Amir khan charged

jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45231
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

KO Artist wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
don't call it a comeback wrote: I havent got a british title either. Does this mean I have to throw out my silk jimjams?

Yes it bloody well does. I expect to see a link posted on here with a picture of you burning said Pyjamas. :TU:

KO, your point about the people who own these flash motors is of course often the case. However, people who live in said council estates, often do not have the background which allows them to believe that they could get a mortgage on a property, or the knowledge of finances to make those informed decisions. I seem to recall you are not from an affluent background, much like myself, but we both had a university education and moved in circles which are not directly related to our original environment. The apple does sometimes fall further from the tree.

It's not to do so much with where you are born, but how you are brought up. Sad to say, but if you have thick ignorant parents, (and that is not something confined by any means to council estates), then there is a greater chance that you too will grow up thick and ignorant.

Poverty and desolate surroundings have a way of stifling the reach of young people. Thus, they look to the instant gratification of designer labels, cheap bling jewellery, drug money, stupid rotating rims on their cars wheels etc. Which is easier, making a 10 year plan to buy a property, or buying a snide Ralph Lauren from the market?

I was having an argument with this daily mail reading twat in my office who is a staunch and idiotic tory, always banging on about immigration etc, Indian call centres, blah blah blah. I tried to point out to her that the tories and the idea of a free market economy is what led directly to the call centre phenomenon, the freedom of companies to employ labour around the world. All these young hoodlums out robbing and selling crack are just living the capatalist dream, unfettered by any moral obligation to anyone but themselves and those closest to them.

In essence this get rich or die tryin' generation is a direct descendent of the thatcher era yuppie. The idea that the pursuit of wealth, it's trappings and the damnation of any idea of a common weal and the good of the community is the creation of those evil bastards who ushered in the era of global capitalism as the sole god in our country.
I agree with your point James, but I didnt go to university. I did grow up on a council estate and thoroughly enjoyed it. Though I was lucky enough to work in businesses where I got a good commercial education.

The Daily moan must be the most paranoid and depressing paper in the uk.

The times is more balanced, but a little leftie at times.
Sorry, was confusing you with knockout (who along with the illustrious Mr McNeilly attended the same university as me), often happens.

I read the time on a daily basis, I find it fairly neutral compared to the Guardian and the Independent, though still a liberal newspaper.

The Mail is the worst rag out there in my opinion, it fans the flames of hatred, paranoia and xenophobia whilst masquerading as a 'serious' newspaper. The sun is at least sometimes tongue in cheek and irreverant, but the Mail has a clear and unswerving agenda, and is extremely dangerous. It gives such a dangerously biased view of reality which warps the mind of pigshit thick people all over the UK, most of whom are middle class aspirants who think that voting Tory makes them posh.
emma
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1421
Joined: 20 Mar 2006, 12:28

Post by emma »

harrygreb wrote:i'm confused by warrens logic. he'll put amir in a car like that, which could kill him, but he wont put him in with a decent lightweight...
:lol: true.
Slapsie Maxie
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 794
Joined: 22 Jun 2004, 08:22

Post by Slapsie Maxie »

Presumably he has Amir insured up to the eyeballs if he does a "James Dean" which is, I am sure not the case when he gets found out in the ring where his only insurance is to put him in with "stiffs" a la so many of the other SN fighters

Slapsie
sweetscience
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2816
Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 09:09

Post by sweetscience »

i think they have took it off him now anyway, i only see him in his Range Rover now (he lives on the next street too me)
Neri
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2856
Joined: 01 May 2003, 00:41

Post by Neri »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:. Personally, I think that it should be avoidable if people are taught how to psychologically deal with their kids, but there aren't classes like that available as far as I am aware.
All you need is the program 'Supernanny'. She turns the worst bastard kids, who actually make thrashing them with your belt look a reasonable solution, into well behaved good mannered kids. The simple methods she teaches if enforced over time do seem to work.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45231
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

That's what I mean, why don't they have a short induction training course for new parents which goes through those simple behavioural techniques?
nickd
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7071
Joined: 17 Mar 2004, 13:45

Post by nickd »

A few smacks as a kid never did me any harm YA F****N B*****D C****S. :lol:
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Post by Horse »

jamesmcdonnell wrote: the Mail has a clear and unswerving agenda, and is extremely dangerous.
A bit over the top don't you think.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45231
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

No I don't think it is over the top. Listen to anyone who reads the daily mail on a regular basis, and you will see just how dangerous the bilge they put out is. Everything is attributed to some sinister and pernicious enemy, be it, Islam/Immigrants/Liberal thinking. It's a sick publication.

