BoxRec

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑08 Jun 2020, 21:38 Yeah, I really doubt he understands the Saudi controversy

When Josh was asked about Saudi human rights record and the thoughts of Amnesty international who in case you didn;t know wanted him to research and speak out against the Saudi regime. His reply was he didn't know who Amnesty international was.

I guess when you're getting 60 million quid, don't ever discount how ignorant someone can choose to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... esty-finds

Twinkle Toes wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 06:09

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑08 Jun 2020, 21:38 Yeah, I really doubt he understands the Saudi controversy

When Josh was asked about Saudi human rights record and the thoughts of Amnesty international who in case you didn;t know wanted him to research and speak out against the Saudi regime. His reply was he didn't know who Amnesty international was.

I guess when you're getting 60 million quid, don't ever discount how ignorant someone can choose to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... esty-finds

If I was a multimillionaire world heavyweight champion, I probably wouldn’t give a toss about Amnesty International either

Twinkle Toes wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 06:09

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑08 Jun 2020, 21:38 Yeah, I really doubt he understands the Saudi controversy

When Josh was asked about Saudi human rights record and the thoughts of Amnesty international who in case you didn;t know wanted him to research and speak out against the Saudi regime. His reply was he didn't know who Amnesty international was.

I guess when you're getting 60 million quid, don't ever discount how ignorant someone can choose to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... esty-finds

The slave trade to that country lasted over 1200 years before it became illegal only 58 years ago.

BigDoofus wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 08:32

Twinkle Toes wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 06:09

When Josh was asked about Saudi human rights record and the thoughts of Amnesty international who in case you didn;t know wanted him to research and speak out against the Saudi regime. His reply was he didn't know who Amnesty international was.

I guess when you're getting 60 million quid, don't ever discount how ignorant someone can choose to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... esty-finds

The slave trade to that country lasted over 1200 years before it became illegal only 58 years ago.

The Saudis treatment of Foreign workers is absolutely abysmal, many of those who come from Bangladesh and Sub Saharan Africa, are treated little better than slaves, many have their passports confiscated on arrival, and are kept as virtual prisoners until their work is completed, in appalling conditions.

Saudi Arabia really is an awful place governed by an amoral ruling clan.

Everybody has seen how George Floyd died, there is no defence.

But here's a question .
The entire planet will have seen the footage, indeed its been timed to the nearest section. There has been widespread rioting/protesting throughout America. Politicians have made comment repeatedly and the latest news is that the Minneapolis police are to be disbanded and a new force established.
So when the trial comes about in Minneapolis and the police officers defence stand up and tell the judge that an impartial jury cannot be found due to the publicity and their client cannot possibly get a fair trial because he's rights have been totally compromised, how does the judge respond ?
Furthermore, in a previous case which received massive publicity, like OJ Simpson, in which anyone with a grain of commonsense knew he was guilty, the jury didn't agree.
I understand that one of the questions prospective jury members are asked in the US, is if they have prior knowledge of the case. How does someone from Minneapolis answer that one ?

dalcumly wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 11:16 Everybody has seen how George Floyd died, there is no defence.

But here's a question .
The entire planet will have seen the footage, indeed its been timed to the nearest section. There has been widespread rioting/protesting throughout America. Politicians have made comment repeatedly and the latest news is that the Minneapolis police are to be disbanded and a new force established.
So when the trial comes about in Minneapolis and the police officers defence stand up and tell the judge that an impartial jury cannot be found due to the publicity and their client cannot possibly get a fair trial because he's rights have been totally compromised, how does the judge respond ?
Furthermore, in a previous case which received massive publicity, like OJ Simpson, in which anyone with a grain of commonsense knew he was guilty, the jury didn't agree.
I understand that one of the questions prospective jury members are asked in the US, is if they have prior knowledge of the case. How does someone from Minneapolis answer that one ?

