By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
It is very difficult to discern a coherent point from your posts.
You are judging people based on what you read in the papers, or more accurately, what other people tell you they have read in the papers.
Ched Evans ended up being found not guilty, for what it's worth. Although I don't really want to get into that topic as it has been done to death.
We could go on and on but what you're suggesting is that people can't reform their characters, or at the very least, shouldn't be given a chance to do it.
You said you are open to people being given a chance at employment after a chequered past (to put it mildly), but that you wouldn't want them here. If everyone takes that attitude then basically, people aren't going to be given a chance at redemption and rehabilitation. It's just a flawed argument.
No I've looked at various reports to make a point about Jeffers. Not just paper talk and poster hearsay.
In regards to the job side of things. I know people get Jobs. Some struggle some dont despite their histories.hence why my point in him staying in football but dont want him at town.
Its personal choice and opinion. You're entitled to yours as much as I am. I've not discredited your view on the matter. My points have been aimed at other posters view that 1. She must have asked for it. 2. We shouldn't as fans care about it and should just ignore what people have done.
No I've looked at various reports to make a point about Jeffers. Not just paper talk and poster hearsay.
In regards to the job side of things. I know people get Jobs. Some struggle some dont despite their histories.hence why my point in him staying in football but dont want him at town.
Its personal choice and opinion. You're entitled to yours as much as I am. I've not discredited your view on the matter. My points have been aimed at other posters view that 1. She must have asked for it. 2. We shouldn't as fans care about it and should just ignore what people have done.
I'll take your word on that.
Again, what your saying doesn't make sense. He's done nothing to prevent him from staying in football, to that end, he's done nothing to prevent him from being at our club. I get you don't like it but by that token, you don't want him involved in football full stop. We're not special, we're just another football club.
It is personal choice and personal opinion, but you should be able to back these things up rather than just keep telling people it is personal choice and personal opinion.
I think you misinterpreted what other posters have said re "she must have asked for it". What people are saying, as far as I can see is that there is no excuse for the threats he made, but there is always a context. All information is best understood in its context, so this is no different. I don't think anybody is trying absolve Jeffers of blame.
It is good that you clearly have a strong moral compass, but as others have mentioned, it only really counts for something if you're going to do anything about it. Are you going to boycott the club until Jeffers is sacked? Or are you just going to have a moan about it on here or anywhere else you might frequent? If you're just going to have a moan about it but then carry on as usual, then surely you're complicit right?
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Again, what your saying doesn't make sense. He's done nothing to prevent him from staying in football, to that end, he's done nothing to prevent him from being at our club. I get you don't like it but by that token, you don't want him involved in football full stop. We're not special, we're just another football club.
It is personal choice and personal opinion, but you should be able to back these things up rather than just keep telling people it is personal choice and personal opinion.
I think you misinterpreted what other posters have said re "she must have asked for it". What people are saying, as far as I can see is that there is no excuse for the threats he made, but there is always a context. All information is best understood in its context, so this is no different. I don't think anybody is trying absolve Jeffers of blame.
It is good that you clearly have a strong moral compass, but as others have mentioned, it only really counts for something if you're going to do anything about it. Are you going to boycott the club until Jeffers is sacked? Or are you just going to have a moan about it on here or anywhere else you might frequent? If you're just going to have a moan about it but then carry on as usual, then surely you're complicit right?
I havent misinterpreted it. They questioned what made him do it. No matter how you wish to sugarcoat it that is victim blaming. What made him do it doesnt matter. Even the CPS mentions this in their own statement.
I've already written my thoughts to the club. I expect they will be ignored but I feel ive done my bit on behalf of domestic abuse charities. I've also made it known I am not happy that we now have 2 drink driving convictions within the club and how I feel about it.
At the moment I am a financial contributor to the club and its academy. This is under discussion with my wife and how we want to go about things going forwards. So I will come back to you on that if that helps 'back's my case.
I havent misinterpreted it. They questioned what made him do it. No matter how you wish to sugarcoat it that is victim blaming. What made him do it doesnt matter. Even the CPS mentions this in their own statement.
I've already written my thoughts to the club. I expect they will be ignored but I feel ive done my bit on behalf of domestic abuse charities. I've also made it known I am not happy that we now have 2 drink driving convictions within the club and how I feel about it.
At the moment I am a financial contributor to the club and its academy. This is under discussion with my wife and how we want to go about things going forwards. So I will come back to you on that if that helps 'back's my case.
It isn't victim blaming to want to understand the context. If someone said that the context makes it alright for someone to do what he did, that's victim blaming.
I'm sure the club doesn't feel a responsibility to have to address something that happened in the personal life of one of their staff, before they worked at the club.
Please do let us know if you decide to withdraw your financial support.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
It isn't victim blaming to want to understand the context. If someone said that the context makes it alright for someone to do what he did, that's victim blaming.
