Here's a novel suggestion

[BarclayWazza 91]

Am I right in saying Nepo Tom was responsible for the failed sponsorship of the South Stand by that coffee company? If so, I''d hardly suggest that he''s that intelligent!

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="BarclayWazza"]Am I right in saying Nepo Tom was responsible for the failed sponsorship of the South Stand by that coffee company? If so, I''d hardly suggest that he''s that intelligent![/quote]

No you''re not right, that was a wind up.

[TIL 1010 4,718]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

[quote user="BarclayWazza"]Am I right in saying Nepo Tom was responsible for the failed sponsorship of the South Stand by that coffee company? If so, I''d hardly suggest that he''s that intelligent![/quote]

No you''re not right, that was a wind up.

[/quote]

Well obviously somebody was so as you have been so assertive that it was not him you must know who was TCC ?

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

[quote user="BarclayWazza"]Am I right in saying Nepo Tom was responsible for the failed sponsorship of the South Stand by that coffee company? If so, I''d hardly suggest that he''s that intelligent![/quote]

No you''re not right, that was a wind up.

[/quote]

Well obviously somebody was so as you have been so assertive that it was not him you must know who was TCC ?

[/quote]

Try the Commercial Dept.?

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/central-and-east/canaries-name-new-stand-sponsor

[TIL 1010 4,718]

It is only reasonable to expect the commercial dept to announce sponsorships deals as opposed to a Board member but that article does not say who was the driving force behind it. It might not have been Tom Smith but then again it could have been. You do not know for sure one way or the other TCC and neither do i.

[TCCANARY 263]

The link between Tom Smith and the Galway Roast deal was definitely a wind up.

[Guest]

Probably more like stirring considering the sponsor.

[Duncan Edwards 2,218]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]It is only reasonable to expect the commercial dept to announce sponsorships deals as opposed to a Board member but that article does not say who was the driving force behind it. It might not have been Tom Smith but then again it could have been. You do not know for sure one way or the other TCC and neither do i.[/quote]

I know.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Duncan Edwards"][quote user="TIL 1010"]It is only reasonable to expect the commercial dept to announce sponsorships deals as opposed to a Board member but that article does not say who was the driving force behind it. It might not have been Tom Smith but then again it could have been. You do not know for sure one way or the other TCC and neither do i.

[/quote]

I know.[/quote]

Perhaps when you retire from the law you no longer have to abide by the ''innocent until proven guilty'' maxim. [:D]

[TIL 1010 4,718]

Maybe as you were so insistent that it was not him TCC as accused by some people you have evidence to back up his innocence which would be handy in the form of providing a statement before the CPS decide whether to go to court or not based on the evidence available. [:P]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I know too.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

So did that bloke who spilled the beans on here. He had inside information. Allegedly.[:|]

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Maybe as you were so insistent that it was not him TCC as accused by some people you have evidence to back up his innocence which would be handy in the form of providing a statement before the CPS decide whether to go to court or not based on the evidence available. [:P]

[/quote]

Isn''t it up to the accuser to provide the evidence first?

[TIL 1010 4,718]

An allegation is made malicious or not and it is investigated to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution. Obviously during the course of the investigation such evidence to refute the allegation as provided by you would be obtained and put before the CPS.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]An allegation is made malicious or not and it is investigated to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution. Obviously during the course of the investigation such evidence to refute the allegation as provided by you would be obtained and put before the CPS.

[/quote]

I''d like to call Duncan Edwards as my first witness.

Insert relevant question here.

Secondly, I call Nutty Nigel.

Do you agree with Duncan?

No further questions. [:D]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[TIL 1010 4,718]

May i refer you to the phantom bog roll thief at May & Baker Social Club when numerous offences were committed over a period of time and despite accusations and names being thrown around nobody was ever prosecuted. I had an alibi every time as i was at the bar drinking that God awful Taddy despite having the finger pointed in my direction by Mrs Nutty. [:D][:P][;)]