Ched Evans

[williemillersmoustache]

Er, he can get a job as some no mark like the rest of us.

Bingo, there it is. Out and out rabid jealousy.

You're whole frothing, pitiful little rage on here is that you have a massive chip on your shoulder. Christ knows what it is but it's f**k all to do with ched evans and it's clearly eating you up inside. Get some help.

[~~~]

Bingo, there it is. Out and out rabid jealousy.

You're whole frothing, pitiful little rage on here is that you have a massive chip on your shoulder. Christ knows what it is but it's f**k all to do with ched evans and it's clearly eating you up inside. Get some help.

So because someone doesn't think it's appropriate that a convicted rapist should be welcome back into the entertainment industry, an industry that these people are looked upon righty or wrongly as role models to children is in reality someone with a "massive chip on the shoulder"

Aye, very good.

[nsr]

Top/mid level footballers are the last people I'd tell my children to look to for role models.

[throbber]

Er, he can get a job as some no mark like the rest of us. Nobody is objecting him to having some job on a construction site.

He isn't entitled to the privilege, yes privilege, of people paying to see him in the entertainment industry.

IYO

[williemillersmoustache]

So because someone doesn't think it's appropriate that a convicted rapist should be welcome back into the entertainment industry, an industry that these people are looked upon righty or wrongly as role models to children is in reality someone with a "massive chip on the shoulder"

Aye, very good.

No it's because he clearly has self-esteem issues. And rather than listening to sensible discussion he's lashing out at the cruel, cruel world which doesn't love ched evans particularly, but does just a little bit more than it loves him.

[throbber]

So because someone doesn't think it's appropriate that a convicted rapist should be welcome back into the entertainment industry, an industry that these people are looked upon righty or wrongly as role models to children is in reality someone with a "massive chip on the shoulder"

Aye, very good.

Lashing out the way he has with complete intolerance to everyone else's view and calling everyone who doesn't agree with him a rape apologist and his general attitude illustrate he has a massive chip on his shoulder. Away back to Rangers media

[MarkoRaj]

So if he pitched up in the same workplace as your wife,daughter,sister etc...

You'd have no concern?

That's a ridiculous argument. Is it only footballing rapists you would object to working with female family members or should they never be allowed to work anywhere ever again in case someone's daughter works there?

[MarkoRaj]

Is it just rapists that shouldn't be allowed to work in the entertainment industry? What about convictions for murder, assault, drug dealing?

[Tom McB]

That's the other rape apologists you are associating, they differentiate in types of rape. They wouldn't see Ian Watkins, but Evans? He's not that bad a lad, just a bit of rape, it definitely shouldn't affect his career (the last one really is fucking horrendous). These are the two people on this thread that support you.

I assume you mean associating with?

I note that you now are not continuing calling me a rape apologist but, ironically wont admit you were wrong.

Two people who support me are in your terms rape apologists and so i'm one.

Even though i've stated that he's guilty of rape, and said that rape is high on my personal scumbagometer.

Aye that's what rape apologists always say.

[Tom McB]

I don't think others should take the same view, I've stated this very explicitly and my position has not changed one bit. If you'd have the read you would have seen me posting this numerous times. You didn't, you were too lazy and came in woefully under prepared. So, here it is very specifically, hopefully for the final time lest more rape apologists crawl out from the woodwork:

Hiring a footballer who is a rapist should be so bad for business that no club would ever do it. Any right minded individual would refuse to see a rapist perform in much the same way they would refuse to go to watch Gary Glitter or Ian Watkins in Concert. Clubs, like venues, should refuse to employ and promote a rapist on even the most basic moral grounds. The convicted rapist, when judged rehabilitated, should return to a normal, private life where he isn't subjected to the horrific personal abuse that being a very public rapist would bring.

So you don't understand the meaning of preclude, OK.

You disagree with this because you are a a rape apologist. There is no doubt about it.

And I ask you again , please show any part of this thread where I have shown myself to be a rape apologist?

Rational wiki defines

"Rape apology is an umbrella term for any arguments suggesting that rape is infrequent, misreported, over-reported, not that big a deal, or that it is even excusable in some circumstances, such as within a marriage or if the victim was "provocatively dressed"

Again show me where I have done any of that.

You really are struggling here, poorly prepared, lashing out without thinking.

I'm astonished the forum doesn't take any particular position on blatant rape apology. How often do you espouse your rape apology views?

Again put up or shut up, show any part of a post that fits the definition. Here's a hint there's non, more of your hilariously hopeless abusive smokescreen.

Sanctimony from a man who uses a mocking term for mental illness as a form of abuse. I'm amazed the forum allows that.

[Tom McB]

Top/mid level footballers are the last people I'd tell my children to look to for role models.

George Carlin said it best.

“If your kid needs a role model and you ain't it, you're both fucked."

