davieG Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Don't let lack of facts hold you back davie, an awful lot of newspapers don't All those people who think he was a twat etc for daring to enter Leicester City town centre obviously feel he must have been goaded/provoked in some way. I think if true it says a lot about the people of the City of Leicester and people on here if they can't take a bit immature posturing in the media without getting all up tight about it. We now live in a society where it's become acceptable to harass and goad someone for daring to believe that he was off to a place that would provide him with a better income and was happy about it. As silly, immature and ill advised he may have been it in no way warrants being abused if that's what's happened as many seem to believe.
The Doctor Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Was it not self-defence a la Gerrard? Let's be honest, none of us know the situation or what caused it. I'll leave the courts to decide that.I do, however, love the comments about him being a plank for going out in Leicester after his move. Why? By all means, he should get grief on the pitch and a bit of light-hearted banter on the street, but there's no need for abuse away from a football setting. That's just wrong in my book. to be blatently honest gerrards uppercut on the guy was not self defence. the replays showed gerrards mate hit the guy first, then the guy said something and then gerrard whacked him one before the guy did anything physical in retaliation to gerrards mate. That hardly counts as self defence because really for it to be self defence the guy has to have hit him or tryed to hit him first. He's regarded as a plank because: a) he pretty much said leicester were a shit club and that he would do better to be at west brom and b) he handed in two transfer requests n an attempt to get out of the club. Then two weeks later, while his actions will be fresh in the minds of most leicester fans he goes out on the lash in leicester. Seems pretty stupid to me but still you do have a point in the abuse being unnessacery, the fans could have just waited for 2 months.
Samilktray Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 He lives here doesnt he? Why should he shy away from going out in his home town because of a couple of ****** who got a bit emotional over him stating facts and moving to a better club.
J.Lisemore Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 One was Maxine Carr and the other one was Baby P's mother.Oh, it's confusing to know how to react. Let's just condemn EVERYONE and be done with it Not sure how you were brought up, but i was told not to hit a women in my life. Simple as.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Not sure how you were brought up, but i was told not to hit a women in my life. Simple as. I was told not to hit people generally. Not making arbitrary decisions based on gender was a decision all of my own making
davieG Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Not sure how you were brought up, but i was told not to hit a women in my life. Simple as. I would have thought hitting any one in an unprovoked manners was unacceptable. However if you're attacked or provoked enough to hit someone I can't see the difference between them being male or female. Personally it would take something very extreme to provoke me into a violent response because it solves nothing. As for this case we don't know the facts so to judge Mattock as someone who for no reason assaults women is at best premature and at worst potentially libellous and could be deemed to affect him having a fair trial if it comes to that especially if it's held in Leicester.
Shrenchel Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 I was told not to hit people generally. Not making arbitrary decisions based on gender was a decision all of my own making If it's based on gender it's not arbitrary is it.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 If it's based on gender it's not arbitrary is it. Making a distinction of that nature that takes nothing else into account whatsover seems pretty arbitrary to me. Now excuse me, the missus has slightly overdone my toast so must feel my wrath
Sir Fynwy Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 I would have thought hitting any one in an unprovoked manners was unacceptable. However if you're attacked or provoked enough to hit someone I can't see the difference between them being male or female. Personally it would take something very extreme to provoke me into a violent response because it solves nothing.As for this case we don't know the facts so to judge Mattock as someone who for no reason assaults women is at best premature and at worst potentially libellous and could be deemed to affect him having a fair trial if it comes to that especially if it's held in Leicester. He's going before the magistrates not a jury at present, so no chance of a fair trial
davieG Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 He's going before the magistrates not a jury at present, so no chance of a fair trial Ok, but making prejudgements is still not acceptable under any circumstances.
Soar Fox Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 He lives here doesnt he?Why should he shy away from going out in his home town because of a couple of ****** who got a bit emotional over him stating facts and moving to a better club. Agree with this!! I saw him out in Loaf then R Bar he was with Stearman, Lee Cox etc Why can't he go out in Leicester all beacause he has moved clubs shouldn't stop him from going out with friends in his home town!
MPH Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Was it not self-defence a la Gerrard? Let's be honest, none of us know the situation or what caused it. I'll leave the courts to decide that.I do, however, love the comments about him being a plank for going out in Leicester after his move. Why? By all means, he should get grief on the pitch and a bit of light-hearted banter on the street, but there's no need for abuse away from a football setting. That's just wrong in my book. it might be wrong , people attacking him but thats just not clever of him either. People do silly things after a few drinks - as he can testify - he has been charged with 3 ABH's nd 1 common assault.
