United Thread 2014/15

[Stoned Rose]

Apparently the rags have agreed a deal for Dutch center back De Vrij .....9.5m Euros as reported here in USA...... and I see talkshite have the same story

He'll never get a game.

Not with the world class CB pairing of Smalling and Jones to contend with.

 

[jacko74]

Luke Shaw now looks like a ****, it's amazing what a move to the Rags can do for your image.

That's so true... I thought he was just a normal looking footballer previously, yet seeing him in a rag kit and he now instantly has one of them smug faces that you just want to punch.

 

[The_Mo]

In don't get it why do the scum always go for the young English players and pay stupid money?

Because its 'The United way', how else are they supposed to claim all these players came from their academy? Buy 'em young.

 

[TGR]

Apparently the rags have agreed a deal for Dutch center back De Vrij .....9.5m Euros as reported here in USA...... and I see talkshite have the same story

That suggests that either Smalling or Jones (or possibly both) are on their way out of the door marked 'Exit'.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I can't see why it's 'worse' to attack a member of the crowd rather than a player. We're all human beings. The Suarez and Keane incidents were also done in full view of children. None of the incidents involved a 'weapon', they all involved use of body parts to commit the offence. You also have no idea whether Cantona 'intended more harm' than either Keane or Suarez.
It's worse because footballers, when stepping onto the pitch, consent to a degree of physical contact that may result in harm. A member of the crowd is a (paying) bystander who is merely there to observe "conflict and art" [with apologies to JB Priestley]. The notion that attacking a player is the same as attacking a member of the crowd is one that fails to appreciate the value of unwritten rules and why they exist. I said in the "immediate" view of children which is an important distinguishing feature, as this is much more likely to cause the child psychological harm, especially if the act of violence was committed by someone famous who they'd previously looked up to. A shod foot (with the added aggravating feature of studs it should be said) is considered to be a weapon when sentencing for assault in this country, at least, and is even referred to as such in the Sentencing Guidelines:
<a class="postlink" href="http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov. ... _Court.pdf</a>


Surely planning to cause 'lasting harm' would be a worse offence than not?. Also wasn't Cantona's an 'act of retribution' against a fan who had been giving him verbals?
It wasn't retribution, but rather retaliation in the face of provocation (itself a mitigating feature). There is a distinct difference between the two scenarios.


Again we have no idea how much damage Suarez intended to cause
I'm entitled to make an educated guess. It was an assault that was brief and targeted upon a relatively non-essential part of the body. Its likelihood of causing lasting harm was much less than the other two Offences, which also supports this view.

That indeed increases Keane's cuntishness. However, we have no idea whether Suarez has boasted about his incident behind close doors, so it's impossible to draw parallels.
No we don't know what Suarez has said 'in-camera'. I'm basing this part of my conclusions, however, on what I have seen and heard. Moreover the very fact of it being boasted about in the public domain is in itself an significant aggravating feature imo. On that basis, drawing parallels isn't too difficult.


I'm not saying they might not be 'different', but at the end of the day all 3 are assaults. That'd be like arguing which rape (for example) was worse.
I agree it is very much akin to arguing which rape was "worse". Of course some rapes are "worse" than others. That is why Parliament has conferred a wide range of sentencing powers and discretion upon the courts based on the facts and surrounding circumstances of each offence. The same is true about assault, sentences for which can range from a fine up to life imprisonment. These three incidents are distinct from each other for the reasons I have outlined.

 

[nobody can eat fifty eggs]

Shaw should be stood next to a big fuck off dollar sign. He's only gone there for the money obviously.

 

[LoveCity]

They managed to make a profit on Buttner, ffs. The myth of United players all being something lives on. Cleverley to Sunderland for £15m in the next two years then.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I can't see why it's 'worse' to attack a member of the crowd rather than a player. We're all human beings. The Suarez and Keane incidents were also done in full view of children. None of the incidents involved a 'weapon', they all involved use of body parts to commit the offence. You also have no idea whether Cantona 'intended more harm' than either Keane or Suarez.
It's worse because footballers, when stepping onto the pitch, consent to a degree of physical contact that may result in harm. A member of the crowd is a (paying) bystander who is merely there to observe "conflict and art" [with apologies to JB Priestley]. The notion that attacking a player is the same as attacking a member of the crowd is one that fails to appreciate the value of unwritten rules and why they exist. I said in the "immediate" view of children which is an important distinguishing feature, as this is much more likely to cause the child psychological harm, especially if the act of violence was committed by someone famous who they'd previously looked up to. A shod foot (with the added aggravating feature of studs it should be said) is considered to be a weapon when sentencing for assault in this country, at least, and is even referred to as such in the Sentencing Guidelines:
<a class="postlink" href="http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov. ... _Court.pdf</a>