[welshbairn]

But we're talking about the UNTERTAINMUNT UNDUSTRAY, SO WE ARE! HOW DARE YOOSE! YA BUNCH OF RAPIST APOLOGISTS!

[Doink]

Is there not an appeal due soon

[Supras]

Bingo, there it is. Out and out rabid jealousy.

You're whole frothing, pitiful little rage on here is that you have a massive chip on your shoulder. Christ knows what it is but it's f**k all to do with ched evans and it's clearly eating you up inside. Get some help.

No it's because he clearly has self-esteem issues. And rather than listening to sensible discussion he's lashing out at the cruel, cruel world which doesn't love ched evans particularly, but does just a little bit more than it loves him.

Who the f**k would be jealous of a convicted rapist?

You are really are fucked up in the head. Women are "messed up wee chicks", "rape isn't a good enough reason to harm someone's career" and "you must be jealous of convicted rapists".

You are easily the most fucked up individual on this site. And it's telling you didn't even have the balls to confront the truth in my previous post. What a wilting coward, rape apologist you are.

"This is word salad"? Does this guy not realise the amount of horrendous mistakes littererd throughout his posts? Maybe he just blames it on "mixed up wee chicks".

It's nothing to do with the fact you disagree with me, you have been spluttering blatantly rape apologist views throughout this entire thread. It's a sickening viewpoint to have, definitely, but it's not my fault you have it.

Yeah, you have completely missed the point. Not surprising. People with your backward views don't tend to be members of Mensa or anything. No club should hire Evans, and no TV provider should ever show their games. Sky aren't showing repeats of Gary Glitter concerts, why pay to televise a rapist playing football?

I bet you wish you could go back and change it. Comments like "mixed up wee chick" and "being a rapist isn't a good reason to affect someone's career" will stay with you forever. Imagine if your relatives ever read something as despicable as that? Thank god you're hiding behind that anonymous veil, nobody would have the brass neck to air such disgusting views in public.

You don't like it, huh? Good, maybe you will educate yourself and stop referring to women who speak out against rape as "mixed up wee chicks".

I have said nothing to suggest that the punishments for sex offenders should be increased. Not one thing. That's another blatant misrepresentation from you. They shouldn't be employed in the entertainment industry, obviously not, it's absolutely astonishing someone is desperately arguing for their inclusion in the entertainment industry. Why do you idolise a convicted rapist?

You've lost your mind. Seek help. Your views are not only wrong they are dangerously unhealthy, and will lead to a society that's dangerous for women ("mixed up wee chicks" is what you call them) with rapists employed in the entertainment industry and idolised on television.

Understatement of the day. I see you've put it in your signature, heaven knows why, given the statement is completely accurate. I do hope it draws attention to this thread and every can see the horrible rape apologist views you have been promoting.

Your second paragraph makes no sense, but I do prefer you are directing your, clearly significant, anger towards me and not "mixed up wee chicks" who annoy you. People with your views can certainly be a danger towards society, and women in particular, but I'm not scared of your ilk.

Just regarding your opinion on rapists in the entertainment industry really considering Mike Tyson was a part of the franchise & you have consistently said you wouldn't pay to watch a rapist in the entertainment industry.

I haven't seen it and didn't know he was in it. Thanks for letting me know, I'll make sure to avoid it in future.

[Supras]

Is it just rapists that shouldn't be allowed to work in the entertainment industry? What about convictions for murder, assault, drug dealing?

I'm using it repeatedly because it's incredibly relevant, the whole crux of the matter. And it neatly separates me from prisoner haters who want American style minimum sentences in super max prisons. I've nothing like those people. I think all criminals should have chance for rehabilitation and a normal life. What I object to, is them being involved in the entertainment industry. Simple, really.

And, despite your terrible joke, yes of course Kilmarnock would still count.

Anyone who considers success on a football pitch to be so important that they are willing to hire anyone, rapists/murderers/etc in order to achieve this success, is someone with severely skewed priorities. Simple as that.

Yes, of course that could be argued. But it was your example. A low level dealer peddling pills that are significantly less harmful than, say, alcohol, is vastly different from a major heroin manufacturer and importer. If we leave aside the fact that a drug dealing professional footballer is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons, one scenario would be clearly less serious than the other - as would be reflected in their sentence. In the second case, for example, this discussion wouldn't be happening because the defendant would likely be too old by the time he got out to play professional football.

In the first case, I wouldn't object to them returning. Simple as that. It would always exist on a case by case basis because it's clearly not the kind of thing you can attach hard and fast rules to. What we can always agree on, as a hard and fast rule, is that rapists should never be allowed to return to the entertainment industry.

In the Lithgow case, I would not object to him returning to football. I didn't in the Paul McGowan case either, although I recognise that it was a not insignificant factor in his eventual release.

Agree with djchapsticks re Johnathan King.

Been asked and answered. Read the fucking thread in future.

[Supras]

Top/mid level footballers are the last people I'd tell my children to look to for role models.

