Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
MC Prussian

European Football 18/19

Recommended Posts

I've just come back from Madeira (where Ronaldo's from), been weird seeing tourists grinning away for photos at the statue of him while all this has been going on. It's been all over the Portuguese news every day.

 

On a brighter note, managed to get to a Marítimo game while I was there. Nice ground to tick off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble in Belgium.

 

Several top flight clubs have been subject to police investigations surrounding claims of bribery, match-fixing and money laundering - among them clubs such as Club Bruges, RSC Anderlecht, Racing Genk, Standard Liège, Sporting Charleroi or KSC Lokeren.

 

44 houses searced, 13 more in other European countries.

 

Club Bruges manager Ivan Leko has been interrogated by the authorities also and two officials and several "powerful" agents have been arrested and questioned.

https://www.dw.com/en/top-belgian-clubs-raided-by-police-in-fraud-investigation/a-45824609

https://www.hln.be/sport/voetbal/belgisch-voetbal/jupiler-pro-league/live-belgisch-voetbal-davert-op-zijn-grondvesten-ivan-leko-in-hasselt-bijgestaan-door-zijn-advocaat-spilfiguur-mogi-bayat-nog-niet-verhoord~a5983d74/

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AjcW said:

Jardim sacked by Monaco.


Think he's done bloody well to do what he's done with them when they sell their best players every year!

 

Be a good fit for a few Premier League sides. 

They wanted Henry all along and now they've got him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AjcW said:

Jardim sacked by Monaco.


Think he's done bloody well to do what he's done with them when they sell their best players every year!

 

Be a good fit for a few Premier League sides. 

If we were to get shot of Puel then we ought to be all over him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to the Ronaldo rape accusations:

 

I'd take any woman's claim of having been sexually assaulted with a pinch of salt, especially given the fact that the woman in question remained silent for close to ten years.

However, what makes the situation rather odd and conflicted is the reported £288'000 out-of-court settlement.

 

If it was "consensual", as Ronaldo and his lawyer are saying, why paying money for it later on?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45824263

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Honestly one of the worst things I've ever seen written on this forum. 

 

What a complete ****. 

Cut the self-righteous harangue, Finners.

 

Why the outrage? In the end, it's one word against another. Where does mutually agreed on sexual intercourse end and where does rape begin?

The definitions have been skewed lately, false rape accusations haven't helped either.

 

I'd like to believe and I'd like to encourage woman to be honest about true rape experiences and bring them forward immediately (and ideally not ten or twenty, thirty, fifty years later which makes it even harder to prove), but the current climate is making it rather hard.

If I were to believe any woman straightaway, I could be misled, made an accessory to a lie, a revenge cause and whatnot. Just because she doesn't want to or can't remember exactly what happened.

It's tricky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The outrage is because what you just said was ****ing deplorable. 

 

There is a world of difference between "many sexual assaults happen in extreme privacy and are difficult to judge because its often one word against another" and "I take the word of any woman claiming to be sexually assaulted with a pinch of salt."

 

One is reasonable and a genuine problem the other is abjectly disgusting. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

The outrage is because what you just said was ****ing deplorable. 

 

There is a world of difference between "many sexual assaults happen in extreme privacy and are difficult to judge because its often one word against another" and "I take the word of any woman claiming to be sexually assaulted with a pinch of salt."

 

One is reasonable and a genuine problem the other is abjectly disgusting. 

Nope, because it's the logical continuation of the first statement and thought process. Anybody being told by a (random) woman that she's been raped by another man at some stage in the past is by no means able to prove or disprove it - again, it's her word against the accused. Anybody on the outside of these two people is just an accessory and influenced by personal opinion, not facts.

 

Or do you believe women in these matters just because? Sounds somewhat naïve and one-sided.

(Ok, call me a cynic)

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Again, I'm not sure if this is an English As A Second (third? Fourth? Fifth!?) Language issue but there's a big difference between "I don't automatically assume she's telling the truth" and "I take her with a pinch of salt." 

It's two ways of saying that one can (or should be) sceptic when being confronted with these claims from a woman who says to have been assaulted prior to the cause having been settled by the authorities and/or in court, because in the end, it's all based on a perception of two separate views of the two people directly involved.

 

Better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Cut the self-righteous harangue, Finners.

 

Why the outrage? In the end, it's one word against another. Where does mutually agreed on sexual intercourse end and where does rape begin?

The definitions have been skewed lately, false rape accusations haven't helped either.

 

I'd like to believe and I'd like to encourage woman to be honest about true rape experiences and bring them forward immediately (and ideally not ten or twenty, thirty, fifty years later which makes it even harder to prove), but the current climate is making it rather hard.

If I were to believe any woman straightaway, I could be misled, made an accessory to a lie, a revenge cause and whatnot. Just because she doesn't want to or can't remember exactly what happened.

