Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[Diggers]

First topic message reminder :

Re Sterling, he’s got more PL assists than any English player in the last year, 3rd most of anyone. As well as a shedload of goals, what a poopie player he is!!
Could this be it for Jose, I certainly hope so.

[McLaren]

Also why would knowing/not knowing the names of businessmen make you sheltered?

[navyblueshorts]

Ray

Haven't watched love island ever and haven't watched big brother since the second ever season.


Navy

But if the rates of false accusation are extremely low then why worry about it?

Can you really be that daft?? I'm assuming you're WUMing. Also, I never said anything about whether I thought the false accusation rates are low or not and I doubt you know either.

[raycastleunited]

Also why would knowing/not knowing the names of businessmen make you sheltered?

Do you not wonder where the products / services you use come from and who is behind them?

I guess you live in your little benefits bubble, where you cruise along doing little or no work, and everybody looks after you. I suppose it makes no difference to you who are the people who pay for your life.

[super_realist]

Also why would knowing/not knowing the names of businessmen make you sheltered?

Do you not wonder where the products / services you use come from and who is behind them?

I guess you live in your little benefits bubble, where you cruise along doing little or no work, and everybody looks after you. I suppose it makes no difference to you who are the people who pay for your life.

We all know Mac is a champagne socialist and social justice hypocrite, therefore this doesn't surprise me.

I also found it funny he only knew two businessmen.

[beninho]

I'd go Phillip Green if I was to have a guess.

[pedro]

Keith Pelley.

[Diggers]

Lampard doing well at Derby, played some great stuff tonight. Suspected he had what it takes to manage, early days but signs are good.

[raycastleunited]

Lampard doing well at Derby, played some great stuff tonight. Suspected he had what it takes to manage, early days but signs are good.

Yes agree. I think Lampard is a pretty smart guy.

The 4th derby goal from Scott Malone was classic Lampard from his Chelsea days, surging through from midfield.

[McLaren]

Ray

Haven't watched love island ever and haven't watched big brother since the second ever season.


Navy

But if the rates of false accusation are extremely low then why worry about it?

Can you really be that daft?? I'm assuming you're WUMing. Also, I never said anything about whether I thought the false accusation rates are low or not and I doubt you know either.

Not wumming at all, and I have noticed you throw that accusation out quite often when your arguments are challenged.

[navyblueshorts]

Ray

Haven't watched love island ever and haven't watched big brother since the second ever season.


Navy

But if the rates of false accusation are extremely low then why worry about it?

Can you really be that daft?? I'm assuming you're WUMing. Also, I never said anything about whether I thought the false accusation rates are low or not and I doubt you know either.

Not wumming at all, and I have noticed you throw that accusation out quite often when your arguments are challenged.

You've challenged stuff all. It's not worth the effort of a response, but...

So, let's get this straight - you think that the wrongful conviction of someone on a trumped up harassment charge is perfectly OK? Christ. What with your comments on Juries the other day, you'd make the worst Juror in Christendom. Have you never stopped to consider how the judicial process has been set up, and functioned, in this country over centuries? It's balanced the way it is because it's always better that the odd crim gets off than the odd innocent gets convicted. If you don't understand that, I can't explain it to you.
For an SJW, you have a truly warped sense of what's right and wrong.

[kwinigolfer]

Very nice, heartfelt interview with Pep G on the Beeb website . . . . . . .

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45918581

[navyblueshorts]

I'd go Phillip Green if I was to have a guess.

We have a winner, it seems...

[McLaren]

The horrible greased straggly hair should have been a give away. What a creep.  

[navyblueshorts]

The horrible greased straggly hair should have been a give away. What a creep.  

Yeah, right, and what happened to that sort of thinking around this guy eh?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/joanna-yeates-police-apologise-christopher-jefferies

Jefferies was pretty much tarred and feathered over that killing because he looked 'weird' and 'creepy'. Peter Hain's a nob - it doesn't sound like he has anything to go by except a communication with one of the 'victims'. That is NOT evidence. He better hope it turns out to be true.

In fact, with a Mod hat on, be careful what you post.

[superflyweight]

Parliamentary privilege, navy - Hain can't be touched (if you'll pardon the pun in the context of the allegations against Green).

[navyblueshorts]

Parliamentary privilege, navy - Hain can't be touched (if you'll pardon the pun in the context of the allegations against Green).  