He's not a role model, obviously, and never has it been. This has nothing to do with anything.

I assume you mean associating with?

I note that you now are not continuing calling me a rape apologist but, ironically wont admit you were wrong.

Two people who support me are in your terms rape apologists and so i'm one.

Even though i've stated that he's guilty of rape, and said that rape is high on my personal scumbagometer.

Aye that's what rape apologists always say.

So you don't understand the meaning of preclude, OK.

And I ask you again , please show any part of this thread where I have shown myself to be a rape apologist?

Rational wiki defines

"Rape apology is an umbrella term for any arguments suggesting that rape is infrequent, misreported, over-reported, not that big a deal, or that it is even excusable in some circumstances, such as within a marriage or if the victim was "provocatively dressed"

Again show me where I have done any of that.

You really are struggling here, poorly prepared, lashing out without thinking.

Again put up or shut up, show any part of a post that fits the definition. Here's a hint there's non, more of your hilariously hopeless abusive smokescreen.

Sanctimony from a man who uses a mocking term for mental illness as a form of abuse. I'm amazed the forum allows that.

Yup, definite rape apologist. It's "not a big a deal" and shouldn't affect someones career.

Good lord, thanks for tying yourself in knots. Saves me a bit of time and a lot of sanity. It's draining dealing with people with such horrendous, unjustifiable views.

[Half Rice Half Chips]

There are football clubs out there who would sign the Yorkshire Ripper if they thought he could get them 15 goals a season.

[williemillersmoustache]

There are football clubs out there who would sign the Yorkshire Ripper if they thought he could get them 15 goals a season.

If he's served his sentence..............

[williemillersmoustache]

A low level dealer peddling pills that are significantly less harmful than, say, alcohol, is vastly different from a major heroin manufacturer and importer. If we leave aside the fact that a drug dealing professional footballer is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons, one scenario would be clearly less serious than the other - as would be reflected in their sentence. In the second case, for example, this discussion wouldn't be happening because the defendant would likely be too old by the time he got out to play professional football.

In the first case, I wouldn't object to them returning. Simple as that. It would always exist on a case by case basis because it's clearly not the kind of thing you can attach hard and fast rules to. What we can always agree on, as a hard and fast rule, is that rapists should never be allowed to return to the entertainment industry.

Must make life so simple to just ignore process. So drug dealing is a crime that can be dissected and a categorised but not sexual offences. How about sexual assault? Not rapists, but still very serious, sexual offenders. Hard and fast rules for that one or not?

The low level dealer punting sweeties is an integral part of the operation. Operations that support organised crime, arms dealing, terrorism, the supply of other 'harder' drugs and people trafficking. People trafficking is regularly linked to sexual exploitation of women, some underage, through forced prostitution.

By your own logic you are therefore a Rapist Apologist, A Paedophile Apololgist, A Terrorist Apologist, A Murderer Apologist and a buffoon.

[MarkoRaj]

I'm using it repeatedly because it's incredibly relevant, the whole crux of the matter. And it neatly separates me from prisoner haters who want American style minimum sentences in super max prisons. I've nothing like those people. I think all criminals should have chance for rehabilitation and a normal life. What I object to, is them being involved in the entertainment industry. Simple, really.

And, despite your terrible joke, yes of course Kilmarnock would still count.

Anyone who considers success on a football pitch to be so important that they are willing to hire anyone, rapists/murderers/etc in order to achieve this success, is someone with severely skewed priorities. Simple as that.

Yes, of course that could be argued. But it was your example. A low level dealer peddling pills that are significantly less harmful than, say, alcohol, is vastly different from a major heroin manufacturer and importer. If we leave aside the fact that a drug dealing professional footballer is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons, one scenario would be clearly less serious than the other - as would be reflected in their sentence. In the second case, for example, this discussion wouldn't be happening because the defendant would likely be too old by the time he got out to play professional football.

In the first case, I wouldn't object to them returning. Simple as that. It would always exist on a case by case basis because it's clearly not the kind of thing you can attach hard and fast rules to. What we can always agree on, as a hard and fast rule, is that rapists should never be allowed to return to the entertainment industry.

In the Lithgow case, I would not object to him returning to football. I didn't in the Paul McGowan case either, although I recognise that it was a not insignificant factor in his eventual release.

Agree with djchapsticks re Johnathan King.

So where exactly is the line being drawn?

For example could you tell me which of these people employed in the entertainment industry you have boycotted over the years?

http://whatculture.com/film/10-actors-with-shocking-criminal-records.php

I genuinely hope your crusade hasn't stopped you from watching the toy story trilogy, tremendous films.

Who gets to decide these rules by the way? Should they be written in law? You've said there should be hard and fast rules for rape but not other cases. So are you saying that a rapist who serves 2 years shouldn't be allowed in the entertainment industry but a drug dealer who serves 3 should be fine even though they have been judged to have committed a more serious offence?