To be fair I didn't even know the word 'chink' was offensive until some PC commando went utterly apeshit on this very forum about someone using it.
Whelan has lost it. Dunno if it's senility or what but his decision making is erratic and is going to cause problems for Wigan moving forward. He will be ousted soon. Mackay is lucky to be given a second chance. Hope he realises it and makes the most of it. There is no hiding from the wrath of the media driven public's opinion these days. You may not like it but it is the case. The days of innocent until proven guilty and having served your sentence you are free to get on with your life are over. It is the instant opinion forming and communication of the Internet that has caused this. Realise it. Society has changed. Look around you. No one is innocent. Nowhere to hide.
I see now that Sheff U. have washed their hands of Ched Evans. Why? Backlash of public opinion. Regardless of your opinion of the convicted rapist who has served the sentence the court deemed just, are you comfortable that his future had been decided not by a court, or the moral judgement of his employers but as a face saving reaction to a public outcry. Is this how we want decisions made in this country? Social media and instant communication are undoubtedly changing the way our society functions.
He's still serving the Court sentence Ernie. The rule now is the full tariff is served, half in prison and half out, but under license. He is half way through his sentence given when he was found guilty of rape. A verdict reviewed and upheld by at least four other judges. Whether they like it or not, footballers are looked up to by certain elements in society, and that's reflected in the income. In the same way the conviction makes him unsuitable for many other roles, he needs to prove himself before he can be allowed back in that position.
Fair enough, but it doesn't change the point that The Blunts decision has been heavily influenced by the negative attention they have been subjected too. Trial by Twitter and Facebook. I don't think it bodes well for the future of our society.
Your point would make sense if his conviction had been determined by the folk using social media, but all that's happened here is that a football club, thinking with their business hat on, have realised that they will suffer if they are seen to condone predatory abuse of the vulnerable. They've made the right choice IMO.
If someone came for you one night and dragged you away do you really think your neighbours would even care? It's time to buy some guns, lock your doors and prey for martial law.
I think it is poor judgment from Whelan, he should have waited for an outcome; if he gets flak he deserves it. I think it's a poor appointment.
They may well have done. I offer no opinion on the matter. I am concerned however that we are becoming a society where moral decision making is heavily influenced by a dissenting Internet based virtual mob.
Given he's shown no remorse or evidence of rehabilitation, I'd say that Sheffield United showed a lack of class and a lack of morals taking him back. I'd say that a bonus point for the future of our society. He can't be forgiven until he accepts he's done wrong, or gets the verdict overturned.
A weasel of a man being shafted by a club full of weasels. No winners there then. Still don't like the fact that Twitterati twats and Facebook fools can influence any moral decision. Daily Mail ****s discover a 21st century communication medium.
Oh they would care, care enough to film the incident and post it on-line. As for coming to your aid........nah.
He was interviewed offering real remorse for his actions and contrition for being a part of that whole sorry situation, but he has consistently stated he is innocent, he still claims it and I believe a new appeal, with new evidence is being prepared. What if he does prove his innocence? A man has just been released from an American jail after 39yrs wrongful imprisonment. I agree that re-signing him would have been premature and foolish, but to withdraw training (rehabilitation?) facilities is mealy-mouthed and knee-jerk. I am with Ernie, anti-social media rules.
If he proves his innocence, then we're in a different arena. Up to now, the defence his and his girlfriends wealth could put forward couldn't prove it to at least four judges. There's no knee-jerk, no burning pitch forks, just a natural sense of morals that means Sheff U (and football) were tacky and jumped the gun. Playing football isn't rehabilitation.
I wouldn't touch Evans with a barge pole unless his conviction was overturned, but that's not to say he shouldn't play football ever again. He has two options: Evans can admit he did it and show remorse, thus presenting himself as a rehabilitated man, or he continue to plead his innocence and wait until his appeal is processed. They've rushed into this and the media coverage leading up to his release has provoked a bunch of Social Justice Warrior w**kers on Twitter and Facebook to add their two cents. Sheffield United would have done better to keep quiet and tell Evans and his wife to keep quiet until after the appeal.
He was football training, it was his career prior to his conviction, it was as a result of a request by the PFA. Doing something that can reintegrate him into society, that can assist him to rebuild his life and not be a burden, is rehabilitation; whether you like it or not. What is it you find obnoxious about him taking part in training?
