SANTAN Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I suspect he came over very badly to the jury. Whatever he did that night sounds pretty sleazy at best, and he probably came over that way, and arrogant. Otherwise I haven't seen any evidence against him. "He looks like he done it" - Reminds me of the Luke Mitchell case, "he has a Marilyn Manson CD!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why don't you read the thread where every point in this post has been addressed in depth? Nobody is denying his right to rehabilition, absolutely nobody, but it should be absolutely untenable for him to be hired in the entertainment industry. Venues wouldn't book Ian Watkins to play a gig, no club should even entertain the thought of signing Ched Evans for the exact same reason. I clearly couldn't be bothered. Why should it be untenable, someone is valuing his services and contracting him to perform said services? No club should sign Evans because Ian Watkins raped a baby? Do you and Ched have previous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 That i new however i would of thought football wouldnt of been one of these. In my mind the guy would not of got taken on had he admitted he raped the girl, however he has did well to get himself back in a very well paid job. He can now carry on like normal, get a bit of verbal abuse every so often but with the money he is on, he wouldnt care. He hasn't been signed yet, apart from that I'm not sure what you're point is. You knew there was no rules against him being re-employed but you are wondering why he will be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Did the jury just take the girls word over the guys or what have I missed? Stewart Regan and 6 others at the SFA like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 surely in any other job he would not get a job because he is a convicted rapist? whats the point of jailing him to supposedly rehabilitate him, same goes for any jailed criminal if they cannot even work for a living after their time is served Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 whats the point of jailing him to supposedly rehabilitate him, same goes for any jailed criminal if they cannot even work for a living after their time is served Would it be acceptable for someone who has let's say, been conceived and serves time for having child porn on his PC to begin a career as a teacher once he's served his time? If not, why would it be acceptable to have a convicted rapist employed in the entertainment industry that will involve him coming in contact with other females employees on a daily basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Would it be acceptable for someone who has let's say, been conceived and serves time for having child porn on his PC to begin a career as a teacher once he's served his time? If not, why would it be acceptable to have a convicted rapist employed in the entertainment industry that will involve him coming in contact with other females employees on a daily basis? Are you saying he should never get a job where he might have female co-employees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 True, convicted and then served his sentence though, how long do we judge him for his previous mistakes? What's the point in jail and rehabilitation if we don't allow rehabilitation? Just posing questions, for what it's worth I barely understand how he was convicted, unless my knowledge is dodgy him and the friend both allege she was consentual, she says she can't remember past a certain point. Did the jury just take the girls word over the guys or what have I missed? You've got it badly wrong. Stop diving in and making a fool of yourself. People won't be happy until he's having to deal drugs and shoot people for a living. ^^^ fuckwit No it most certainly isn't. No I wouldn't. No I don't, I never said that line at all. Yes it should. Excellent, so you are clearly differentiating from definitely the most sickening person on this thread - williemillersmoustache. Are you willing to condemn his comment that rape shouldn't affect someones career? Aye, because baby fucking is just the same as disputed consensual sex between adults. Right, so be very specific here, you are okay for some rapists to be footballers but not others? Also it's not "disputed" - he was found guilty. What a horrendous error that is from you. I clearly couldn't be bothered. Why should it be untenable, someone is valuing his services and contracting him to perform said services? No club should sign Evans because Ian Watkins raped a baby? Do you and Ched have previous? Why are you asking questions that have already been answered on the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 No it was me. Fucking hell Supras, we should let you neck some HRT pills, drink half a bottle of gin, watch Beaches then let you decide who gets what job while you sob uncontrollably into your handbag. Shouldn't we? And is appealing or have you forgotten the nightmare of the Tonev thread already. Don't forget to call him a rapist apologist now Here is the post you've been avoiding repeatedly since page 13: "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. So in addition to disgusting rape apologist we can add wilting coward to your list of personal attributes. You probably shit yourself every time you see it, you pathetic coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy boo Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Yeah I read the court report on that one, it was pretty seedy, but (if memory serves me) it does boil down to the fact that he thought she had consented and she didn't have recollection of it. Probably why he wont accept his guilt. This exactly.....how many times does it happen every weekend up and down the country with folk out their face.....totally sleazy it is but always a crime? Also........Anyone who mentions 'zeitgeist' twice in one post deserves to be ignored... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Right, so be very specific here, you are okay for some rapists to be footballers but not others? Also it's not "disputed" - he was found guilty. What a horrendous error that is from you. I'm an idiot for even replying to this idiocy. But here we go. I do not think Ian Watkins should be allowed to be anything other than a prisoner. And we are awaiting the judgement of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to decide on your second point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Would it be acceptable for someone who has let's say, been conceived and serves time for having child porn on his PC to begin a career as a teacher once he's served his time? If not, why would it be acceptable to have a convicted rapist employed in the entertainment industry that will involve him coming in contact with other females employees on a daily basis? Convicted paedophiles shouldn't be teachers as they're clearly attracted to children. Do you think Evans is a walking rape time bomb? The comparisons to paedophiles just show a lack of balance on your behalf. Very flimsy argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I'm an idiot for even replying to this idiocy. But here we go. I do not think Ian Watkins should be allowed to be anything other than a prisoner. And we are awaiting the judgement of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to decide on your second point. So you think that some rapists should play football but not other ones? Where do you draw the line, exactly? Is Gary Glitter okay but not Ian Watkins? Would Jimmy Saville be okay to return to the entertainment industry if he is still alive? If Ian Watkins had an appeal ongoing would you consider his guilt "disputed"? Be specific. More importantly, actually answer the question "do you believe some rapists should play football but not others?" There no "idiocy" - you have forced yourself into a very unenviable corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 You've got it badly wrong. Stop diving in and making a fool of yourself. ^^^ fuckwit Excellent, so you are clearly differentiating from definitely the most sickening person on this thread - williemillersmoustache. Are you willing to condemn his comment that rape shouldn't affect someones career? Right, so be very specific here, you are okay for some rapists to be footballers but not others? Also it's not "disputed" - he was found guilty. What a horrendous error that is from you. Why are you asking questions that have already been answered on the thread? You already replied to the first quote btw. You really proved your point though.. I clearly can't be bothered to read the entire thread. You're very fucking tedious btw, please work on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 you have forced yourself into a very unenviable corner. It's very comfy. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 You already replied to the first quote btw. You really proved your point though.. I clearly can't be bothered to read the entire thread. You're very fucking tedious btw, please work on this. It's not my fault you came into a thread completely uninformed and dived in repeatedly with ridiculous points. Lets this serve as a lesson, I won't be so accommodating in future to such wanton sloth and ignorance. It's very comfy. You're an idiot. Clearly, you've totally shat responding. You're still not as cowardly as williemillersmoustache yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEETHING Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I appreciate that this is a Very Serious Discussion, and emotions are running high, but So in addition to disgusting rape apologist we can add wilting coward to your list of personal attributes. You probably shit yourself every time you see it, you pathetic coward. Shiting yourself in fear when looking at a post on P&B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Would it be acceptable for someone who has let's say, been conceived and serves time for having child porn on his PC to begin a career as a teacher once he's served his time? If not, why would it be acceptable to have a convicted rapist employed in the entertainment industry that will involve him coming in contact with other females employees on a daily basis? Will the female employees he works with daily be blind drunk to the point they are not in control of themselves everyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Would it be acceptable for someone who has let's say, been conceived and serves time for having child porn on his PC to begin a career as a teacher once he's served his time? If not, why would it be acceptable to have a convicted rapist employed in the entertainment industry that will involve him coming in contact with other females employees on a daily basis? I've said it before on this thread and I'll say it again - if people are worried about him coming into contact with females in his chosen career, then there can't me a much more male dominated industry than football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Will the female employees he works with daily be blind drunk to the point they are not in control of themselves everyday That's starting to sound as if you're blaming the girl for being raped. Careful now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.