Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => The Sporting Life => Topic started by: robgul on 10 September, 2019, 08:49:23 am
-
At last he's been knighted - the late Brian Redhead on the Today Prog always referred to him as "Sir Geoffrey" so will be smiling today.
Whether as suggested he will be dubbed with a stick of rhubarb remains to be seen - assuming he finds the correct corridor at Buck House and the not the one of uncertainty.
... oh, and good news on the Strauss knighthood too
Rob
-
In 1977, I was on a sixth form geology expedition in Iceland.
Halfway through the 6 week term, there was a change of medical support staff.
The incoming doctor was pumped for the latest news from the outside world.
In his view there were only 3 important events to relate- Elvis was dead, GB had scored his 100th hundred at Headingley and after that I didn't care about the third one.
Although Yorkshire had a pretty good team in the 70's (GB,Hampshire,Bairstow, Old,Cope) it was a barren decade for them.
https://www.wisden.com/stories/my-golden-summer-1977 (https://www.wisden.com/stories/my-golden-summer-1977)
.
-
I don’t think it’s right to be the knighting a wife beater. No matter what he did on the field or in the commentary box, in my eyes, he negated all that with domestic violence.
-
I don’t think it’s right to be the knighting a wife beater. No matter what he did on the field or in the commentary box, in my eyes, he negated all that with domestic violence.
.... IF it was true . . . . there's a bit more to the story than has been reported in the sensationalist papers today
-
There's no way I'm ever going to call a racist domestic abuser sir even if he was good at some kind of sportsball fifty years ago.
Do we have a dishonours system thread?
-
Women battering scum don't deserve honours. I don't give a monkeys about how good at getting paid to hit balls he is.
.... IF it was true . . . . there's a bit more to the story than has been reported in the sensationalist papers today
This is a bit like when you always get someone in the paras opining that "well a lot went on on that Sunday that people don't know about".
-
I don’t think it’s right to be the knighting a wife beater. No matter what he did on the field or in the commentary box, in my eyes, he negated all that with domestic violence.
.... IF it was true . . . . there's a bit more to the story than has been reported in the sensationalist papers today
Was there much more than the fact that he was found guilty?
-
Not to mention he's a screaming racist, claiming that because some Black people got some honours that honours are given out like confetti and he should just "black up". There's sub-zero excuse for that kind of language and thinking, I don't care if he's "of another generation", it's racist as fuck and we tell women and Black people that being a woman-beating racist is ok as long as you are good at sportsing and Theresa likes you.
The honours system is a massive pile of wank and I'd abolish it entirely. I quite like a second house - we need it, but appoint people to it in a fairer and more transparent manner.
In better news, she may have her faults, but Ruth Hunt has also got a peerage, and I think she'll do good with it as a cross-bencher.
-
Isn't there a superfluous 'i' in the title of this thread?
-
Perhaps we could organise a Boycott of something.
:facepalm:
IGMC
-
I don't much like Boycott - I don't care about cricket and whenever I have heard him speak he comes across as someone I'd prefer not to meet - but AIUI he was convicted of an assault on his girlfriend about 25 years ago (and I accept but don't think relevant the fact that he has always disputed the conviction).
Surely, that is now a spent conviction. What he did was unpleasant and unsavoury, but isn't a key part of our justice system that we don't continue to penalise people for offences that have been appropriately punished?
Do we ignore that for crimes that we particularly dislike? Or are we saying that anyone who has ever been convicted of anything should be barred from receiving any form of honour (in which case Sirs Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney need give their Ks back and I'm sure there are many other lesser mortals who have been honoured despite having made mistakes in their pasts.
-
I don't think it's disproportionate to regard someone who assaults people as not deserving a state honourific.
Or are we saying that anyone who has ever been convicted of anything
No, clearly someone who shoplifted or smoked weed something is not in the same order of scumbaggery as someone who A. committed assault and B. expresses no remorse and says he 'doesn't give a toss' about the conviction.
-
The interview with him on R4 this morning gave a strong indication that he felt no remorse whatever for that for which he was found guilty.
That was on the Toady Prog. A couple of hours later, Woman's Hour ran a piece with the head of charity Woman's Aid, which had worked closely with Theresa May, and the result of this work was the Domestic Abuse Bill. This bit the dust yesterday with the proroguing of Parliament. The sai head of charity described the honour as "extremely disappointing".
Mind you, it should come as no surprise that Johnson doesn't really give a toss about abuse of women, given what we know about his own domestic arrangements in recent weeks, the number of bastards he has left around England, and his cancellation of the disciplinary investigation into that thug of a Tory MP who was filmed assaulting a woman at a slap-up dinner.
-
His racism was much more recent than his DA conviction... And he's not acting like someone who treats women with respect!
