What are your thoughts on the Ian Wright/Patrick O'Brien situation?

The Inbetween is mine

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I absolutely do think a criminal conviction is warranted. As somebody else said this probably isn't the first time for him, just the first time somebody made a complaint to the police. His age doesn't excuse him. he was old enough to know that calling a black person a monkey isn't on. What he did was very wrong. he was old enough to know it was wrong.

Criminal convictions are not given out on "probably"
Absolute spoofer

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I absolutely do think a criminal conviction is warranted. As somebody else said this probably isn't the first time for him, just the first time somebody made a complaint to the police. His age doesn't excuse him. he was old enough to know that calling a black person a monkey isn't on. What he did was very wrong. he was old enough to know it was wrong.

Well I absolutely think you're talking waffle.

Have you ever been into a district court in this country? Ever heard the constant flow of violent criminal acts committed by offenders with dozens of previous convictions being given suspended sentences? All these clowns deserve their records and should be locked up but there's nowhere to put them. But you think this stupid kid should be locked up?

Racism is abhorrent, we all know that but the idea that a kid should carry a criminal conviction for their entire life for being a d1ckhead on the Internet as a teenager is preposterous.

What sort of precedent does that set? Every idiot who uses a slur in future ends up in prison at the expense of the taxpayer? It might satisfy you but it's the people who foot the bill for housing these idiots in prisons.
If we can't lock up violent repeat offenders how can we lock up teenagers using racial slurs over the Internet?

The Inbetween is mine

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No. try thinking smarter.

Physician heal thyself

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No. try thinking smarter.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

don't be so patronising.

Ah lad...

Do as I say eh?

TomTomTim

nullzero wrote: »

Well I absolutely think you're talking waffle.

Have you ever been into a district court in this country? Ever heard the constant flow of violent criminal acts committed by offenders with dozens of previous convictions being given suspended sentences? All these clowns deserve their records and should be locked up but there's nowhere to put them. But you think this stupid kid should be locked up?

Racism is abhorrent, we all know that but the idea that a kid should carry a criminal conviction for their entire life for being a d1ckhead on the Internet as a teenager is preposterous.

What sort of precedent does that set? Every idiot who uses a slur in future ends up in prison at the expense of the taxpayer? It might satisfy you but it's the people who foot the bill for housing these idiots in prisons.
If we can't lock up violent repeat offenders how can we lock up teenagers using racial slurs over the Internet?

It's not just that it's a conviction, it's what he was convicted for. A former bank robber would have more of a chance getting a job than someone who was once judged as being racist.

ohnonotgmail

It says a lot about the state of this country that public embarrassment is sufficient punishment for very nasty racism. It would make you wonder about the people who think his punishment was sufficient.

Chris_Heilong

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Was this really racism? He made disgusting insulting and threatening comments that is undeniable and he should face consequences. But he made them with the intent to cause insult and fear due to an bizarre and illconceived sense of aggrivement rather than from outright racist beliefs.

You can insult people without bring racial elements into it but these were targeting his race which in my mind is racist. Losing access to twitter and public shaming should be the only consequences IMO.

The Inbetween is mine

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

You can insult people without bring racial elements into it but these were targeting his race which in my mind is racist. Losing access to twitter and public shaming should be the only consequences IMO.

Why should he lose access to twitter?

nullzero

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It says a lot about the state of this country that public embarrassment is sufficient punishment for very nasty racism. It would make you wonder about the people who think his punishment was sufficient.

Nasty racism?

He didn't commit a racially motivated assault on somebody.

His language was repugnant but he was minor when he said what he said.

Think about proportionality in relation to this before you start locking every idiot who has used the N word up in imaginary prisons that don't exist.

BrianD3

JimmyVik wrote: »

Its a tribal thing. Its like them against the world and they say stuff to get under the skin. Id say in private half of them would be nice as pie. Half of those yobs wouldnt be either mind you.
Ever with a group of Catholics or protestants up the north when none of the other side are around and hear what they say?
Worse again in Glasgow.

