Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[kwinigolfer]

First topic message reminder :

Sr,
1).Correct. Wonderful is right. Though in the American order of things behind the NFL, College Football, High School Football, NBA, College B'ball.
2).Not much of a market: 21,000 per home game.
3).But no other nations pay their players a fraction of this sort of bounty. He'll probably end up using PED's, just like his predecessor as highest paid.
Ridiculous money!

[Davie]

I don't see it as Inco condoning it or excusing them

I do think he has a point though that they must have been incredibly brave or stupid.

It's a bit like seeing a car hurtling towards a zebra crossing at 80 mph and stepping out in front of it. Of course you are in the right. It's your right to be on the crossing and the car should stop and let you cross.

Being right doesn't help you when you're dead

[super_realist]

I don't see it as Inco condoning it or excusing them

I do think he has a point though that they must have been incredibly brave or stupid.

It's a bit like seeing a car hurtling towards a zebra crossing at 80 mph and stepping out in front of it. Of course you are in the right. It's your right to be on the crossing and the car should stop and let you cross.

Being right doesn't help you when you're dead

Wrong Davie, the proportional response to anything in print is not the murder of 12 people.
You should be able to print whatever you like without a violent response.

What is wrong with these people/religions that they are uber-sensitive?

[raycastleunited]

We have freedom of speech and press in UK/Europe and people  have no right to be sheltered from offence, whatever offence is.

To try and use terror and fear as a method for controlling what people can say and write, is dictatorial, and these people deserve zero excuses and maximum punishment.

Well said Super.

Although, as Davie pointed out, I don't think Inco was trying to excuse them.

[incontinentia]

I absolutely am not condoning or excusing the terrorists actions or saying it's the magazine's fault. Just saying that the reaction to satirising Mohammed etc is predictable as we have seen in the past. I am sure its more bravery than stupidity on the magazine's part and they deserve to be hailed for continuing to exercise their personal freedoms despite the threat of these sort of reprisals.

[kwinigolfer]

Not sure why Salman Rushdie (or perhaps it should be salman_rushdie?) has to stick his head up to be fired at, but he puts this atrocity quite succinctly.

Excerpts:
"Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry, presents a real threat to our freedoms."

and:

"'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion'. Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire and, yes, our fearless disrespect."

Spot on I reckon, though one certainly shouldn't "disrespect" those who gather for purely peaceful reasons, religious or otherwise; comfort and community, whether misguided or not, mean a lot to so many millions.

[beninho]

You cannot blame Islam for this or blame Islam for any atrocities carried out. This is just down to violent idiotic people he'll bent on causing pain and suffering. Islamic teachings do not state you attack people. These people want to use religion , something that has happened throughout time. But this isn't the fault of Islam.

[super_realist]

Not sure why Salman Rushdie (or perhaps it should be salman_rushdie?) has to stick his head up to be fired at, but he puts this atrocity quite succinctly.

Excerpts:
"Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry, presents a real threat to our freedoms."

and:

"'Respect for religion' has become a code phrase meaning 'fear of religion'. Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire and, yes, our fearless disrespect."

Spot on I reckon, though one certainly shouldn't "disrespect" those who gather for purely peaceful reasons, religious or otherwise; comfort and community, whether misguided or not, mean a lot to so many millions.

"Respect for religion" is a contradiction in terms. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have ANY respect for the content of any religious belief. We don't respect people who believe in alien abductions, who believe in loch ness monsters, big foot, leprechauns, Poseidon, Zeus, Thor, Scientologists, Mormons etc etc etc.  I'm sick of people who say we should respect their beliefs or who think they should be immune to and protected from offence.

Believe whatever batsh1t crazy stuff you like, but it doesn't leave your head/house, once it does it's open season.

Earlier this week Katie Hopkins twittered stuff about Scots, I couldn't have cared less, it wasn't a legal issue even although the police got involved for some reason even though no laws were broken, and I wasn't offended or even slightly perturbed. Why are people so eager to be offended these days?

Well said Salman Rushdie, someone needed to say that.

[beninho]

People in the world are different. Some people find things offensive and some don't. Some people have respect for people no matter what they believe and some don't. Some people kill others of different political or religious views other just call people names on Internet forums. The world is full of strange people.

[Davie]

I don't see it as Inco condoning it or excusing them

I do think he has a point though that they must have been incredibly brave or stupid.

