Rob Elliot (now at Gateshead)

[sempuki]

I'm also currently listening to Rage Against the Machine.

HBA to Pardew: "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me"

[TheGuv]

Is no one worried that the team hate Ben Arfa though?

 

Elliot lambasted Ben Arfa by saying he’s only set up, at most, 3 goals this season and that HBA has been SOLELY responsible for 7-8 goals that we’ve conceded this season. According to Elliot the players hate him as he has no work rate and that he hasn’t the right attitude.

 

That's what stuck out to me the most last night. He got incredibly defensive over my points about Ben Arfa and he argued that only Debuchy likes him IIRC

[Guest bimpy474]

 

Ben Arfa could be an absolute bell end but I'd still take him over some angel who works 100% in training day in day out and is still an average Premiership footballer. At the end of the day if they cannot make it work on the pitch it's their problem, not his. If they are refusing to pass to him they're the ones letting the team down, not him.

 

He's the best footballer we own by an absolute distance, and I absolutely detest any player who's driving even further out the door.

 

what annoys me is that any of the others have the gall to criticise him after the "performances" they've put in.

 

But that's Pardew's influence, it's his tactics and coaching as to why we're losing but to disguise that fact, he's singled out Hatem to be his fall guy and the other players have followed, they're just as cowardly as him but he's the pied piper of it all.

[Deuce]

It isn't hearsay though, he's reporting a conversation he's actually had.

 

And Elliot could just as easily say the conversation never happened. That's hearsay.

[Flip]

Is no one worried that the team hate Ben Arfa though?

 

Elliot lambasted Ben Arfa by saying he’s only set up, at most, 3 goals this season and that HBA has been SOLELY responsible for 7-8 goals that we’ve conceded this season. According to Elliot the players hate him as he has no work rate and that he hasn’t the right attitude.

 

That's what stuck out to me the most last night. He got incredibly defensive over my points about Ben Arfa and he argued that only Debuchy likes him IIRC

 

Do have a hard time imagining Marv and MBiwa not getting along with him if the reports about his comments to Pardew are true.

[Deuce]

I hear what cuba's saying as well. Regardless of what you think of the severity of the content, this is walking a very fine line with regards to libel, particularly if Elliot faces any kind of repercussion (though I doubt he or anyone else at the club will care tbh). There's no way for TheGuv to prove that Elliot said these things, as he didn't record it and there are no other witnesses. It's complete hearsay. It's not something to be taken lightly.

 

That's a load of smack and you very much know so. You're only defending Cuba or 'Mericuh.

 

It's not. And considering 'free speech' is far more narrowly defined in the UK than it is in the U.S., the latter part makes no sense.

[Ste]

 

I'm also currently listening to Rage Against the Machine.

HBA to Pardew: "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me"

 

Doubly insulting to Pardew as he would have preferred Joe McElderry to be Christmas number 1 that year. He admires Joes work rate when it comes to putting out completely toss music.

[Hanshithispantz]

It isn't hearsay though, he's reporting a conversation he's actually had.

 

And Elliot could just as easily say the conversation never happened. That's hearsay.

Guv knows exactly how the conversation went as he was involved in it, it's not hearsay unless I've completely got the meaning of the word confused.

 

EDIT: I suppose it's hearsay to me or you like, but not to anyone actually involved in the conversation, to them it's either the truth or it isn't.

[Sifu]

TheGuv is my new hero. Fuck Elliot, he's shown himself to be a right cunt - he can fuck off along with Pardew.

[Kaizero]

It isn't hearsay though, he's reporting a conversation he's actually had.

 

And Elliot could just as easily say the conversation never happened. That's hearsay.

Guv knows exactly how the conversation went as he was involved in it, it's not hearsay unless I've completely got the meaning of the word confused.

 

EDIT: I suppose it's hearsay to me or you like, but not to anyone actually involved in the conversation, to them it's either the truth or it isn't.

 

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." In court hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.

 

For example, to prove Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness's answer will rely on an out-of-court statement Susan made, and Susan is not available for cross-examination, and it is to prove the truth that Tom was in town, it is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is not trying to prove truth of the assertion about Tom being in town, but the fact that Susan said the specific words, then it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan, because now the witness is asked about the opposing party’s statement that constitutes a verbal act. The hearsay rule does not exclude the evidence if it is an operative fact. Language of commercial offer and acceptance is also admissible over a hearsay exception because the statements have independent legal significance.

 

Whatever that means

[Deuce]

No you're right, my mistake. Hearsay is via third parties. I'm thinking 'your word against mine.'

[Hanshithispantz]

It isn't hearsay though, he's reporting a conversation he's actually had.

 

And Elliot could just as easily say the conversation never happened. That's hearsay.

Guv knows exactly how the conversation went as he was involved in it, it's not hearsay unless I've completely got the meaning of the word confused.

