creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:06 pm

I'm not.

Lots aren't. That feels a straw-manny to me. There's a tendency to take an argument and say people who also think x think y, and here is why y is wrong.

Your point further up, that's just different circumstances isn't it? Of course you need a consistent policy, but don't treat people convicted of murder and shoplifting the same.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43132
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:09 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:47 pm
I was just chatting to someone who made what I consider to be an excellent point about this. Those that say, but Robinson was only 18 water under the bridge - he wasn't much more as a kid....are almost certainly in many cases the same people who frothed at the mouth about Shamima Begum who was indoctrinated and radicalised as a 15 year old girl.
The main point about that is even now no solution is offered, just historic reference and "water under the bridge" is hardly relevant , these things don't as water moves on..Terrorism and bad jokes are hardly on a par as examples.

None of what's offered is a real solution; not sure there will ever be one. How can you balance like age between a sensible, intelligent person and a typical extremist poster of a Bolton News comments section? I quote this to show both exist rather than make any other points except that people are so diversified in their views, political or otherwise, upbringings, education, religion ( or lack of it) law-abidance and the criminal elements, and thus it has always been. In contradiction to the "action/equal and opposite reaction" dictum , Quite often the reaction is far more abrasive than the action was ever meant to be.

On a lighter note.As an example of diversification; , there are those on here who can't tell a cake from a biscuit and strange creatures who actually like Toblerone... :D
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36005
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:36 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:09 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:47 pm
I was just chatting to someone who made what I consider to be an excellent point about this. Those that say, but Robinson was only 18 water under the bridge - he wasn't much more as a kid....are almost certainly in many cases the same people who frothed at the mouth about Shamima Begum who was indoctrinated and radicalised as a 15 year old girl.
The main point about that is even now no solution is offered, just historic reference and "water under the bridge" is hardly relevant , these things don't as water moves on..Terrorism and bad jokes are hardly on a par as examples.

None of what's offered is a real solution; not sure there will ever be one. How can you balance like age between a sensible, intelligent person and a typical extremist poster of a Bolton News comments section? I quote this to show both exist rather than make any other points except that people are so diversified in their views, political or otherwise, upbringings, education, religion ( or lack of it) law-abidance and the criminal elements, and thus it has always been. In contradiction to the "action/equal and opposite reaction" dictum , Quite often the reaction is far more abrasive than the action was ever meant to be.

On a lighter note.As an example of diversification; , there are those on here who can't tell a cake from a biscuit and strange creatures who actually like Toblerone... :D
The point is that in one case we're told - can't hold him to account for stuff he did as he turned an adult...just move on.

In the other we're told (by those who advocate this) that she was 15 and therefore even though clearly manipulated at 15 it was her fault. That's the point. You can argue one way or another about age of responsibility and people often do to suit their view.

If we're saying that OR's tweets weren't that serious then I guess the age or when he posted them aren't relevant and we'd have to say had he posted them yesterday that it would be exactly the same.

I think the action is overboard but expected it given the situation the ECB were in. But still. Its overboard.

However, I also think that generally many want to excuse stuff they did as kids or others did as kids when it suits them but are less keen, very much less keen to let age or passage of time matter when it doesn't.

For example lets say it came out a cricketer in the England setup had beat up his girlfriend as a teenager. No doubt there'd be a lot of criticism but I'm willing to bet 'yeah he was a kid he was stupid and lets move on' would also be there. I'm also willing to bet that if said cricketer was found to have gone to an ISIS rally or something as a 16 year old once, and apologised for it that may in the latter camp above would be frothing at the mouth and asking for him to be banned from playing for England. You know it and I know it.

Lets face it they are currently booing their own players for protesting against racism. So the ends to which people will go seem pretty extreme now.

As for your lighter point - I like Toblerone but its impossible to bloody eat the thing. Biscuits and cakes - is this the old jaffa cake thing?