I know a few highly intelligent and decent people (including a university professor) who were football hooligans in their twenties. The primal and tribal nature of the sport results in people doing things they wouldn't dream of doing otherwise. I'd say many of those who threw bananas at black players in the past are mortified about it - but at the same time if they were in that atmosphere again, they might do something similar and then regret it again.

I well remember when I was a kid the slagging that went on about English football teams. One of the slags was about the number of black players - i.e. Liverpool may be ahead of Man Utd but Liverpool also have more black players therefore Utd are actually better than Liverpool. Have I and the people i went to school with turned out to be terrible racists - I don't think so.

We all do or say things when we are young and stupid or in the heat of battle that we may later regret. Ian Wright himself was a controversial player during his career. Sent to anger management classes. Regular run ins with refs referring to them as "Little Hitlers", is such a statement offensive to Jews given how Jews suffered under Hitler in WW 2?. Also Wright was involved in numerous physical altercations in his career including "accidentally" kneeing Steve Ogrizovic in the nose, punching David Howells, two footed studs up lunge at Schmeichel's legs. Assault if it happened off the pitch. Loved by fans, showed his passion.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It says a lot about the state of this country that public embarrassment is sufficient punishment for very nasty racism. It would make you wonder about the people who think his punishment was sufficient.

See, now you're just soap boxing and casting aspersions on those who have given you a reasoned and logical argument against your point.
"Ah but sure the rest of ye are just racists" disagreeing with me.

You haven't provided a scintilla of justification why he should be treated any different by the criminal justice system for a first time offender for non serious crime. only "because Boardsies are saying" and emotion, and stuff.

Thankfully, the courts aren't presided over by members of the outraged mob.

RobbieTheRobber

BrianD3 wrote: »

Also Wright was involved in numerous physical altercations in his career including "accidentally" kneeing Steve Ogrizovic in the nose, punching David Howells, two footed studs up lunge at Schmeichel's legs. Assault if it happened off the pitch. Loved by fans, showed his passion.

Ian wright is a bad person that makes the racism ok

RobbieTheRobber

nullzero wrote: »

Nasty racism?

nasty
/ˈnɑːsti/
adjective
1.
very bad or unpleasant.


2. behaving in an unpleasant or spiteful way.

racism
/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.


the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

Yeah seems an ok interpretation to me

BrianD3

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ian wright is a bad person that makes the racism ok

RobbietheRobber doesn't understand plain English. Point out where I said that - go on.

I think Wright is great and I suspect I know far more about his career and history than you do.

The point is, as I already said, we do or say things in the heat of battle or when we are young that are deemed unacceptable or offensive. Wright probably feels bad about Steve Ogrizovic's nose now just as O'Brien would likely have felt bad about his comments in a few years, court case or no court case.

RobbieTheRobber

BrianD3 wrote: »

RobbietheRobber doesn't understand plain English. Point out where I said that - go on.

I think Wright is great and I suspect I know far more about his career and history than you do.

The point is, as I already said, we do or say things in the heat of battle or when we are young that are deemed unacceptable or offensive. Wright probably feels bad about Steve Ogrizovic's nose now just as O'Brien would likely have felt bad about his comments in a few years, court case or no court case.

So the heat of battle makes racism ok and in this case the heat of battle we are referring to is playing computer games.
So playing computer games makes racism ok?

blackvalley

So the question of racism rages unabated but the question of sanity is overlooked.
How can anyone who is playing an online game , using characters that they themselves have picked then blame these imaginary characters for performing badly . " Mad as a brush " is the term i would use .

is_that_so

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So the heat of battle makes racism ok and in this case the heat of battle we are referring to is playing computer games.
So playing computer games makes racism ok?

It certainly makes people say very stupid things and often reach for angry childish insults they think are likely to offend or hurt people. It is unacceptable behaviour but not evidence on its own that it exists in RL.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The punishment was a bit lenient. HOWEVER, he was old enough to be named. So his name will come up in internet searches. This will affect him in the future. He has a fairly commonplace name though so I feel sorry for those who share his name and who might have their CVs binned because of it.

