Tom McB Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Yup, definite rape apologist. It's "not a big a deal" and shouldn't affect someones career. Where did I say it's not a big deal, oh hold on I didn't you can't provide a single quotation and will not apologise for your shamefull use of terms ocking mental illness, you've lost it. Good lord, thanks for tying yourself in knots. Saves me a bit of time and a lot of sanity. Hilarious again, there's only one person tying themselves in knots and it's becoming funny to watch. It's draining dealing with people with such horrendous, unjustifiable views. Thanks for your concern but I do not find it draining dealing with a daily mail reader like yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blootoon87 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Why does anybody even respond to Supras? He is incapable of having a reasonable debate about anything without trying to belittle anyone who has the audacity to question his clearly superior views. Anyway, back to Ched Evans. He's served the sentence handed to him by our justice system, I'm not fussed what he does with himself now. If he gets back into football, fine. Football is one of the most male dominated professions he could work in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddfg Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The guy has been through the criminal justice system, punished as deemed appropriate and served his sentence. What right has anyone to apply additional arbitrary punishments on the basis of his employment. Convicted rapists deserve the jail but like every other person they deserve the chance to redeem themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Why does anybody even respond to Supras? He is incapable of having a reasonable debate about anything without trying to belittle anyone who has the audacity to question his clearly superior views. Anyway, back to Ched Evans. He's served the sentence handed to him by our justice system, I'm not fussed what he does with himself now. If he gets back into football, fine. Football is one of the most male dominated professions he could work in. On the pitch, but not off it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 On the pitch, but not off it Which professions are more male-dominated off the pitch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Which professions are more male-dominated off the pitch? I was going to say boxing, but Frank Maloney might have something to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 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. Here is the comprehensive post you ignored you wilting coward: "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. ,Now answer it or f**k off: 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? Every point you made has already been answered. And in the case of "should it be a law?" it has been answered multiple times. There was one particular page where every post had to address cause thickos weren't getting the message. Please read the thread in future before diving in two footed and getting in horribly wrong. Where did I say it's not a big deal, oh hold on I didn't you can't provide a single quotation and will not apologise for your shamefull use of terms ocking mental illness, you've lost it. Hilarious again, there's only one person tying themselves in knots and it's becoming funny to watch. Thanks for your concern but I do not find it draining dealing with a daily mail reader like yourself. Daily Mail reader? Got any evidence of this? Though not, you're all bluster and no substance. A player got a fifty year ban for a shocking attack on a referee. This obviously far pales in comparison to a rape, but apologists like you would gladly pay to say rapists perform in the entertainment industry. Maybe there should be a tour? Come get your picture and autograph with your favourite rapist heroes like Gary Glitter, Ian Watkins and Ched Evans. Their respective industries would be dead without their participation. You and the others can start a "support your favourite rapist today" group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Why does anybody even respond to Supras? He is incapable of having a reasonable debate about anything without trying to belittle anyone who has the audacity to question his clearly superior views. Anyway, back to Ched Evans. He's served the sentence handed to him by our justice system, I'm not fussed what he does with himself now. If he gets back into football, fine. Football is one of the most male dominated professions he could work in. It's quite easy to take the moral high ground when your opponents want to pay rapists millions of pounds to appear on TV and hold child mascots hands. What disgusting individuals the apologists are. The guy has been through the criminal justice system, punished as deemed appropriate and served his sentence. What right has anyone to apply additional arbitrary punishments on the basis of his employment.Convicted rapists deserve the jail but like every other person they deserve the chance to redeem themselves. Of course they do. I've never stated otherwise. They don't have the right to participate in the media industry. The public makes a choice on that. And disgustingly, far too many are pro rapist. Probably comes from being on a chauvinist dominated football forum to be honest. As usual, I am far too ahead of the zeitgeist for you neanderthals. As with drug legalisation of course I will win eventually, and you people will look back on your pro rapist posts with utter disgust (just like I am now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Prince Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Using Gary Glitter & Ian Watkins to try and prove a point on an Internet forum Dear lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Daily Mail reader? Got any evidence of this? Though not, you're all bluster and no substance. So still no evidence of my supposed part as a rape apologist, no quotations from a post? No recantation of your outrageous f'ck up of using mental illness as a term of abuse.? You are a marvellous figure of fun for us all here, The Daily Mail reader bit dear boy? I have no evidence on that but wondered how you would react to unsubstantiated allegations, you know the type of bile you spill on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Of course they do. I've never stated otherwise. They don't have the right to participate in the media industry. The public makes a choice on that. And disgustingly, far too many are pro rapist. Probably comes from being on a chauvinist dominated football forum to be honest. As usual, I am far too ahead of the zeitgeist for you neanderthals. As per, your befuddled thought processes give merriment to the masses. Let's examine your post. They don't have the right to participate in the media industry. I note that entertainment has now changed to media, standard problem with illiberal types legislative creep. Here's a thought, You are in conflict with the UN Universal declaration of human rights, another sign of right wing tendencies. Probably comes from being on a chauvinist dominated football forum to be honest. Chauvinst? This ain't the 70's , even Cosmo and the Fawcett society don't use that term anymore, time you caught up with the zeitgeist. As usual, I am far too ahead of the zeitgeist for you neanderthals. Loving the old spirit of the age routine, the same argument is of course used by illiberal scumbags the world over to justify their odious views. This "ahead of the zeitgeist" spiel, so you're looking to a future where "lunatic" is an acceptable form of abuse. Aye right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 They don't have the right to participate in the media industry. Yes they do. For them not to have the right you need laws or legislation. Thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 A player got a fifty year ban for a shocking attack on a referee. What? He kicked the ball off him and squirted water on him. "Shocking" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 What? He kicked the ball off him and squirted water on him. "Shocking" Shows the level of Supra's meltdown. Could have another Confi on our hands here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29980279 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I don't think it was ever in doubt, that he'd end up going back there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I don't think it was ever in doubt, that he'd end up going back there. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the issue, it goes to show that the board hold (at least 50% of) their own fans' views in contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Aitken's Love Child Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 What the f**k sort of a name is Ched anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 What the f**k sort of a name is Ched anyway? A rapist sort of name... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 What the f**k sort of a name is Ched anyway? Beats Chedwyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.