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32272
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:57 pm

Talk about trying to jury rig an apple and an orange into one equation for the convenience of making a bizarre argument around consistency. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this imaginary "adulthood" age of 18, should absolve anybody of any action under that age on the grounds they are too young to understand what they're doing. That's not inconsistent, it's like arguing that he should be locked up for life, because James Bulger's killers were.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36005
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:03 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:57 pm
Talk about trying to jury rig an apple and an orange into one equation for the convenience of making a bizarre argument around consistency. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this imaginary "adulthood" age of 18, should absolve anybody of any action under that age on the grounds they are too young to understand what they're doing. That's not inconsistent, it's like arguing that he should be locked up for life, because James Bulger's killers were.
Yeah but either age is a mitigating factor or it isn't. You can't say well being 15 absolves you of stuff so long as what you did wasn't too bad. Because that doesn't make sense. You can say of course - what person a) did was very serious and irrespective of age deserves said punishment and b) wasn't so serious so doesn't. But I don't think you can play the age card selectively personally. Either age diminishes responsibility or it doesn't. We know where the law stands but we're talking other organisations disciplinary processes here.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32272
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:46 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:03 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:57 pm
Talk about trying to jury rig an apple and an orange into one equation for the convenience of making a bizarre argument around consistency. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this imaginary "adulthood" age of 18, should absolve anybody of any action under that age on the grounds they are too young to understand what they're doing. That's not inconsistent, it's like arguing that he should be locked up for life, because James Bulger's killers were.
Yeah but either age is a mitigating factor or it isn't. You can't say well being 15 absolves you of stuff so long as what you did wasn't too bad. Because that doesn't make sense. You can say of course - what person a) did was very serious and irrespective of age deserves said punishment and b) wasn't so serious so doesn't. But I don't think you can play the age card selectively personally. Either age diminishes responsibility or it doesn't. We know where the law stands but we're talking other organisations disciplinary processes here.
Age is quite correctly a mitigating factor, but mitigations are not all equal and nor should they be. The idea of mitigation is it's commensurate to a risk and the actions that are being mitigated against. That's not playing an age card selectively. That's common sense.

We can't pretend that someone who travelled across Europe to Syria, to join IS somehow gets the same "type/level" of age mitigation as someone who's posted some stuff on Twitter that doesn't look like it's directed at anyone specifically. To suggest they're treated as the same type of thing for mitigation purposes is an absolute nonsense. She isn't the only one whose lost her citizenship. Jack Letts has lost his citizenship too, and last time a number was mentioned it was "around 200". I suspect the ones we had to take back are in pokey.

So if we're looking at mitigation vs risk, does Ollie Robinson and his tweets lead to a risk that's remotely in the ballpark with a radicalised ISIL supporter? Not in my book, so his age mitigation should correctly be treated differently.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36005
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:57 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:46 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:03 pm
Worthy4England wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:57 pm
Talk about trying to jury rig an apple and an orange into one equation for the convenience of making a bizarre argument around consistency. I don't think anyone is suggesting that this imaginary "adulthood" age of 18, should absolve anybody of any action under that age on the grounds they are too young to understand what they're doing. That's not inconsistent, it's like arguing that he should be locked up for life, because James Bulger's killers were.
Yeah but either age is a mitigating factor or it isn't. You can't say well being 15 absolves you of stuff so long as what you did wasn't too bad. Because that doesn't make sense. You can say of course - what person a) did was very serious and irrespective of age deserves said punishment and b) wasn't so serious so doesn't. But I don't think you can play the age card selectively personally. Either age diminishes responsibility or it doesn't. We know where the law stands but we're talking other organisations disciplinary processes here.
Age is quite correctly a mitigating factor, but mitigations are not all equal and nor should they be. The idea of mitigation is it's commensurate to a risk and the actions that are being mitigated against. That's not playing an age card selectively. That's common sense.

We can't pretend that someone who travelled across Europe to Syria, to join IS somehow gets the same "type/level" of age mitigation as someone who's posted some stuff on Twitter that doesn't look like it's directed at anyone specifically. To suggest they're treated as the same type of thing for mitigation purposes is an absolute nonsense. She isn't the only one whose lost her citizenship. Jack Letts has lost his citizenship too, and last time a number was mentioned it was "around 200". I suspect the ones we had to take back are in pokey.

So if we're looking at mitigation vs risk, does Ollie Robinson and his tweets lead to a risk that's remotely in the ballpark with a radicalised ISIL supporter? Not in my book, so his age mitigation should correctly be treated differently.
What I'm saying is you cannot say on the one hand (as some definitely will be) 'Begum was 15 and old enough to know better' and on the other 'Come on what lad hasn't said racist stuff he was only 18, barely an adult'.

