Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[navyblueshorts]

First topic message reminder :

Actually Davie, they didn't fit yours (apologies; 'idiocy' is a bit strong). Your earlier comments were all about how he'd actually done something terrible/illegal i.e. told them how to get around 3rd party ownership (he didn't) with the possible implication that he'd been knowingly involved in it (no evidence of this), took £400k for dodgy seminars (he didn't and he said he'd have to clear it with the FA) etc. You wanted him to be a crook from the off.
You also claimed Ben and I said he was 'innocent' - we said no such thing.

You never took S_R's approach re. his position being untenable because he was England manager, the one thing he probably falls foul of. His comments re. Hodgson/Nevile were unfortunate, but this was a private conversation and, actually, big deal. Seriously, the next poor schmuck who takes this on should treat the media as they deserve.

There may well be more to this - we'll see. Until then, the only thing he's 'guilty' of is putting himself in a stupid position cf. the FA's comments re. FIFA etc and forcing the FA to ask him to fall on his sword. S_R's right with this; the FA had little choice really.

[McLaren]

Navy

Have you seen what UK dealt weapons have done to Yemen?

[MontysMerkin]

Head in the sand Navy?

[super_realist]

Hold on Team Corbyn is here

[MontysMerkin]

Hold on Team Corbyn is here

Captain Corbyn to you, squirt.

[navyblueshorts]

Head in the sand Navy?

Not that I've noticed. Where's yours these days?

[raycastleunited]

What's up with you Navy? Your contributions are coming across as pretty hostile at the moment.

Locking the brexit thread makes you look like you've taken your ball home because you were losing (even if that wasn't why you closed it).

[SmithersJones]

What's up with you Navy? Your contributions are coming across as pretty hostile at the moment.

Locking the brexit thread makes you look like you've taken your ball home because you were losing (even if that wasn't why you closed it).

Navy, u ok hun?

[super_realist]

He's having a woman's period

[MontysMerkin]

Seems pretty normal to me.

[navyblueshorts]

What's up with you Navy? Your contributions are coming across as pretty hostile at the moment.

Locking the brexit thread makes you look like you've taken your ball home because you were losing (even if that wasn't why you closed it).

Certainly don't feel any more hostile than usual, but happy to take a backseat. What's the locked 'Brexit' thread got to do with it? The thread was way off topic, I suggested the conversation moved to the 'Anything goes' one. Your response of 'Who cares?' wasn't that constructive, most people didn't think the 'Brexit' topic was more than a WUM, we were way off topic and I am meant to moderate on occasion. Not sure I was 'losing' anything at the time either .

He's having a woman's period

As opposed to a man's?? Wait for it, Mac'll chime in on this one...
Mind you, I did hit 50 this year. Maybe I'm having a mid-life crisis?  

Seems pretty normal to me.

See Ray? I've not changed a bit....

[super_realist]

[quote="navyblueshorts"]

He's having a woman's period

As opposed to a man's?? Wait for it, Mac'll chime in on this one...
Mind you, I did hit 50 this year. Maybe I'm having a mid-life crisis?  
[quote]

It's from Red Dwarf Navy.

[Mad for Chelsea]

Wasn't there a study that suggested that men also had periods, in the sense they experience periodic mood swings due to hormonal balance, though they tend to be less pronounced than women's?

[Shotrock]

Pretty sure I experience Manopause the other morning. That, or a bit of a hangover!

[navyblueshorts]

He's having a woman's period

As opposed to a man's?? Wait for it, Mac'll chime in on this one...
Mind you, I did hit 50 this year. Maybe I'm having a mid-life crisis?  

It's from Red Dwarf Navy.

OK. I missed the reference there I'm afraid.

Time to run. Clearly I need some ...

[McLaren]

A lot of talk that this is the end for The Donald, but if you are still supporting him at this stage how is hearing again that he is a misogynist and molester going to change your mind?

[Shotrock]

From everything I read/hear, Mac, it would have taken a calamitous turn of events for Trump to win the electoral college, even before this latest revelation. (Nutty system -- remember Gore won the popular vote against Bush a few years back).

It's a big country and there are still people who (1) have not decided and (2) can never be bothered to vote. So, tap into both those groups and the tide could turn. Trump victory? I would be shocked and (personally) saddened. But that's just me.

[pedro]

but if you are still supporting him at this stage how is hearing again that he is a misogynist and molester going to change your mind?

Is it Bill Clinton we're talking about?

[navyblueshorts]

but if you are still supporting him at this stage how is hearing again that he is a misogynist and molester going to change your mind?

Is it Bill Clinton we're talking about?

No. Am I missing something? Bill having affairs doesn't make him either a molester or a misogynist. Does it? I'm not sure that there's enough to suggest Trump is a molester either, even though I think his language consistently suggests he's misogynistic.

