|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 17:27:10 GMT
Tin hat on but I remember it well, near verbatim:
Nige: tough game today, Peter, sent off for a professional foul under the new rules. I bet you're gutted?
PF: Yes. I can't believe it. I can't tell you how disappointed I am. It makes me wonder its worth continuing.
Nige: That's quite a strong point of view Peter. How are you going to deal with this? A few beers?
PF: Yeah, me and the lads will get together later and have a few jars and talk about it. To be fair the lads have been great.
Nige: And if that fails?
PF: Well we were thinking of ritually humiliating a few of the YTS lads in a homo-erotic encounter involving their anus, my gloves and a jar of Fiery Jack
Nige: (laughs) sounds good. Thanks for talking to us
PF: Cheers Nige (walks off...in background you here shouts and laughter and an unknown voice screaming his arse is on fire from the inside)
The evidence is damming and I'm sickened. So much so that I too am traumatised on recalling this horrendous event......"Hello, Solicitors 4u? I'd like to make a claim...."
|
|
|
Post by burberrybassist on Jul 15, 2015 17:52:49 GMT
Yes I quite clearly remember him going on local radio and openly admitting to giving the young players in the squad a cheeky finger or two, granted I wasn't born until 2 years after the broadcast, but I definitely remember it!
|
|
|
Post by fatbasford on Jul 15, 2015 18:18:19 GMT
I've got info but want witness protection, new identity, relocation to Australia and a barrow load of filthy lucre. How about a couple of night on joes settee and a trial with a local club
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jul 15, 2015 18:24:48 GMT
If any listeners to the radio show “Praise and Grumble” between 1984 and 1988 can remember Mr Peter Fox being interviewed and making any comments regarding the treatment of apprentices at Stoke City Football Club by the professional players, please get in contact with Jack Robinson via email on jack.robinson@smithpartnership.co.uk
Many thanks
Parasite
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jul 15, 2015 18:26:50 GMT
I've got info but want witness protection, new identity, relocation to Australia and a barrow load of filthy lucre. How about a couple of night on joes settee and a trial with a local club Sounds good, no fingering though.
|
|
|
Post by songthrush01 on Jul 15, 2015 18:42:11 GMT
im not filling any losers sob story pockets with money pathectic just piss off.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jul 15, 2015 18:53:36 GMT
How about a couple of night on joes settee and a trial with a local club Sounds good, no fingering though. I don't know back in the day if you had a good poke it was a start!
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jul 15, 2015 18:55:03 GMT
If any listeners to the radio show “Praise and Grumble” between 1984 and 1988 can remember Mr Peter Fox being interviewed and making any comments regarding the treatment of apprentices at Stoke City Football Club by the professional players, please get in contact with Jack Robinson via email on jack.robinson@smithpartnership.co.uk
Many thanks
Ahem, how much is it worth (wink wink say no more)
|
|
|
Post by wrighter on Jul 15, 2015 18:57:00 GMT
My 1st day as a car mechanic,i had my boiler suit opened and Deep heat rubbed into my bollocks !!
Shame to admit it , but I quite enjoyed it, much to the annoyance of the guy who administered it to me
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 19:02:07 GMT
Seems to me this chap has jumped on the compo bandwagon in the wake of Savile. Yes it almost certainly happened.Yes it was wrong.Lot's of things occur at school/work etc that aren't right,many people have been badly bullied I'm sure,some will have been affected by it later in life but sometimes you just have to move on. A swift finger up the arse,a gloved one at that is in no way comparable to some of the horrendous abuses that have occured elsewhere. And anyway,Foxy is one of my heroes so leave him alone
|
|
|
Post by WorkingclassHero on Jul 15, 2015 19:09:42 GMT
If any listeners to the radio show “Praise and Grumble” between 1984 and 1988 can remember Mr Peter Fox being interviewed and making any comments regarding the treatment of apprentices at Stoke City Football Club by the professional players, please get in contact with Jack Robinson via email on jack.robinson@smithpartnership.co.uk
Many thanks
So this is what a degree in law gets you these days. You my friend are pretty much all that is wrong with the world. Go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.
