Sandro II Terrorista wrote:
Hudge might as well set up a direct debit to Red Hall.
I'd be prepared to chip in for his fine, it was a pretty funny statement.
Mr. Zucchini Head wrote:
It was a poor decision and I can understand his frustration, but he should really keep it to himself as he's not doing anyone any favours. He should really have learned his lesson from previous cases.
Tbf, unless his claims about them making the decision on the appeal before receiving submissions and introduction of inadmissible evidence are untrue, I think they're snookered.
The first would be an embarrassing and damning breach of process, the second could be more technical but I wouldn't put much past them - I'm pretty certain I want to see the details more than they'll want to disclose them. If they make an issue of it, then it can't be hidden. I suspect he wrote it in part to bait them - knowing that that they'd have to be stupid and deeply lacking in self-awareness to bite back... fingers crossed!
Based on recent experience there's every chance they'll find a hidden coded message in the statement, which on 'careful consideration' will be interpreted as being offensive to people with hairy buttocks - who frankly have suffered enough. Mine is just downy fluff, btw.
You can't be charged with bringing the game into disrepute if you're pointing out mistakes or wrong-doing, if they're true and demonstratable. Well you can, but it makes those charging you look very bad indeed. If Hudge's claims about the behaviour of the panel are untrue he's royally knacked, though.
