Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by McLaren Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:42 am

First topic message reminder :

Super

For starters I live in a one bedroom flat. But I think you know that it should not take the people of a nation putting refugees up in their house before the government is required to do anything about it.

For example the government could easily rent 50 premier inns and put the refugees there until they can be given homes.

"Of course it matters. They have a far greater responsibility than the UK does"

So you are saying that because those countries closer to Syria have neglected their responsibilities the UK has the right to do nothing? You are saying that one country doing nothing is sufficient for another country to justify doing nothing?

bob

WTF was that?

by McLaren Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:44 am

Super

If that is how you view the situation then this conversation has come to an impasse.

You seem to be ok with the fact that for some populations an opportunity exists for very few people and for other populations that same opportunity is available to many more.

Of course there is the odd kid from a rough background who makes it but for me that isn't enough, many more should be given the chance to make it.

Our analysis seems to be so different that it really is pointless to continue this discussion. In simple terms I would like the probability of a child's success in life to be independent of family wealth. For many reasons this is impossible but we should strive to come as close to this situation as possible.

by super_realist Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:24 pm

Mac, that wasn't my point. You blame the current politicians for the status quo, but say nothing of the lack of "ordinary people" trying to enter politics to "make reform". Why not? That's seems to be the whole raison d'etre of the "poor". Blame someone else.

Please tell me exactly what it is that stops someone from a rough background the chance to make it? And what would your solution be, and how that has anything to do with people lucky (or hard working enough) to be considered wealthy?

Life isn't equal Mac, and I'm not sure how you can possibly expect it to be.

by MontysMerkin Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:38 am

Well it certainly shows who the lickspittles are now. Do you tug your forelock to the gents as they pass supes? Maybe pleasure the more important ones? Your arguments are the sort of thing that most people with any intelligence grow out of by 16.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:49 am

MontysMerkin wrote:Well it certainly shows who the lickspittles are now. Do you tug your forelock to the gents as they pass supes? Maybe pleasure the more important ones? Your arguments are the sort of thing that most people with any intelligence grow out of by 16.

Well, at least he's making some sort of argument instead of simply making snide remarks. Care to contribute?

by MontysMerkin Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:16 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:Well it certainly shows who the lickspittles are now. Do you tug your forelock to the gents as they pass supes? Maybe pleasure the more important ones? Your arguments are the sort of thing that most people with any intelligence grow out of by 16.
Well, at least he's making some sort of argument instead of simply making snide remarks. Care to contribute?

Hardly an argument. How anyone who legally pays their taxes can think that what the 'elite' are doing with aggressive tax avoidance is any way right (forgetting the legality of it) shows either a lack of forethought or a love of rich mans cream. I think maybe the latter in this case?

by McLaren Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:11 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:Well it certainly shows who the lickspittles are now. Do you tug your forelock to the gents as they pass supes? Maybe pleasure the more important ones? Your arguments are the sort of thing that most people with any intelligence grow out of by 16.
Well, at least he's making some sort of argument instead of simply making snide remarks. Care to contribute?

Pot, kettle?

Would you care to contribute?

by raycastleunited Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:15 am

McLaren wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:Well it certainly shows who the lickspittles are now. Do you tug your forelock to the gents as they pass supes? Maybe pleasure the more important ones? Your arguments are the sort of thing that most people with any intelligence grow out of by 16.
Well, at least he's making some sort of argument instead of simply making snide remarks. Care to contribute?

Pot, kettle?

Would you care to contribute?

Oh dear Mac, you clearly don't understand the phrase you have used.

And before you mention it, no I am not going to contribute or make snide remarks either.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:14 pm

McLaren wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:Well it certainly shows who the lickspittles are now. Do you tug your forelock to the gents as they pass supes? Maybe pleasure the more important ones? Your arguments are the sort of thing that most people with any intelligence grow out of by 16.
Well, at least he's making some sort of argument instead of simply making snide remarks. Care to contribute?

Pot, kettle?

Would you care to contribute?

Not sure I wish to Mac. Just pointing it out. Monty's clearly much better than someone who simply throws insults around. :shrug:

by MontysMerkin Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:40 pm

Just highlighting the double standard of sycophancy displayed, nothing more. To swoon over those who roger a whole society as oppose to a few waitresses defies explanation.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:04 pm

Not that I had any intention to, but remind me not to visit Idaho... Horrible stuff

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

by kwinigolfer Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:09 pm

Tip of the iceberg, Chelsea. Idaho is probably the most right-wing of the 50 States, plenty of faux religious nutters, white supremacists, you name it. Keep away from the people and parts are scenically gorgeous.

by raycastleunited Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:18 pm

MontysMerkin wrote:Just highlighting the double standard of sycophancy displayed, nothing more. To swoon over those who roger a whole society as oppose to a few waitresses defies explanation.