I absolutely agree one is far more serious than the other and am not asking for the same 'penalty' simply that you cannot use age as an excuse selectively. If Begum was old enough to be accountable for her actions at 15 then Robinson sure as hell was at 18. Or vice versa....

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32272
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Jun 07, 2021 5:05 pm

Do you actually know anyone who's doing that? (Or just making a hypothetical statement?) and if there are people saying that who fundamentally gives a feck? :-)

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:49 pm

Not sure I agree with Dowden and PM weighing in and adding it to their little culture war.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36005
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:03 pm

jimbo wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:49 pm
Not sure I agree with Dowden and PM weighing in and adding it to their little culture war.
As inevitable as the sun rising. We are Trumpland mk2.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43132
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:37 pm

We've drifted into Law and Politics in the Cricket thread. Let's keep them apart hey?
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

jimbo
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:34 am

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jimbo » Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:05 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:37 pm
We've drifted into Law and Politics in the Cricket thread. Let's keep them apart hey?
I’d argue that politicians and right wing shouters like Fox and JHB have dragged cricket into the political world.

They’ll shit themselves in the next test when Mr Woakes himself comes in to replace their new free speech hero. Makes me want to pad the team out with a few more lefties too.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36005
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:11 pm

jimbo wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:05 pm
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:37 pm
We've drifted into Law and Politics in the Cricket thread. Let's keep them apart hey?
I’d argue that politicians and right wing shouters like Fox and JHB have dragged cricket into the political world.

They’ll shit themselves in the next test when Mr Woakes himself comes in to replace their new free speech hero. Makes me want to pad the team out with a few more lefties too.
Lol. Apparently there are reports of the ECB investigating historic tweets of another as yet unnamed player.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43132
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:22 pm

Author Michael Connelly, through one of his fictional characters, more than once,made the statement :"Everybody matters, or nobody matters.!" That surely is the most powerful message of all ,whatever country you are in; all the rest is surely excuses.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32272
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:51 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:11 pm
jimbo wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:05 pm
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:37 pm
We've drifted into Law and Politics in the Cricket thread. Let's keep them apart hey?
I’d argue that politicians and right wing shouters like Fox and JHB have dragged cricket into the political world.

They’ll shit themselves in the next test when Mr Woakes himself comes in to replace their new free speech hero. Makes me want to pad the team out with a few more lefties too.
Lol. Apparently there are reports of the ECB investigating historic tweets of another as yet unnamed player.
They're now suggesting some historical tweets involving Buttler, Anderson and Morgan, with the possibility of someone who posted something when they were 16...witches, witches everywhere. Call for the ducking stool.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36005
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:05 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:51 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:11 pm
jimbo wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:05 pm
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:37 pm
We've drifted into Law and Politics in the Cricket thread. Let's keep them apart hey?
I’d argue that politicians and right wing shouters like Fox and JHB have dragged cricket into the political world.

They’ll shit themselves in the next test when Mr Woakes himself comes in to replace their new free speech hero. Makes me want to pad the team out with a few more lefties too.
Lol. Apparently there are reports of the ECB investigating historic tweets of another as yet unnamed player.
They're now suggesting some historical tweets involving Buttler, Anderson and Morgan, with the possibility of someone who posted something when they were 16...witches, witches everywhere. Call for the ducking stool.
Anderson’s is separate..,and he’s apologised. In 2010 he tweeted that Broads new haircut made him look like a 15 year old lesbian. Butler, Morgan and Mccullum were involved in a seeming in-joke Twitter exchange where they congratulated each other on good innings using ‘sir’ which obviously is mocking Indian over usage of said word...

None of these examples are anything at all like Ollie Robinson’s which whenever he wrote them were more overtly racist and problematic.

The one who tweeted when under 16 potentially is still unnamed far as I know.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:29 pm

I'm pretty sure tweets at 16 isn't Jimmy :D

It's definitely Dom Bess.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:02 pm

That's a better start. First time we've gone through the opening session in a home test without loss since 2011 apparently!
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36005
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by BWFC_Insane » Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:25 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:02 pm
That's a better start. First time we've gone through the opening session in a home test without loss since 2011 apparently!
Miles better. And good lord what a stat that is.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Prufrock » Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:54 pm

Just got back from making my lunch :lol:
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 88 guests