There are problems in this country, and some of it relates to some of the issues raised, but they give a warped view of Britain, which is unrepresentative of reality. They do not bother to balance their articles or use the facts present, but focus on bald statistics which don't actually convey any meaning.

For instance, Britain does have a large number of immigrants coming into this country, but what they fail to mentioned is the 150,000 people leaving the country every year. They also don't mention the fact that we have many many areas where there is a big skill shortage, and that many immigrants are not asylum seekers, but educated and trained people who are looking for work.

In fact less than 10% of immigration to the UK are asylum seekers, way less, the majority of asylum seekers are NOT granted asylum, though the process of deporting them appears to be rather overwhelmed.

If anyone thinks that asylum aside that it is easy to get into the uk, then I suggest they contact the home office and ask them what the criteria is for entering the UK as an economic migrant. They don't let you in with 5 quid in your pocket and a certificate for ditch-digging. You need money and/or skills/qualification that have a proven value in this country. Asylum status is only granted to a small proportion of those who claim asylum, which in itself is only a small proportion of those applying for residency in the UK.

Don't believe me, look for yourself. Official home office figures.

http://www.icar.org.uk/download.php?id=76

Interesting reading, some surprises in there as to where the asylum applications are coming from. Iraq is high up the list, wonder why that is?
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45231
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

Yes, I have to say it is rather laughable this idea that people from countries where you are either rich, or work like a dog, or die of starvation are somehow work shy spongers who come over here to ruin our incredible way of life where everyone is a blameless paragon of virtue, working for the common good. Nothing could be father from the truth. Go to any local job centre, and tell me everyone there is an asylum seeker.
mickeybeard
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 488
Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 09:05

Post by mickeybeard »

Waaaaaaay off topic, but where abouts in Manchester are you Terence? I only ask because, in my ignorance, I'd always thought of the place as a shithole but me & the missus went to visit her sister the other week, and it's really quite nice.

The city centre is clean and not at all threatening at night (then again, I happily walked around Glasgow at night, when everybody tells me I should've been fearing for my life), even outside the main shopping streets. Fallowfield, where the sister-in-law lives is studenty but fine, Didsbury thinks it's better than it is, and Salford and Stockport (which I expected to be really shitty) were ok. I was told that there have even been big strides towards getting Moss Side half-way livable! :D

And before anyone makes any assumptions, it's not a southern snobbish thing - there are plenty of bits of Plymouth that are feckin' horrible - it's just that the majority of news items about the city always used to involve someone getting shot/stabbed/blown-up/whatever.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45231
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

Just goes to prove my point. It's not newsworthy to say "In Manchester today a 14 year old wearing a hooded top helped and old woman across the road with her shopping."

I seem to recall that quite a bit of money was spent on Manchester in recent years.

I went to Leeds for the first time in about 15 years last year, and was shocked at how upscale it has become. The old concrete monstrosity shopping centre had been bulldozed and a shiny new one put in it's place with lots of bond-street style boutiques and hairdressers.

It can be grim up north, but the divide between North and South these days is probably quite heavily overstated.
Lenny
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3656
Joined: 27 Nov 2003, 05:31

Post by Lenny »

I think the divide is getting smaller and parts of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle where i've visited seem to be undergoing major redevelopment - although I get that everywhere has its rough areas

Told someone I was going to Nottingham for a stag do a couple of months back, the way they were talking you'd think i'd have needed a bullit proof vest. Surprisingly enough we didn't see any trouble
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Post by Horse »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Everything is attributed to some sinister and pernicious enemy, be it, Islam/Immigrants/Liberal thinking. It's a sick publication.
They do tend to blame "liberal" thinking for most things, and they are quite right to, in my opinion.
Slapsie Maxie
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 794
Joined: 22 Jun 2004, 08:22

Post by Slapsie Maxie »

jamesmcdonnell wrote: I went to Leeds for the first time in about 15 years last year, and was shocked at how upscale it has become. .
Apropo of nothing, one of the very best restaurants in the country is now in Leeds

http://www.anthonysrestaurant.co.uk

Well worth a trip up north

Slapsie
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45231
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

Of course, because things were so much better back in the 'golden age' when liberal thinking was frowned upon.