|
|
|
Post by oliviadee on Jul 15, 2015 19:14:55 GMT
thought the government stopped FOX hunting
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 15, 2015 19:26:03 GMT
Why the fuck would we grass on one of our own, even if such interview material existed? Because we'd be more interested in legal justice for a victim of an assault than "loyalty" to someone who used to play for our football club? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jul 15, 2015 19:30:11 GMT
Why the fuck would we grass on one of our own, even if such interview material existed? Because we'd be more interested in legal justice for a victim of an assault than "loyalty" to someone who used to play for our football club? Just a thought. Strange how this victim has waited nearly 30 years to bring the perpetrators to justice don't you think??
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 15, 2015 19:32:48 GMT
Because we'd be more interested in legal justice for a victim of an assault than "loyalty" to someone who used to play for our football club? Just a thought. Strange how this victim has waited nearly 30 years to bring the perpetrators to justice don't you think?? Not that it has anything to do with the point, but no, not particularly.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Jul 15, 2015 19:33:25 GMT
Strange how this victim has waited nearly 30 years to bring the perpetrators to justice don't you think?? Not that it has anything to do with the point, but no, not particularly. Staggering naivity
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 15, 2015 19:42:50 GMT
Not that it has anything to do with the point, but no, not particularly. Staggering naivity Well it certainly sounds like you've got this case sewn up. Better give Preston County Court a bell and tell them to halt proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 15, 2015 19:54:20 GMT
I think we confuse ILLEGAL activities with 'the bounds of decency'. What was once deemed 'acceptable' behavour has changed with the times and it's a bit rich to go back 30 years to try and impose today's morality on situations that were pretty commonplace back then. Don't get me wrong...it was NEVER right but it should have been tackled back then. Of course I know very little and IF it was reported at the time and the club failed to act on that, then they deserve to be sanctioned now. It just worries me that we are now so quick to pass moral judgement on the type of behaviour that was once commonplace. After all, it's not so very long ago that it was actually ACCEPTABLE to beat your wife and the only limiting factor was the thickness of the impliment you used to beat her with. Shall we go back now and take legal action against all parents/grandparents that spanked their children in the course of a 'normal' upbringing for the times. The goal posts change all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 20:00:48 GMT
I'm quite sure that in the 80s it would have been illegal to pin a minor to the floor and insert a finger in their arse.
If it had been a 17 yr old girl that this group of grown men had assaulted, I don't think there would be quite so many people jumping to their defense.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jul 15, 2015 20:08:26 GMT
I'm quite sure that in the 80s it would have been illegal to pin a minor to the floor and insert a finger in their arse. If it had been a 17 yr old girl that this group of grown men had assaulted, I don't think there would be quite so many people jumping to their defense. Past experiences of groups of women mate i can tell you that they can be as cruel if not crueller than men, i only wish i was as confident then as i am now, i'd of had a ball! PS a 17 year old girl wouldn't of been in changing rooms with men in the first place so it's a non starter.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 15, 2015 20:20:24 GMT
I'm quite sure that in the 80s it would have been illegal to pin a minor to the floor and insert a finger in their arse. If it had been a 17 yr old girl that this group of grown men had assaulted, I don't think there would be quite so many people jumping to their defense. Indeed it would but then I would urge everyone who has an opinion on this matter to not simply repeat the rumour and inuendo that has been banded about. I admit that I have no idea whatsoever if this is what happened and I respectfully suggest that you don't either. There MIGHT be an almighty casm between what someon might suggest happened and the truth and we are in no position to judge. I'm pretty sure that, when I was a 17 year old lad in the pottery industry, it was against the law for grown females to remove my clothing to expose my genitals but it happened and there will be a great many reading this that have experienced similar. OK so, the truth is, I didn't mind at