The Answer is Very Simple. The Public cannot understand why he publicly put his knee into someone's neck for nearly 9 minutes in Public view with his hands his pocket. He Publicly took someones live and subjected members of the public to that level of trauma, then turn up in court to argue about Publicity? Thats confirmation he is a Sicko

Regardless of our sentiments everyone in a democracy is entitled by law to a fair trial, and remember I'm not defending the police officer.
The fact is that his defence, due to detailed media coverage and social media allowing footage to be shown, have now an opportunity to have the case thrown out because of their clients rights being infringed.
History has numerous examples of 'guilty' people escaping punishment on a 'technicality'.

dalcumly wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 13:39 Regardless of our sentiments everyone in a democracy is entitled by law to a fair trial, and remember I'm not defending the police officer.
The fact is that his defence, due to detailed media coverage and social media allowing footage to be shown, have now an opportunity to have the case thrown out because of their clients rights being infringed.
History has numerous examples of 'guilty' people escaping punishment on a 'technicality'.

OK let me make it simple. the Jury will be told to concentrate on the facts they will hear in the courtroom and pass Judgement and not anything they've heard or seen in the media. Frankly publicity is never going to be an issue because of the place, nature and duration of the crime. These factors meant it was always going to make headlines. I see your point but trust me its an easy legal point to answer. Just ask the jury to only take into account what they hear in the courtroom. Unfortunately for the defendant in this case there is an 8 minutes plus of video and his body-cam if it was on will not produce any counter evidence. Yes there will be arguments but at the end of the day it will be down to foreseeability . could the defendant have foreseen that his conduct is likely to have caused serious damage with death being a potential outcome? if the answer is yes, we have a fair trial, if the jury thinks no it's also a fair trial it wouldn't matter what the press has said. I think we both know which one is going to be the likely answer. The defendant is off to start his 40 year sentence for 2nd-degree murder mate.

George Floyd was a gentle giant who would not hurt a fly, apart from the time he robbed a house with his homies and shoved a gun into the belly of the pregnant house owner....

I'll keep my sympathy for the South African schoolgirl aged 9 who was gangraped by a pack of lowlife animals before they slit her throat and left her to die in a roadside ditch.

No media frenzy for her. No T shirts or riots.

.

forcefraser wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 16:08 George Floyd was a gentle giant who would not hurt a fly, apart from the time he robbed a house with his homies and shoved a gun into the belly of the pregnant house owner....

.

Tbf, not everyone can be as gentle as Mike Brown

We're not questioning the victims' morality: we're criticising the killing of a man who could've easily been cuffed and stood up because he wasn't resisting. And it keeps happening without redress. Here's Chris Rock...

BigDoofus wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 02:35No. It wasn't having a go at minorities. It was answering a point about "white privilege" showing that the opposite was true.

Depends on your vantage. If we look at nepotism and the old boys' network, the chances of picking a white person at random and them belonging to that club are low. But if you randomly select anyone from that group, there's an overwhelming chance they're white.

I do think white privilege is a loaded term, in that it's taken by some to infer that the absence of discrimination is a bigger advantage than some whites have over others. Nepotism extended as far as a labouring job for me, but twisting our knickers over this privilege-upmanship isn't a good look.

Because it's not about who's suffered the greatest injustice, so let's get angry together at those who've caused them.

banjo wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 03:59A lot of the people who live there, there's more than enough people on both sides of the border who aren't interested in a united Ireland.

Yeah, it's not a simple situation I realise.

Fact he was killed , and it was videod , the cop was an asshole , who had the power and abused it , suprised he really had,nt hurt someone else seriously in his 20 year role , He probably would of got away with it if there were no mass protests ,,, , but don't confuse the riots , and violence with race its not ,, its just out and out thuggery with scum bags looting and pillaging because they can , scum saw an opportunity and jumped on it ,, they did'nt need to loot the local shop to show they care about black lives , ,, and the whole issue should'nt be about black or white it should be about police brutality , and the powers they are given .