It's tricky.

exactly and you're actively saying we should believe the accused more than the accuser rather than remaining neutral, that's a pretty disgusting thing to say

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

exactly and you're actively saying we should believe the accused more than the accuser rather than remaining neutral, that's a pretty disgusting thing to say

I never said that. I was looking at the issue from one side of the argument - I could equally look at the accused with scepticism.

However, the onus is on the woman to prove that she was physically or mentally assaulted/aggrieved when she brings these claims forward.

No claimant, no judge.

 

But thank you for putting words in my mouth.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I never said that. I was looking at the issue from one side of the argument - I could equally look at the accused with scepticism.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you literally said to take ANY woman's claims of being raped with a pinch of salt. That's what you said

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

It's two ways of saying that one can (or should be) sceptic when being confronted with these claims from a woman who says to have been assaulted prior to the cause having been settled by the authorities and/or in court, because in the end, it's all based on a perception of two separate views of the two people directly involved.

 

Better?

 

You shouldn't presume guilt at all and this goes both ways.

 

You shouldn't assume Ronaldo is a rapist and you shouldn't assume the woman is a liar, the case should be thoroughly investigated and a jury of their peers should pass judgment if there's a sufficient case to take it that far. 

 

To say you're taking her claims with a pinch of salt doesn't imply that you're not assuming she's correct, it implies you're essentially dismissing her outright which is why I've told you that that viewpoint (or that wording, if its not what you meant to mean) is ****ing deplorable. 

 

Anyone that comes forward and claims to be a victim of a crime, however long ago it happened, should be taken seriously by the relevant authorities and this woman is no exception. Everyone accused of a crime has the right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty and Ronaldo is no exception. 

 

Neither the accuser or the defendants views should be taken "with a pinch of salt." That's exactly the attitude that stops women reporting sexual assaults in the first place and that's exactly why I've reacted strongly. It's a vile thing to say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you literally said to take ANY woman's claims of being raped with a pinch of salt. That's what you said

Do you believe a woman who claims to have been raped just because? No hint of any skepticism whatsoever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Do you believe a woman who claims to have been raped just because? No hint of any skepticism whatsoever?

 

He's not ****ing saying that, neither am I. **** sakes, actually read the responses. Your English is better than 99.9% of foxestalk, Alex, I know you get it. 

 

Honestly, if whenever a woman reports a sexual assault if your default response is skepticism then yes, you are a ****. 

Edited by Finnegan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Do you believe a woman who claims to have been raped just because? No hint of any skepticism whatsoever?

That's not what I said, not everything is black and white. There's a difference between taking a rape claim with a pinch of salt and then outright believing anyone who would put the claim forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

You shouldn't presume guilt at all and this goes both ways.

 

You shouldn't assume Ronaldo is a rapist and you shouldn't assume the woman is a liar, the case should be thoroughly investigated and a jury of their peers should pass judgment if there's a sufficient case to take it that far. 

 

To say you're taking her claims with a pinch of salt doesn't imply that you're not assuming she's correct, it implies you're essentially dismissing her outright which is why I've told you that that viewpoint (or that wording, if its not what you meant to mean) is ****ing deplorable. 

 

Anyone that comes forward and claims to be a victim of a crime, however long ago it happened, should be taken seriously by the relevant authorities and this woman is no exception. Everyone accused of a crime has the right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty and Ronaldo is no exception. 

 

Neither the accuser or the defendants views should be taken "with a pinch of salt." That's exactly the attitude that stops women reporting sexual assaults in the first place and that's exactly why I've reacted strongly. It's a vile thing to say. 

I'm not assuming women to be liars when they claim to have been sexually assaulted, it's about being skeptic. There are many reasons why someone would fabricate or misremember such a happening to have taken place, especially when the occurrence took place 10, 20, 30 years ago - or even more than that.

I even stated that Ronaldo doesn't come across as squeaky-clean in this affair when he has reportedly paid that woman off big time.

 

Nobody's preventing women from bringing these claims forward, and there's no way any woman should be swayed by what others think.

The tricky part is to define "sexual assault" and "rape" as opposed to "consensual sex" - as we've seen, false accusations of this kind can destroy the accused's life also, even if he's found innocent.

In the end, the claim needs to be proven in court to be justified for a corresponding verdict to be found.

 

All of us on the periphery are merely bystanders, all we can do is guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

He's not ****ing saying that, neither am I. **** sakes, actually read the responses. Your English is better than 99.9% of foxestalk, Alex, I know you get it. 

 

Honestly, if whenever a woman reports a sexual assault if your default response is skepticism then yes, you are a ****. 

Nope, sorry. Not having that. That kind of outrage goes right by.

 

The only parties to justifiably assess the affair are the two people involved, the police/authorities and the judiciary system.

Everything else is just a guessing game and it helps fuel a rather dangerous movement, where feelings and sympathies are more important than facts.

Edited by MC Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...