When you say you and others know the facts, are you not really saying that you have been told a view of events from certain informed sources.



Those sources themselves may only be telling one side of the story, or their knowledge of the events may themselves be limited, and therefore the facts you and others have, may not be in reality the truth, but merely a more informed opinion of what went on.



Personally i am waiting for things to come out in court, then we can get a fuller picture of what went on that evening. Hopefully there will be not only eyewitnesses within the club, but also cctv footage within the club and outside, that will show what has actually gone on.

Yep.

So you were out on the razz with Soliola then?

ever heard of cctv?

So you have viewed the CCTV footage then?



It's just that you claimed to know exactly what went on, which means either you were there and saw it happen or you have watched it on CCTV. All else is hearsay.

exactly

Eh?



So were you there and saw what went on or did you view the CCTV footage or both? Your 'exactly' made no sense.

It would not be beyond the relms of possibility Saints fan, that a poster on here, could be a Police man or a person with connections to police work and therefore have access to such footage.



So they could have viewed it but cannot openly say so.



Another angle could be that they work for security firms that monitor such equipment. If the poster is stating facts that they have seen the footage these would be the most obvious answers, but there are other options such as knowing people at the club in question , or someone from the club copying the tape and sending it out via mobile phones.



There could be a few reasons why the footage has been seen, I see no reason for a poster to say they have seen something they have not. Especially if they are a moderator, and would look rather silly to claim to have seen an event, which once it goes to court would prove to be false.

Lets be honest St Helens really isnt a good night out anyway. Your not that unlikely to get into trouble without actually doing anything.



I stopped going out in St Helens years ago when some d1ckhead wanted to start a fight for no reason

When I come back home I head to Liverpool. Great night out if you head to L1, docks, palm sugar etc.. Never had one bit of trouble there and can drink until 6am for the hardcore drinkers.



Its not just St Helens, Warrington is worse.



Could do with shutting all the bars down and starting again with the nightlife.



p.s. boycotting the place is a great idea.

Similar thing happened in Warrington few years back with a few bouncers and a certain Warrington forward. He was lucky people helped him out or could have been a lot worse, he managed to hospitalise a bully bouncer in self defence, which caused a riot with the security staff.

I don't think that is strictly true. I manage to have nights out without any hassle. Then again Im quite selective about where I go.

Aye, don't get much trouble int conny club

Or at Darby and Joan nights.



There's no "blood tub" at Fingerpost anymore. I was in that night when Dicko knocked one of the committee men over a table with one punch and killed him.

grew up with alec.

We were on stage at the time rehearsing. I knew Alex and Betty quite well as he was good friends with my brother in law who sadly died of throat cancer a few years ago.

Well there are certain places I definitely wouldnt go and I count places with pictures of Lizzy or Thatcher on the wall in that !!!



Not familiar with the other incident, was that just after the war ?

I doubt a police officer would make that claim on an internet discussion board. They would not acknowledge any knowledge of an incident or they would state they could not comment on the incident.



If a person claims to know 'as a fact' something on here then they shouldn't be surprised if they are asked to substantiate their claim, particularly when there is a police investigation ongoing. Most people state something as 'a fact' when what they really mean is that somebody they know/trust who may or may not have seen what happened told them about it. But that doesn't make it fact.

Yes but if they do know something as fact, it doesn't mean they can give proof of that as if they are in a position where they have seen the tape and shouldn't or have seen the tape and should not be telling people that they have, then they are hardly going to say, hey I'm joe bloggs, my job is and this is how I saw it.



Just the same as on the DA thread, when I said that the house hunting had to be rumour. I knew the reasons why as fact, but does not mean I'll tell everyone else why.



DA has just bopped the rumours on the head today anyways.

Or someone on here might even know sia and rang him to see if he's ok and got told the story.

That would be the story from Sia's POV?

So you're suggesting Sia kicked off? You're going to look a bit daft when the truth comes out if you are.

Yes and I totally beleive it.

When did I even get close to suggesting that?



That's right. I didn't!



I said Sia's POV. 'POV' means point of view.

I didn't say you did, I was asking if you was hence the question mark.

Your question was rhetorical because you began it 'So you are ...' You already thought you knew my answer and your tone was just a tad derisory.



No police officer worth their salt will take one person's word against another. They will seek corroborating evidence. If the three men in question are finally charged with assault then that is because the police will have established enough corroborating evidence to suggest there is a case to be answered. However, just because Sia sees things one way (his way) - something that is totally natural - does not actually mean that an assault was committed. Therefore, when Sia tells his story it will be from his point of view. Things could look different from somebody else's point of view.

Seriously, let it go.