

Mason had his head in bentekes face then the minute benteke touched him ran straight to the ref.

Two shaky defences. If we win I expect Lerner will give Lambert a three year extension on his new four year deal. Possibly commission a statue of him to have outside his house in NY state. Maybe make enquiries to the people at Debretts regarding getting him ennobled, a baronetcy, say.