I know. He's still a nob though and there'll be huge repercussions for him if it's not true. Right or wrong, he's already decided that their Honours don't know anything about the law and the use of NDAs. Well done Peter; how brilliant of you. Should be serving in the Supreme Court obviously.

[McLaren]

Navy

Crucially Jefferies didn't grease his hair, it should have been obvious he was just the frizzy haired prof type.  The greased hair look is the preferred option for predators.  Just look at Ronaldo.

[McLaren]

Navy, why are you so worried about this NDA and gagging order bellendery getting so easily bypassed?

[navyblueshorts]

Navy, why are you so worried about this NDA and gagging order Love sacks getting so easily bypassed?

Guess what? It's the f***ing law. Hain, in my view, has almost certainly abused his Parliamentary privilege. The legal process around these NDAs almost certainly hasn't run its course yet either. FFS!

You know what? Apologies, but it would be poetic if at some time in your life, you are are on the wrong side of something like this, or in front of a Jury composed of the sort of filth you think don't have a right to deliberate on a crime you're accused of. You don't seem as if you'll ever 'get it' otherwise.

[McLaren]

Navy

I love how you are all for free speech when it comes to misusing terms like "holocaust" but when exposing a serial sexual abuser you want people to be gagged?

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

I love how you are all for free speech when it comes to misusing terms like "holocaust" but when exposing a serial sexual abuser you want people to be gagged?

Yep. Sure enough, he doesn't 'get it'. Pointless dialogue. You missed out the word 'alleged' by the way, but you probably don't understand why that might be necessary either.

[McLaren]

Have you got your pension totally invested in Top Shop shares or something? It is impossible to fathom why you are so keen to make it clear this could (the tinniest possibility) all be false allegations?  

Your correct, I don't "get it".

[Davie]

Probably a Tommy Robinson supporter too

[navyblueshorts]

Have you got your pension totally invested in Top Shop shares or something? It is impossible to fathom why you are so keen to make it clear this could (the tinniest possibility) all be false allegations?  

Your correct, I don't "get it".

No idea what shares my pension fund's invested in off the top of my head. Do you really not understand why it's "innocent until proven guilty", what evidence actually is and why we have the legal system we do? If one can simply chuck accusations around, without going through due process, we aren't so far away from Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union of Beria's days.
I'm so glad your all encompassing super powers allow you to determine that there's only a tiny chance this could be a false accusation (are you God?), but even that's not good enough I'm afraid. That kind of bollox is one reason we don't have a death sentence anymore.

You really, really do need to be on the wrong end of a false accusation.

[beninho]

Frank lampard - I laugh at my stoke supporting in laws who poached gary rowett. Seens derby got a vetter deal!

Phillip Green- called it!

Carly Booth - just heard her on the radio talking about her icloud being hacked...now to google..

[navyblueshorts]

For you Mac:

The naming of Sir Philip Green in the House of Lords is a surprising development.
People will remember back to the super-injunction stories of recent years, including the case of footballer Ryan Giggs. When he was named using parliamentary privilege, it was frowned upon.
Parliamentarians and the judiciary alike were very concerned that this privilege should not be used to undermine the rule of law.
And a great effort was made from that time to ensure that this didn't happen again.
So the judiciary is unlikely to be pleased.
The injunction in this case was a court order granted by three of the most senior judges in the country at the Court of Appeal.
It was the rule of law in action. They had before them many facts and evidence to consider and came to a ruling that was pretty emphatic.
We have not got a constitutional crisis on our hands here, but we do have a really significant development in terms of the way in which parliamentary privilege is seen to be used in relation to court orders.

[Diggers]

I’d say Giggs being named in Parliament was a bigger deal, he hadn’t done anything wrong, legally speaking. Greene (allegedly) has. Not sure where I stand on it to be honest, NDA’s and super injunctions are available to all...as long as you are minted.

[I'm never wrong]

For an SJW, you have a truly warped sense of what's right and wrong.

But he sits in the Court of Public Opinion.

[super_realist]

Navy

I love how you are all for free speech when it comes to misusing terms like "holocaust" but when exposing a serial sexual abuser you want people to be gagged?

Mac, you should know more than anyone with your relentless demand for evidence that until evidence is presented you are not supposed to accept anything. Why do you abandon a logical position on this? You're basing your opinion on his guilt on his previous admittedly bad behaviour.

Until it is confirmed, you're behaving every bit as bad as a bible thumper or carpet sniffer when it comes to believing things on no evidence.

