|
Post by greyman on Nov 18, 2014 19:35:57 GMT
....whereas killing kids in a car while pissed up is no big deal!? The only reason why this case is so high profile is because it is far from clear cut where many are scratching their heads at the conviction and in response a bunch of mental bints lose the plot because how dare a 'sister' and the case be held up to real scrutiny. You are right though - kiddie fiddling, rape, serious sexual assault etc are treated differently - no one seems to give a fuck to comment about those any more. No, no and thrice no. Of course killing two kids when drunk driving is an horrendous crime and those convicted should be punished accordingly. And IMO McCormick got off lightly with his sentence. What I am trying to get over is that, in the aftermath of a convicts release, society behaves differently towards certain offences. McCormick was accepted back into Plymouth with little fuss from the community however had he been a convicted rapist there is no way he would be playing here let alone be captain. But this does not mean that a rape is worse than a killing due to drunk driving. I suppose the acid test is who would you prefer as a neighbour, a convicted rapist or a person who has been convicted of causing death by drunk driving. That is the point I am trying to make and apologise to anybody who thinks I was trying to trivialise killing two kids whilst drunk driving and was offended by this. That's fair enough and encapsulates my problem with this. The reason that the response from many people and the media to the two cases is so different is because the rape issue has been politicised in varying degrees. I understand that in some regards but also object to the likes of Jean Hatchet using it as part of a misandrist agenda. She's not a feminist and she's not much of a human either because as far as I can tell she has no idea whether the girl wants her to be raising petitions in her name. She's hijacked it for her own ends. For people like this, it's not about the victims because they never gave a stuff when McCormick started playing again and I bet many still couldn't care less because they have lost sight of morals. What they want is to portray men as rapists and this suits them just fine. Maybe if there was a big academic and social movement studying the rights and wrongs of dickheads driving around killing people, we'd have seen a more balanced response to the two cases. As it stands some people clearly couldn't care less about morality, freedom of speech and individual rights so long as they can distort things to suit themselves.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 18, 2014 17:28:14 GMT
My immediate thoughts were that having criticised the England bid in the summary someone at the FA would be the target. It's a risky ploy though because surely all the dirty linen would be aired including all the shit the Sunday Times has dug up that Garcia didn't even consider. Interesting times. Is it significant that it was lodged in Switzerland (other than FIFA's HQ is there)? Are Swiss Judges less averse to large well stuffed brown envelopes mysteriously appearing in their bank accounts? i don't think they would air any other dirty laundry. if the case was against the English FA then the evidence presented would be against the English FA..the FAs defence saying "Oh but you other countries did it as well" would be 100% irrelevant. it'd be like me committing a burglary and saying "But hang on your honour, x,y or z have also committed burglaries". they're not there to determine the wrong doing of other countries and compare and contrast them but simply to judge on the wrong doing of whoever is in the dock (as it were). the FA were criticised in the report and that was the right thing to do. by the looks of it they did act improperly and if we want to get rid of corruption then we have to accept that that might mean taking action against our own FA if they acted improperly..it isn't just about making sure we get FIFA and Blatter, whoever broke the rules deserves punishment including us and it would be massively hypocritical for us to not accept that. True, but it appears that they are going after the countries that gave them all the information they needed rather than those like Russia who left it near the dog's basket so it was eaten. One thing we know from experience is that when big organisations start to try to manage crises and information, they often make everything much worse. FIFA are already on that path.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 18, 2014 16:52:55 GMT
Replace Blatter with Platini. The words fire and frying pan spring to mind. True. Latest news - www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30103293Looks like they intend to sacrifice somebody to protect the organisation. I think they're genuinely feeling the pressure from countries like Germany and England now. Alternatively, they'll be going after somebody at the FA.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 18, 2014 14:05:43 GMT
What, you mean Jean Hatchet who has started a petition on behalf of somebody she doesn't know and who may want the whole thing dropped now? She has an agenda and is not really interested in this girl. People can see that and nothing anybody says or does will change how she thinks.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 18, 2014 12:56:21 GMT
To be fair, it's the more extreme end of the feminist spectrum and you could say the same thing about any foam-mouthed group of fact averse people.
