So if he was shit on the pitch, no doubt you'd be vilifying him for being violent?
Giggs trial
- Thread starter AshRK
- Start date
Explain how being rich gives you a free pass to abuse women
Damn i was avoiding this thread since I knew both sides would be terrible. One side is Psycho analysing giggs trying to show that he's a sociopath and the other is blaming women for possibly being assaulted.
I'll just assume what I always assume and that the truth is somewhere in the middle of Giggs being a pretty shitty human (aren't we all?) who probably went too far and should see some level of punishment. But as someone else said, it takes two to tango, I doubt anyone involved is blameless in anything
I'll just assume what I always assume and that the truth is somewhere in the middle of Giggs being a pretty shitty human (aren't we all?) who probably went too far and should see some level of punishment. But as someone else said, it takes two to tango, I doubt anyone involved is blameless in anything
No but why turn it that way, it is not relevant as he was never shit on the pitch. I stated I actually don’t care much. We all know violent men in our families and friends and what do we do about it ? Nothing because it is none of our business. If he is guilty of all that he is accused of he will get punished and that’s the end of it. Do you want him scrapped from the utd history books perhaps?
History knows lots of culturally important men with shady pasts. Napoleon’s dead is celebrated every year in France conveniently forgetting he reinstated slavery and being the cause of millions and millions of death.
Lots of our beloved rock stars had sex with underage groupies, it doesn’t change their music.
When did I say that? I don’t need to explain anything I didn’t say in the first place, so feel free to answer it yourself.
I don't know anyone violent in my friends or family. Thankfully there's been none of that in my family. Any I did know socially know exactly what I think of them and we're no longer friends.
Bloody hell.
the crux of the matter is a woman potentially receiving long term abuse, not women chasing rich men
Are these things actually true?
Good but them not being friends with you anymore doesn’t stop the abuse though
is that your best argument?
True but (there is always a but) the media is one sided because giggs is a celebrity, we basically do not know how their day to day life was. Giggs could have been mentally abused by his wife and he reacted like a aggressive nitwit. What I want to say is. There is no reason to believe Giggs just starts bashing women when he feels like it. There are always 2 sides To each story. Most people just immediately pick sides and don’t listen to counter arguments.
I have known a story about a guy who kept cheating and beating his wife until the wife finally decided to kill her husband. The wife is regarded as a hero but she is still a killer…
According to historians it is. Apparently since we are in the woke era the celebrations are more sober each year but they still happen
I now have said all I have to say about it. The courts will decide and they will be right, that is what they are for. I am not defending nor attacking anyone. I’m too level headed for that
Which Historians? I spent almost my entire life in France and as far as I know there has never been any national celebrations and definitely not annually of Napoleon's death, also Napoleon's wrong doings have never been ignored during my entire life.
His legacy is being reviewed and is very contentious, as it should be. Historians have been debating Napoleon, his racism and his actions for at least 100 years - C L R James is a great example of that. Quite separate from the British historians who have criticised Napoleon since his life because Britain > France.
https://www.france24.com/en/france/...e-as-it-commemorates-anniversary-of-his-death
Apart from laying a wreath at his tomb? And the bicentennial commemorations since 1969: https://theconversation.com/napoleo...ch-emperor-has-become-so-controversial-160313
Unless I was dreaming I am quite sure the French celebrated his life at his 200th anniversary, it was prime time news where I live. So maybe not annually, I am not based in France anyway. I have learned in school that Napoleon is a hero but in my eyes he was a mass murderer leading millions of men to death. He gets applauded for “inventing” things like passports and addresses but he only invented those things because it was convenient for him. Afterall he needed men to call up for his armies so he could invade and conquer other countries.
Every hundred years or so we get these maniacs trying to conquer the world and many of them are basically just celebrated because how bravely they won many a battles. I don’t understand it.
Exactly you total twonk, I've said all along the only ones who know is who was there. You wasnt I suppose I wasnt the press wasnt . You got your own preconceived ideas already so you stick with them because it seems your the kind of guy who believes anything even if someone said the world was flat as long as it's on the sunday sport it's True . Little story for a case written by reporters a guy killed another buy attacking him on a night out, all the press had the police reports all the press vilified this boy . Until the trial where he walked out of court by CCTV being unearthed after his solicitor found it not the police if the other guy who was killed attacking 2 others previous to him, the press had to back track on everything including the local news . That boy now has had to live away from his family even after being found not Guilty that's the news for you always right.No give over. You're full of it. You claim it's all rumours and nobody can know anything except from tabloids.