I like the way you've added in the golf twist monty. Nicely done

by McLaren Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:52 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36073383

Injunction set to be lifted. I bet the whole country can't wait to find out the crucial news that someone had sex with someone. Would our civilization have survived without this knowledge?

Edit (NBS): I removed the reference to the name Mac. I agree with you on its importance but let's play it safe eh?

by beninho Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:16 pm

Since when has it been in the public interest to print a story about celebrities getting frisky with others. I do feel for the "celebrity" in this case.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:46 pm

beninho wrote:Since when has it been in the public interest to print a story about celebrities getting frisky with others. I do feel for the "celebrity" in this case.

Tend to agree with you Ben. Don't know the 'story' though - is there something public interest? No idea.

Clearly, this is demonstrating why they (the 'Press') don't need to abide by the recommendations of Levenson and that they're to be completely trusted picard

.

by McLaren Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:11 pm

I don't really like the idea of the injunctions, which are only available to those of wealth, but the press pretending they care about this in freedom of press terms is a joke. They just can't bear the idea that some tabloid gossip wasn't available to them. Weird that the minister in charge of regulating them didn't even need to bother with an injunction.

Sorry for inserting the name Navy, I figured it was common knowledge after a Scottish paper published the story a week or so back. Either way the fact the story has been published everywhere but England shows the stupidity of injunctions.

by JAS Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:49 am

Cautionary tale for you all...if you're feeling unwell and a bit 'chesty' get to your doctor and get it checked out. There's been a particularly nasty bug going round this winter, my daughter caught it over a month ago and tried to just shrug it off. It developed into pneumonia then pleurisy and ultimately leading to a 5 hour operation on her lungs yesterday. So, if you feel unwell, take it easy get to your doc and get it checked out, don't ignore it.

by Roller_Coaster Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:04 am

Hope she's come through OK JAS.

by JAS Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:31 am

Roller_Coaster wrote:Hope she's come through OK JAS.

Cheers Roller, Early days yet but she's in the best place, after 3 weeks in a local hospital she was transferred up to the Royal Brompton in London at the weekend. Have to say I was quite taken aback at the different level of care.

by beninho Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:08 pm

Hope little girl JAS is ok. I had a mate who went to hospital due to having headaches, and was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Sometimes minor things are really not that minor!

by kwinigolfer Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:50 pm

Best wishes JAS, sounds as if she's in good hands, medically and parentally.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:27 pm

Interesting video from Mark Crossfield on blades vs. GI irons. Wasn't it Trevino who said "It's the Indian, not the arrow"?

Spoiler:

by McLaren Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:36 pm

Interesting, a small sample size but it wouldn't be a surprise if club manufacturer claims of better consistency from off centre hits with game improvement irons was Love sacks.

I have always though most gains from club changes are placebo. If you think the club will help that is probably half the battle.

by puligny Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:38 pm

Good luck all round JAS - keep smiling.

by JAS Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:29 am

puligny wrote:Good luck all round JAS - keep smiling.

Fairly astonished at the way things went yesterday Puligny, having spent around 5 and a half hours in theatre coming out just before 9pm Monday, (they had to take a rib away to get at the huge amount of solidifying pleural effusion) they had her up walking before noon and she had 3 separate sessions on an exercise bike yesterday afternoon/evening and walked from the high dependency unit to the normal ward as her bed was being transferred. Crikey she'll be fitter than me by the time she gets out :-p

by MontysMerkin Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:04 am

Great news JAS, hope for a full recovery.

by 1GrumpyGolfer Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:12 pm

Great news JAS. I hope the rest of the recovery goes smoothly and quickly back to full health.

by GunsGerms Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:45 am

Ched Evans' conviction now overturned. Fair enough I reckon. I wonder will Jessica Ennis be so vocal in apologising to him as she was in branding him a r***ist?

by Davie Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:22 am

He's won an appeal and faces a retrial. I suppose that puts him back into the state of "innocent until proven guilty" but still doesn't mean he's off scot free

by Mad for Chelsea Thu Apr 21, 2016 11:25 am

Davie wrote:He's won an appeal and faces a retrial. I suppose that puts him back into the state of "innocent until proven guilty" but still doesn't mean he's off scot free

yep, it seems there was "new evidence" presented at the appeal which, far whatever reason, wasn't available at the original trial, and in light of that the appeal court has decided that he should be retried. Seems sensible on the face of it, and as Davie says puts him back in the "innocent until proven guilty" state, but doesn't mean the appeal court found him "not guilty".