In this case, I think it won't be feminists that are the issue but an organisation that doesn't want to get itself involved and who can blame it?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 18, 2014 8:41:47 GMT
I am not seeing it as a trivial offence. You are the one who is claiming that speeding down the motorway while pissed and uninsured and killing two kids and crippling their father is an 'act of stupidity' that we should forget all about once somebody's done their time, but an act of rape while pissed means somebody should be hounded out of their job for ever. I'll ask you something. The day after those kids died, was their mum on Twitter telling her friends she'd get them a car with the compensation? If your answer to that is no, ask yourself which offence was more traumatic for the victims? Jesus fucking Christ. Sort yourself out. And you are falling for the lies on that website, the comments about winning big were made 5 months before the start of the trial and not the day after the attack and actually more plausibly would seem to refer to what would happen if she won the lottery. But a bit of sleak smearing on a one sided website and people take it as fact, what is a fact is that she has never sought to profit or cash in on the rape, another fact is she has had to be relocated and given a new identity to protect her yet people seem to think Evans is the victim. I don't believe Evans is a victim at all. Even if you think he's innocent of rape per se, he behaved like an absolute sleazebag that night. And I'm not going on anything from his website. The point is that killing kids is worse than raping somebody. Yet all of these people seeking to refuse Ched Evans his right to work because of his position as a role model had (and have) nothing to say about Luke McCormick becoming Plymouth captain. Just look at the reaction to anybody who dares suggest that rape isn't the worst thing that can happen in life? It's terrible but even people like Germaine Greer have stood up to the idea that all rapes are the same and unique as crimes. My opinion is that Evans has done his time and is now free to make a living but Sheffield Utd shouldn't have touched him with a bargepole. What I'm more interested in is challenging this idea that we must treat rape as the worst possible thing a person can do to another because it isn't. It's a narrative that has been forced by misandrists to support their idea that all men are rapists and that all women are victims. For God's sake, it doesn't even do women a favour to think like that.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 18, 2014 7:01:51 GMT
Ahh, it's the, anyone who doesn't agree with me is a 'rape apologist' argument... Well done bpoolred, very nice. Actually, I don't have a chauvinistic view on this at all. Rape is a disgusting crime. Nobody is actually disagreeing with that. Evans is protesting his innocence far more than other people have in the same situation. He could have just done his time and waltzed back into football, but it's his desire to clear his name that has caused feminist nutters and the redtops to cover this in-depth. Anyone with that desire deserves to be heard. I didn't read your previous reply, but you're correct, she returned to the hotel to have sex with one, so no, it doesn't make it okay for someone to arrive on the scene and rape her.... however, upon being asked whether he could join in. She said yes. So now we have a problem don't we? He could not have done his time and waltzed quietly back into football, the whole reason he is trying to clear his name is so he can get back into football. He is a convicted rapist MH, that is a serious crime, not sure where in your mind you thought he would just be able walk straight back into the game if he would of just kept quiet - You build him up as some kind of hero trying to clear his name and sacrificing his career because of it. The reason he was convicted of rape is because she did not consent or was not able to consent. She did not say ‘Yes’ when he asked if he could join in. So no we don’t have a problem. I am pleased you are not chauvinistic, but you will need to prove that to the feminist nutters and redtops as you lovingly refer to them – they may disagree. Woman are allowed to have a voice you know and just because they dare to speak does not make them feminist nutters True, but feminist nutters exist and they have views every bit as bigoted and extreme as any other group on the edge of rational thinking. The fact is that Evans has the right to make a living. Personally, I think Sheff Utd were mad to have anything to do with him once he came out of prison, but he has that right.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 18, 2014 6:57:41 GMT
And there we have it. Killing children while pissed is excusable and unfortunate. Raping a woman while pissed means you are beyond redemption. Seriously, and I don't usually get genuinely pissed off with what I read on here, go have a look at yourself. I am gobsmacked that you see rape as such a trivial offence tbh. Nowhere have I stated that Killing two kids when pissed is excusable. I am trying to show that certain sex offenders such as paedophiles, rapists and sex predators/molesters will be vilified upon release because of the nature of their crimes. Society does not view these crimes as acts of stupidity as perhaps other crimes may be viewed. I am not seeing it as a trivial offence. You are the one who is claiming that speeding down the motorway while pissed and uninsured and killing two kids and crippling their father is an 'act of stupidity' that we should forget all about once somebody's done their time, but an act of rape while pissed means somebody should be hounded out of their job for ever. I'll ask you something. The day after those kids died, was their mum on Twitter telling her friends she'd get them a car with the compensation? If your answer to that is no, ask yourself which offence was more traumatic for the victims? Jesus fucking Christ. Sort yourself out.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 17, 2014 17:19:22 GMT
