No2

I was referring to the police forces in question, which I will also consider to be Tory.

They're different because your Tory mates set out to stitch up the accused. The jury's were right to convict on the evidence presented to them. The fact the evidence was fabricated is the key difference.

I'm not omitting anything, lifetime had said she had acknowledged herself that someone used insulin. I merely shared that part. The rest of it is there in the same judgement.

I'm not omitting anything, lifetime had said she had acknowledged herself that someone used insulin. I merely shared that part. The rest of it is there in the same judgement.

I'm not omitting anything, lifetime had said she had acknowledged herself that someone used insulin. I merely shared that part. The rest of it is there in the same judgement.

25% of CL's spots are taken up by them. Any club that's finished in the top half of the PL would gladly wave them off to the Vauxhall conference.

From the judges summary. 29. In both cases of poisoning, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Professor Hindmarsh, a consultant in paediatric endocrinology. He gave evidence in the case concerning Baby F, that the blood test results demonstrated that he had been given exogenous insulin over a period of 17 hours and that the insulin had been administered at a constant level over that time. One bag which was already running had been spiked. Another bag of stock insulin had also been contaminated. The same person must have contaminated both as the level of insulin added to the two bags was similar. In the case of Baby L, Professor Hindmarsh said that the baby’s hypoglycaemia had continued from 9 April until around 15.00 on 11 April and that the only way in which the hypoglycaemia could have been induced was via the administration of insulin in the feed. He calculated that either 2 or 3 bags of fluid had been contaminated.30. At trial, the integrity of the blood samples and reliability of the biochemical testing was challenged by Mr Myers. However, in her evidence at trial, the applicant admitted that both babies had been poisoned by insulin, but denied that she was the poisoner. The prosecution relied upon the unlikelihood of there being two poisoners at work on the unit.

Why would they bring in babies that weren't murdered?

They have already tied it up for years. This is the culmination of years of work finally reaching deadline day. The PL is and has always been about money and put simply, Man City aren't good for business. If this was Man Utd they would have found a way to brush it under the carpet. This case didn't have to happen, once cleared at CAS the PL had an easy out but chose to go after them. The reason being the little runt of a club costs money to the original powers that be. They must have 15 years of champions league money, close to a billion in revenue that didn't go to Utd, Arsenal, Spurs or LFC. That's the bottom line, their cheating has dipped into Malcom Glazer, John Henry and Daniel Levys pockets. They have played a high risk game to get this far and a transfer ban is not what they're after. Relegation at a minimum is the only punishment sufficient.

Correct, have a read of the Chelsea pitch owners website. Boehly and the lads suing them is actually Boehly suing Chelsea. They have lots of their greats on the board and as honary members, it would be like FSG suing Rush and Dalglish.

Arsenal aren't allowed wear their home kit against Spurs. Too much white in it according to PGMOL.

It can't be undeniably correct. There is no murder weapon. No survivors that can give evidence. Man City's lawyers would have got her off.

Inject that into my veins. The end is near.

I own an original one of those. Never wear as it's half a size too big.

The first Greek goal tonight didn't pass the eye test. Looked really bad, just watching it curl in.