It's a bit like seeing a car hurtling towards a zebra crossing at 80 mph and stepping out in front of it. Of course you are in the right. It's your right to be on the crossing and the car should stop and let you cross.

Being right doesn't help you when you're dead

Wrong Davie, the proportional response to anything in print is not the murder of 12 people.
You should be able to print whatever you like without a violent response.

What is wrong with these people/religions that they are uber-sensitive?

No super - this time you are either
a) overly sensitive to this issue
b) misreading what I'm saying
c) DELIBERATELY misreading what I'm saying

You say I'm wrong but where did I even mention anything about proportional response?
The act is evil - no doubt about that - all I was saying is that smart people should have recognized that they were putting themselves at risk from a totally disproportionate response. No one is defending the atrocity - but some are naive to the consequences of "free speech". Speech is rarely free.

[super_realist]

Yes and no Davie, although I misread first time I read it.

There is only one group of people who will respond in such a way to a cartoon, and the way to confront that is not to hide away and kowtow to their preposterous oversensitivity. They are not a special case, and their hilarious beliefs do not require any more respect than anything else.

Yes, we can avoid confrontation by somehow fearing them and not mentioning the unmentionable or we can step into the zebra crossing and get run over by the Vauxhall Nova. Sometimes you just have to stand up to them, or c-words like these will continue to stupidly believe that we should treat their fairy tales with deference, and we shouldn't treat it any more respectfully than the satire we treat every other topic with.

[kwinigolfer]

There's a balance, isn't there? Who knows where each set of extremists' tipping point is? Who knows whether that car can stop?

But the US scarcely has any satirical journalism, makes weak jokes but nothing meaningful and certainly nothing that provokes change, which means extremists get away with what the hell they like


Le Monde is saying the gendarmerie have identified the gunmen - good work but now how to find them?

[super_realist]

They're probably in Algeria already.

[pedro]

I have confidence that the French will catch these bastards sooner than later. Their anti-terror units are usually pretty efficient.

What I don't understand is why moderate muslims and in particular muslim religious leaders don't get more air time condemning these kind of things. IMO other muslims have to step up and tell these idiots that they're dishonouring their religion.

[beninho]

Usually Muslim leaders or elders do go on tv or give interviews denouncing the crimes. But people do not want to listen unfortunately. It does seem that the whole Muslim population get tared with the same terrorist brush as the minority who do these acts. A few posts above someone mentions Islam cannot take a joke, that's judging the whole population on the acts of a few.

[navyblueshorts]

Usually Muslim leaders or elders do go on tv or give interviews denouncing the crimes. But people do not want to listen unfortunately. It does seem that the whole Muslim population get tared with the same terrorist brush as the minority who do these acts. A few posts above someone mentions Islam cannot take a joke, that's judging the whole population on the acts of a few.

Generally, it can't. Not everyone goes out on a murder spree as a result of a joke but most muslims I speak to don't like jokes at their Prophet's expense.
What I find hysterical is that plenty of religious people, in general, and many Muslims, in particular, are so weak-minded and pathetic that they think they have to act on behalf of their God, as if their God can't deal with infidels and blasphemers himself . That's the response of someone who knows in their heart that they might be on factually flimsy ground and takes a remark about their God personally. It's pathetic in the extreme and really some sort of offence-by-proxy because deep down they know the joke's on them.
One other issue re. Islam that I have is that many muslims, as a rule, seem to be loyal to Islam itself and not the nation state they reside in. I don't think many of them have a sense of national shared values that's historically typical in many 'Western' countries. Their priority appears to be Islam at the expense of all else.

Education is the way out of this but it's generational, if not longer. Get people to think for themselves and the problem will sort itself out. Trouble is, it's taken hundreds of years since the Enlightenment (something Islam hasn't been through) for generally Christian, western, societies to get to where they are now...could be a long, messy, road.

[super_realist]

Well said Navy,

It's funny how freedom of speech doesn't go both ways for Islam. They absolutely can't take a joke about their religion, but they aren't shy in attacking another equally stupid belief, Judaism.

I'd be happy for a law that ALL religion must remain private. It has NO place in polite society and certainly shouldn't have influence on anything.

Any god that would be offended/insulted by a cartoon, isn't worth worship anyway.

[incontinentia]

Usually Muslim leaders or elders do go on tv or give interviews denouncing the crimes. But people do not want to listen unfortunately. It does seem that the whole Muslim population get tared with the same terrorist brush as the minority who do these acts. A few posts above someone mentions Islam cannot take a joke, that's judging the whole population on the acts of a few.