[McLaren]

navy

You really are off form at the moment. Yes you are missing something, go back and read the thread. Hint, it isn't about Bill and Pedro was making a joke.

[navyblueshorts]

Whatever...

[kwinigolfer]

Mac,
Drumpf is only reinforcing his base, albeit unintentionally.
He hates to lose so if he sees the W slipping away, expect him to be absolutely merciless on the Clintons, and/or anyone else who steps in his path. Public opinion, or even election results, be damned.

[McLaren]

Kwini

Even if Trump looses this do you worry that a slightly more polished candidate with essentially the same extreme right policies as him will win in 2020?

Has Trump been a beta version of a new extreme right GOP? Now that he has tested the waters they just need to find someone a little more christian and less gropy to run.

[kwinigolfer]

Always a danger Mac, But let's get through the next 30 days first.

[pedro]

The more you demonize the person and failing to address the issues, the stronger that person and his views will come out in the end. We see that in Europe where demonizing far right leaders and failing to address their views only has lead to their continuous success. This way of going forward you may down Trump the man but not his views.
(And I'm not talking about views on women, but immigration which is the real issue here.)

[kwinigolfer]

Probably not quite as simple as that in Drumpf's case, pedro.
He has a maniacal streak that compels him to win whatever he tries and that's what drives him, not facts or philosophies. He might have finally met his Waterloo, not Clinton but in the court of public opinion, but way too early to count him out. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

[McLaren]

Pedro, that was pretty much my point.  Trump may get downed but his/the far rights policies have not been.  Find a shiny toothed, Christian, wholesome family guy with the same agenda and he probably trounces Hillary.

Kwini

It sadly is too early to count him out. As I said earlier at this stage will another sexist remark really sway those in favour of him at this point. We can only hope his own party condemning him finally makes it sink in for some people.

[super_realist]

Says how stupid American politics is that you can be one day away from running a country without even the slightest experience of politics.

Trump is an idiot, but he's no more of an idiot than a party which would allow him to become their only candidate.

[McLaren]

Super

Voting Trump would be about as stupid as voting for #Brexit.

[pedro]

Trump could still have run as independent if the party didn't want him. Don't think it would've hurt his chances as that would have kept a lot of republicans from voting Hillary.

[pedro]

Probably not quite as simple as that in Drumpf's case, pedro.
He has a maniacal streak that compels him to win whatever he tries and that's what drives him, not facts or philosophies. He might have finally met his Waterloo, not Clinton but in the court of public opinion, but way too early to count him out. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

Well in this case he only wins if people vote for him, not if he gropes them or takes them furniture shopping. And people vote for him either because they like his person or they like his views / politics. I can't see anyone being truly surprised he's a womanizer. And I really don't think those who considered voting for him in the first place give a sh!t about the new 'revelations'. The legohaired top Republicans who withdrew their endorsement do it to save their own @rse.

[raycastleunited]

What's up with you Navy? Your contributions are coming across as pretty hostile at the moment.

Locking the brexit thread makes you look like you've taken your ball home because you were losing (even if that wasn't why you closed it).

Navy, u ok hun?

Haha Smithers, classic! As posted on facebook every day

[I'm never wrong]

Ched Evans has been found not guilty after a second trial.
In my simple mind, there must have been a reason for the new trial, e.g. some new evidence, or some procedural error. Just curious as to what that was.......and whether that was the determining factor in the not guilty result.

[GunsGerms]

Ched Evans has been found not guilty after a second trial.
In my simple mind, there must have been a reason for the new trial, e.g. some new evidence, or some procedural error. Just curious as to what that was.......and whether that was the determining factor in the not guilty result.

In my opinion it was joke he was convicted in the first place. Based on the evidence given at the trial and in the media there is little doubt he is a dirt bag but alarmingly little evidence that he is a r***ist.

All I can say is that I hope that Jessica Ennis publicly apologises to Ched Evans given how vociferous she was in branding him a r***ist and calling for him to be excluded from having a career. She definitely wont though.

[navyblueshorts]

Ched Evans has been found not guilty after a second trial.
In my simple mind, there must have been a reason for the new trial, e.g. some new evidence, or some procedural error. Just curious as to what that was.......and whether that was the determining factor in the not guilty result.

In my opinion it was joke he was convicted in the first place. Based on the evidence given at the trial and in the media there is little doubt he is a dirt bag but alarmingly little evidence that he is a r***ist.

All I can say is that I hope that Jessica Ennis publicly apologises to Ched Evans given how vociferous she was in branding him a r***ist and calling for him to be excluded from having a career. She definitely wont though.

^^^^^^ This. 100%. Not just Ennis though. All the other idiots, including politicians etc, should be heartily ashamed of their behaviour and comments. I don't suppose a single one of them will publicly apologise in the same way as they called for him to be trashed in public.

Re. the new evidence etc, it didn't sound like it took the majority women jury very long to decide on a not guilty verdict.

