Jump to content

David Guiza

  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,095 Excellent

About David Guiza

  • Rank
    Key Player
  • Birthday 08/12/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Fan Since

Recent Profile Visitors

8,700 profile views
  1. Hings on Bradgate Road used to be fantastic, worth giving a go!
  2. In the two examples you give it's pretty difficult for reporting to harm the victims, some may even say impossible, given that they're, you know, dead. The Oscar Pistorious case didn't have a jury and the OJ Simpson one did, there's plenty of differences in court structure and legal procedure across the world. There are also plenty of court cases that have restrictions on reporting - ranging from sex mad footballers with injunctions to victims of sexual assault.
  3. Behrendorff reminds me of how every player used to look on old FIFA/Sports console games.
  4. Wow. Getting wrongfully dimissed when on 85 and in sublime form in a World Cup semi-final has got to be awful to take.
  5. Yes! I grew up in Anstey and my parents still live there, that bend is a nightmare for idiots round with half the car on the wrong side!
  6. You can't help who follows you to extent, I agree (I mean I'm sure there are some LCFC fans that we all wish would head down the M69 or M1), but if Nazis and the like are drawn to your party then you have to question the content and aims that you're putting out there? He hasn't exactly told them where to get off. Again, you can't help if people want to throw money at you, but I'd imagine he'd question Labour and co if they were receiving thousands of pounds here there and everywhere and using the same to fund their lifestyle. Of course he's entitled to do whatever he likes with money that these fools pump in, but then he can also expect to questionned and ridiculed for it too. Same goes for Farage and the money he and his parties have received and any other political person or party. I may have an ounce of sympathy for him with this particular instance if he were not a repeat offender for this exact thing (and numerous other matters). He surely knew the consequences, or one of his clan must have. The laws are there for a reason and that is to protect the victims, not the accused as some of his mob seem to believe. Ultimatley if he wants to succeed in any shape or form then he needs to smarten up (not a slight on his background, but ultimatley you need to know what you're doing to succeed in that field. Look at Farage, he has a history to say the least, but he's careful with how he handles himself), he needs to address the aggression and he also needs to address the connatations that are attached to him otherwise the public image will never change. It almost certainly won't anyway because he's burnt more bridges than there are in Amsterdam, and it's almost impossible to change the public perception. He is however far too ego driven now, and is just seen as a martyr by a bunch of cretins rather than an activist and I can't see anything be a repeat of this when he comes out.
  7. What motivates him is his bank balance and the mirror. Is it just pure luck that he has a massive house and is the best funded UK 'politician'? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tommy-robinson-is-best-funded-politician-in-uk-0sm5d0blp Is it just a coincidence that his followers are often seen doing Nazi salutes? For all his calls to get every Muslim to apologise for Islamist extremists, I don't see him apologising for attacks and death threats of the people who cite him and his ideologies. He should be allowed to fight the corner of victims and against extremism, of course he should. Also, everything that he does and says shouldn't automatically be declared wrong just because of who he is and what he's done in the past. But, like every other person who wants to call Britain home, he must live by the law of the land and when he breaks those laws (repeatedly) he should face trial and has. He's more of a reformed man than he was years ago, it seems, but he's still a dangerous, aggressive and manipulative man who incites hatred. Whether or not that is his aim could be up for debate, I guess, but he hasn't exactly defended it.
  8. It's amazing how he's managed to convince them that he's Luton's answer to Nelson Mandela. I wonder if The Specials will do a song about him. Didn't he come 4th/5th in his latest attempt at public office and demand a reccount? He'll be back but I can't imagine his 'powers' will ever evolve past YouTube videos. The bigger concern is the morons he incites.
  9. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48950672 and he's gone
  10. Mine isn't so much feeling less of a man, mine is more like the @Ric Flair issue. I am not going to suit the bald look if/when that day comes. One thing I am grateful for is that my beard hair goes from strength to strength so I can always go for the Uncle Albert look if all else fails. I noticed definite balding after a haircut around 3/4 months ago, I've always had a pretty high hairline, even at primary school, sort of Denis Bergkamp like, but this was the begining of the end I think. The moment it properly goes I will shave my head though, nobody suits the Barry from Eastenders hairstyle.
  11. I just don't understand the thought process, you must save like 0.000001 second off your journey time at the risk of crashing and worse. How they've never crashed is beyond me, my car is pretty small thankfully as if it were any bigger I'd definitely have lost around 14 wing mirrors and possibly more by now. Maybe somebody can introduce those tyre popping strips (I'm sure they have a more technical name) that you get in car parks to problem areas so that the idiots lose a tyre or two next time they can't take a bend/corner properly.
  12. Looking forward to the new cast, I imagine Jo Brand will split opinion but I do think this kind of show will work in her favour. David Baddiel will presumably take up the Frank Skinner, Richard Osman, Rhod Gilbert role of occasionally brilliant, often hopeless old man. Katy Wix and Rose Matafeo have always seemed pretty funny on shows/podcast they've been on. I can already see the messages about there being 3 women if the first episode isn't side splittingly funny though. Still would love to see Richard Herring and Elis James/John Robins as a pair on a future series. John Robins does a YouTube series with Alex Horne so I suspect he'll be there eventually. Rachel Parris would be great guest too I think, and her other half could fill the older man quota.
  13. The law and morality have always been at odds, as one doesn't always reflect the other. For example a large number of people believe that an eye for an eye is the only moral justice, but the majority (just about) do not. I think it's a balancing act for the courts/employer or whoever it is in said situation to make an object decision as to what the majority would perceive to be right and wrong. The vast majority, you'd like to think at least, would say that homophobia is wrong and thus it would be determined that it is for the protection of morals to censor and or punish, or at least question and critique. As an aside there was a study mentioned on the news this morning that suggested society may have reached it's peak for 'tolerating' things like sex before marraige and homsexuality, as the study showed a slow decline in those who are accepting of the same.
  14. Said it before on here I think, but people driving on the wrong side of the road when cornering are driving me insane (excuse the pun). I had three in less than a 3 miles stretch home the other day on winding country roads; almost every time they look shocked when they come round the bend on the wrong side of the road to see somebody coming the other way head on.
  15. The problem is that some believe freedom of speech is the freedom from criticism or repercussion. Just look at that Israel Folau case, the amount of people on his side who beleive that you can say whatever the hell you like and people have to put up with it because 'freedom of speech'. The definition given in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act is:- 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. I fail to see where in that definition one is free to say whatever they want without any interference whatsoever if it is deemed offensive imoral etc. As for anyone suggesting that it's too far the other way, I really don't see how wearing a colourful armband and whatever else the partnership will involve is at all similar to the treatment of some LGBTQ people.
  • Create New...