We could also judge the whole population on the Islamic societies where women are forbidden from driving, or you get your hand chopped off for stealing an apple. Now maybe this is unfair- as we saw from the Arab Spring protests a couple of years ago there is huge discontent in the Arab world. Perhaps the moderates are being ruled by a minority of hardliners who refuse to move with the times.

[super_realist]

Makes Ireland look modern

[McLaren]

Usually Muslim leaders or elders do go on tv or give interviews denouncing the crimes. But people do not want to listen unfortunately. It does seem that the whole Muslim population get tared with the same terrorist brush as the minority who do these acts. A few posts above someone mentions Islam cannot take a joke, that's judging the whole population on the acts of a few.

benhino

If I were tarred with the same brush as supposedly "moderate" Muslims it would be worrying enough.

[super_realist]

Usually Muslim leaders or elders do go on tv or give interviews denouncing the crimes. But people do not want to listen unfortunately. It does seem that the whole Muslim population get tared with the same terrorist brush as the minority who do these acts. A few posts above someone mentions Islam cannot take a joke, that's judging the whole population on the acts of a few.

benhino

If I were tarred with the same brush as supposedly "moderate" Muslims it would be worrying enough.

[incontinentia]

Makes Ireland look modern

That is a good point super, even the Catholic church are modernising (becoming more tolerant of homosexuality and such). The new Pope is down with the kids (in a good way).

[raycastleunited]

perhaps it should be salman_rushdie?

Am I the only one who found this funny?

Kwini - very witty. Early contender for post of the year  

[Roller_Coaster]

perhaps it should be salman_rushdie?

Am I the only one who found this funny?

Kwini - very witty. Early contender for post of the year  

Took me a couple of goes though.

[incontinentia]

perhaps it should be salman_rushdie?

Am I the only one who found this funny?

Kwini - very witty. Early contender for post of the year  

Didn't notice it due to laggard wits, nice one kwini

[super_realist]

I'm better looking.

[navyblueshorts]

Honestly, I despair of humans as a species. Just how stupid are these people? A quote from the Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729) that has influenced Oldham to change their minds re. signing Ched Evans (my emphasis):

"A club director told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was told a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead."

Seriously? Let's get this straight: someone objects to the idea of Ched Evans playing football after being convicted of r@pe and in order to stop it going ahead, threaten to r@pe an Oldham staff member's relative???

[super_realist]

Just goes to show football supporters are scum Navy

[gaelgowfer]

I have confidence that the French will catch these bastards sooner than later. Their anti-terror units are usually pretty efficient.

What I don't understand is why moderate muslims and in particular muslim religious leaders don't get more air time condemning these kind of things. IMO other muslims have to step up and tell these idiots that they're dishonouring their religion.

Pedro, I'm given to understand that "moderate" in the Islamic world does not have the same meaning as "moderate" in the free world.  I believe 'conservative' would be a more accurate interpretation.  Of course, you can put your own interpretation on what constitutes Islamic conservatism but, I rather think it means adherence to the old ways rather than how we would interpret this word.

[kwinigolfer]

Who is McLaren to your Salman, super??!!

PS: Anyone not think that Ched Evans is being made an example of because he's just a run-of-the-mill pro, not a superstar?
Number One the superstar would've got off and gone on to earn his millions.

Number Two: The NFL world is wetting itself with the news that a college quarterback with extraordinary talent is leaving university early to go to the pros. Expected at first coming to be the first pick in this spring's NFL draft and guaranteed millions of dollars even if he never throws a football in competition? This guy has been up for r***, assault, shoplifting, etc, etc and likely to be sued by one of his victims.

[super_realist]

Mac and I share similar views on fairy tale beliefs, so I'm not sure. He's not got the wit of Hitchens though.

[incontinentia]

There seem to be a lot of scumbags in the NFL, doesn't there kwini?

PS- you'll be happy to hear Trump's take on the Paris attacks "if all the journalists had guns they would have had a fighting chance"

[gaelgowfer]

Given the last club turned down Evans because of the risk of losing sponsorship, why then did Oldham not check with their sponsors before approaching Evans?

Before this latest development of a r*** threat, does anyone seriously believe that Oldham would have gone ahead and signed Evans without its sponsors.

With the likely threat of lost sponsorship hanging over the heads of any british football club wanting to sign him, I don't think Evans would even get a job cleaning the toilets!

