CLUB STATEMENT- BK8 CONTRACT TERMINATED

[spindrift 23]

The consequences for the young women can be devastating. There have been suicides after the victims realised what had happened to them. Later on in life when the footage surfaces women have lost custodial rights to their own children.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/10/pornography-misogyny-women

 

Quote

 Alone in the hotel rooms with strange men, the women were asked to sign contracts written in dense legalese, but they were discouraged from reading them.

These, remember, are educated, liberated American women. Not poor girls from south east asia being manipulated by a gambling firm with hard core pornography alliances. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

9 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The issue is I regard as ALL the 'betting' sponsors in football as inherently seedy.

I don't entirely disagree but this business seems to be particularly obscure and murky, come out of nowhere to throw big money around, with it not being obvious where their financial backing has come from. They seem to have no significant social media presence and Google doesn't show their website on the top couple of pages, it is really odd.

If Virgin Betting popped up tomorrow,  with Richard Branson's big cheesy grin in the press release, you'd know that he is a tax avoiding greedy c*nt, but you wouldn't be worried that the £50m he'd thrown at launching it originated from, I don't know, money laundering for despot dictators or drugs cartels or something. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I don't entirely disagree but this business seems to be particularly obscure and murky, come out of nowhere to throw big money around, with it not being obvious where their financial backing has come from. They seem to have no significant social media presence and Google doesn't show their website on the top couple of pages, it is really odd.

If Virgin Betting popped up tomorrow,  with Richard Branson's big cheesy grin in the press release, you'd know that he is a tax avoiding greedy c*nt, but you wouldn't be worried that the £50m he'd thrown at launching it originated from, I don't know, money laundering for despot dictators or drugs cartels or something. 

Take a look at some of the EPL club owners.....

I don't approve of BK8 at all but I know/smell hypocrisy when I see it.

Watching late night (or even early) TV nearly all the 'betting ' adverts sell / associate with some form of seedy sexual behaviors or innuendo / life style - the pretty croupier, the 'glamour' etc... 

[The Real Buh 3,423]

1 hour ago, g00se said:

Yes- we must defend the fuming gammons' right to oggle underage cleavage at all cost...

I didn’t know it was so controversial to champion women’s rights to perform a legal job in return for remuneration but apparently it is. As long as you are telling women what’s good for them I guess all is ok though 👌 

[sonyc 5,491]

29 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

A fair and excellent post. I probably rushed to judgement a bit quickly without considering the cultural norms in Asia, and how this content would not be viewed with such disgust in the markets for which it was intended.

However, it's still a wildly inappropriate fit for a club with our supposed ED&I principles, and I am both relieved and heartened that they've reversed the decision. Perhaps that publicity in itself might make us more attractive to more wholesome investment? Owning a mistake, reversing it and apologising for it so quickly is a good look, despite the appalling decision-making that led to the announcement in the first place.

👍Well, it's now national news. Good to see and the message given. Puts our reputation up a notch I would say. To get something wrong, then put your hand up is a decent look for a company, an organisation, for a person and definitely a football club.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jun/10/norwich-axe-bk8-sponsorship-deal-over-sexualised-marketing?

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by sonyc

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

8 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Take a look at some of the EPL club owners.....

I don't approve of BK8 at all but I know/smell hypocrisy when I see it.

Watching late night (or even early) TV nearly all the 'betting ' adverts sell / associate with some form of seedy sexual behaviors or innuendo / life style - the pretty croupier, the 'glamour' etc... 

Well I'd rather just look at our owners, who aren't murky, and yes I do see hypocrisy... from them.... Delia and MWJ have had a lot to say about ethics and values over the years. 

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

2 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

May I remind people whilst they slap each other on the back, this was nothing but a complete cxck up of the highest order and if it hits the already lowest player budget in the league it will be disasterous. We are a professional football club not some left wing charity run to make others look nasty. Its the only decision the board could make and we have to hope it doesn't stop Webber strengthening as planned.

This.

Nothing to be proud of all this and had it not been for the backlash we would have been looking at sausages all the season.

I think we need assurances from the club that this ballsup won't affect out transfer strategy. E.g. £4m deficit isn't much but we could have got a fairly ****hot loan signing for that. I guess we'll know in due course what this mutual temination has cost us?

