By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Was just thinking the other day when John Challis died (RIP) how David Jason is probably one of the biggest nationals treasure in Britain and it got me thinking who else would be on this list of say 10 people.
I’ve got these so far on my imaginary list: - Sir David Jason - Sir David Attenborough - Sir Elton John - Dame Helen Mirren - Dame Judi Dench - Dame Maggie Smith
And then on the ‘potentials’ list that didn’t quite make the cut but probably worth consideration: - Ant and Dec - Sir Tom Jones - Colin Firth - Sir Paul McCartney - Stephen Fry - Mary Berry - David Lloyd (AKA Bumble)
Who else do we reckon is a genuine national treasure?
Well first let me say that I think anonymity for both accusers and accused in such cases should be granted until the conclusion of any trial in the hope that would encourage more people to come forward, they absolutely should. I accept that naming an accused can encourage more people to come forward but equally its also a route that may bring about false accusations and a look at the law and how retrials should be dealt with as potential new evidence comes to light is needed to try and strike a better balance.
I also agree if I was punched by a sports person and could take them for 150k I may well be inclined to do so but I do think that is a different scenario to DV incident which is far more dehumanising and again certainly those who I know (including some who are v close to me) would rather see a conviction than receive hush money but everyone is different and so I won't speak for everyone.
As to your other question yes that did originate from the Telegraph's instigation but I would say its reporting then was of a far better standard than rabid eyed right end of then right spectrum that it now is, I wasn't aware that they were his employer time of trial. I could link you to reports in the Irish Times, the Mail but these Will of course refencee the telegraph because that us where the story originates, I could point you to the yourkshire post but even I'll agree they are likely to be biased.
I could also link to an article that accuse Boycotts accuser of questionable behaviour (abuse and assualt of a stewardess and other within her party) but of course that will all ultimately link back to the telegraph which carried out that investigation.
We could also look at his accusers finances (1.3 million in debt at time of trial ) and that she was declared bankrupt shortly afterwards.
In short I would need to work for telegraph to be able to ultimately provide the info you ask for and I don't but equally I see no way to disprove said evidence either, no do I see any denials of such an offer being made or any attempt by any other publication to refute the claim so much like the trial you have reliant on what someone claims. What is depressing is that no one else has actually looked to clarify those claims one way or the other and that is sad inditmenet of tbe British press all together
So essentially all the allegations against a victim of assault come from an investigation by an organisation that employs the person convicted of the assault. I have to say that really should ring alarm bells, particularly as there doesn't seem to be any documentary evidence on offer to back up their claims. Certainly those claims wouldn't get very far in a court of law, whereas the allegation itself has been tested in a court of law twice.
There's an awful lot of just throwing shade on her character to be honest. And it's possible she isn't a good person but that doesn't mean the allegation is false. At trial, Boycott didn't say he couldn't account for the injuries, he said they were caused by her falling on the hotel room floor during an argument (this was a carpeted floor, not marble). She said they were from him punching her in the face. The medical experts ruled out his explanation for the injuries whilst finding her explanation to be consistent with the injuries sustained. That's good enough for me, but I doubt I'm going to convince you.
Proper National Treasures on 14:48 - Oct 7 by Herbivore
So essentially all the allegations against a victim of assault come from an investigation by an organisation that employs the person convicted of the assault. I have to say that really should ring alarm bells, particularly as there doesn't seem to be any documentary evidence on offer to back up their claims. Certainly those claims wouldn't get very far in a court of law, whereas the allegation itself has been tested in a court of law twice.
There's an awful lot of just throwing shade on her character to be honest. And it's possible she isn't a good person but that doesn't mean the allegation is false. At trial, Boycott didn't say he couldn't account for the injuries, he said they were caused by her falling on the hotel room floor during an argument (this was a carpeted floor, not marble). She said they were from him punching her in the face. The medical experts ruled out his explanation for the injuries whilst finding her explanation to be consistent with the injuries sustained. That's good enough for me, but I doubt I'm going to convince you.
[Post edited 7 Oct 2021 14:50]
I've sent you a PM.
I'm not sure where the carpeted floor comes from as I keep seeing it described as as marble.
The judges admits that she took a (somewhat understandable, he is an acquired tatse at the Best of times esp to non Yorkshire folk) and you can surely imagine the impression a stubborn Yorkshirman would give in a French court.
I'm pretty sure one could easily find a doctor that could argue the other way and I do think you ignore the many people (Ex GFs included) that have said this is not a side to the man they have ever seen. Usuay in such instances there is a pattern of behaviour but of course not always. We do have witnesses who claim that her character is questionable (maybe its shade maybe its true we don't know) though admittedly after trial.
As for the telegraph well I think that speaks to the laziness of Journalism, any other publication could have fact checked, the accuser could deny it but doesn't and that plus her financial situation should also ring Alamein bells.
To truly we would get the bottom of it we would need to gather tbe witness's the journos etc.
I guess my feeling is that a burden of proof hasn't been met and whilst I accept that a court may have found him guilty plenty of courts have made plenty of mistakes, some multiple times
So let's agree on this. If true then yes Boycot is an absolute disgrace as we really have taken over what should be a fun thread.
Proper National Treasures on 11:19 - Oct 7 by Herbivore
The conviction was upheld in a court of appeal. If you've seen the pictures I'd ask you whether you think it's really credible she got those injuries from falling on a carpeted hotel room floor. You may think it's questionable, a judge and an appeal court that were privvy to all of the evidence disagree. I'll go with them in this instance. Not having Boycott being a national treasure, he's an arse.
I totally agree that Boycott shouldn't be on the list.
So who from the world of cricket?
Personally I find Blowers' persona a bit contrived.
Dear Old Brian Johnston would have been, once upon a time.
Monty Panesar had treasure status as a young man, but has struggled to define a role for himself after his professional career came to a premature end.
Swanny and Tuffers are a bit too dickish, really.
Ben Stokes will be one day. Freddie is probably on his way to National Treasure status.
Jimmy Anderson may be a great cricketer, but he's a bit prickly, and not many non-cricket fans will relate to him.
So I'm going to nominate:
Sir Andrew Strauss, who is a remarkable man who achieved a great deal as a player individually, and as captain, and is doing extraordinarily good work around child bereavement now.
0
Proper National Treasures on 18:20 - Oct 7 with 1138 views
I see what you mean now. At first I thought that you were implying that they were one and the same person, and I thought to myself 'surely he means Toksvig and Anderson?'.
# WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE #
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