[navyblueshorts]

Just goes to show football supporters are scum Navy

Where's the evidence they're football supporters? Could have been anyone. One thing they definitely are though is a moron.

...Anyone not think that Ched Evans is being made an example of because he's just a run-of-the-mill pro, not a superstar.
Number One the superstar would've got off and gone on to earn his millions.

Number Two: The NFL world is wetting itself with the news that a college quarterback with extraordinary talent is leaving university early to go to the pros. Expected at first coming to be the first pick in this spring's NFL draft and guaranteed millions of dollars even if he never throws a football in competition? This guy has been up for r***, assault, shoplifting, etc, etc and likely to be sued by one of his victims.

Example or not, this is simply mob justice. Lee Hughes - kills someone through dangerous driving and he had no real problem playing football again. This Evans thing is absurd and seems to be worse because the moron public think that a lack of public remorse, for something he denies having done (surprise that!), is somehow part of the justice system. Sorry, it's not and never has been.
I'm actually hoping the case review suggests a miscarriage of justice has occurred now, if only to see what all the grandstanding politicians and idiot rent-a-quotes have to say then - here's betting they are conspicuous by their silence.

[McLaren]

perhaps it should be salman_rushdie?

Am I the only one who found this funny?

Kwini - very witty. Early contender for post of the year  :OK:

Didn't notice it due to laggard wits, nice one kwini :laughing:

I don't get it?

[super_realist]

Mac, Salman Rushdie> salman_rushdie> s_r > super_realist

[beninho]

I feel that any footballer convicted of a crime, should be allowed to play again, once they have served their sentence. This includes the license section after the custodial sentence. It seems that both extreme sides of the Ched Evans case, have not helped anyone. His supporters, who have outed the victim on twitter and sent her threats, to the opposite side who have seemingly been making threats to anyone that dare employ him. I do not think Ched Evans has helped himself in any way, his borderline illegal website, offering incentives to get information on his victim, to his refusal to apologise, which he has now done. He has been very badly advised it would seem.

But he is free to choose his own occupation, but that does not give him a right to walk back into a professional team. Anyway, 3 years without playing, will he still be any good?

[gaelgowfer]

At the end of the day, it's the sponsors who will decide Evans' fate.

[super_realist]

Any teams sponsored by Farrington's Mellow Yellow?

[McLaren]

benhino

Evans has not served his sentence yet, he has just finished the portion of it that is in jail and he is still on licence. In theory he is still "serving his time".

It seems like you don't need a petition to point out that employing an unrepentant r***ist who refuses to engage with any rehabilitation is a bad idea with respect to your current employees.

[incontinentia]

unrepentant/maintaining his innocence

[GunsGerms]

If I understand correctly Evans was convicted because the girl was deemed too drunk to consent. IMO that is a nonsensical conclusion because said conclusion revolved around the “fact” the girl the next day didn’t remember giving consent and therefore must have been too drunk. How they were able to prove this is beyond me.

That essentially means you cannot have sex with any drunk person at all even if you yourself were drunk and the sex is consensual you cannot reliably conclude that it is actually consensual until the next day even if consent is witnessed. Its a paradox.

If Ched has claimed in court that he couldn’t remember anything would he have been convicted? Furthermore would she have been convicted too?
In my opinion from what I know of the case it sets an alarmingly ridiculous precedent.

[beninho]

Its not just about having sex with a drunk girl though is it. He didnt pull a drunk girl and then have some fun. His mate did, and he was not guilty. So the precedent is that having sex with a drunk girl that has gone back with you is absolutely fine. But having sex with a drunk girl, who has gone back with your mate to a hotel room, which you then blag a key card from the night porter, therefore entering the room by your own accord, then having sex, without ejaculating, and existing through the fire escape of the hotel, leaving drunk girl on her own in a hotel room, and advising the hotel to keep an eye on her as she is a bit wasted. That puts you on slightly dodgy ground.

[GunsGerms]

Its not just about having sex with a drunk girl though is it. He didnt pull a drunk girl and then have some fun. His mate did, and he was not guilty. So the precedent is that having sex with a drunk girl that has gone back with you is absolutely fine. But having sex with a drunk girl, who has gone back with your mate to a hotel room, which you then blag a key card from the night porter, therefore entering the room by your own accord, then having sex, without ejaculating, and existing through the fire escape of the hotel, leaving drunk girl on her own in a hotel room, and advising the hotel to keep an eye on her as she is a bit wasted. That puts you on slightly dodgy ground.