Then you switch it up and say we can only know what's in the press. Yes that's true because there are actual reporters for legitimate newspapers printing the facts that have been released by the authorities. Ffs
Agree
Agree we find out after trial ive always said. Then make your mind up call whatever after the verdict.
First what is the point of the bolded part?
For as long as I can remember Napoleon has alwaays been a contested figure, at school he isn't portrayed in a positive way and definitely not a hero. The protocol which is applied to every heads of state has always been awkward for as long as I can remember because he is widely considered as a maniac.
The thing about Napoleon is that while he isn't described as a hero from France, he still has a key place in France history from a legal and political standpoint, he brought the current Civil Code and the constitution among many other things. But the key point is that his wrongdoings aren't ignored and are well publicised and at the same time it's impossible to villify him due to the importance of his work.
He has been contested - I was agreeing with you. The bolded part was shorthand. Basically I was drawing a distinction between more recent historians who have provided a detailed and nuanced history of Napoleon, especially his support for slavery, and British historians who were contemporary to Napoleon. The latter's criticism is generally negative due to the war between Britain and France, and as such is a much more skewed perspective which seeks to paint Britain in a better light. Edmund Burke is a good example, even if his reflections were about the Revolution and not Napoleon.
That’s good, I personally wasn’t aware the French were very level headed about it. When you live in another country perhaps media spins certain stories differently. I honestly can’t remember teachers teaching us much about his racisme and other vile things he did. I always saw him as one of the world greatest men, it was only much later I found out he wasn’t all that.
Isn,’t Churchill contested too these days, pretty sure I read some bad stuff about him some years ago. From what I know his stubbornness kept the Uk out of nazi hands and that’s good but apparently he had some very weird world views himself.
- Supported the use of the Black and Tans in Ireland
- Supported the use of concentration camps in South Africa
- Lobbied for the use of poison gas to put down a Kurdish rebellion (unsuccessfully)
- In 1902, Churchill stated that the "great barbaric nations" would "menace civilised nations", and that "The Aryan stock is bound to triumph".
- Wartime Government policies led to the 1943 Bengal famine, in which 3 million died, and he refused aid to be sent to the area. It would accomplish nothing, as Indians "bred like rabbits"
- In 1954, on the Chinese: "I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don't like the look of them or the smell of them – but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them"
- In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan "Keep England White" with regards to immigration from the West Indies.
And yes, you are right that without his leadership, Britain would not have continued the war. His ruthlessness also led him to direct British troops and the navy to fight the French, giving a signal to the Americans that Britain would fight no matter what.
Thanks for clarifying it, I totally missed your point.
Is this post supposed to make anything approaching sense?
From what I can gather you don't seem to be able to make a distinction between a joke paper like the sport, tabloid arseholery or reputable broadsheets which report the facts as they are known.
I don't read tabloids so you're completely muddled in your argument. I agree that tabloids and gossip is garbage to be ignored if that's what your point was.
Kudos on "twonk" though. I've never heard that one but not sure I'll be introducing it into my vocabulary.
I'm ashamed to admit I didn't know most of that. I'm interested in both history and mind as it's fun. Which leads me to a quest to find one honorable leader. Was there ever anyone that big who wasn't a psycho cu nt?
Like US. For the knowlegable here, what are Obama's faults? He always seems to be described as almost perfect (ofcourse expect the radical reps).
For Ryan, after the Depp/Heard thing it's difficult to believe anything of this profile of coverage. Everyone's a personality so it's always different and I'm sure the jury will try to get as close to the truth as possible. They'll never know but people get done and as much as possible they get justice or not.
I have seen some appalling takes in this thread.
I'm no historian or scientist but I feel pretty secure in saying marrying men for money reasons is not part of women's DNA.
I agree in your verdict about some in this thread. You could take one step further and assume you (and I) have almost no basis to assume much about Giggs, and absolutely no basis to assume anything about the plaintives in the case.
‘No smoke without fire’ is a truism proved untrue plenty of times.
I pity the women who have to interact with some of the posters in this thread.
It honestly depends on how you define honourable and whether you want to hold people to the standards of today or not. But I think my answer to that question is no, you won't.
Don’t take them too seriously ..…very much doubt half of them have ever kissed a girl.
Never trusted him, his eyes are too close together.