all (although I never gave my consent) but, had I objected, I COULD have brought a complaint against them (even back then in the mid 70s)but there was a different level of what was deemed 'acceptable' back then and I'm very wary of trying to apply today's morality to events back then. As I said, if the complainants registered a complaint to the club when these events took place and the club failed to fully investigate or take the appropriate action, then I have no sympathy for the Club and they should answer for their actions or lack of. If anything ILLEGAL took place (and I don't just mean someone SAYING so, because anyone could do that for any number of reasons) then it needs to be fully investigated and, if PROVEN then action taklen against those responsible. I don't have a problem with people being forced to answer for their ILLEGAL actions but, at the moment, they are not guilty of anything until it has been proven. I DO however, have a problem with today's society trying to impose their own moral compass on the actions of those that lived in differing times. In fact, I'll be honest, I have a problem with ANYONE who wants to impose their own morlity upon me. That's because I'm a human being and I KNOW that I have various weaknesses and personal 'quirks' that go hand in glove with being a human being. I also know that those who would impose their own view of morality upon me ALSO have such human failings.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jul 15, 2015 20:29:08 GMT
I'm quite sure that in the 80s it would have been illegal to pin a minor to the floor and insert a finger in their arse. If it had been a 17 yr old girl that this group of grown men had assaulted, I don't think there would be quite so many people jumping to their defense. Indeed it would but then I would urge everyone who has an opinion on this matter to not simply repeat the rumour and inuendo that has been banded about. I admit that I have no idea whatsoever if this is what happened and I respectfully suggest that you don't either. There MIGHT be an almighty casm between what someon might suggest happened and the truth and we are in no position to judge. I'm pretty sure that, when I was a 17 year old lad in the pottery industry, it was against the law for grown females to remove my clothing to expose my genitals but it happened and there will be a great many reading this that have experienced similar. OK so, the truth is, I didn't mind at all (although I never gave my consent) but, had I objected, I COULD have brought a complaint against them (even back then in the mid 70s)but there was a different level of what was deemed 'acceptable' back then and I'm very wary of trying to apply today's morality to events back then. As I said, if the complainants registered a complaint to the club when these events took place and the club failed to fully investigate or take the appropriate action, then I have no sympathy for the Club and they should answer for their actions or lack of. If anything ILLEGAL took place (and I don't just mean someone SAYING so, because anyone could do that for any number of reasons) then it needs to be fully investigated and, if PROVEN then action taklen against those responsible. I don't have a problem with people being forced to answer for their ILLEGAL actions but, at the moment, they are not guilty of anything until it has been proven. I DO however, have a problem with today's society trying to impose their own moral compass on the actions of those that lived in differing times. In fact, I'll be honest, I have a problem with ANYONE who wants to impose their own morlity upon me. That's because I'm a human being and I KNOW that I have various weaknesses and personal 'quirks' that go hand in glove with being a human being. I also know that those who would impose their own view of morality upon me ALSO have such human failings. Correct mate when they hold you down and pull their knickers down and sit on your face as a nieve 16 it's scary bared breast an all but as soon as they think your taking a liking it stops. Like i say now if only.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 20:43:30 GMT
i suggest that we follow the example of the GDB and instead of having a "Let's break the posts in a thread world record" thread, we pin this 1 to the top of the board and have a "Let's break the number of times the OP is told to fuck off in a thread world record" thread.....
i'll start...ahem
FUCK OFF OP!
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jul 15, 2015 21:56:33 GMT
You really could spam the shit out of that email address. Not that I would, but you could.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 21:59:48 GMT
So we're in agreement that if the events reported in court (I.e. not message board rumor / innuendo) actually happened then this was an illegal act.