I knew his mate scored her first alright but didnt know the other details. Thats a little bit clearer cut to be fair however, didnt she say she remembered having sex with the other guy but not Ched?

Why advise the hotel to keep an eye on her and then leave by the fire escape? Seems like a really odd move?

[navyblueshorts]

Its not just about having sex with a drunk girl though is it. He didnt pull a drunk girl and then have some fun. His mate did, and he was not guilty. So the precedent is that having sex with a drunk girl that has gone back with you is absolutely fine. But having sex with a drunk girl, who has gone back with your mate to a hotel room, which you then blag a key card from the night porter, therefore entering the room by your own accord, then having sex, without ejaculating, and existing through the fire escape of the hotel, leaving drunk girl on her own in a hotel room, and advising the hotel to keep an eye on her as she is a bit wasted. That puts you on slightly dodgy ground.

Thought Evans booked the room? Normal that he might expect to get a key when he asked.
What's ejaculation, or lack thereof, got to do with anything? His mate didn't either, apparently.
MacDonald is deemed to have had consent from the same drunk woman but Evans didn't? Come on. There's no way that could be determined. Either they were both guilty or neither was.

Dodgy ground morally, maybe. Legally? I can't see how there can be anything except reasonable doubt. Whatever you think of their behaviour (and it's pretty obvious it's not unusual for many of the general population as well), criminal it isn't. The woman didn't even make a complaint, there was no forensic evidence etc etc. The CPS effectively made a decision, in the absence of any confirmatory witness statement or physical evidence, to charge them both. Nonsense.

I knew his mate scored her first alright but didnt know the other details. Thats a little bit clearer cut to be fair.

Why advise the hotel to keep an eye on her and then leave by the fire escape? Seems like a really odd move?

Not necessarily and certainly not the basis for a conviction. He's a footballer for one thing and had a girlfriend at the time for another. Maybe he got cold feet and decided to leave? Guilty! Obvious innit?

[beninho]

No forensic evidence as neither of them ejaculated, maybe?
Macdonalds consent stands, because not only did she go back with him to his hotel room, she got in a taxi and made the journey. There is enough reason to believe she knew what she was getting involved in, drunk or not. So he was not guilty. Ched getting involved is a completely different scenario. So it cannot be looked at in the same way, as they are not the same incident.

You may not think it is anything wrong legally, but clearly it is, as he was convicted by a unanimous (sp) decision, and was advised that he could not appeal the decision by other judges.

There may be enough for some people to doubt, but also enough for some people to have no doubt.

Its not black and white clearly. But people with a lot more knowledge and experience then me can see why the decision stood.

[GunsGerms]

Why was his friend deemed not guilty when he was clearly complicit in Ched's actions?

[beninho]

My guess would be there is no evidence to suggest he was complicit in cheds involvement.

[navyblueshorts]

Don't know the legal niceties but I can't see that her accompanying Macdonald back etc etc is implicit consent sufficient to be not guilty. I presume a woman can say "No" at any point - she may have changed her mind at the bedroom door or even later than that.
Concede the point about those more expert than we are etc.

Anyway, I guess it'll all come out in the end as these things have a way of doing.

At the end of the day, the way people are behaving re. his re-employment as a footballer is moronic mob justice and pretty awful IMO.

[McLaren]

We are ignoring the possibility that it is true to say consent cannot be given if you are sufficiently drunk.

It is quite possible that under the influence of alcohol the human brain cannot function in a manner capable of giving proper consent.

[JAS]

I'd tend to agree that the rampant self righteous mob justice is unsavoury, so he shouldn't be allowed to partake in his profession ever again? Anyone who tries to employ him will be pilloried until they back down. Will the same mob justice follow him into an alternative profession? Then what? He'll end up unemployable and the state (we) will have to support him...good work mob!!

Having said that if indeed he is definitely guilty (like the rest of you I wasn't there so I guess we'll never know for sure) then personally the real point here I believe and it's probably why womens groups are up in arms over his freedom, is that r*** sentences are grossly inadequate. Hypothesising that he is definitely guilty the guy shouldn't have got out of jail until an age where his career would have been well and truly over anyway. The fact now however is that a jury, rightly or wrongly convicted him and the judge sentenced him to a term which he has now served. It would be great to rewrite the sentencing guidelines for r*** and up them significantly but for all intents and purposes this case is now done in terms of the justice system.

[Sponsored content]