Honor, I do not find a collection of irrelevant ramblings, that have been loosely packaged together help the debate. At times I find myself questioning whether you are a real person, or some bizarre bot that uses an algorithm to pull together insanely irrelevant text and post it.
The case for me on Hardaker is simple:
1. He should be investigated
2. He should be treated respectfully whilst said investigation is in progress
3. Homophobic language is not acceptable, even if anyone whom it was directed at was or wasn't offended by it.
4. If guilty, he should have the book thrown at him.
5. If innocent, then we move on. That's the nature of the disciplinary process, you are investigated and if innocent you are not and should not be issued with an apology.
Which is pretty much the same as mine, Larry the Leit, and that means we are actually in agreement on all fronts except, perhaps, for me at least:
1) It has not yet been proved that Zak Hardaker used homophobic language. It has been assumed on the basis of past events. But for some writing on this thread it has been a fact since moment one, before any investigation or right of explanation of what he did say, and why, can be offered in defence. That is what I have been writing about.
2) I cannot be responsible for your inability to make sense of what I write here.
For you it seems, what I write is no more than "insanely irrelevant text". For others it may not be that.
For me it is my thoughts on a matter of considerable importance, which is that a great deal of seemingly rushed off, and to me intemperate, bile-spilling condemnation `without due process' may - without any malice aforethought whatever on the part of those who write it - end up eroding one of the most vital principles of British law.
Innocent until proven guilty.
So if anyone here doesn't think that what I write is just "insanely irrelevant text", perhaps they will think back a few years with me, to a case they may remember being reported at length on Television. A young woman had gone missing. A man who was a neighbour was `under investigation' by the police. He was shown on television. Others in the area, interrogated by the media, seemed to think that he was somehow odd - a potential killer perhaps?
A man who later, after weeks of ghastly `trial by national media' was proved to have been entirely innocent all along.
Which made many people think he seemed odd - and possiibly dangerous.
So I shall continue to hope that not only Zak Hardaker's case, but all cases of possible or presumed offence, will no longer be prejudged on `social' media sites, in the papers and on television. Let them be judged with proper respect, which has to include public silence until they have been heard, considered, and decided upon by the appropriate court.
And I hope, heard with a little more kindness than is extended here, at times, to many sorts of things and people by a few (no way by all) members of this forum. Kindness costs nothing and it certainly need not forgive where wrong is proved to have been done.
It is not the same thing as weakness.
And that now is the very last bit of `insanely irelevant text' that will written here by me on this subject.
That was a kiss I blew there Larry the Leit, for you, to show there are no hard feelings here.
"Insanely irrelevant" or not, words may be important or futile but life is far too short to bear grudges.