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:17 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Ched Evans' conviction now overturned. Fair enough I reckon. I wonder will Jessica Ennis be so vocal in apologising to him as she was in branding him a r***ist?

Quite. I know he's not 'innocent' yet, but I can't help laughing (I know; it's inappropriate for such a serious charge) at all those band wagon-jumping, knee-jerk winkers who prevented him taking up his profession again. Even after he'd done what's increasingly looking like unfair time at Her Majesty's pleasure.

I hope Ennis and the PC politicians are at least feeling a little embarrassed. Doubt it though.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:20 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:...doesn't mean the appeal court found him "not guilty".

They can't. Can they?

by Davie Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:29 pm

No they can't but he is still "charged" ... so yes, innocent until proven and all that, but can't exactly say the cloud has gone from over his head yet.

Maybe the new evidence will clear him; maybe it will just make the case impossible to prove and will be dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence. Still far to early to say he's done "unfair" time though

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:40 pm

Davie wrote:No they can't but he is still "charged" ... so yes, innocent until proven and all that, but can't exactly say the cloud has gone from over his head yet.

Maybe the new evidence will clear him; maybe it will just make the case impossible to prove and will be dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence. Still far to early to say he's done "unfair" time though

Agreed. It has to go through due process, but I'll be gobsmacked if the new trial comes back with a 'guilty' verdict. We'll see. What I do expect though, is if 'innocent', all those bumholes apologise for some of the utterly ridiculous statements that they made. As I said though, somehow I doubt it.

by McLaren Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:49 pm

Navy

If you keep on going with the line of reasoning which says you can't comment one way or another on convicted criminals because they may one day be exonerated where does it get you?

At the Time Jess Enis made those comments Evans had been found guilty by our legal system. Are you suggesting that for this case, or any other, we shouldn't make comments that assume the person has actually committed the crime?

At what stage would you consider it acceptable to act as if the person is guilty of the crime?

As an aside, can we all accept that whatever the legal outcome is in this case that it is completely immoral to get someone drunk to the point of passing out, apply pressure as a group on said drunk individual, and then proceed to have sex with them without knowing whether or not they are conscious?

Some people like to pretend there is a grey area around consent but event the most ardent MRA surely accepts this was appalling behavior?

by Davie Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:50 pm

Were the statements really ridiculous, given that at that time at least he WAS "guilty". Are people not allowed now to speak out against "guilty" criminals?

And remember, there is a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". A court cannot find someone "innocent"; all they can pronounce verdict on is whether the evidence has proven guilt or not.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:05 pm

McLaren wrote:Navy

If you keep on going with the line of reasoning which says you can't comment one way or another on convicted criminals because they may one day be exonerated where does it get you?

At the Time Jess Enis made those comments Evans had been found guilty by our legal system. Are you suggesting that for this case, or any other, we shouldn't make comments that assume the person has actually committed the crime?

At what stage would you consider it acceptable to act as if the person is guilty of the crime?

As an aside, can we all accept that whatever the legal outcome is in this case that it is completely immoral to get someone drunk to the point of passing out, apply pressure as a group on said drunk individual, and then proceed to have sex with them without knowing whether or not they are conscious?

Some people like to pretend there is a grey area around consent but event the most ardent MRA surely accepts this was appalling behavior?

Re. your first comment. He'd done his time. By definition. And he wasn't asking for a job working with women or minors. Most of the comments and mob-rule mentality were beyond the pale. His sentence didn't include all that crap. Even Lee Hughes, who actually killed someone in a car crash as I recall, wasn't subject to that sort of BS and was allowed to continue his career, albeit at a lower level, having served the agreed time.

Your last point is irrelevant. Entirely. And biased. Who said he GOT her drunk? She WAS drunk - I've not heard anyone prove Evans GOT her drunk. What group applied pressure? His mates apparently didn't know where he was until he told them. Who said he didn't know if she was conscious or not? Read the trial transcript have we? Didn't think so. Stop making things up to fit your ideals.

TBH, I think they'll find it extremely difficult to find a jury that can be relied upon (especially if you're representative) to judge things on the facts alone and who are pretty much unaware of what's gone before.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:07 pm

Davie wrote:Were the statements really ridiculous, given that at that time at least he WAS "guilty". Are people not allowed now to speak out against "guilty" criminals?

And remember, there is a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". A court cannot find someone "innocent"; all they can pronounce verdict on is whether the evidence has proven guilt or not.

