Brace yourselves over Stokes...

[dazzer6666]

You've lost me now!

http://www.look.co.uk/news/katie-price-mocks-son-harvey-in-drunken-karaoke-rant-546092

 

[Billy the Fish]

I'm pretty sure that Stokes isn't the first or the last sportsperson to act like a ****. The difference is, in bygone era's camera phones didn't exist! Also, he hasn't taken the piss out of him. He's just repeated what Harvey has said!! He's not mocking him. Massive overreaction to be honest.

This is how I see it. Harvey dropped the C bomb on national TV, when that happens it's going to be imitated regardless of the person's demographic. Because he's disabled people instantly assume it's mocking rather than imitating.

I wonder who stitched up stokes and released the video?

 

[marlowe]

And you've seen the link of price taking the piss out of her own son have you? Any view on that?

How on earth is what Katie Price did or didn't do in relation to Harvey in any way relevant? Even if Price or any other parent mocks or abuses their own child in any way that doesn't make it ok for other people to do the same to that child. They are two totally seperate issues. To make any link as some sort of justification is totally ridiculous. That would be the same as someone who had sexually abused someone elses child using the defence that the child's own parents had sexually abused it. Totally absurd.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

How on earth is what Katie Price did or didn't do in relation to Harvey in any way relevant? Even if Price or any other parent mocks or abuses their own child in any way that doesn't make it ok for other people to do the same to that child. They are two totally seperate issues. To make any link as some sort of justification is totally ridiculous. That would be the same as someone who had sexually abused someone elses child using the defence that the child's own parents had sexually abused it. Totally absurd.

Absurd is equating mocking someone with child sex abuse. You're an imbecile.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[marlowe]

Absurd is equating mocking someone with child sex abuse. You're an imbecile.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

But of course I didn't equate mocking someone with child sex abuse. I equated a parent mocking their own child with another person mocking that child. I also equated a parent sexually abusing their own child with another person sexually abusing that child. The two seperate and distinct analogies were supposed to demonstrate in fairly simple terms that just because a parent treats their child in a certain way it doesn't make it acceptable for other people to treat that child in the same way. Just because that is beyond your level of understanding doesn't make me an imbecile. It merely means I didn't explain it in simple enough terms for you to understand.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Come on, lets be realistic and keep to the specifics of what we're talking about here. Katie Price slammed Stokes for "mocking" Harvey, when in fact she's done exactly the same thing herself. Just because she is Harvey's parent, it makes her comments about her own son no more acceptable than Stokes comments. She's a hypocrite at best.

 

[BensGrandad]

I notice in the papers how the relations of one of the men that were alleged to have been taunting 2 gays who Stokes went after, have been trying to prove that to be incorrect as 'he wouldnt do such a thing' he is lovely chap and perfectly innocent. He is also a veteran of Afghanistan as if that makes any difference to what he did or didnt do in drink.

 

[marlowe]

Come on, lets be realistic and keep to the specifics of what we're talking about here. Katie Price slammed Stokes for "mocking" Harvey, when in fact she's done exactly the same thing herself. Just because she is Harvey's parent, it makes her comments about her own son no more acceptable than Stokes comments. She's a hypocrite at best.

If she had done exactly the same thing it wouldn't invalidate my comment and it would make her more than just a hypocrite. However having viewed the video she hasn't done "exactly the same thing" at all though has she? She might have made an inappropriate and clumsy comment but it wasn't mockery. And it was probably only inappropriate because she should have been aware that there would be plenty of people who would be keen to pounce on anything she says to try and put a negative spin on it which is what has happened. I think taking her comment and interpreting it as mocking her son is going a bit far. I'm sure there are plenty of things you could justifiably accuse her of but I don't think that's one of them.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

If she had done exactly the same thing it wouldn't invalidate my comment and it would make her more than just a hypocrite. However having viewed the video she hasn't done "exactly the same" at all though has she? She might have made an inappropriate comment but it wasn't mockery. And it was probably only inappropriate because she should have been aware that there would be plenty of people who would be keen to pounce on anything she says to try and put a negative spin on it which is what has happened. I think taking her comment and interpreting as mocking her son is going a bit far. I'm sure there are plenty of things you could justifiably accuse her of but I don't think that's one of them.

id pounce on her, i know some says it would be like a hippos mouth down there but after a session with DR shed be a new woman
regards
DR

 

[Giraffe]

Anyone who hasn't laughed at the Harvey c-word clip is a liar. It's bloody hilarious. Not because he is disabled. That is clearly not funny. But someone using the c word on live telly is funny. It just is.