[McLaren]

I guess just because our legal system doesn't cover getting someone plastered and using your fame and influence to have sex with them while they are semi conscious we should be ok with his behavior?

He still comitted what most of us would consider a very immoral act.

[I'm never wrong]

There is some indication of what the new evidence was on the BBC website. CLICK HERE . Look at the bit where it says "Analysis".

[McLaren]

INW

I don't understand what her past sexual history has to do with whether or not she was in a position to consent at the point Ched entered the room?

[Davie]

He still comitted what most of us would consider a very immoral act.

From what I have read - and I admit that we only know what is being reported - but so did she

Immorality isn't a criminal offence (yet)

[McLaren]

Davie

If you hood winked your way into a hotel room and your mate was "having sex" with a girl who looked passed out or totally out of it would you jump on? No, of course not. Illegal or not it was despicable behavior.

[I'm never wrong]

INW

I don't understand what her past sexual history has to do with whether or not she was in a position to consent at the point Ched entered the room?

If I'm reading this correct, she had engaged in very similar behaviour before and after the Ched Evans event. It was so similar that the court should hear it. It implies to me, that as she had done it before, and done it after, the jury believed she must have consented. So there is a pattern of behaviour? Would she repeat the circumstances that led up to the Ched Evans event if she did not consent? I think this is possibly a slippery slope, as I think each event should be treated on its own merits. Does that make sense?

[McLaren]

INW

If someone shows a certain pattern of behavior which implies consent, do they loose the right to withdraw consent at some point?

[I'm never wrong]

My view is no. A person can always change their mind. But remember, the introduction of this evidence was exceptional. Quote from the BBC But there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial. The Court of Appeal said Mr Evans's case was one of those very rare exceptions.

[beninho]

This is very interesting regarding the ched evans case. https://thesecretbarrister.com/

I would also say anyone jumping on the jess ennis should applogise bandwagon, should read what she said at the time. Her points are still valid, anyone that disagrees with what she said even after the latest case would surprise me. It was about being a role model, he still isnt a role model though he isnt a convicted r***ist either.

[super_realist]

No sportspeople are "role" models. I wish people would stop banging on about this.

They are no more "role" models than any of us are. Being in the public eye doesn't mean you have to be someone with morals that have to be in line with parenting.

Evans can do what he likes within the law, and even if people don't like what he did, so what. He has no requirement to meet any level of perceived morality.

Being a decent person is something which should come naturally, but if someone lives their life in a different fashion, so what. He's not there to provide a barometer of "morality" for peoples kids.

[I'm never wrong]

Super, whilst agreeing with you that it should be the persons actions rather than their job that defines a role model, how do you reconcile not having a barometer of morality when they are put forward as the clubs representatives at community engagement projects, quite often aimed at children? Even without breaking the law, if I engaged in any action that brought my job into disrepute - in or out of work - I would be subject to internal discipline.

[super_realist]

Who says they have to be put forward for that? Who says it's in his contract he has to do that? Plenty of footballers or sportsman don't have any engagement with the community and nor should they feel they have to.

Evans, as "unsavoury" as his sex life might well appear to be to some, is no ones business but his, just as everyone else's is private. It's not in the job description that he has to behave in a way which everyone else agrees on. The club might stipulate that he has to behave discreetly or sensibly and out of the press and within the law, but I don't care what he gets up to in his private life as long as no one gets hurt.

You don't need "role models" to be decent people. The things you learn in life and which are most useful are never going to come from a footballer anyway.

There's plenty of absolute morons in the world like Russell Brand who would be terrible role models to people, but it seems that unless you are a "footballer" then it doesn't matter in a way which people deem role model worthy. Why are footballers considered a role model, yet musicians, actors, artists etc aren't?

Many of them are always out drinking, drug taking and rogerising, but no one puts on fake outrage that they are not behaving in a way which befits a role model. Just as many people look up to those sort of people, yet no fake outrage.
It's a ridiculous expectation.

[beninho]

Whatever you, me or anyone else thinks on the role model argument is pointless. Footballers are automatically role models to thousands or millions of people. They get their name chanted by thousands at matches, and are often used in advertising aimed at kids. I think they are different to other high profile people such as comics, musicians or actors. As there is a difference between liking a person and supporting a football team.

Am I bothered who my team sign, not really but would I wont my son to be cheering on players like ex convicts ( Luke Mccormick) or even Ched Evans, then probably not.

[pedro]

A multimillion sportsman scraping at a Premier Inn should result in a conviction itself.

[JAS]

Davie

 Illegal or not it was despicable behavior.

Illegal = probable conviction

Despicable behaviour = No conviction unless the behaviour is illegal

It's quite a simple equation really.

If as a society we decided to convict on despicable behaviour who's moral compass would be the baseline??

[MontysMerkin]

He's a footballer for gods sake. Premier inn is the height of sophistication!

[Sponsored content]