rickiethecat

There's a very interesting news story ongoing about the football manager Malky Mackay, who was on the verge of getting the Crystal Palace job when his former chairman at Cardiff intervened and published some private text messages Mackay sent to a colleague, which have been deemed so offensive that Mackay has now been ruled out of the job. The content of the texts can be seen on the link below; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/cardiff-city/11047646/Malky-Mackay-texts-scandal-the-damning-evidence-discovered-by-Cardiff-chairman-Vincent-Tan.html Looking at the texts in the cold light of day, they will obviously offend the PC brigade but the issue here is that they were private texts sent between two colleagues which were never intended for public scrutiny. The League Manager's Association has, quite rightly, said the texts were friendly banter between friends, but it looks like the matter won't rest once the usual suspects get involved, going out of their way to be offended on behalf of other people. I wonder what the forum view is on this story and why the content of private text messages ahas anything to do with anyone but the people who sent and received them?

Except the assumption that most people with tattoos are lazy, dirty, untrustworthy, criminal types is both logical and justified.

It sounds a great idea for a game show. Take a bunch of old, worthless or talentless "celebrities", put them in a house together with a selection of weapons and/or means of committing suicide and film the results.

In the OP's link, the husband of the mail order bride said he didn't think UKIP was a racist party. So if he wasn't offended what gives you the right to tell him that he should be? It's nothing to do with you.

When I was your age I probably thought like that, that I could look however I liked and not care what people thought. But when you get older you’ll realise that if you want to get on in life it does matter what other people think of you and their first impression will be based on what you look like, There may be a handful of decent people with tattoos but generally people with visible tattoos are perceived as lazy, rebellious, of low intelligence and prone to violent behaviour. Imagine going for your dream job but not getting it because of what your tattoos say about you. Or imagine the love of your life turning down a date with you because you look like a chav? By all means dress as you like, have as many tattoos as you can afford, but if you end up unloved, alone and unemployed, don’t blame anyone else but yourself.

Preventing anyone on benefits or who lives on a council estate from breeding. Unfortunately this might be difficult to enforce.

Why is likening someone to a TV comedy character a racial slur?

By your definition, referring to someone as a white man (or a black man for that matter) would be racist. Why are you trying to take offence on behalf of someone else when it's got nothing to do with you?

I've not been but I've heard good reports about BMF. https://www.britmilfit.com/where-we-train/sheffield/

People should look beyond the headlines and ask themselves why some throwaway remark from a member of a minor party is front page news. It's obvious to all that the mainstream media have an agency to discredit UKIP at every opportunity. The left wing media hates them because they're not politically correct, the right wing media hate them because they fear they'll split the tory vote at the next election and let Labour in. I fail to see why this non-story is of any interest to anyone except the 3 people involved.

No-one forced you to take the job, so effectively you've chosen to be dependent on your car. Perhaps if you'd worked harder at school you might have been able to get a day job in an office where travelling by public transport was an option?

Fair play to you Anna for taking time to read more than one side of the story before forming your opinion. The only thing I would take issue with you is your suggestion that loss of trust in the media and not knowing who to believe is a modern thing. Was there ever some golden age where politicians always told the truth and the media just reported the facts instead of putting their own spin on stories? The way I see it, politicians have always lied, newspapers have always had their own agenda and even the BBC could barely be said to be impartial, it's been notorious for its left wing bias for years. The growth of the internet might mean more people have a voice, but as you point out, just because someone has written a blog or posted a video on youtube, how do you know their allegations have any credibility? I suppose it's up to each one of us to use our own judgement as to who to trust and who to believe.

You're wasting your time with reason and logic on this thread. The usual suspects are far too busy taking offence on behalf on a race they're not even part of to listen.

If you'd bothered to check forum rules, you'd know that starting new threads when old threads about the same topic already exist is frowned upon. I brought this one back because there's a topical article just appeared on the BBC website confirming that most reputable employers do frown upon potential employees with visible tattoos, which proves my argument is correct. By all means ignore this thread if you're not interested.

You've summed up exactly how most of us feel, I couldn't agree more. But then Sheffield United's star player last season (Marlon King) had convictions for sexual assault, beating up women and a string of driving offences and was sentenced to 18 months in prison for drink driving, so I wouldn't expect the Blades to show any sign of morality and decency. The fact they've offered him this £3 million contract shows just how morally bankrupt they are.

There's an interesting feature on the BBC website today which confirms my statement to be true; employers are put off taking on staff with visible tattoos as they're perceived as "untidy", "repugnant" and "unsavoury". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28758900 Worth thinking about if you're looking for a job.

You know you're old (or rather mature) when you realise how ridiculous the socialist beliefs you had in your teens now look.

No surprise there. While Old Labour may have its roots in the North, New Labour's roots are in Hampstead dinner parties.

Buy a copy of The Sun.

Have a look at this blog, in particular the comments underneath it, and you'll see just how credible (or otherwise) Chris Fay and his co-accusers are. http://annaraccoon.com/2014/01/31/what-happens-if-three-butterflies-flap-their-wings-simultaneously/ It's ironic that you started a thread defending celebrities accused of paedophilia but you're now defending the people who are making the accusations! I'm not sure even you yourself know what you believe, Anna.

A brief search on Chris Fay reveals that he is also a convicted fraudster who in 2012 served a prison sentence for money laundering and basically being part of a gang conning people with a bogus share scheme. I don't know about you, but I would not trust the credibility of a convicted fraudster and I'm certainly not going to waste an hour of my time on his wild allegations.

I can't decide whether your naivety is touching or scary. It may come as a shock to you but not everything posted on the internet is true. Youtube in particular is awash with crackpot conspiracy theorists who can't tell the difference between an allegation and a revelation. To provide proof of some massive government cover up of paedophile activity, you need two things, evidence and credibility. In the absence of both, it seems to me that Chris Fay is just another attention-seeking fantasist.

A friend of mine works for a pub chain and has been on a zero hours contract for several years. Because his income is unpredictable he's learned to get by on very little money so he can manage on as little as 20 hours work a week. When he works more hours he puts the money aside to help him through the weeks when he works less hours. Perhaps I'm old fashioned but I believe in living within your means and not spending what you haven't got. With the right amount of self-discipline it should be no more difficult to get by on a zero hours contract than on a fixed part time hours one.

It's like people saying Tannoy when they mean public address system.

"the army of unemployed over 50s who don't necessarily qualify for benefits"? Do you mean pensioners ir did I miss something and people between 50 and 60 are now ineligible for benefits. Have you also considered that people who are part time or on zero hours contracts actually do so by choice. Not everyone wants to work themselves into the ground full time.