I agree to a large extent and I hope this dies off soon. I have to say I am troubled by the hypocrisy and moral relativism shown by some commentators on this though. They'll get worked up about a footballer raping a woman (or - if you prefer - behaving like a sleazy scumbag sexual opportunist), but have little or nothing to say when a player at the same level of the game kills two children. That betrays a certain mindset and I bet you there are plenty of people worked up about Ched Evans who are either unaware of Luke McCormick or less bothered by him. Many people would say that Luke McCormick's crime was an act of pure stupidity and many people might even say "there for the grace of God..." However Evans commited a crime that is considered by many up there with the most heinous of sexual offences and, as I stated in an earlier post, a wider public view in this country means that he should be treated differently upon release. And there we have it. Killing children while pissed is excusable and unfortunate. Raping a woman while pissed means you are beyond redemption. Seriously, and I don't usually get genuinely pissed off with what I read on here, go have a look at yourself.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 17, 2014 10:04:53 GMT
Both men were tried on the same offence – one was acquitted – one wasn’t. Something in the testimony, cross-examination and evidence led the jury to believe or at least afford the benefit of doubt to one and not the other. Why? It was a unanimous verdict also – 12-0 and freely given without direction from the judge. Three further judges refused appeal previously - Why? As others have said, the state of the girl is one of conjecture – what happened to her isn’t – and it was the CPS that brought the case based on the interviews of the defendants – not the girl, irrespective of her social reputation and what she’s subsequently espoused on social media. Why? It seems consent or the lack of it, or the presumed consent by Evans based on his mates moral free invitation, assumed the right to turn up unannounced for his turn to do the deed and subsequently dash down the fire escape without any regard, was seen by the jury as rape. Why? Whether he can now find employment as an ok League 1 striker – I guess we’ll find out over the coming months but personally I have a problem with that – not least because of his complete lack of acknowledgement or contrition. Him quietly re-building his life out of the public eye etc.. I have no problem with and this would also appear to be the weight of most public opinion. Ironically if he was a 30 goal a season Prem player – where his benefit to a Club exceeded both moral and financial risk - well that’s probably a different matter and as morally repulsive as it is - a reflection of the low standards humanity now sets itself. I agree to a large extent and I hope this dies off soon. I have to say I am troubled by the hypocrisy and moral relativism shown by some commentators on this though. They'll get worked up about a footballer raping a woman (or - if you prefer - behaving like a sleazy scumbag sexual opportunist), but have little or nothing to say when a player at the same level of the game kills two children. That betrays a certain mindset and I bet you there are plenty of people worked up about Ched Evans who are either unaware of Luke McCormick or less bothered by him.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 16, 2014 11:04:53 GMT
It's a sign they are trying to force Blatter out. Until he goes, there's no way they can repair FIFA's image. It may already be too late.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 16, 2014 10:48:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 13, 2014 13:55:17 GMT
Ethics exist outside of the law. You can do things that are legal but morally wrong, like Ched Evans' best case explanation for what happened on that night. I don't think it's a given that it was morally wrong. You reckon? He's in a relationship yet he routinely books a hotel in advance of a night out along with a mate in case they pull. His mate finds some pissed-up girl in a bar in Rhyl who may or may not be conscious enough to consent to sex but is struggling to stand up and may have had her drink spiked, takes her back to the hotel and texts Evans that he's 'got one' or whatever he said. Evans turns up halfway through his mate having sex with a girl who's barely awake, without the girl's prior consent (assuming she's capable of giving it) and joins in while two other blokes watch and film it all. Evans then leaves by the fire escape so he doesn't have to go past reception and his mate tells reception to keep an eye on the girl because she's sick and has pissed the bed then he buggers off as well. And that's his best case scenario?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 13, 2014 13:34:45 GMT
Ethics exist outside of the law. You can do things that are legal but morally wrong, like Ched Evans' best case explanation for what happened on that night.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 13, 2014 12:16:28 GMT
Only because I've been saying it for so long. You're like a fucking chimp hammering away at a keyboard. Every now and then you'll come out with something coherent.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 13, 2014 11:30:19 GMT
Its funny how everyone suddenly loves the FA Of course, they have never been corrupt! If you believe that you will believe anything! This notion that all foreign bodies are corrupt and we are the only ones flying the flag for integrity and truth is delusion and more than worrying. What they've done here is what they thought they needed to do - buttering up a sleazy old crook like Jack Warner to win his vote. They were wrong to do it but who created that culture and which other associations were doing exactly the same? FIFA are singling out the FA for making a fuss.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 13, 2014 10:58:03 GMT
For once, Merk is right. The rape of which he was convicted has a number of grey and disputed areas. Even so, at best he behaved like a scumbag that night. But he's done his time, can't show repentance without conceding his own guilt, and has the right to earn a living. He'll get dog's abuse wherever he goes and some clubs won't sign him so his future career has already been affected.