Liberal thinking actually means considering the causes of problems, and the repercussions of them, rather than believing that punishment is the only answer, when in fact anything is farther from the truth.

We have record numbers of people in prison right now, some of the harshest sentencing ever, (despite what the dramatic media story of the moment might lead you to believe), and yet record numbers of people reoffend, and therefore the system is failing. The judiciary (the people best informed in these areas) have been telling the government for years that increased tariffs and banging more people up will not produce the results they are after, and they have been proven right.

Unless the sources and causes of crime are tackled, you can never eradicate or reduce it, that's a plain fact. It's nothing to do with wooly thinking, it's common bloody sense. In any case, considering I've lived in some of the most supposedly dodgy areas of london, and have rarely had any experience of crime, I do not think the doom and gloom mongers are painting an accurate picture of reality.

For instance, the guy who was recently convicted who was eligible for parole in 5 years, is very unlikely to be paroled. It's just a shitstorm for the media and the government to bandy around because the family were rightly appalled by the idea of him being released in 5 years. I very much doubt whether he would have been parolled in his lifetime after his crimes.
knockout
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3868
Joined: 11 Jun 2003, 10:00

Post by knockout »

Terence: A brilliant post by someone who actually talks about what he sees not what he reads in the papers.....

I am from manchester originally and to be honest the best thing that happened to the "city" was the bomb in 1990s...it destroyed half the city centre and forced the government to invest some money in to it.....

Obviously this is ignoring the other side of the coin concerning those who were injured or maimed by the terrorists (non muslim incidentally). As far as I recall no one died but there must have been some bad injuries.
Southpaw Stylist
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1484
Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 04:50

Post by Southpaw Stylist »

The Daily Mail is the worst paper and extremely dangerous, James is right.
E
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Post by E »

jamesmcdonnell wrote: the Mail has a clear and unswerving agenda, and is extremely dangerous.
Good lord - talk about paranoia and exaggeration.

If you want to talk about what is extremely dangerous you should examine the history and theology of Islam in detail....

Want to talk about violence and murder?

The koran is packed with passages that justify killing and violence - Islam was spread by the sword.

Want to talk about Apartheid?

The koran designates that non-muslims are second class citizens and should have specific discrimatory rules applied to them, including the paying of a tax paid only by non-muslims.

Want to talk about 'homophobia'?

Shariah laws entail death for the 'crime' of homosexuality.

What about paedophilia?

Mohammed when aged 52 married a 6 year old and consumated the marriage at 9.


Freedom of expression and ideas?

Er no... there is only one way apparently - the Islamic one. Shariah law dictates death for apostates.


etc etc

An no - I am not a Daily Mail reader, or Richard Littlejohn, fundamentalist Christian, or BNP blah blah or whatever predictable left wing stereotype you want to apply to anyone who disagrees with any thing you say.


I studies Islam as part of my degree, it is just not compatible with the idealist multicultural wet dream you masturbate over nightly or the bizarre assertation that Islam is 'the religion of peace'.

The theology and tenets of Islam are incompatible with our western lifestyle and freedoms, not to mention other religions.
lvlarc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1871
Joined: 16 Jan 2005, 02:24

Post by lvlarc »

Gone abit off topic here eh lads. :o Khan seems like a decent kid to me, too much focus on what he does outside the ring, shit he's still only 19. Any mistakes he make, he will learn from. Just hope the money & fame don't go too his head.
E
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Post by E »

Terence wrote:
E mate, no offence but you do not study Islam, you only read about it.

You are not even distinguishing Koranic Islam and Muhammedism. The Koran is an allegoric, oral recitation, it has become abused but then so has Christianity and other aspects of culture. The Koran has clear rules about conduct in warfare and conduct for the victors (that we have still failed to adopt).