Koke Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 I still saw Stearman hang about in Leicester after he signed for Wolves. He probably still does for all I know. Mattock might be a cunt, but I'd cut him some slack for this. I might have reacted the same way if some deluded ****** started abusing me cos of footballing reasons.
Tommy G Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Agree with this!!I saw him out in Loaf then R Bar he was with Stearman, Lee Cox etc Why can't he go out in Leicester all beacause he has moved clubs shouldn't stop him from going out with friends in his home town! Where is that?
davieG Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 it might be wrong , people attacking him but thats just not clever of him either. People do silly things after a few drinks - as he can testify - he has been charged with 3 ABH's nd 1 common assault. Based presumably on the evidence of the four people, it will be interesting to see if there were/are any genuine unbiased witnesses; judging from the response on here I hope for his sake they aren't Leicester City fans because if they're like the majority on here he'd be found guilty whether he did anything or not.
Tommy G Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Based presumably on the evidence of the four people, it will be interesting to see if there were/are any genuine unbiased witnesses; judging from the response on here I hope for his sake they aren't Leicester City fans because if they're like the majority on here he'd be found guilty whether he did anything or not. Surely you can't defend violence? He handed himself in for god sake! Already speaks volumes for how guilty he seems to be. The guy turned his back on LCFC yet you still try to defend the scroat.
MPH Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 All those people who think he was a twat etc for daring to enter Leicester City town centre obviously feel he must have been goaded/provoked in some way. I think if true it says a lot about the people of the City of Leicester and people on here if they can't take a bit immature posturing in the media without getting all up tight about it. We now live in a society where it's become acceptable to harass and goad someone for daring to believe that he was off to a place that would provide him with a better income and was happy about it. As silly, immature and ill advised he may have been it in no way warrants being abused if that's what's happened as many seem to believe. we now live in a society where people think its ok to punch your way out of an argument/disagreement... if of course thats what has happened.
Shrenchel Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 I still saw Stearman hang about in Leicester after he signed for Wolves. He probably still does for all I know. Mattock might be a cunt, but I'd cut him some slack for this. I might have reacted the same way if some deluded ****** started abusing me cos of footballing reasons. He's a footballer, right or wrong, abuse comes with the territory. Has done since the dawn of football time. He gets paid enough to accept a bit of shit without kicking off. For 10 grand a week I'd strip off daily in Trafalgar Square and allow passers-by to mock my naked form.
Soar Fox Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Where is that? Braunstone gate he was there with Lee Cox and there friend Courtney
Shrenchel Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Surely you can't defend violence? He handed himself in for god sake! Already speaks volumes for how guilty he seems to be. The guy turned his back on LCFC yet you still try to defend the scroat. Plod could have belled him and asked him to come in though. Not turning up would be a much bigger admission of guilt imo.
davieG Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 Surely you can't defend violence? He handed himself in for god sake! Already speaks volumes for how guilty he seems to be. The guy turned his back on LCFC yet you still try to defend the scroat. I'm not defending him at all, just because he handed himself in doesn't equate with guilt he may have been made aware of the potential charge coming up and was advised to do so by his brief on the basis that he's innocent. I frankly don't know what the situation is but unlike most on here I'm not pre-judging him either way, by calling him a scroat you demonstrate clearly your bias.
Koke Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 He's a footballer, right or wrong, abuse comes with the territory. Has done since the dawn of football time. He gets paid enough to accept a bit of shit without kicking off. For 10 grand a week I'd strip off daily in Trafalgar Square and allow passers-by to mock my naked form. That's true. I can't argue with that.
davieG Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 He's a footballer, right or wrong, abuse comes with the territory. Has done since the dawn of football time. He gets paid enough to accept a bit of shit without kicking off. For 10 grand a week I'd strip off daily in Trafalgar Square and allow passers-by to mock my naked form. No it hasn't based on my years attending football matches I'd say it was very much a modern phenomenon, certainly post 1970 as is the abuse of fellow football fans. Just because it's become the norm doesn't make it acceptable. As for taking abuse for £10k well you might be happy to accept it once or twice but I doubt you'd feel the same if it became a regular none stop occurrence.
Soar Fox Posted 3 September 2009 Posted 3 September 2009 If he was getting abused by these people I wouldnt blame him for reacting. Im sure a lot of people would react if they started getting abused.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.