Do you really know so little about the law that you jump to conclusions so readily? He might well turn out to be guilty, and it probably wouldn't surprise me, but until something is proven, you should stop acting like a rabid member of the Jeremy Kyle audience.

[Diggers]

Now who’s faux offended?

[super_realist]

I'm not offended Diggers, I'm simply pointing out how hypocritical Mac is (as usual).

I couldn't care less about Philip Green, he's proven to be a despicable man on a few points already, but Mac is using that reputation to already confirm his guilt in this episode. It's not a rational stance to have, and for someone like Mac who pretends to be fair and just, he's not practicing what he preaches.

[beninho]

Is it not fair and just to accept peoples claims of harrassment and bullying in the work place? When Philip Green states that he reached confidential settlements with members of his workforce, does that not imply he has basically brought people off to cover up allegations?

Two sides to a story, you accept one or the other, nothing hypocritical in any way.

[super_realist]

No Ben, it is not. It is not a binary proposition. People can make claims that are true and are false. Accepting a claim without evidence is a slippery slope. If someone claims that the number of gumballs in a jar is even, and you don't believe the claim, that does not mean you believe the number of gumballs is odd. You don't have a reason to believe EITHER is true.

You do not have to accept one or the other, that's the whole point of law. If someone is accused of something it does not mean they are guilty until proven to be so. Also, being proven not guilty, does not mean they are innocent.

At the moment the allegations against Green are unproven. They are simply allegations.  Believing he is guilty or not guilty at the moment cannot be determined and you'd be dishonest to take a stance on either, you'd effectively be using the useless emotion of faith. You have to take the view that nothing has yet been proven if you are a logical person.

Confidential settlements are also not an admission of guilt.

Really Ben, your argument was of Mac standards. I expected far better from you.

[Diggers]

The point is other people who have allegations made against them go into the public domain as they can’t afford mega lawyers. So that’s not fair. Also, Hain isn’t in breach of parliamentary privilege as far as I know so no law has been broken.
Kind of balances out in my view.

[beninho]

His phrase about the allegations being to the extent raised, makes me question tgat he is admiting things have happened and been covered up. I'm of the view that just because someone isn't convicted in a court of law doesn't mean they haven't acted inappropriately.

People can make up their own views from what read.

[Diggers]

If, like Super, I was going to be faux offended by recent news, I’d be far more faux offended on behalf of the people unlawfully made to take DNA tests. Strikes me as a far greater breach in of justice.

[navyblueshorts]

If, like Super, I was going to be faux offended by recent news, I’d be far more faux offended on behalf of the people unlawfully made to take DNA tests. Strikes me as a far greater breach in of justice.

Quite right that we should find enforced DNA testing as abhorrent, but that doesn't take away from the fact that what that conceited twerp, Hain, has done is fundamentally undermining the law that we've built our society on for the last thousand years or so.

[beninho]

Suppose it comes down to whether reporting alleged work harassment from a powerful businessman is public interest or not. The Telegraph did, but he was able to get an injunction about being named, I guess due to having got victims to sign non disclosure docs.

I don't like rich people using the courts to gag the press.

Just reading an article in the guardian and it seems like the injunction would have been removed anyway as the appeal judges seemed to have concerns with the scope of it. Interesting that he lost at the court and won temporarily at the court of appeal.

I don't agree with the parliamentary privilege being used in this instance, as the name would have come out anyway, as I believe people other then the initial 5 have now come forward.

[McLaren]

Navy

I wonder if you would feel differently about Hain if he had spoken out about an issue you felt passionately about and if he shared your position on that issue? Hain could quite easily be seen to have taken a rebellious but morally correct decision by those people concerned about the lack of action on work place harassment. Even the most steady conservative would concede that often a little bit of anarchy is needed to move society forward. I am not saying Hain is Rosa parks or anything just that he has slightly reset the balance between the victims and those that can afford to cover up their crimes.

As ben has pointed out above he may even have shot his load a little early as Green may have been exposed anyway, but I am still happy that he took the risk and tried to do the right thing.



Super

You have been watching way too much Dillihunty if you are rolling out the sweetie jar analogy.

And secondly the sort of "evidence" that is talked about in atheist forums to reject the existence of a god or pull apart creationism doesn't exist for sexual assault allegations. It is often between two people in a closed space, even Jonathon Creek would struggle to get the sort of thing you are asking for. What is clear and has mountains of data to support is that false claims are rare and that men abuse women at a horrifically high rate. I assume you have drunk the baysien pill given your frequenting of the online atheist world so you will know this gives the a claim of sexual assault a very high prior probability.