I don't recall the media getting this whipped up about Luke McCormick and Lee Hughes, who both did things far, far worse than Evans and got to play again. If we had proper sentences for what they did, they'd both be still in prison. McCormick killed two children driving drunk, speeding and uninsured. Where is the moral outrage at that cunt?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 13, 2014 10:45:34 GMT
You have to admire them for the job they've done on the FA. Crooked organisation and now we can all look forward to two farcical and stage managed world cups in countries that really shouldn't have them for different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 12, 2014 11:54:43 GMT
They could do this without dancing around though
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Nov 4, 2014 23:07:27 GMT
I notice Wenger walked off again without shaking hands with the Anderlecht coach. Classless wanker or baby? You decide.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 20, 2014 12:32:32 GMT
Do you agree that it was a penalty?. No I don't, it was a yellow card and an indirect free-kick. It's a mans game to be played like men. You can show as many images as you like but watch it in real time and you'll see that it in no way impeded Moses. Moses has thrown himself to the ground If that has been given against us we'd be going mental. And we also saw in the game what happens when you don't go down. Nothing given.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 20, 2014 12:13:47 GMT
There you go. See this all the time now.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 20, 2014 11:58:44 GMT
I was beginning to think I was the only one who believed this. I think he played for a penalty but jumped up quickly when he realised he looked like a tit. 100% Quite a few around us went 'o oh' 'shit' etc initially The Crouch pen was blatant - but still ok when the ref does not spot it I guess Watch his leg. About one minute in. link
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 20, 2014 11:30:14 GMT
Incidentally, Sigurdsson tried the trailing leg thing on Begovic when he overran the ball when through on goal.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 13, 2014 8:41:54 GMT
If you are an England player who plays for United, Arsenal or Liverpool, the chances of anyone praising you on this board are pretty slim. Pure bullshit as ever Geoff. You still here?
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 12, 2014 19:36:37 GMT
What about before Waddington? Tom Mather won two league titles before the war, and Bob McGrory came within one game of winning the First Division Championship in the late 1930s. Both of these would push many of your ten out of the running order. I'm glad you didn't say Horace Austerberry because his tenure was a farce.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 9, 2014 12:54:52 GMT
Wouldn't it be a giggle if we won 10-0. No. It would be a perfectly acceptable scoreline.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 9, 2014 12:38:54 GMT
Not one suggestion on who should replace Hodgson. I made a suggestion for this game. My border terrier Pip. She'd have already been an improvement on Hodgson for this match because she wouldn't have sat in a room, said 'it's all about the performance' and expected to be taken seriously. So, yeah. Pip. Already better than Hodgson for this particular game.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 9, 2014 12:32:37 GMT
"These games are difficult"
Fuck me, if Sparky said that about a competitive game against a team of amateur footballers with a track record of P123, W1*, D3, L119, GD -511, we'd want him out. Hodgson is a complete arse.
*San Marino 1 Liechtenstein 0 - Friendly.
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Oct 9, 2014 11:07:27 GMT
Somebody will say it tonight for sure - about a team whose only ever win in a game was a 1-0 win over Liechtenstein ten years ago.
|
|