I'm sure the club doesn't feel a responsibility to have to address something that happened in the personal life of one of their staff, before they worked at the club.
Please do let us know if you decide to withdraw your financial support.
It isn't victim blaming to want to understand the context. If someone said that the context makes it alright for someone to do what he did, that's victim blaming
We will have to agree to disagree on the above
You see and read about it daily
Women raped on way home " what was she wearing. Was she drunk. Did she flirt with him"
Covered up as looking for context but really its putting the blame on the women rather than acceptance of the actions of the offender.
Appreciate it's a different crime. But best way of explaining why sometimes looking for context is actually demeaning and is subconsciously victim blaming.
Kieron Dyer sits on the bench every week and he’s been involved in night club and on pitch brawls, sex tape romps and driving offences but he’s been given opportunity to turn a leaf. Why should Jeffers be treated any different?
Kieron Dyer sits on the bench every week and he’s been involved in night club and on pitch brawls, sex tape romps and driving offences but he’s been given opportunity to turn a leaf. Why should Jeffers be treated any different?
Dyer has also repaid that loyalty and second chance. Hearing him speak now is great. Comes across so well. An Ipswich manager in waiting.
Kieron Dyer sits on the bench every week and he’s been involved in night club and on pitch brawls, sex tape romps and driving offences but he’s been given opportunity to turn a leaf. Why should Jeffers be treated any different?
Because KD has said he was a part to get involved with those things. I haven’t seen that Jeffers had.
I’m not going to lose sleep over his appointment and wish him every success. It just sits a little uncomfortably with me to employ someone who, as far as we can tell, hasn’t yet shown contrition for his pretty serious misdemeanors.
For my part he paid his fine, had it been more serious he would have sone time. I'm prepared to give him a chance and see how he gets on
I'm sure you remember Keno my dalliance with a married woman back in the day, I was sent some texts threatening me ending up in a wooden box or propping up a motorway flyover. I never took them seriously, he was a foot shorter than me for a start and I knew enough of him to know that's not in his nature. He was right at the end the end of his tether as I sent his world crashing down on him and he lashed out.
Because KD has said he was a part to get involved with those things. I haven’t seen that Jeffers had.
I’m not going to lose sleep over his appointment and wish him every success. It just sits a little uncomfortably with me to employ someone who, as far as we can tell, hasn’t yet shown contrition for his pretty serious misdemeanors.
I think its easy to get sidetracked on the domestic abuse argument here. And focus on Jeffers. Personally I find his his behaviour vile. And personally I'd never let him within a mile of a job here. But that isn't his issue. He got offered a job and he took it. I don't blame him for that. I might not like him or what he's done but that's my view and I don't blame him for taking the job.
What I find more worrying is that anyone in a business is going to know that hiring someone to a position of responsibility and some seniority who has these kind offences on their record is just really bad practice. Its why we do background checks. It's why companies go through prospective employees social media use. And quite clearly, as we're all witness to here this kind of hire generates a lot of negative noise.
But the club, PC, the US guys have sanctioned it. IT DOES NOT LOOK GOOD. We are about to go on the biggest, most high profile recruitment drive of our clubs history. Everyone is watching and they hire someone with this stuff on their record. It puts the people who hired him into question. In my industry he would never have been hired by any of the companies I've worked for with this on his record.
It isn't victim blaming to want to understand the context. If someone said that the context makes it alright for someone to do what he did, that's victim blaming.
I'm sure the club doesn't feel a responsibility to have to address something that happened in the personal life of one of their staff, before they worked at the club.
Please do let us know if you decide to withdraw your financial support.
I think it's fine to talk about context, but you do have to apply that to every crime & misdemeanour, not just as and when you see it fit to do so.
So when a drunk driver kills someone you ought to respond, ah but what about the context - perhaps he hadn't seen his mates in a while, perhaps there was a new beer on tap etc etc.
0
Very disappointed on 08:42 - May 13 with 2381 views
Would you welcome a rapist then. As he may be good at his job tho.
Or a killer. Could be good too.
I dont need to know the ins and outs.
It's quite simple
Drink driving conviction and refused to even do the test Domestic abuse case which included death threats to his wife with the victim in fear for her life.
I dont need to know why it happend.
Asking what she did to him is just like saying she wore a dress so she wanted it.
Everything in this post is utterly clueless so I'll leave it there.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
-1
Very disappointed on 08:46 - May 13 with 2375 views
Very disappointed on 20:43 - May 12 by HalifaxBlue
I'm parsing through trying to find your one question - there are a few but I assume you are referring to when you asked me do I know the full story? If so the answer is no and I took it to be implied in my response.