 

[LlcoolJ]

But of course I didn't equate mocking someone with child sex abuse. I equated a parent mocking their own child with another person mocking that child. I also equated a parent sexually abusing their own child with another person sexually abusing that child. The two seperate and distinct analogies were supposed to demonstrate in fairly simple terms that just because a parent treats their child in a certain way it doesn't make it acceptable for other people to treat that child in the same way. Just because that is beyond your level of understanding doesn't make me an imbecile. It merely means I didn't explain it in simple enough terms for you to understand.

Would you like a step ladder?

 

[studio150]

Anyone who hasn't laughed at the Harvey c-word clip is a liar. It's bloody hilarious. Not because he is disabled. That is clearly not funny. But someone using the c word on live telly is funny. It just is.

Maybe but did Katie have to give Harvey a copy of Derek and Clive live for his last birthday

 

[Lower West Stander]

Come on, lets be realistic and keep to the specifics of what we're talking about here. Katie Price slammed Stokes for "mocking" Harvey, when in fact she's done exactly the same thing herself. Just because she is Harvey's parent, it makes her comments about her own son no more acceptable than Stokes comments. She's a hypocrite at best.

She’s a hypocrite at worst as well where Harvey is concerned......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[swindonseagull]

If she had done exactly the same thing it wouldn't invalidate my comment and it would make her more than just a hypocrite. However having viewed the video she hasn't done "exactly the same thing" at all though has she? She might have made an inappropriate and clumsy comment but it wasn't mockery. And it was probably only inappropriate because she should have been aware that there would be plenty of people who would be keen to pounce on anything she says to try and put a negative spin on it which is what has happened. I think taking her comment and interpreting it as mocking her son is going a bit far. I'm sure there are plenty of things you could justifiably accuse her of but I don't think that's one of them.

Keep digging the holes getting deeper..

 

[marlowe]

Keep digging the holes getting deeper..

Not really because I stand by what I say and I remain standing on pretty even ground. I'm no fan of Katie Price but I'm not going to accuse her of mocking her son and claim that what she did was exactly the same as what Stokes did simply because I don't particularly like her. I could dislike her for all sorts of reasons but that's not one of them. I'm not that desperate to latch on to that incident to distort and make ill judged comparisons in order to use it as a stick to beat her with as many on here appear to be. I do find it strange that people are using the Price incident as some sort of justification for Stokes' behaviour regarding her son. I just fail to see the connection. I realise I'm not going to change your minds because you already have this ingrained opinion and you are clearly intent on using her to deflect attention away from what he did. I think your opinion is dictated and coloured by your prejudice against Price and your admiration for Stokes. If there were two totally different individuals in the equation but the circumstances were the same I think your judgement would alter according to your allegiances to the individuals in question. But it shouldn't really work like that.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Not really because I stand by what I say and I remain standing on pretty even ground. I'm no fan of Katie Price but I'm not going to accuse her of mocking her son and claim that what she did was exactly the same as what Stokes did simply because I don't particularly like her. I could dislike her for all sorts of reasons but that's not one of them. I'm not that desperate to latch on to that incident to distort and make ill judged comparisons in order to use it as a stick to beat her with as many on here appear to be. I do find it strange that people are using the Price incident as some sort of justification for Stokes' behaviour regarding her son. I just fail to see the connection. I realise I'm not going to change your minds because you already have this ingrained opinion and you are clearly intent on using her to deflect attention away from what he did. I think your opinion is dictated and coloured by your prejudice against Price and your admiration for Stokes. If there were two totally different individuals in the equation but the circumstances were the same I think your judgement would alter according to your allegiances to the individuals in question. But it shouldn't really work like that.

My opinion certainly wouldnt change. If parent mocks/makes disparaging comments about their own child's disability, I beleive that they lose some of the moral high ground and cannot chastise others for doing the same. People in glass houses and all that.

For the record, I couldn't give a monkeys about Price and I don't have a massive admiration for Stokes. I just take the view that what Stokes did was an imitation not mockery. For mockery, I refer you to Donald Trump [video]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/nov/26/donald-trump-appears-to-mock-disabled-reporter-video[/video]

As you say, you're not likely to change my mind so lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Audax]

Apparently he's now been removed from the Ashes squad, pending outcomes of the investigations. Stephen Finn has replaced him.

 

[BensGrandad]

Apparently he's now been removed from the Ashes squad, pending outcomes of the investigations. Stephen Finn has replaced him.

That seems strange as they have renewed his and Hales contracts.

 

[BensGrandad]

Apparently he's now been removed from the Ashes squad, pending outcomes of the investigations. Stephen Finn has replaced him.

That is not quite correct what they have said is that at the moment he will not fly out to Australia with the main party on 28th October no mention of after that date so if the police investigation is finished etc he could fly out early November as it stands.

 

[LlcoolJ]

BG is correct.