It's ok none of them are rich, so they are bound by the same rules as the rest of us.
Nor are they likely to last with women, with those attitudes.
agreed, but lets not hang the man yet
That hasn't been proved. I don't know about you but i find it hard to believe giggs would headbutt his mistress and kick her out on her arse while she's nude.
feck knows whats true, maybe giggs is a vile beast but lets wait for a court of law to hear both sides, appreciate the evidence and pass judgment before we start vilifying ?
Wow what the hell, why so bitter towards me? Are you guys so naive to think that women have zero interest in the financial state of their soon to be husbands?
Of course I know it is not in their dna, you guys take everything so damn seriously. Know your history, women wanted to marry rich men because women didn’t work pre industrialization. Women were not allowed to go out basically, they had to nurture the kids, it is all catholic really. Only the last 80 or so years women got more rights and freedom without being judged by the church or their aunts and neighbors.
There is still this stigma around women having a higher income than men, many men feel embarrassed when that is the case, men want to be in charge ( macho ism)
Another fact is that many women hastily married their men before they were shipped of to Europe to fight in the world wars because they feared them getting killed and ending up broke because women usually didn’t work.
It is all still very cultury geared towards the past, that is why there are so many female movements going for equal rights. they have been fighting for equality for almost hundred years now and slowly they are getting there. Guess what they are right! I’m sorry for you guys that I am not who you want me to be (the bitter women hater) I have the utmost respect for anyone. Look at all my posts and present me one post where I done people wrong, you won’t find any… Yet I am supposedly a monster because I give some historical insight.
What you’re doing to me is labelling me a women hater, a nutcase with no valuable opinion, sad state of affairs if you ask me. You judge me when you know nothing about me. Well done guys!
Of course I know it is not in their dna, you guys take everything so damn seriously. Know your history, women wanted to marry rich men because women didn’t work pre industrialization. Women were not allowed to go out basically, they had to nurture the kids, it is all catholic really. Only the last 80 or so years women got more rights and freedom without being judged by the church or their aunts and neighbors.
There is still this stigma around women having a higher income than men, many men feel embarrassed when that is the case, men want to be in charge ( macho ism)
Another fact is that many women hastily married their men before they were shipped of to Europe to fight in the world wars because they feared them getting killed and ending up broke because women usually didn’t work.
It is all still very cultury geared towards the past, that is why there are so many female movements going for equal rights. they have been fighting for equality for almost hundred years now and slowly they are getting there. Guess what they are right! I’m sorry for you guys that I am not who you want me to be (the bitter women hater) I have the utmost respect for anyone. Look at all my posts and present me one post where I done people wrong, you won’t find any… Yet I am supposedly a monster because I give some historical insight.
What you’re doing to me is labelling me a women hater, a nutcase with no valuable opinion, sad state of affairs if you ask me. You judge me when you know nothing about me. Well done guys!
You are too old fashioned, these days it is judge first ask questions later. I think we’re heading back to the middle ages where you just got hanged without a trial.
This basically reminds me of that Michael Jackson documentary of a couple of years ago. Suddenly the guy was a monster because 2 people took back earlier positive comments about him. Banned from the radio etc. He was called a predatory pedophile that made dozens of victims yet nobody else filed a complaint after the 2 guys backtracked their earlier comments.
Some already gave him more benefit of doubt. Some even implied the women are gold diggers. Some have gone about but gerrard did worse.
Benefits of doubt and innocence before guilty goes both ways.
It is like talking to a brick wall.
I said women married rich men or men with big prospects because women generally didn’t work and thus have no income. it is not the women’s fault, it was back then society’s fault for not granting women the same qualities and freedom as men in life. They had no choice but to look at men who were doing well financially speaking so they had a good future. That is why families had their daughters in arranged marriages. Women who were not in a position to marry such men usually stayed on the farm or married another farmer, some went into prostitution etc etc.
This had been going on for several thousands of years and in current times it is still the norm in many cultures. Back then older people said to their children you learn to love your husband when you get to know him better. This has changed, now it is the other way around you get to know your future man and then you marry. Times have changed in the West but not so in many other cultures.
So no they are not gold diggers, they had to do what they do to survive.
I am honestly appalled at how people react to my posts, I never offended anyone and none of my comments were directly aimed at Giggs’ wife I just gave some historically accurate info that might or might not have a say in what happened in their relationship. That is for the court to decide, not you, not me, the court.
What does that have to do with the case? Enlighten us