It's clear that some people don't actually read what's in front of them. No need for all the arguments about the girls age. It clearly states she was a teenager and that she was the driver thus making her either 17, 18 or 19. Simples!

You are the one implying that he is accusing Long of being a child beater bringing the age of 10 into the thread.

He implies nothing of the sort. To anyone over the age of 40 an 18 year old is a 'young girl'. Are 18 year olds not young, are they not girls?

You bring that allegation into the thread, everyone else follows your lead.

You are the one that brings untrue allegations into the thread, not Rogues. He only says that he'd call a 10 year old a child. A term he [idoes not[/i use in relation to Long or this incident. [iYou [/ido. You also claim that the girl he thumped is drunk, an allegation that is proved to be untrue in the very excerpt you yourself post. Yet you are the one that has too much integrity to allow untruths to go unpunished?

It would be laughable if it wasn't so offensive given the subject it's about.



Yet you call me pathetic.

You are just ridiculous. I cannot take you seriously after that rubbish.

This is what he saidthe young girl'"

I'm from neither, so go for your life.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Long.html and that was the end of that.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Long.html and that was the end of that.

No way,that would end up very messy.

Bradford aren't very good when it comes to Court Hearings, hence their current lack of cash. Why not just give it a rest and agree that Longy has used a bit of poetic licence.

And no proof-reader, by the sounds of it!