The american police have an hard job , and they tend to be well supported and given the benefit of the doubt , but seriously is there any mental tests these guys have to go through before there given a gun and some serious power to use them

AJ the ex drug dealer gibbering about being persecuted along with all these fuckin Uni freaks turning up and protesting because it's fuckin fashionable! Fukk off! I have sympathy for the people in the US who are facing uncertainty everyday when they leave the house! It's part of black culture over there to be wary of the police and the stats don't lie! Over here we are fuckin spoiled! We have no idea about how it feels over there! Most of these twats are all spoiled little brats who have never wanted for fukk all in their life! I couldn't afford to go to uni! I got told to get a job! Pampered little wanks were probably out on their mum and dads doorstep clapping the NHS so they could take a pic for their social media and now they're fukking it all up because some other trendy cause has caught their attention

rooneyrooney123 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 14:24

dalcumly wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 13:39 Regardless of our sentiments everyone in a democracy is entitled by law to a fair trial, and remember I'm not defending the police officer.
The fact is that his defence, due to detailed media coverage and social media allowing footage to be shown, have now an opportunity to have the case thrown out because of their clients rights being infringed.
History has numerous examples of 'guilty' people escaping punishment on a 'technicality'.

OK let me make it simple. the Jury will be told to concentrate on the facts they will hear in the courtroom and pass Judgement and not anything they've heard or seen in the media. Frankly publicity is never going to be an issue because of the place, nature and duration of the crime. These factors meant it was always going to make headlines. I see your point but trust me its an easy legal point to answer. Just ask the jury to only take into account what they hear in the courtroom. Unfortunately for the defendant in this case there is an 8 minutes plus of video and his body-cam if it was on will not produce any counter evidence. Yes there will be arguments but at the end of the day it will be down to foreseeability . could the defendant have foreseen that his conduct is likely to have caused serious damage with death being a potential outcome? if the answer is yes, we have a fair trial, if the jury thinks no it's also a fair trial it wouldn't matter what the press has said. I think we both know which one is going to be the likely answer. The defendant is off to start his 40 year sentence for 2nd-degree murder mate.

Surely an element of fear will surround the jury tho? Knowing the eyes of the world are on them and the inevitable ramifications of a not guilty decision? It's not an exaggeration to suggest they could be potentially hung in the streets for it. Obv the officers must be held accountable for their actions, but the media have surely made a neutral situation virtually impossible. Could America afford a not guilty verdict?

These celebrities need to do a bit of fact checking before they mouth off, Lewis Hamilton is another one twittering on about Britains role in the slave trade, maybe he should have a little look at the history of the company who pay him millions.

I've done some family research - its relatively easy nowadays.
Here's what I found . We know how slaves lived in the Caribbean and America.
Here's how my ancestors were living in the UK at the same time.
The originator of my family name was a farm hand, working 7 days a week and living in a 'tied' room on the farm. She received no wage. She came from a big family who were pleased to get her out the house. Her 'wage' was her food and lodgings.
The farmers' son got her pregnant, and to save face, she was kicked out onto the street before she was 'showing'. I've no idea how she lived until approximately 10 years later when she met another man who took her in and the started a new family together.This was around the time of the American Civil War.
Who had it worse ?

watsupdoc87 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 05:10

banjo wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 03:59

A lot of the people who live there, there's more than enough people on both sides of the border who aren't interested in a united Ireland.

But overall on the whole island the majority would certainly be in favour of it

That's not how it works ffs.

The majority of China thinks that Hong Kong and Taiwan should be absorbed into the country as a whole. So its OK?

dalcumly wrote: ↑10 Jun 2020, 04:26 I've done some family research - its relatively easy nowadays.
Here's what I found . We know how slaves lived in the Caribbean and America.
Here's how my ancestors were living in the UK at the same time.
The originator of my family name was a farm hand, working 7 days a week and living in a 'tied' room on the farm. She received no wage. She came from a big family who were pleased to get her out the house. Her 'wage' was her food and lodgings.
The farmers' son got her pregnant, and to save face, she was kicked out onto the street before she was 'showing'. I've no idea how she lived until approximately 10 years later when she met another man who took her in and the started a new family together.This was around the time of the American Civil War.
Who had it worse ?

ah yes, the old 'other people had it bad too, so what have these people who were kidnapped and shipped thousands of miles away to live in mostly awful conditions which brutalised them and killed them in their hundreds of thousands, and whose after-effects then continued to affect their ancestors for over a hundred years, what do this lot have to complain about?', chestnut.

I don't want to go down the racism route -we all have our own opinions.

Also I'm not defending slavery , but here's a proven historical fact - please check yourselves to confirm.