The court is not asking a question of Society's morals - it is very specifically asking whether or not a couple incidents of an intimate physical assault occurred 30 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 15, 2015 22:21:12 GMT
So we're in agreement that if the events reported in court (I.e. not message board rumor / innuendo) actually happened then this was an illegal act. The court is not asking a question of Society's morals - it is very specifically asking whether or not a couple incidents of an intimate physical assault occurred 30 years ago. That's why I said we seem to be confusing the two things Horace. The Court will be looking into illegal acts that may have taken place and will reach a conclusion one way or the other on that. That's absolutely right. I only get a bit riled when people look today at behaviour that may once have been acceptable workplace banter and want to apply today's attitudes to it. As I said, the actions of hundreds of grown women in the pottery industry COULD have been taken as illegal behaviour but, in the main, it was accepted as good natured workplace banter. I can't make any kind of judgement about what went on at Stoke City but if it was illegal, and individuals complained about it then it's quite right that the law takes it's course. The problem is the lines are pretty blurred between illegal behaviour and workplace banter. Modern society has closed the gap (I guess most would say rightly) so that...illegal behaviou is illegal FULL STOP. My point is that, although many things were (strictly speaking) illegal many decades ago, they were somehow seen as acceptable workplace banter and very few had any problem with it. I rather enjoyed the 'girls' removing my clothes but I'm sure I could have had them in serious trouble had I wanted to. The moral compass of the times was a little different back then and I wouldn't want to revisit it now and condemn those involved simply because attitudes have changed. During my Army days I've known indiviuals who's cleanliness was called into question, assisted with a yard brush and a bathtub to inprove their habits. Clearly it was wrong and quite possibly illegal in terms of 'bullying behaviour' but it WAS seen as acceptable 'Barrack Room' behaviour (even by those on the receiving end). It's a minefield to be honest. If it's proven that anything illegal went on here and those on the receiving end complained/objected then I have no problem with any outcome. I DO have a problem (as I explained earlier) with those who want to take the high moral ground here and pretend that such behaviour wasn't once seen as simply workplace high spirits.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 22:45:12 GMT
Maybe wrong but didn't Jasper write about something similar happening to him whilst serving Queen and country, whilst overseas. Boot polish and a brush stale? Maybe I dreamt it. But if I didn't he could sue the Queen
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 15, 2015 22:59:19 GMT
Maybe wrong but didn't Jasper write about something similar happening to him whilst serving Queen and country, whilst overseas. Boot polish and a brush stale? Maybe I dreamt it. But if I didn't he could sue the Queen Don't know mate but it was pretty 'standard stuff' in the military. I'm not saying that it was ever anything but wrong, but it was accepted.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jul 15, 2015 22:59:53 GMT
So we're in agreement that if the events reported in court (I.e. not message board rumor / innuendo) actually happened then this was an illegal act. The court is not asking a question of Society's morals - it is very specifically asking whether or not a couple incidents of an intimate physical assault occurred 30 years ago. That's why I said we seem to be confusing the two things Horace. The Court will be looking into illegal acts that may have taken place and will reach a conclusion one way or the other on that. That's absolutely right. I only get a bit riled when people look today at behaviour that may once have been acceptable workplace banter and want to apply today's attitudes to it. As I said, the actions of hundreds of grown women in the pottery industry COULD have been taken as illegal behaviour but, in the main, it was accepted as good natured workplace banter. I can't make any kind of judgement about what went on at Stoke City but if it was illegal, and individuals complained about it then it's quite right that the law takes it's course. The problem is the lines are pretty blurred between illegal behaviour and workplace banter. Modern society has closed the gap (I guess most would say rightly) so that...illegal behaviou is illegal FULL STOP. My point is that, although many things were (strictly speaking) illegal many decades ago, they were somehow seen as acceptable workplace banter and very few had any problem with it. I rather enjoyed the 'girls' removing my clothes but I'm sure I could have had them in serious trouble had I wanted to. The moral compass of the times was a little different back then and I wouldn't want to revisit it now and condemn those involved simply because attitudes have changed. During my Army days I've known indiviuals who's cleanliness was called into question, assisted with a yard brush and a bathtub to inprove their habits. Clearly it was wrong and quite possibly illegal in terms of 'bullying behaviour' but it WAS seen as acceptable 'Barrack Room' behaviour (even by those on the receiving end). It's a minefield to be honest. If it's proven that anything illegal went on here and those on the receiving end complained/objected then I have no problem with any outcome. I DO have a problem (as I explained earlier) with those who want to take the high moral ground here and pretend that such behaviour wasn't once seen as simply workplace high spirits. doz, you seem to be using a lot of words to say not very much here... who is trying to "impose today's moral compass" on the actions of the past? And how, specifically? Who is saying that anything should happen other than him being tried under the laws of the day? And do you believe it was morally acceptable (and/or legal) in 1988 to forcibly restrain a child and penetrate his rectum, in any context? If not, what's the issue?