I understand your reasoning for staying out of it. But I hope you understand my reasoning for not staying out of it - domestic violence is a problem that isn't taken seriously enough (at least where I am from) and I think people should speak up when they feel it's appropriate.
FWIW I also have vested interest in this - I am close with multiple women who have gone through hell for having the nerve to even state that they have gone through it. I would imagine an alarming number of people on this board are. I also have close friends who have likely been falsely accused. I still recognize that the problem of domestic violence is MAGNITUDES larger than the problem of people being falsely accused of domestic violence.
It affects people deeply to see someone charged (so recently I would add) with this kind of crime occupy positions like these in organizations that are so dear to a community. It can have a very alienating effect. Of course I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I definitely feel it's worth considering how it affects others and the message it can send regarding this kind of behaviour.
I hope I'm not coming across as aggressive or snidy btw - I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I've heard the point you are making before. I just think those who wish to say they aren't cool with it have a very very valid grievance.
That wasn't the question I asked you several times. It was "Are you suggesting he should never be employed again?" I think you've answered it here in "not in organizations that are so dear to a community."
I respect where you're coming from. But as you say at the start, you don't know the full story. So is it fair to judge based on the headlines of a local rag?
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
Very disappointed on 09:03 - May 13 with 2352 views
That wasn't the question I asked you several times. It was "Are you suggesting he should never be employed again?" I think you've answered it here in "not in organizations that are so dear to a community."
I respect where you're coming from. But as you say at the start, you don't know the full story. So is it fair to judge based on the headlines of a local rag?
If you're interested, here is the CPS report on it.
No I've looked at various reports to make a point about Jeffers. Not just paper talk and poster hearsay.
In regards to the job side of things. I know people get Jobs. Some struggle some dont despite their histories.hence why my point in him staying in football but dont want him at town.
Its personal choice and opinion. You're entitled to yours as much as I am. I've not discredited your view on the matter. My points have been aimed at other posters view that 1. She must have asked for it. 2. We shouldn't as fans care about it and should just ignore what people have done.
Not a single person has said "She must have asked for it." That's something you invented in your own head.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
Very disappointed on 09:11 - May 13 with 2336 views
Not a single person has said "She must have asked for it." That's something you invented in your own head.
"Do you know the full story? Do you know what she did to him re mental abuse?"
You asked do I know what SHE did to him.
Think about your question. This is the exact questioning that stops females coming forward in cases. There is no need to ask it.
No doubt you will disagree. But that's why it's taking years for people to understand victim blaming is rife and results in so many victims keeping quiet.
It doesn't really add any more, so I'm not sure of the relevance. My points, similar to many others in this thread, are that context is important and that people will only rehabilitate if they're given the chance to.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
Very disappointed on 09:21 - May 13 with 2313 views
It doesn't really add any more, so I'm not sure of the relevance. My points, similar to many others in this thread, are that context is important and that people will only rehabilitate if they're given the chance to.
I'm not sure what context is needed here but I'll leave it there as I've already said my piece in a few other threads.
"Do you know the full story? Do you know what she did to him re mental abuse?"
You asked do I know what SHE did to him.
Think about your question. This is the exact questioning that stops females coming forward in cases. There is no need to ask it.
No doubt you will disagree. But that's why it's taking years for people to understand victim blaming is rife and results in so many victims keeping quiet.
You can't understand the difference between asking for context and "she must've been asking for it" so there's no point debating with you.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
Very disappointed on 09:25 - May 13 with 2307 views
"Do you know the full story? Do you know what she did to him re mental abuse?"
You asked do I know what SHE did to him.
Think about your question. This is the exact questioning that stops females coming forward in cases. There is no need to ask it.
No doubt you will disagree. But that's why it's taking years for people to understand victim blaming is rife and results in so many victims keeping quiet.
We disagree on a lot, but I agree with you here.
There is tacit victim blaming here, but also the fact he can just carry on his life as normal whilst she isn't able to move on from the abuse suffered.
I don't think someone showing these behaviours so recently, at age 40 or whatever he is, should be considered for a leadership role at the club at this moment
You can't understand the difference between asking for context and "she must've been asking for it" so there's no point debating with you.
The sad thing is you dont understand why it is.
It's ok. Not everyone does. But that's why charities continue to work hard to educate as many people as possible so that women and also men dont feel scared to come forward Incase there is 'this need' to know the 'context'
I'm not sure what context is needed here but I'll leave it there as I've already said my piece in a few other threads.
The context being that if someone sends nasty texts there may well have been things that led to that. Previously lovely people can be driven to such things. That isn't condoning them BTW (or victim blaming). They're still wrong and he was rightly punished by the law. But for me that doesn't mean he should never work again due to something that was probably done in the heat of the moment and with a lot of context leading to it.
You can of course apply context and go the other way. Ched Evans is technically innocent but if I apply the context around that case I wouldn't want him at my club.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