The Portuguese, Spanish and British ships didn't arrive at West Africa get off the boats with their muskets and run around capturing slaves. The 'slaves' were already captured and sold to the Europeans at the dockside.
Their were tribal wars, with the victors rounding up the survivors from the other tribes bringing them to the coast and selling them on. It was Africans selling Africans.
Again, this is not a defence for slavery, but a fact nevertheless. Has anyone on here known about this ? That's because when activists and the media provide the story of the slave trade , they chose what parts of the story they want us to hear.
Two wrongs don't make a right. As a said previously my ancestors could be termed 'slaves' in their own country. That was nothing to do with skin colour it was simply 'cheap labour' .

So the guy who was hit on the head , drunk , and woke up to find himself on a ship , after being shangiuded , was not a nice person , because , he was forced to work on a slave ship , go to africa and then watch while the captain bought africans , of another AFRICAN so they could all sail to the Americas , where the Africans would be sold , but the poor bastard who went out for a drink on sat night and woke up set sail for Africa , was Ok with it ... Seems to me the only smiling faces there were OTHER AFRICANS , who sold there enemies .

Fook its all getting out of hand ,, I'm gonna hate them Italian , cos they invaded England before it was England , and them Danish , well them pillaging , rap[ing , muderous fookers can go get stuffed has well ,

dalcumly wrote: ↑10 Jun 2020, 05:50
Again, this is not a defence for slavery, but a fact nevertheless.

does that fact somehow make slavery less awful?

Their were tribal wars, with the victors rounding up the survivors from the other tribes bringing them to the coast and selling them on. It was Africans selling Africans.
Again, this is not a defence for slavery, but a fact nevertheless. Has anyone on here known about this

fvck me, do you think this is some kind of secret history? any fvcker who knows anything about the subject whatsoever knows this, for a start, please don't act like it isn't fairly common knowledge, and not only that but it's also the kind of pseudo-equivocatory bullsh1t that someone just like you brings up in every discussion about slavery:

'black enslaved blacks too', oh well in that case let's act as though british slavers and Georgia plantation owners are totally morally absolved. literally every conversation it's guaranteed someone will say 'blacks enslaved blacks too', the only surpriese is you didn't get the arabs in there as well.

ask yourself why the Africans rounded up fellow Africans as slaves in the first place? woke up one morning, with no existing market for slaves, and thought 'oh i know i'll see if i can round up a few hundred thousand slaves and see if i can sell them, maybe to Europeans'.

you think that's how it went? you think they got rounded up without the sellers knowing full well that (1) the buyer wanted them and (2) the buyer was willing to pay X or Y? and without the massive infratructure put in place by the europeans the whole thing would have been unfeasible. it's what we call a deman-led market, not a supply-led market.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

that's weird, I could swear you posted that entire history as some sort of 'why don't the blacks just shut up moaning?' equivocation.

do you think slavery was bad?

do you think that other people having it bad means the ancestors of slaves have no right whatsoever to grievance?

Gnome wrote: ↑10 Jun 2020, 04:36

watsupdoc87 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2020, 05:10

But overall on the whole island the majority would certainly be in favour of it

That's not how it works ffs.

The majority of China thinks that Hong Kong and Taiwan should be absorbed into the country as a whole. So its OK?

Exactly - that is nothing better than tyranny of the majority

dalcumly wrote: ↑10 Jun 2020, 04:26 I've done some family research - its relatively easy nowadays.
Here's what I found . We know how slaves lived in the Caribbean and America.
Here's how my ancestors were living in the UK at the same time.
The originator of my family name was a farm hand, working 7 days a week and living in a 'tied' room on the farm. She received no wage. She came from a big family who were pleased to get her out the house. Her 'wage' was her food and lodgings.
The farmers' son got her pregnant, and to save face, she was kicked out onto the street before she was 'showing'. I've no idea how she lived until approximately 10 years later when she met another man who took her in and the started a new family together.This was around the time of the American Civil War.
Who had it worse ?

Sorry about your ancestor. But the slaves still had it worse. By a mile.

Us gingers don't have it easy either. My people have been ridiculed and taunted for centuries. Fanta pants, indicator armpits etc etc... Ginger power