Keep making stuff up, hes a twat. He broke her nose before ripping off her legs with his bare hands and eating them whole. The man turns into the hulk in the face of female rejection. Note: Is that defamation?
I read all the stories over the years, would feel sorry for any kids having this guy as their hero. Everybody deserves a second chance, this guy is a repeat offender
I believe you are posting from some moral high ground of justice done, reasonable rehabilitation and some pompous sense of claiming the popular view is illogical and, therefore, wrong. We all have a choice who we wish to support and I would not be able to support a team whose owners allowed a violent sex offender into the embrace of it's 'family' structure. As a player I would put in an immediate transfer request and, in the meantime, I would refuse all social commitments that included his attendance. I agree that there might be employers who might be prepared to give him a job, but they should consider those who will be required to work with him, as well as the customers he is required to serve and represent. The fact that you can see no logic in this, when you are fully aware of his violent, abusive and unrepentant nature is something you should sit down and reconsider. If you are playing Devil's Advocate, then I think it has lost you a great deal of credibility on these boards. Either way, you are very wrong and thank God the club's owners have more moral integrity.
I'm very heartened by the majority opinion on this thread - I didn't expect the "no" vote would outweigh the "yes" quite so heavily.
I don't think wishing somebody dead for a serious assault is logical. I fail to see why a serious assault is a reason why somebody should not be allowed to play football for the rest of their life. In Bali somebody has been sentenced to death for drugs trafficking. I don't see anything wrong with a longer sentence for what King did but once he is out of prison I don't understand why he should be precluded from seeking employment at what he is good at as long as the employment isn't seen as leading to temptation to commit further offences. I'm all for longer sentences compared to what people are sentenced to now in the UK but it would appear that there is a crazy mob mentality among some football fans. They seem to be totally devoid of the ability of rational thought.
I think some things need to be clarified: 1. One person said he should die, and I suspect that if you gave that person the chance to press the button that would kill King he'd have a change of heart. No one else has gone that far. 2. The reason so many people are so anti-King is the nature of the offence - like me, a lot of people on here place violence against women VERY high in their list of worst crimes. 3. There's a difference between not wanting to see him in black and amber and saying he shouldn't be playing football at all. Some on here have said he should be out of the game but I recognise that that is not a realistic proposition, so my concern is that someone with his history of offending (and total absence of remorse) should keep well away from Hull City.
That's not his sentence. He was sentenced to jail time and he served what was required. He is included on the sex offenders register which is a requirement but it isn't a "sentence". How do you suggest "low life" should be removed from society?
You really didn't need to use quote marks there - I just looked up "low life" in three dictionaries and all three gave Marlon King as an example! ;-)
Knowing Ben, I suspect it will involve some rocks, petrol and there'll definitely be an element of dismemberment.
I genuinley would rather miss out on promotion than have him* score the goals to do it *or indeed any other professional footballers convicted of violent assault against women in case Im accused of singleing out Marlon.
Are you Lord Longford ? I just can't help thinking,if i was going to make a stand for someone,it would'nt be Marlon King. That's it Peter. That's all you need to understand. Come on mate,surely you can see this ?
Cardiff City rumoured to be interested in Marlon King. He will fit in well down there alongside FC. The local sheep should start to worry if it happens.
In the case of footballers, perhaps we can follow the path of one Joseph Anthony Barton and send the gobshites to France; that, after all, is much the same as removing them from society Throw the spade away now Peter, you''re starting to look like an acolyte
I'd have him back on a short term contract if he could get us promoted. Nothing to do with morals, the lad came out and said he was sorry and showed remorse for his actions. Luke McCormick, then 25, was sentenced to seven years in prison for causing the death of two young children by drink and dangerous driving when his Range Rover hit them in the early hours of the morning. His contract at Plymouth was cancelled and he was eventually released in June 2012. The family of the two young lads accepted his apology and he is looking for a League club. Now, would you want a murderer signing for your club? Or would you have the strength to accept the apology, in the knowledge that while his prison time was cut short, the thought that he took the lives (unintentionally) of two young brothers will haunt him for the rest of his life. For somebody who shows true remorse, they will never be the same again, those deaths will dwell on him for all his days, they'll have to face that with everybody who knows or read that story, so why try and take everything away from them? Who are you to say how much they should suffer? Marlon isn't a saint, we know that and we know that what he did was despicable, but when somebody apologises for their actions, compensates the victims and shows trues remorse for his deeds, there isn't really much more he can do is there? Wigan signed him knowing he had a criminal record and helped keep them in the PL. Funny, I don't think I've ever heard people refer to Wigan Athletic as a club of rapists and criminals. Society would improve if people started to think outside the realms of the media and started thinking for themselves. You have to consider everything from both sides, even if the other side is inherently wrong.
Would you hang a War veteran for, if you strip it down, going on a killing spree in WW2? I'm just playing devil's advocate, might be a bit of a tangent, but how is being a soldier (some admit to signing up just for the thrill of killing people) and shooting somebody different from a random person on the street shooting somebody? Because the soldier was told to do it by somebody else? Or because they wanted to do it? Does the person on the street shoot somebody because he wants to, or because he is being told to do it? Taking a life is taking a life, but does the motivational aspect define whether it is right or wrong? Or do we accept that killing people is wrong no matter what the derivative of it is?
Can we get over this yet again thread going AWOL. King isn't coming here any more than Sharp, F Campbell & Bullard!
