Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see Le Vell (the Corrie actor) has been cleared of sex charges. I have to say that I am normally prejudiced towards the claimant (I freely admit that) but this stank. He had no history of such behaviour, no woman ever felt unsafe with him, there was no physical evidence of sexual activity in the complainant, and the police found nothing on his computer. Not an expert, but have never seen a case where other victims haven't appeared to reinforce the charge. A dreadful charge for an innocent man to face. I think there is a rebound from all those justified cases that the police never pursued in the past.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
I see Le Vell (the Corrie actor) has been cleared of sex charges. I have to say that I am normally prejudiced towards the claimant (I freely admit that) but this stank. He had no history of such behaviour, no woman ever felt unsafe with him, there was no physical evidence of sexual activity in the complainant, and the police found nothing on his computer. Not an expert, but have never seen a case where other victims haven't appeared to reinforce the charge. A dreadful charge for an innocent man to face. I think there is a rebound from all those justified cases that the police never pursued in the past.
Click to expand...

I didn't believe for a moment he was guilty. Like you say, this stank to high heaven.
 
fatletiss said:
I've always enjoyed interviews. It's been a few years since I had a traditional interview as my last three job changes have been because I knew someone or was approached, but I did used to enjoy an interview.
Click to expand...

Like that. I nearly interviewed my old boss (who was a twat) from 20 years ago. His career stalled in our industry and he left it for a while. He recently had an agency approach my old company when we were recruiting and he was put forward as a candidate. I should have interviewed him, but instead I told the agency to tell him I was doing the interviewing and would be his boss, then ask if he still wanted an interview!!
 
fatletiss said:
I've always enjoyed interviews. It's been a few years since I had a traditional interview as my last three job changes have been because I knew someone or was approached, but I did used to enjoy an interview.
Click to expand...

I enjoy them when I can achieve my chief goal: derail the interview from dull, formulaic question-and-answer and turn it into something more conversational that still indicates that I'm well-suited for the job. Cannot stand thirty minutes of "what is..." "describe a..." bullshit that ultimately boils down to your fluency in bland corporate patois (nor do I think that it in any way aids in finding suitable candidates).
 
How many people still think Harry Redknapp was guilty of that tax evasion thing, even though he was cleared? Probably plenty on this forum alone.
 
Joe said:
How many people still think Harry Redknapp was guilty of that tax evasion thing, even though he was cleared? Probably plenty on this forum alone.
Click to expand...

With Redknapp, there's universal agreement that money changed hands; the only question is why it changed hands and whether it did so to allow taxes to be dodged. There, it's the context that determines culpability.

Here, there's no such context; it happened, or it didn't. If it happened, he's guilty, full stop. If it didn't, he is innocent.
 
Schad said:
With Redknapp, there's universal agreement that money changed hands; the only question is why it changed hands and whether it did so to allow taxes to be dodged. There, it's the context that determines culpability.

Here, there's no such context; it happened, or it didn't. If it happened, he's guilty, full stop. If it didn't, he is innocent.
Click to expand...

It's black and white to those with any common sense, but many are still spoon fed news by the gutter press and the Murdoch papers. Take that guy Christopher Jefferies, who was hung, drawn and quartered by the tabloids, over the murder of Joanna Yates in Bristol. He is old, and looked a bit dodgy was their only evidence of this. People believed he was guilty for such a long time. Of course he wasn't, and was just another victim of the media. Unfortunately, people still take what they read in papers as gospel.
 
Joe said:
How many people still think Harry Redknapp was guilty of that tax evasion thing, even though he was cleared? Probably plenty on this forum alone.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of difference in the cases, regarding 1 word against another... compared to HRMC knowing that he had avoided tax after a year long investigation. It fell down in court, probably because the jury was too ****ing thick to understand basic maths.

I'll also add the media were very soft on Harry leading up to the trial, so it clearly paid for him to be smoozing with the tabloids for years.

He'll get whats coming to him one day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back