 

EDIT: I suppose it's hearsay to me or you like, but not to anyone actually involved in the conversation, to them it's either the truth or it isn't.

 

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." In court hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.

 

For example, to prove Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness's answer will rely on an out-of-court statement Susan made, and Susan is not available for cross-examination, and it is to prove the truth that Tom was in town, it is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is not trying to prove truth of the assertion about Tom being in town, but the fact that Susan said the specific words, then it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan, because now the witness is asked about the opposing party’s statement that constitutes a verbal act. The hearsay rule does not exclude the evidence if it is an operative fact. Language of commercial offer and acceptance is also admissible over a hearsay exception because the statements have independent legal significance.

 

Whatever that means

Basically in the UK anyway any statement made out of court (such as in a police interview) cannot be used in court unless the person who made the statement is available during the trial.

[Mike]

They don't like Ben Arfa. Why has that bummed me out. I don't even know the guy.

[Mike]

 

They don't like Ben Arfa. Why has that bummed me out. I don't even know the guy.

 

literally the same.

 

I'm mad at strangers for not liking another stranger. This is nutcase shit.

[triggs]

They don't like Ben Arfa. Why has that bummed me out. I don't even know the guy.

Couldn't care less tbh cos Ben Arfa is the only member of the playing or coaching staff I don't have complete and utter contempt for. Actually I also like Anita, Krul and Colo but that's it

 

[Mike]

I think we care too much.

[Darth Crooks]

It isn't hearsay though, he's reporting a conversation he's actually had.

 

 

 

And Elliot could just as easily say the conversation never happened. That's hearsay.

Guv knows exactly how the conversation went as he was involved in it, it's not hearsay unless I've completely got the meaning of the word confused.

 

EDIT: I suppose it's hearsay to me or you like, but not to anyone actually involved in the conversation, to them it's either the truth or it isn't.

 

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." In court hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.

 

For example, to prove Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness's answer will rely on an out-of-court statement Susan made, and Susan is not available for cross-examination, and it is to prove the truth that Tom was in town, it is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is not trying to prove truth of the assertion about Tom being in town, but the fact that Susan said the specific words, then it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan, because now the witness is asked about the opposing party’s statement that constitutes a verbal act. The hearsay rule does not exclude the evidence if it is an operative fact. Language of commercial offer and acceptance is also admissible over a hearsay exception because the statements have independent legal significance.

 

Whatever that means

 

Pure and simple really

[Ronaldo]

They don't like Ben Arfa. Why has that bummed me out. I don't even know the guy.

 

You've got to remember, we're taking about a largely untalented bunch of gutless 'grafters'. Of course some of them are going to be at odds with a maverick like Hatem.

[Mike]

They don't like Ben Arfa. Why has that bummed me out. I don't even know the guy.

 

You've got to remember, we're taking about a largely untalented bunch of gutless 'grafters'. Of course some of them are going to be at odds with a maverick like Hatem.

 

Worries me that Pardew might still have some of the players on his side, despite the results. Doesn't make me enthusiastic for the foreseeable.

[Ronaldo]

Which is why the fans have to force him out, matey. Nobody else will.

[S.S.R.]

The Guv, aka the Fake Sheik.

[Dinho lad]

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130506031154/glee/images/6/65/OMG_Janice.gif

[TRon]

How come we don't hear stories about Ben Arfa slagging off team mates? For such an unpopular lad you'd think he'd be letting rip left right and centre.

[MKSC]

It isn't hearsay though, he's reporting a conversation he's actually had.

 

 

 

And Elliot could just as easily say the conversation never happened. That's hearsay.

Guv knows exactly how the conversation went as he was involved in it, it's not hearsay unless I've completely got the meaning of the word confused.

 

EDIT: I suppose it's hearsay to me or you like, but not to anyone actually involved in the conversation, to them it's either the truth or it isn't.

 

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." In court hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.

 

For example, to prove Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness's answer will rely on an out-of-court statement Susan made, and Susan is not available for cross-examination, and it is to prove the truth that Tom was in town, it is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is not trying to prove truth of the assertion about Tom being in town, but the fact that Susan said the specific words, then it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan, because now the witness is asked about the opposing party’s statement that constitutes a verbal act. The hearsay rule does not exclude the evidence if it is an operative fact. Language of commercial offer and acceptance is also admissible over a hearsay exception because the statements have independent legal significance.

 

Whatever that means

 

Pure and simple really

 

Glad someone else went there before I did.

[Hanshithispantz]

I honestly would put it past Pardew to be spreading rumours amongst the squad:

 

"Moussa, Hatem says yer mam is fat."

 

[speaking through a mouth full of Haribos] Rob, I saw Hatem take a bag of sweets out of your kit bag."

 

Putting on a fake voice from behind the shower wall "Willo, ziz iz atom. Yor air, it iz gay."