Maybe you would like the birch for wayward kids and the death penalty to be reintroduced?
Only for trolls who spend theri entire waking moments trolling everyone on here but never goes to ER.
Maybe you would like the birch for wayward kids and the death penalty to be reintroduced?
Simon, you are clearly whiter-than-white but I fear you do not understand other people or other cultures.
I will pick up on your snide remarks one by one:
a) wife beating - he hit his wife once. I do not condone it. But I know many people who have done it, and what usually happens is they get divorced. They also go to anger management courses and they get some therapy. What it does not mean is that he is much different to many other people in the country, including Inverness. Senegal on the other hand is a completely different country with a completely different religion and culture. Hitting your wife a couple of generations ago - as I stated above - was not something that was particuklarly frowned upon in our own country. Yet you expect the people of a third world developing country to stand alongside us with our values? I think you are a bit too full of yourself and you need to learn a bit about the world, and how we can bring them with us and they can learn from us, instead of demanding that they are already like us.
b) Racism - proof please. What I do know is that there is a lot of racism in Britain, and a hell of a lot in Scotland. I don't see that there has been anythign other than an allegation against Diouf. An allegation that you have not shown was proven. What gives you the right to label someone a racist when you do not know them and they have never been found to be racist?
c) Drink driving. That appears to be a problem with a very very large proportion of the population.
My guess Simon is that you claim you have never driven while over the limnit, you have never driven over the speed limit, you have never been in a brawl, you have never abused (verbally or physically) anyone in your life, you have never done anythign that is classed as an offence. If that is so, I applaud you on being so pure and vigilant.
I, on the other hand, come from a world of realism where I can understand that these things happen sometimes, and people should be punished for them, but that does not mean they are damned for the rest fo their lives.
You need to have a word with yourself. You don't appear to have a concept of the real world and how it deals with transgressions and trangressors in a considered manner.
Maybe you would like the birch for wayward kids and the death penalty to be reintroduced?

Diouf is a ****
this idiot .. The guy is dirt
Piss off [Note: that bit was aimed at me, the over-the-top bits start from someone else first - always]. The man's an odious cockroach and always will be
He's a horrible human being

Feck me Farsley - have you read the things that these people are saying about a Leeds United player, and while I debate that he is hardly different from anyone else and should be given a chance, you tell me to ease down? Beggars belief!
You need to read a bit more instead of jumping on my back![]()

Only for trolls who spend theri entire waking moments trolling everyone on here but never goes to ER.
Ah yes, the "he's a Leeds United player and so is beyond reproach", excuse.![]()
Maybe you would like the birch for wayward kids and the death penalty to be reintroduced?
How you jump from that to your frankly ridiculous final statement is beyond me.
I think you will find that I said "should be given a chance". Which is totally different from what you tried to claim I said. Why do people constantly lie on here about what other people actually wrote?
Look a bit closer Simon. It is a question, not a statement. I am asking you the question and I note you have not answered it.
You have also not countered any of the points I made other than to get uppity and go personal.
Everything I have written is an opinion and solely asks why your attitude is so closed. Your responses are noted as remaining closed and unable to actually debate, so you go personal. It's not a good argument.
Elmo, you appear to glibly gloss over this mans previous misdemeanours - Is there anything he could have done either in his past or could do in the future which you would consider to be an offence too far to be wearing the shirt of Leeds United and representing your club on the pitch?
Simon - what exactly has he done in the last 6 years that shows he has not changed?
Your only argument against him is spitting in 2003 and 2004 (and not since then), drink driving in 2005 (and not since then).
Nothing else has been proven. It is all "alleged", but anyone can allege anything to the police and the police will arrest someone in order to investigate it. If it goes nowehere, there is nothing to say.
In what way has he not shown that he is a different person to the bad one you paint?
Pray tell, what are his proven misdemeanours Danger Fox?
That prior to the age of 25 (ie 6+ years ago) he hit his missus, spat at a couple of players, and lost his licence for a year for drink driving?
How does any of that compare to 6 Leicester players in court for sexual assault? Are they automatically guilty irrespective whether the allegations are thrown out in the end or not? Should they have been removed from being able to ply their trade?
How about your ex-player that came through your ranks, Joe Mattock, being accused of assault at a night club? Does that mean he should never be allowed in football again?
How about Michael Johnson, who you had on loan last year, being arrested for drink driving in June. Is he that odious a man we should lock him up and throw away the keys?
How about George Best? A womaniser, a violent drunk, a drink driver who spent time in jail for it, he assaulted a policeman, his ex-wife alleged he assaulted her punching her in the face on more than one occasion and he allegedly assaulted a waitress and allegedly another girlfriend, he had affairs. This is all public information available on the internet. Tell me, how would you describe the difference between Best and Diouf in terms of personality?
What about Tony Adams (drink driving), Jan Molby (reckless driving), Duncan ferguson (aggravated assault), Mickey Thomas (passing forged bank notes), Peter Stoey (importing illegal pornography), Diego Maradona (drugs, drink, shooting journalists with an air rifle, tax evasion, Jamie Lawrence (robbery), Paul Merson (drug addict and alcoholic), Lee Chapman (wife beater), Tony Adams (alcoholic)?
Come on, get some perspective please.

What about Tony Adams (drink driving), Jan Molby (reckless driving), Duncan ferguson (aggravated assault), Mickey Thomas (passing forged bank notes), Peter Stoey (importing illegal pornography), Diego Maradona (drugs, drink, shooting journalists with an air rifle, tax evasion, Jamie Lawrence (robbery), Paul Merson (drug addict and alcoholic), Lee Chapman (wife beater), Tony Adams (alcoholic)?
I'm interested as to why you think forging a few bank notes, importing pornography, being an alcoholic (a recognised disease) or taking drugs is as contemptible as spitting at or racially abusing a child?
First, please provide proof that either happened please.
Second, you raise an interesting debate. I am sure there could be a very very long debate on the levels of badness of each of the issues you have mentioned because different people will come from them from different angles. Maybe you should suggest it to Nicky Campbell as a 9 am phone-in on Radio 5 live one weekday morning? You would then get the full spectrum from people who have suffered under each of those things.
Alternatively you could think about it yourself and determine that there are levels of bad in all of them, not necessarily because of the act, but because of the impact they have on other people
To help you, I will give some examples of the arguments some people may have on these issues (not necessarily my views):
a) forgery = fraud = innocent people lose money and can lose their livelihoods;
b) pornography = exploitation of women = has direct links with human trafficking and forced prostitution;
c) alcoholism (debatable it is a disease but that's a separate argument) = has direct links to violence especially domestic violence and against children, drink driving and reckless driving especially deaths on our roads, anti-social behaviour;
d) drugs = pretty much the same as alcoholism but has stronger links towards muggings, robbery, mafia, higher levels of anti-social behaviour, stabbings and gang warfare.