The Prophet was invited by the citizens of Madina as a mediator between warring (mostly Judaic and Christian) factions. He entered the city peacefully and made the Hijra and then the dislike of him from Meccan factions saw him retaliate with a smaller army that soon gathered strength in numbers. He walked back into Mecca and the people expected destruction but he merely purified the Kabbalah and let the followers of other religions live under a taxation system. Much better than the slaughter when the Crusades took Jerusalem and sacked it.

Your other claims are wrong and banal misinterpretations of a book you probably have read only in prose translations at best. There are Suras that are open to translation and the Shariah fills the gaps. You neglect to mention that wives in Islam were the first to be granted divorces or that in some Islamic families homosexual males are incorporated into the women's circle.

Shariah is a gradiated law, you steal and they judge you; if you steal because you are hungry and trying to feed your family the society is judged not you. But they do not tolerate kleptomania or celebrities walking out of Tesco with a bag full of booze.

As for claims about paedophillia. It was common until the last century for us in the West to take young (and virgin) wives. I don't see you attacking the Quakers, or English Kings for that matter who took teenage brides into their marital beds.

Islam incorporates other religions but not our lifestyle (for what it is). It means submission and the things you bring up need to be qualified by the text itself and its earliest forms. You did not do this and I'm not being a twat or preachy about it. I just don't like ignorance and especially about something that has been a great benefit to mankind. Islam is fascinating, I have a keen interest as I'm working on postgraduate work on the Koran, sorry to go off-topic so badly but the things you claim you claim through a Western perspective.

You don't see me attacking the Quakers and English kings?

Because they are irrelevant to modern life - I don't think their behaviour was any better; I certainly don't support their actions....

But this is only a tangent to the main argument.

Getting into a discussion on which form of Islam I am criticizing blah blah is an irrelevant red herring.

The point is - I am looking at the way the Koran / Hadith whatever are being interpreted by some (enough) Muslims and also throughout Islamic history and the behaviour thereof.

I mean, what - do you want me to ignore hundreds of years of bloody history, and the current bloody conflicts around the world because THERE EXISTS a less aggressive interpretation?

Do you want me to ignore the oppressive Islamic regimes and governments around the world and the bloody, fiery borders of Islam?

Ignore the fact that I missed the 7/7 bombs by a few stops? (And please don't bring out the old 'it is only a very small minority who are dangerous' argument - you only need a small minority to disrupt whole societies.)

Islamic expansion and fundamentalism is the biggest threat to our free civilization - just because this perspective doesn't fit in with your wishful thinking wankfest does not make it any less real.

-----------------------------------

Put simply - I hope you are right in your view and I am wrong - I have no wish to see disruption and violence, but find it hard to believe anything else given the evidence........
silkov
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7946
Joined: 18 Aug 2003, 14:55

Post by silkov »

I say take away all religions and let people get along together regardless of colour, background etc.... religion is really just politics... built up by certain people as bases with which to rule over the vast majority... for centuries they have been used to provoke people into fighting and killing one another... there are people now thinking that the latest troubles are over Islam and Christianity, but its not, its really just about money and oil, plain and simple... because money and power is the only real 'religion' of those at the top....
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22335
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Post by Horse »

silkov wrote:I say take away all religions and let people get along together regardless of colour, background etc....
Taking away all religions will not magically make everyone love each other, if anything it will make things worse.
silkov
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7946
Joined: 18 Aug 2003, 14:55

Post by silkov »

Horse wrote:
silkov wrote:I say take away all religions and let people get along together regardless of colour, background etc....
Taking away all religions will not magically make everyone love each other, if anything it will make things worse.
How would it make things worse?.... throughout history the guise of religion has been behind most of the wars that have occured all over the world... if you took away religion then you would rid the world of one of the main things that alienate so many people from eachother. The problem is that there are many people who have vested interests in maintaining these divisions and so it all goes on and on and we continue to follow like lambs to the slaughter...
CrunchTime
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 26
Joined: 18 Feb 2006, 19:48

Post by CrunchTime »

Hate to get too far ON topic here, but Khan's incident is clearly bad for the guy many have dubbed the "future of British boxing" and hence a potential blow to the sport!
Post Reply