It wasn't the statements themselves (although weren't they all so bloody self-righteous?), it was the crap about the fact that he shouldn't be allowed to take up his profession again, as if that was somehow part of the sentence. Bollox. I don't know what was worse really, the pressure applied to any football club that dared to even allow him to train, or the yellow clubs for caving into it. Pathetic.

by GunsGerms Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:25 pm

Some people when they hear the R word scream fire and brimstone and fail to acknowledge the fairly blurry and vague line between a minor offense r***ist and someone who is not a r***ist and the huge difference between the former and serious aggravated and physical sexual abuse.

Evans is a creep but doesn't deserve to have his career and his life taken from him. I'm pretty sure when Jessica Ennis branded Evans a r***ist she was in her head lumping him in the same category as any and every heinous predator out there.

by McLaren Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Navy

He had completed the imprisonment portion of his sentence. I assume there were still non-custodial elements of the sentence still to be served?

Guns

WTF? There is no gradation of r***. r*** is r***.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:41 am

McLaren wrote:Navy

He had completed the imprisonment portion of his sentence. I assume there were still non-custodial elements of the sentence still to be served?

Guns

WTF? There is no gradation of r***. r*** is r***.

You assume, but you don't know do you? For a 'scientist', you're pretty gung-ho with your 'evidence'.

by beninho Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:45 am

He had a 5 years sentence, and served 2 and half in prison, and the remainder on licence. He was still serving his sentence, just not in prison.

I see no issues with the comments that were made when he was released from prison, he was a convicted r***ist based on the available information, and was tried in a court of law. It seems that new evidence has come to light, which needs to be examined as part of another trial. He may still be found guilty, he may not. Its a messy situation.

And of course there are different types of rapists, Ched Evans cant be in the same league as someone who grabs someone off the streets and rapes them at knife point, or someone who continually beats and rapes his wife. Thats why they have sliding jail terms and sentences.

Same with all crimes.

by McLaren Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:55 am

Navy, how can I have been loose with evidence if I didn't use any? And secondly is it really all that much of an assumption to propose that his sentence is similar to almost every other sentence handed out?

As Ben points out he was on license and would also have been on the sex offenders register.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:05 am

McLaren wrote:Navy, how can I have been loose with evidence if I didn't use any? And secondly is it really all that much of an assumption to propose that his sentence is similar to almost every other sentence handed out?

As Ben points out he was on license and would also have been on the sex offenders register.

Your Honour, I rest my case.

by McLaren Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:13 am

Navy

Putting the petty squabbles aside, do you agree that when released Evan's had not completed his sentence?

by Davie Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:19 am

Navy gunning for Mac as usual but hasn't really answered questions I and others put to him ... when Ennis and others made comments about Evans, he WAS convicted. Why shouldn't people make comments about convicted rapists?

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Apr 22, 2016 12:47 pm

McLaren wrote:Navy

Putting the petty squabbles aside, do you agree that when released Evan's had not completed his sentence?

:sigh: Yes Mac, if it helps. However, did it say in whatever terms constituted his license that he wasn't allowed to play football to make a living?

by McLaren Fri Apr 22, 2016 12:57 pm

Navy, is saying "did it say in whatever terms constituted his license that he wasn't allowed to play football to make a living?" also meant to cover the questions Davie asked you?

But that isn't usually how access is blocked to certain careers for those who have committed some crimes. It is usually the employer or professional body who bar entry or membership if an applicant has been convicted of certain crimes.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:09 pm

Davie wrote:Navy gunning for Mac as usual but hasn't really answered questions I and others put to him ... when Ennis and others made comments about Evans, he WAS convicted. Why shouldn't people make comments about convicted rapists?

Mac can take it. Hey Mac? Let's say he served his license with no issues and there wasn't an appeal. You and everyone else would be fine with him then returning to a pro football career? My arse you'd be. You'd still be demanding that he be further punished and putting pressure on any institution that allowed him to return to his former career.

Sure Davie, they are entitled to make comments all they like - more fool the idiots who did so. I don't really care about whether he was convicted or not. As far as I'm aware, his sentence didn't say anything about him not being able to return to some sort of normality after release and I'm not aware of anything, anywhere, saying he couldn't play football to earn a living. Despite this, Ennis et al jump up and down demanding that he shouldn't play football. How dare he return to a well paid job? Jealous per chance?
Yes, he is a convicted r@pist but in case it had escaped notice, there was an appeal in process, which should have given all those rent-a-quote idiots pause for thought before churning out all their vigilante sentiments.

by Davie Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:15 pm

I think I can say with some certainty that Jess Ennis has nothing to be jealous of when it comes to Evans. What a ridiculous supposition

by Sponsored content