alchresearch   191 #25 Posted September 11, 2019 He's been commentating for years, on BBC and C5 (he was on screen on C5 last week and no doubt will be this week).  If it were that big a deal then why were the campaigners not protesting against this and keeping him off our screens if he's such a vile man? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #26 Posted September 11, 2019 1 minute ago, alchresearch said: He's been commentating for years, on BBC and C5 (he was on screen on C5 last week and no doubt will be this week).  If it were that big a deal then why were the campaigners not protesting against this and keeping him off our screens if he's such a vile man? I think if he was convicted now, he'd be gone. Different times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Lockdoctor   10 #27 Posted September 11, 2019 40 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said: I think if he was convicted now, he'd be gone. Different times. Sir Geoffrey Boycott was sacked from a number of his jobs at the time of the convictions in France. He didn't help his defence by not turning up for the first trial and trying to conduct his own defence in the second trial in a foreign country when he didn't speak their lingo . The French court awarded the alleged victim one franc in damages.  Sir Geoffrey Boycott deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Top Cats Hat   10 #28 Posted September 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Lockdoctor said: The now Sir Geoffrey Boycott's day should not have been spoilt by all this faux controversy which happened all those years ago. Describing a conviction for assault as a ‘faux controversy’ shows that you and other misogynists on this thread share Boycott’s dislike of women. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Lockdoctor   10 #29 Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said: Describing a conviction for assault as a ‘faux controversy’ shows that you and other misogynists on this thread share Boycott’s dislike of women. You're embarrassing yourself. Having an open mind doesn't make any poster on this thread a disliker of women. If the conviction had been recent and happened in a British court then the controversy would be justified.  What makes you believe Sir Geoffrey Boycott dislikes women? Edited September 11, 2019 by Lockdoctor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Top Cats Hat   10 #30 Posted September 11, 2019 Just now, Lockdoctor said: What makes you believe Sir Geoffrey Boycott dislikes women? Check out some of the many misogynist comments he has made over the years, as well as his interview on radio Four yesterday morning. He doesn’t particularly like people who aren’t white either.  And you don’t have an open mind if you think that his conviction however long ago as a ‘faux controversy’, and probably ‘didn’t happen’. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Lockdoctor   10 #31 Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said: Check out some of the many misogynist comments he has made over the years, as well as his interview on radio Four yesterday morning. He doesn’t particularly like people who aren’t white either.  And you don’t have an open mind if you think that his conviction however long ago as a ‘faux controversy’, and probably ‘didn’t happen’. Sir Geoffrey Boycott is only guilty of not being politically correct which doesn't make him a disliker of women. If as you suggest Sir Geoffrey Boycott doesn't like non white people, then I doubt very much he would have had such a long innings in the commentary box travelling overseas and enjoying the company of non white people. Edited September 11, 2019 by Lockdoctor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
hobinfoot   25 #32 Posted September 11, 2019 He should have been knighted years ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Top Cats Hat   10 #33 Posted September 11, 2019 2 hours ago, alchresearch said: He's been commentating for years, on BBC and C5 (he was on screen on C5 last week and no doubt will be this week).  If it were that big a deal then why were the campaigners not protesting against this and keeping him off our screens if he's such a vile man? You do know that Boycott is an ex-England cricketer, don’t you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
alchresearch   191 #34 Posted September 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said: Describing a conviction for assault as a ‘faux controversy’ shows that you and other misogynists on this thread share Boycott’s dislike of women. Lockdoctor wasn't calling the conviction a ‘faux controversy’.  What I'm sure he's referring to is the current outrage for an incident which happened decades ago, and which he's paid the price for.  Remember the outrage years ago with Johnathan Ross and Andrew Sachs? Demanding he never be allowed to broadcast again? They've both served their time for their mistakes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Top Cats Hat   10 #35 Posted September 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, alchresearch said: Remember the outrage years ago with Johnathan Ross and Andrew Sachs? Demanding he never be allowed to broadcast again? They've both served their time for their mistakes. I think that you are struggling with the difference between someone serving their time and continuing to work and someone being honoured in society.  They are not the same thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Lockdoctor   10 #36 Posted September 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, alchresearch said: Lockdoctor wasn't calling the conviction a ‘faux controversy’.  What I'm sure he's referring to is the current outrage for an incident which happened decades ago, and which he's paid the price for.  Remember the outrage years ago with Johnathan Ross and Andrew Sachs? Demanding he never be allowed to broadcast again? They've both served their time for their mistakes. It's difficult to reason with TopCatsHat. I did say that the controversy would be justified if the conviction had been recent, but TopCatsHat chose not to reply. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...