[Diggers]

If, like Super, I was going to be faux offended by recent news, I’d be far more faux offended on behalf of the people unlawfully made to take DNA tests. Strikes me as a far greater breach in of justice.

Quite right that we should find enforced DNA testing as abhorrent, but that doesn't take away from the fact that what that conceited twerp, Hain, has done is fundamentally undermining the law that we've built our society on for the last thousand years or so.

Unless you believe that this is the best way for Parliamentary Privilege to be exercise. It’s part of the same system of rules you are saying are being broken. Again, the protection Greene created for himself is not in practice free to all (legal aid cuts have destroyed the courts as a means of redress for most people), so it’s hardly a fair system in the first place.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

I wonder if you would feel differently about Hain if he had spoken out about an issue you felt passionately about and if he shared your position on that issue?  Hain could quite easily be seen to have taken a rebellious but morally correct decision by those people concerned about the lack of action on work place harassment.  Even the most steady conservative would concede that often a little bit of anarchy is needed to move society forward.  I am not saying Hain is Rosa parks or anything just that he has slightly reset the balance between the victims and those that can afford to cover up their crimes.

As ben has pointed out above he may even have shot his load a little early as Green may have been exposed anyway, but I am still happy that he took the risk and tried to do the right thing.



Super

You have been watching way too much Dillihunty if you are rolling out the sweetie jar analogy.

And secondly the sort of "evidence" that is talked about in atheist forums to reject the existence of a god or pull apart creationism doesn't exist for sexual assault allegations.  It is often between two people in a closed space, even Jonathon Creek would struggle to get the sort of thing you are asking for.  What is clear and has mountains of data to support is that false claims are rare and that men abuse women at a horrifically high rate. I assume you have drunk the baysien pill given your frequenting of the online atheist world so you will know this gives the a claim of sexual assault a very high prior probability.

No, it would make no difference at all. Never mind; you don't understand. I value due process; it's clear you don't give a stuff.

[navyblueshorts]

If, like Super, I was going to be faux offended by recent news, I’d be far more faux offended on behalf of the people unlawfully made to take DNA tests. Strikes me as a far greater breach in of justice.

Quite right that we should find enforced DNA testing as abhorrent, but that doesn't take away from the fact that what that conceited twerp, Hain, has done is fundamentally undermining the law that we've built our society on for the last thousand years or so.

Unless you believe  that this is the best way for  Parliamentary Privilege to be exercise. It’s part of the same system of rules you are saying are being broken. Again, the protection Greene created for himself is not in practice free to all (legal aid cuts have destroyed the courts as a means of redress for most people), so it’s hardly a fair system in the first place.

Nice try, but no. Hain has abused it. It's an archaic part of our laws, but one that's potentially valuable and should be kept. The fact that Hain's too thick and arrogant to see that he shouldn't have done this is potentially a big problem. That privilege should come nowhere near being abused, less that creates a problem with its validity. That conceited twit should be given whatever rocket that can be delivered.
Also, I'm sorry, but just because having wealth means one can employ good lawyers/Barristers isn't a reason to trash our due process.

[super_realist]

His phrase about the allegations being to the extent raised, makes me question tgat he is admiting things have happened and been covered up.  I'm of the view that just because someone isn't convicted in a court of law doesn't mean they haven't acted inappropriately.

People can make up their own views from what read.

You're right, it doesn't mean that they haven't acted inappropriately, but it doesn't mean they have either.

This whole #metoo is tarring people as being guilty before anything has been proven. Now, I don't care about Green, but this sets a dangerous precedent for being considered guilty as soon as an allegation is made.

The shop boycott is also ridiculous and unfair on the staff, where were people boycotting Topshop when BHS went down the pan?

You can make up your own view on Green if you like, but seeing as you have no evidence on which to base your view, you aren't being remotely rational.

Mac, just because false claims are rare, doesn't mean that you give every claim the benefit of the doubt. You have to treat these allegations as if you DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE TRUE. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that if you toss 10 heads in a row, then the next one is going to be heads because of the statistics. Every allegation has to be treated as if statistics for false claims do not exist and every allegation is independent of the one that has gone before it.

Also, the burden of proof is on the person making the allegation, not the other way around, and by Hain acting inappropriately on a 17th century outdated law really is putting himself above the law and due process. It's not Hain's decision to name someone in a case like this. You can't just convict someone because someone has made a claim.