I accept that footballers consent to a degree of physical harm. For example they may get hurt in a challenge for the ball. However that is clearly distinguishable from an 'assault' the likes of which we agree Keane, Suarez and Cantona all committed. It is clearly different if for example Rooney breaks Kompany's nose in a particularly vigorous aerial dual than if he simply walks up to him and breaks his nose by punching him. The first is 'part and parcel', the 2nd isn't and is a criminal offence. If this happened to you whilst playing sunday league would you shrug it off as part of the 'conflict' of the game?

The shod foot issue I believe only applies when the victim is defenceless and/or grounded and you use the foot to 'continue' the attack. If you just approached someone in the street and kicked them that would simply be an assault and the 'shod foot' wouldn't come into it. Therefore Cantona's kick and the 'shod foot' aren't related.

I disagree with your conclusion re psychological harm to children. I feel you are generalising a hugely complex arena. I see no evidence to suggest a child would be more distressed by the Cantona scenario than if they saw a stranger do the same in the street one day, of if they saw a family member do it.


Surely planning to cause 'lasting harm' would be a worse offence than not?. Also wasn't Cantona's an 'act of retribution' against a fan who had been giving him verbals?
It wasn't retribution, but rather retaliation in the face of provocation (itself a mitigating feature). There is a distinct difference between the two scenarios.

Not really. Imo Cantona is 'getting his own back' on not only the victim, but the Palace fans and 'situation' in general, following his sending off. He believes the situation to merit giving someone, anyone, a dig. Quite some time lapses between his sending off and his attack on the fan. That makes it 'retribution' in my opinion, although as you say there is clear provocation as well.


Again we have no idea how much damage Suarez intended to cause
I'm entitled to make an educated guess. It was an assault that was brief and targeted upon a relatively non-essential part of the body. Its likelihood of causing lasting harm was much less than the other two Offences, which also supports this view.

So am I. It mat be possible that at the time Suarez decided to bite the opponent, he wanted to aim for his neck or his face, but the movement of both players prevented this. There are to may ifs and buts and 'unknowns' here to conclude much about how much damage Suarez intended imo.

That indeed increases Keane's cuntishness. However, we have no idea whether Suarez has boasted about his incident behind close doors, so it's impossible to draw parallels.
No we don't know what Suarez has said 'in-camera'. I'm basing this part of my conclusions, however, on what I have seen and heard. Moreover the very fact of it being boasted about in the public domain is in itself an significant aggravating feature imo. On that basis, drawing parallels isn't too difficult.


Fair enough Gordon, but imo you're drawing parallels without being in possession of all the pieces of information you'd need to draw those parallels. I prefer not to do that in this instance.

I'm not saying they might not be 'different', but at the end of the day all 3 are assaults. That'd be like arguing which rape (for example) was worse.
I agree it is very much akin to arguing which rape was "worse". Of course some rapes are "worse" than others. That is why Parliament has conferred a wide range of sentencing powers and discretion upon the courts based on the facts and surrounding circumstances of each offence. The same is true about assault, sentences for which can range from a fine up to life imprisonment. These three incidents are distinct from each other for the reasons I have outlined.

Rape is rape. I work with victims of rape and this is what they tell me. I'm happier to base my understanding on real life experiences than what the law of the land might say, because as we know 'the law is an as'.

I do enjoy our occasional debates GDM.

 

[Bill]

BBC at its biased best.
Report on us signing Fernando, the last paragraph they added was about he has never been capped by his country.
No such comment on thier report of the Spanish guy they bought.

It's never ending, I'm afraid.

the agenda you mean? there isn't one don't you know.

 

[waspish]

They managed to make a profit on Buttner, ffs. The myth of United players all being something lives on. Cleverley to Sunderland for £15m in the next two years then.

How much did they get for him? I thought he was a decent left back more attacking than shaw defending he struggled a bit though