What does this guy have to do with it? That's probably the worst example of this that you could have made, it's like reading The Sun newspaper. The point is if they're set a punishment and they serve it, why should they then have to do more? Perhaps Marlon's sentence was a little short, as PS said, but obviously the judge thought it was a just length of time to serve in prison. But once he's served it, why then add something on top? *****phillia is a really bad example; there was a lad from my year at school who was put on the offenders list last year but he was mentally ill, even if his parents couldn't really spot it, he certainly had very strong aspergic and probably autism as well. Again, not condoning it, just giving possible reasons as to why it might have come about. If you look into case histories of people who have committed murder, many of them had troubled childhoods, mental problems etc. Very few crimes are done just for the sake of it. It's ****ing abhorrent to think of children in such a way, I actually struggled to understand it when I first head about it because it was so unbelievable. The guy in that story isn't going to apologise because in his mind he hasn't done anything wrong, he think's he is predisposed to think that way. A bit like Derek Acorah is predisposed to think he can talk to dead folks (he can't), when really it's all cold reading and bollocks. What help would banning Marlon King from football do? His crimes were nothing to do with football. Hell, if I get a speeding ticket, I might get also get done for being a tax cheat as well. I wonder what other prizes there are in the apparent crime lottery... He's a skillful footballer, it's why clubs continue to sign him. If he is released from Brum, there'll be a queue for his signature. EDIT: I'll add that 14 months is a ridiculous sentence for child molestation charges. It should be at least 30 years before the word parole is mentioned.
A pity you are so limited in the scope of your logical (sic) thinking; has it occurred to you that the ban cannot . cover every eventuality, but yes that is an academic, so more to the point - would you let him or a family member with a similar record, babysit anyone's children?
No, you wouldn't let a convicted *****phile babysit your children. Would you let somebody convicted of GBH/ABH/Drunken Assault be a footballer? Yeah probably. It's about as valid as the question: "Would you let somebody convicted of fraud be a landscape gardener?"
You failed to do your research on King's record, so get these two points right: 1. He has everything to do with it, as does King, et al. Once they are supposedly rehabilitated, we as employers or fellow citizens have the right of discretion in our contact (relationships) with them. 2. At no point have I suggested that he should be barred from football; simply that, ideally, he should not be offered any opportunities to further his career - the one he has used to further his malicious whims.
It's just an after-thought, as I want to help you here. You seem to be missing the point that King tried to force himself sexually on a young woman and when she objected he assaulted her - do you classify that as GBH, ABH or drunken assault? Why are you ignoring the sexual motive?
I'm not, I'm simply stating ( I wasn't saying you made the point about him being banned, it was brought up earlier, apologies) that his off the field antics aren't going to prevent him being a footballer, because there is no grounds to. Whether or not he sexually assaulted somebody isn't the crux of the point, he could have done a lot worse or a lot less and gone to prison, but it doesn't draw away from the fact that he scores goals and IF he was to sign for us (he won't) and score enough to take us into the PL (he could), his off the field issues wouldn't be as big a deal come the end of the season because he'd be the one in the limelight. You'd probably get a fair few knobheads coming on claiming he's a woman beater and all that, which is fair enough because he certainly is. But he's a knobhead woman beater that scores goals at this level and would have made us into a PL team. It's easy to point out stuff like this when he isn't here, because all you can do is speculate, but I'm pretty sure a stadium full of PL bound fans wouldn't give a **** that it was Marlon King who got us promoted. And when it all dies down and the last bit of party popper hits the floor, somebody will say "Yeah, but he's still a ****." And everybody will agree. Then he's released and signs for Aberdeen. Or we could just go into the media about how eager we are to sign him, then announce that we are in talks, agree a fee, set a date for the medical and wait for Sunderland to inevitably coming knocking and let them have him.
This is typical of you. You realise you are intellectually inferior to somebody so you resort to insulting them.
Now, if genuine, that is a very disturbing point of view. I wonder if you recognise that there are a great many folk who believe they have a moral choice and are prepared to suffer disappointment, even hardship and worse to exercise it? Your comments tend to indicate you are not one of that group and you would be prepared to allow wrong to happen as long as it is self-serving. Perhaps you need to take stock of your moral worth?
There was a big fuss about Nick Barmby and Adam Pearson getting kicked out and then when Steve Bruce comes and is given money the fuss dies down. It would be similar if Marlon King came to us and did well. You'll still get cheshireben wanting executions and fez insulting anybody who doesn't agree with him.
No insult, just an opinion,upheld by your continued posts. You clearly need another beige in your life. Edit: just read your 7:09 post and you really are a thick ****; if you think it's amusing WUMMING you are wrong; daftest comparison you could make.
I have 3 daughters in there 20's . IF king plays for Hull City I wouldn't go to any games until he had gone . Not that the club would notice . Of course the Allams would never allow SB to sign him anyway . imo
I think one of the problem issues here is the nature of Marlon King, as opposed to the nature of his crimes. There is a temptation to say that he has served his sentence, and his crimes were not football related. I'm all in favour of rehabilitation, and I believe if someone has served their sentence they should be clear to reintegrate into society. But:- this has to be subject to society now being safe from them. In this case I feel that Marlon King's crimes were founded on his football career. During his last attack he made clear reference to his own standing as "a millionaire". He was astonished that his fame and importance were unknown to his victim, and couldn't understand why she should reject his advances "don't you know who I am?" In his mind, the level of earnings he makes from football, and the adulation he receives from fans, mean that no woman should spurn him. If indeed this attitude of mind, this arrogance, was the trigger for his violent attack (which followed his sexual assault) then it seems foolish to think that putting him back on that pedestal will not precipitate another attack, or at least increase to unacceptable proportions the risk. Marlons own history has shown him to be a violent sexual predator, an arrogant beast whose desires are fed by his own delusions of grandeur and self importance. Caused in no small part by his success on the football pitch. As long as the fans continue to celebrate him, as long as clubs continue to pay him huge sums, he will remain a danger. In short the man's a **** and we should avoid him. In my opinion!
My kids are a lot younger but same applies here. No way on this earth would I allow my kids to cheer and hero worship( which is was scoring every week they would) that piece of scum. That's me, Scarbs, Fez and Kempton who'd boycott games and I'd bet there's a lot more on here. Of course I realise King will never sign for us, just thought I'd stick my oar in.
It was Bruce who got rid of King from Wigan, he knows what he's like and wanted rid before his last stay at her majesty's pleasure. There's no way in hell he will be in for him.
What a load of crap this thread turned out to be, cos of a pathetic argument! End of the day people have their views, each to their own.
Strange, but I thought that was the purpose of this thread, to argue? Can't see anything else happening with the topic involved. Any club owner has to balance football ability with social acceptance: OSC, charity work, community PR work (which includes schools); it was no secret that he was unpopular in the dressing room last time - not a great role model to have for the young guns coming through. It's never been about him being officially banned from playing, but it has been all about responsible owners deciding he is not suitable for the extended family that is their club - in our case the Tigers. We can be certain that the Allen' s have the integrity to ensure he never comes to our club, even though there might be a few supporters whose standards fail to come up to scratch.
By who's marker exactly? You don't set your standards by the opinion of others, you set them on what you believe to be right. And if people, such as yourself, don't agree with them then fine, it really doesn't make a difference to me because you're entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine. You'll just have to deal with the fact that there are certain people out there whose opinion might evoke discussion, it doesn't necessarily make them right or wrong.