Forget it's Green for a moment and that he's a loathesome man, imagine you it's on a charge (whether or not you've done it) would you like to be treated as if you're guilty in this kangaroo court world before anything has even been established? Of course you wouldn't. So for once in your life, stop being a hypocrite.

[beninho]

The Telegraph has 5 people who have made allegations and been paid to keep quiet about them.

Us normal people are never going to get all the facts about every incident reported in the press, I would like to think I like to think I have tge brainpower to read and see what is claimed and base my own.opinions in it. I am not a court of law.

I also have no issues with people making allegations if they feel something inappropriate has happened to them.

[Diggers]

If, like Super, I was going to be faux offended by recent news, I’d be far more faux offended on behalf of the people unlawfully made to take DNA tests. Strikes me as a far greater breach in of justice.

Quite right that we should find enforced DNA testing as abhorrent, but that doesn't take away from the fact that what that conceited twerp, Hain, has done is fundamentally undermining the law that we've built our society on for the last thousand years or so.

Unless you believe  that this is the best way for  Parliamentary Privilege to be exercise. It’s part of the same system of rules you are saying are being broken. Again, the protection Greene created for himself is not in practice free to all (legal aid cuts have destroyed the courts as a means of redress for most people), so it’s hardly a fair system in the first place.

Nice try, but no. Hain has abused it. It's an archaic part of our laws, but one that's potentially valuable and should be kept. The fact that Hain's too thick and arrogant to see that he shouldn't have done this is potentially a big problem. That privilege should come nowhere near being abused, less that creates a problem with its validity. That conceited twit should be given whatever rocket that can be delivered.
Also, I'm sorry, but just because having wealth means one can employ good lawyers/Barristers isn't a reason to trash our due process.

You think it’s abuse, Ive seen it praised and criticised, appears to be a moot point. If you have to remortgage your house to get an NDA, then sorry, it’s not part of any normal judicial system, so personally, I don’t give a toss about it. It falls into the tax evasion grey area, it might be legal, but it’s not a level playing field.

[I'm never wrong]

Peter Hain just happens to be the government and global advisor for the law company used by the Daily Telegraph

[super_realist]

The Telegraph has 5 people who have made allegations and been paid to keep quiet about them.

Us normal people are never going to get all the facts about every incident reported in the press, I would like to think I like to think I have tge brainpower to read and see what is claimed and base my own.opinions in it. I am not a court of law.

I also have no issues with people making allegations if they feel something inappropriate has happened to them.

You actually haven't heard ANY facts of yet, so you don't have any information at all to believe he is guilty (or innocent). Believing he is either is credulity. The only rational stance you can take is that you don't know. You're not in a position to judge.

If something inappropriate has happened anywhere, then of course it should be reported, but people should withhold judgement on guilt until the allegation has been proven to be true. This isn't happening in this case and the current hysteria in the #metoo movement which appears to reverse judicial law and presume guilt until proven innocent is actually damaging cases and the original intention of the "movement"

You need to forget that this is Green and the fact it might involve NDA's and think of it on how it is bastardising the rule of law.

Did you just hatch out of an egg?

[beninho]

It is reported that at least 5 people claimed inappropriate behaviour and got very big payouts to keep quiet. Some of these claims seem pretty minor some serm pretty wrong, asking women if they've been naughty and need spanking in meetings, or telling indian women she's fat because shes been eating samosas. I also didn't really find his statement to be that strong.

This isn't a legal case, I doubt it would get thst far, but it is a case of someone looking like they are using power to be inappropriate.

From what I've read, it would appear to show he has acted inappropriate at best. If you don't believe that, fine. We have different opinions, I accept you view that you don't believe people that make allegations without cast iron proof.

[super_realist]

It doesn't matter if it is 1,000,000 people who made an allegation. This isn't about Green, it's about people jumping to conclusions before seeing any evidence on ANY allegation.

There have been allegations, but I'd be dishonest to say I could hold a believe either way on his guilt, and you taking a position on this at best is nothing more than guessing.

You seem to also think that NDA's are an admission of guilt. They aren't at all.

[beninho]

No, this is only about Phillip Green. That what I'm talking about, thats what this case is about. I've read allegations made, I find sone of the things said to be inappropriate. There is evidence, its been reported in the papers. If you don't believe what is said, then fine.

Do you think its normal to pay seven figure sums to people to keep them quiet because they've made allegations?

[Sponsored content]