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 15, 2015 23:26:44 GMT
That's why I said we seem to be confusing the two things Horace. The Court will be looking into illegal acts that may have taken place and will reach a conclusion one way or the other on that. That's absolutely right. I only get a bit riled when people look today at behaviour that may once have been acceptable workplace banter and want to apply today's attitudes to it. As I said, the actions of hundreds of grown women in the pottery industry COULD have been taken as illegal behaviour but, in the main, it was accepted as good natured workplace banter. I can't make any kind of judgement about what went on at Stoke City but if it was illegal, and individuals complained about it then it's quite right that the law takes it's course. The problem is the lines are pretty blurred between illegal behaviour and workplace banter. Modern society has closed the gap (I guess most would say rightly) so that...illegal behaviou is illegal FULL STOP. My point is that, although many things were (strictly speaking) illegal many decades ago, they were somehow seen as acceptable workplace banter and very few had any problem with it. I rather enjoyed the 'girls' removing my clothes but I'm sure I could have had them in serious trouble had I wanted to. The moral compass of the times was a little different back then and I wouldn't want to revisit it now and condemn those involved simply because attitudes have changed. During my Army days I've known indiviuals who's cleanliness was called into question, assisted with a yard brush and a bathtub to inprove their habits. Clearly it was wrong and quite possibly illegal in terms of 'bullying behaviour' but it WAS seen as acceptable 'Barrack Room' behaviour (even by those on the receiving end). It's a minefield to be honest. If it's proven that anything illegal went on here and those on the receiving end complained/objected then I have no problem with any outcome. I DO have a problem (as I explained earlier) with those who want to take the high moral ground here and pretend that such behaviour wasn't once seen as simply workplace high spirits. doz, you seem to be using a lot of words to say not very much here... who is trying to "impose today's moral compass" on the actions of the past? And how, specifically? Who is saying that anything should happen other than him being tried under the laws of the day? And do you believe it was morally acceptable (and/or legal) in 1988 to forcibly restrain a child and penetrate his rectum, in any context? If not, what's the issue? I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying mate, with respect. There are lots of things that are (strictly speaking) illegal but which still happen and which many don't have any great problem with. If you've actually read my posts I'm sure you'll see that I haven't (for one second) tried to say that what you describe was anything other than unacceptable and illegal. I do however, think we should be careful about talking in these terms about an incident which an indivual has ALLEDGED took place and I have agreed that the law should take it's course in this case. If proven, it's clear as crystal that a very serious assault took place and those responsible will be held to account. Where I have something of a problem is with those who refuse to accept that incidents like this (if not quite this serious) have, in the past, often been accepted as 'workplace high jinx'. That is, in no way, trying to justify such behaviour but simply pointing out that it was often ACCEPTED (by and large) even if it was wrong and or/illegal. I have only ever stated on here that such behaviour was WRONG but, by and large, I wouldn't want to revisit it and condemn those involved in what was (at the time) accepted. I don't want to use the description you used because NO-ONE would seek to justify that but there was an awful lot that used to go on in changing rooms, Military establishments and factories that was seen as 'acceptable' in years gone by. Whilst not wishing to justify it I don't think we should pretend that it didn't happen or that the bulk of people saw little wrong with it at the time. It's all to easy to look back 30/40 years and condemn people for behaviour we now find unacceptable. Clearly it's impossible to answer the question you posed with anything other than condemnation but you'd have to extend it to ask if it was ever acceptable to smear axle grease on apprentice's bollocks or scrub naked young soldiers in a bathtub with a yardbrush and OF COURSE the answer is NO it was never right but it DID happen all the time. So would I agree with going back to prosecute everyone who ever participated in such activities....well no I wouldn't if I'm honest because it was different times and, like it or not, it was deemed acceptable at the time by a great many people.
|
|