Tombo2001

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The punishment was a bit lenient. HOWEVER, he was old enough to be named. So his name will come up in internet searches. This will affect him in the future. He has a fairly commonplace name though so I feel sorry for those who share his name and who might have their CVs binned because of it.

So its a punishment now that people know he did it.

TBH it was the judges commentary as much as the sentence that annoyed me.

If you stab someone, can a judge give you leniency for being 'young and naive'?

Why is this different.

Regarding the sentence, my only words of explanation would be that its consistent with many other serious crimes that have resulted in suspended sentences.

weldoninhio

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The punishment was a bit lenient. HOWEVER, he was old enough to be named. So his name will come up in internet searches. This will affect him in the future. He has a fairly commonplace name though so I feel sorry for those who share his name and who might have their CVs binned because of it.

Can't you have it removed from google.

Tombo2001

ByTheSea2019 wrote: »

Saying you forgive someone and coming back saying they haven't been punished harshly enough makes it look like the "forgiveness" was just for PR. If you don't forgive them, fine, stick to your guns and say you want to go through the trial and see them punished. But don't try to look forgiving if you're not.

No it doesnt.

It means you forgive them.

It doesnt mean you think they should not be punished for it. Two different things.

Would the same apply in a murder trial?

The parents of the victim say they forgive the killer. Will the judge say, thats grand so, out you go?

bocaman

In my opinion Patrick O'Brien made a racist statement and the Judge let him off the hook. Am absolutely disgraceful situation. He's a young adult not a 12 year old kid.

EmmetSpiceland

Would the “outcome” have been different if Wrighty had forgiven the perpetrator after the trial?

The Inbetween is mine

is_that_so wrote: »

It certainly makes people say very stupid things and often reach for angry childish insults they think are likely to offend or hurt people. It is unacceptable behaviour but not evidence on its own that it exists in RL.

I suppose forgiveness has to be asked for at times
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MY+SHAME%3B+Wright+sorry+for+%60pervert%27+slur.-a061304416

partyguinness

To a large extent this has nothing to do with Ian Wright. His "forgiveness" is of no relevance. It's bigger than that.

RobbieTheRobber

is_that_so wrote: »

It certainly makes people say very stupid things and often reach for angry childish insults they think are likely to offend or hurt people. It is unacceptable behaviour but not evidence on its own that it exists in RL.

He sent racist messages to Ian wright in real life, he didn't shout racist messages at the Ian wright sprite on his TV in the game. What part of sending racist messages to a real person isn't real life?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tombo2001 wrote: »

So its a punishment now that people know he did it.

TBH it was the judges commentary as much as the sentence that annoyed me.

If you stab someone, can a judge give you leniency for being 'young and naive'?

Why is this different.

Regarding the sentence, my only words of explanation would be that its consistent with many other serious crimes that have resulted in suspended sentences.

I said that the sentence was a bit lenient.

His name being out there is a passive punishment. And I have no sympathy for him.

Personally, I’d consider a stabbing more serious because the victim would be very lucky to not have physical side effects stemming from it from it for the rest of their life as well as the emotional trauma. I don’t consider them the same, no.

silverharp

on the scale of things I'd rate a serial bike thief worse than what I will call a mistake this lad made. I dont get the whole puritan head on a stick attitude though, its just a classic manufactured outrage story and people are playing their parts.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

weldoninhio wrote: »

Can't you have it removed from google.

I had something with my name on it removed from a google search before. There was a bit of a process. Mine wasn’t crime related so I succeeded but there was no guarantee when I submitted the request.

TomTomTim

Tombo2001 wrote: »

So its a punishment now that people know he did it.

TBH it was the judges commentary as much as the sentence that annoyed me.

If you stab someone, can a judge give you leniency for being 'young and naive'?

Why is this different.

Regarding the sentence, my only words of explanation would be that its consistent with many other serious crimes that have resulted in suspended sentences.

How is it a serious crime? At worst someone could of had their feelings hurt. It can't be compared to robbery, rape or murder. Not rationally at least. You're just being dramatic for the sake of it.