Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Reiser99" data-source="post: 1041237" data-attributes="member: 72977"><p>It one of the most debated topics recently with the advent of social media and historical posts. How accountable should people be for what they have written in the past, especially when they were younger?</p><p></p><p>Some people that argue that everyone makes mistakes that when people are younger they will make mistakes. For me that is a load of crap. People are responsible for their actions, especially once they are an adult and time doesn't absolve them of responsibility. Yes there are some mistakes that aren't serious and can maybe be forgiven for youth, racist and offensive content is not one of those for me. Now some people also say that people may no longer have those same views. Well in that case, they knew what they had written before hand and they should own up to it. Not hope it is never discovered and then apologise if it is. Unless someone has owned up to what they said voluntarily then I struggle to believe their views have changed that much.</p><p></p><p>The next question really what is a proportional punishment for what transpired in the past. Again for me personally it should be the same as if they had just wrote it. It is the content that is being punished, not the time it was written. I've always thought time limits on transgressions is ridiculous. If you committed a crime/infringement etc... then you should be punished regardless.</p><p></p><p>In the case of Ollie Robinson, I've not seen what he's read, but people on here have said it is at the more extreme end of offensive content. He seems to have hoped it would stay buried rather than voluntarily admitting and apologising and only apologises when he's caught. None of that suggests his views have changed massively. For me he deserves everything he gets.</p><p></p><p>As for Dowden and Johnson they are just jumping on the right wing nonsense that suggests people shouldn't be punished for their past, trying to score political points. It's pathetic, but will probably work on some.</p><p></p><p>Finally, I think most journalists are amoral and it is one of the scummiest professions on the planet.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Reiser99, post: 1041237, member: 72977"] It one of the most debated topics recently with the advent of social media and historical posts. How accountable should people be for what they have written in the past, especially when they were younger? Some people that argue that everyone makes mistakes that when people are younger they will make mistakes. For me that is a load of crap. People are responsible for their actions, especially once they are an adult and time doesn't absolve them of responsibility. Yes there are some mistakes that aren't serious and can maybe be forgiven for youth, racist and offensive content is not one of those for me. Now some people also say that people may no longer have those same views. Well in that case, they knew what they had written before hand and they should own up to it. Not hope it is never discovered and then apologise if it is. Unless someone has owned up to what they said voluntarily then I struggle to believe their views have changed that much. The next question really what is a proportional punishment for what transpired in the past. Again for me personally it should be the same as if they had just wrote it. It is the content that is being punished, not the time it was written. I've always thought time limits on transgressions is ridiculous. If you committed a crime/infringement etc... then you should be punished regardless. In the case of Ollie Robinson, I've not seen what he's read, but people on here have said it is at the more extreme end of offensive content. He seems to have hoped it would stay buried rather than voluntarily admitting and apologising and only apologises when he's caught. None of that suggests his views have changed massively. For me he deserves everything he gets. As for Dowden and Johnson they are just jumping on the right wing nonsense that suggests people shouldn't be punished for their past, trying to score political points. It's pathetic, but will probably work on some. Finally, I think most journalists are amoral and it is one of the scummiest professions on the planet. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
Top