[St Charles Owl]

I suspect that this thread has pretty much run its course now, as there really isn`t a lot left to say; and that`s probably a good thing.

However, I was talking to my son about this last night. He`s a Forest fan ( I know; I blame the parents as well) so has no axe to grind either way. However, more to the point he`s also a lawyer. He read through the posts on this thread and cringed at one or two of them. He made a couple of points that I thought I`d pass on, for what they`re worth.

1. We have a law of libel in this country; he`s of the opinion that - given that under the law Ched Evans is currently an innocent man - one or two of the posts are sailing pretty close to that particular wind.

2. Now that the case is going for retrial, it is once again `sub judice`. Apparently `contempt of court' also comes into play in these circumstances if anything is said in a public forum - which this is - that could be considered prejudicial to either side or an attempt to sway the outcome of the new trial.

I doubt very much whether any Court of Law is going to take our ramblings sufficiently seriously to consider them relevant in either case, but I just thought I`d mention it.

While legally you are correct, as you say there would be no reprocussions to anything so far said on here. I do know that during the original trial and subsequent appeals a couple of the Blunts boards were warned to pay attention to what was being posted for this same reason, but I am not aware of any legal action as a result. And having read a few of those at the time, if they didn't get prosecuted with the vile stuff they were posting at the time, then we will not even get noticed!!!