-
I know nothing about Geoffery Boycott, but giving a knighthood to someone convicted of domestic violence does come across as a bit of a dead cat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy)...
-
I mean this is an outright dead cat administration and also he was May's pick.
I really recommend everyone check this programme out https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00088gm . It's at first glance about Trump and truth but it's hugely relevant to this country. By blasting an intense and unapolagetic firehose of lies and outrage, people like Johnson and Trump basically invade people's minds, leaving no space for opposing forces to advance their own agendas. It is a hugely effective campaigning strategy, and smartphones and the www have made it even more so.
-
I don’t think it’s right to be the knighting a wife beater. No matter what he did on the field or in the commentary box, in my eyes, he negated all that with domestic violence.
.... IF it was true . . . . there's a bit more to the story than has been reported in the sensationalist papers today
FFS! He was convicted in a court of law. He lost the appeal as well. What “more to the story” is there?
Oh ... and he’s racist, misogynistic and homophobic. Obviously a shining example who deserves a knighthood.
-
I don’t think it’s right to be the knighting a wife beater. No matter what he did on the field or in the commentary box, in my eyes, he negated all that with domestic violence.
.... IF it was true . . . . there's a bit more to the story than has been reported in the sensationalist papers today
FFS! He was convicted in a court of law. He lost the appeal as well. What “more to the story” is there?
Oh ... and he’s racist, misogynistic and homophobic. Obviously a shining example who deserves a knighthood.
I fear that in the current climate, this kind of shit is going to be on the increase.
Welcome back to 1978.
-
All of the above. Plus he's just fucking annoying on TMS. I wish the Beeb would just get rid.
-
I know nothing about Geoffery Boycott, but giving a knighthood to someone convicted of domestic violence does come across as a bit of a dead cat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy)...
He was an absolutely outstanding test cricketer, professional Yorkshireman and a thoroughly unpleasant character.
-
And the most selfish batsman I think there has ever been.
-
Was there a story about Botham deliberately running him out in order to go on and win a match? Or have i made that up?
-
Was there a story about Botham deliberately running him out in order to go on and win a match? Or have i made that up?
<flexes Google fu>
Trufax. Day 4 of the 2nd test between England and New Zealand in 1978, Botham ran out Boycott on the orders of vice-captain Bob Willis. ;D
Source - take your pick from: Google search results (https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=Oh94XafmBoyQkwXaxqSYCQ&q=ian+botham+running+out+geoffrey+boycott&oq=ian+botham+runnin&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l2.8497.12384..15188...0.0..0.131.1750.6j11......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0i22i30.kO2x-CwPUOc)
-
In the second World Cup Final, Boycott and Brearley successfully defended their first wicket partnership for so long that England effectively lost the match without losing a wicket. Gooch came in at no. 4 (IIRC) and demonstrated his enormous frustration at his "senior" batsmen's naive batting.
The West Indies qualified for the final, this time facing England, hosted at Lord's for the second consecutive tournament. An unbeaten 138 from Viv Richards, and support from Collis King in a 139-run partnership for the fifth wicket, saw the West Indies set England a target of 287 runs to win in 60 overs. A profitable but slow opening partnership between Mike Brearley and Geoffrey Boycott (the latter taking 17 overs to reach double figures) saw England to 129. However, following Brearley's dismissal, only Graham Gooch and Derek Randall made a "brief assault" on the West Indian bowling, before a batting collapse, Joel Garner taking five wickets in eleven balls. England ended 194 all out, and presented the West Indies with their second consecutive title, winning by 92 runs.
-
Was there a story about Botham deliberately running him out in order to go on and win a match? Or have i made that up?
something along the lines of "You just ran me out you bastard!"
-
I don't much like Boycott - I don't care about cricket and whenever I have heard him speak he comes across as someone I'd prefer not to meet - but AIUI he was convicted of an assault on his girlfriend about 25 years ago (and I accept but don't think relevant the fact that he has always disputed the conviction).
Surely, that is now a spent conviction. What he did was unpleasant and unsavoury, but isn't a key part of our justice system that we don't continue to penalise people for offences that have been appropriately punished?
Do we ignore that for crimes that we particularly dislike? Or are we saying that anyone who has ever been convicted of anything should be barred from receiving any form of honour (in which case Sirs Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney need give their Ks back and I'm sure there are many other lesser mortals who have been honoured despite having made mistakes in their pasts.
I agree. It would be different if his public persona centred around mistreatment of women.
And you have to look at the guy as a whole - I would imagine that his recovery from cancer to continue a much-admired career in broadcasting was a big factor, together with his elite sporting CV. I don't think I'd want him round for dinner, but part of broadcasting is defending views that not everyone agrees with, and risking dislike from parts of your audience.
-
He is still a consummate cock.