Onwards an upwards and hopefully this will end our association with betting companies.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Well I'd rather just look at our owners, who aren't murky, and yes I do see hypocrisy... from them.... Delia and MWJ have had a lot to say about ethics and values over the years. 

The thing is we hear a lot from some people about new billionaire owners - Chinese, Russian or Arab Sheiks most likely as per elsewhere so we can 'compete' with little thought these days as to where these funds may ultimately originate from.

Long may Delia & MWJ steer a steady course!

[cambridgeshire canary 6,675]

28 minutes ago, spindrift said:

The consequences for the young women can be devastating. There have been suicides after the victims realised what had happened to them. Later on in life when the footage surfaces women have lost custodial rights to their own children.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/10/pornography-misogyny-women

 

These, remember, are educated, liberated American women. Not poor girls from south east asia being manipulated by a gambling firm with hard core pornography alliances. 

The **** industry is a sleazy, awful, rapey manipulative hellhole of a bussness? Who knew, never saw that coming

[The Real Buh 3,423]

I’m sure all future prospective sponsors are going to happy with the fact that if they aren’t considered moral enough by self appointed club spokespeople they will be chased from the club and publicly shamed in the process

i bet investors are queueing up now… who’s next for “trial by NCFC”

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Just now, Yellow Fever said:

The thing is we hear a lot from some people about new billionaire owners - Chinese, Russian or Arab Sheiks most likely as per elsewhere so we can 'compete' with little thought these days as to where these funds may ultimately originate from.

I do agree.

You don't become that rich without pillaging from somewhere or exploiting, whether that is resources or just the environment in general.

There's a sliding scale though isn't there, I like to think that our society retains enough of a moral compass to reach a general consensus on morality.

JK Rowling's wealth is pretty much on par with Philip Green's for example. Both now only dollar billionaires rather than pound billionaires, one because they've given a lot of their wealth away to good causes, the other because they've had to repay a large chunk of the money they effectively pillaged from the pension funds of their employees.

I'm sure you could find something to dislike JK Rowling for. But I know which one I'd rather have owning Norwich City football club.

[canarydan23 4,060]

22 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

I didn’t know it was so controversial to champion women’s rights to perform a legal job in return for remuneration but apparently it is. As long as you are telling women what’s good for them I guess all is ok though 👌 

What a hero. If only more men were brave enough to fight for women's rights to show us their cleavage, the world would be a much better place.

[The Real Buh 3,423]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

What a hero. If only more men were brave enough to fight for women's rights to show us their cleavage, the world would be a much better place.

I’m arguing for their right to do what they want without being told what is and isn’t moral by, majority, men.

Controlling and coercive behaviour is a criminal offence. Just a reminder for everyone.

[GenerationA47 747]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Stick with Linda McCartney then.

Definitely not the other Mrs McCartney...

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

I’m arguing for their right to do what they want without being told what is and isn’t moral by, majority, men.

Controlling and coercive behaviour is a criminal offence. Just a reminder for everyone.

Good lad, you keep fighting the good fight.

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

25 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

I’m arguing for their right to do what they want without being told what is and isn’t moral by, majority, men.

Controlling and coercive behaviour is a criminal offence. Just a reminder for everyone.

I have good news for you! There's still plenty of jobs and opportunities in our wonderful world just ready and waiting to exploit women, and ****bags like you ready to consume the content and pretend that it's all right because "the woman chose to do it".

Often young women take these jobs as it's the only way to fend off poverty for them and their families.

We absolutely have no idea about the women behind the BK8 adverts. But it's absolutely right that nothing of the sort should be anywhere near a club who values inclusivity and equality as NCFC do.

And fyi, comparing NCFC pulling out of a sponsorship deal to controlling and coercive behaviour is a sickening afront to victims of domestic violence. 

You've gone from being quite amusing to yet another vile POS infecting this forum.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Terminally Yellow

[Mr Tea 105]

Good, lets move on and hope we still have enough money to buy Angus .

 

🙂

[The Real Buh 3,423]

Just now, Terminally Yellow said:

These are the replies I get when I'm right. 

No factual or moral come back to the argument. 

Just petty trolling.

Are you going to try and pull another criminal offence from your **** that we have all committed to take attention away from just how much of a **** you are? 

All I know is I’ve been posting on here about women’s rights to choose what they’d like to do, without control, and to provide them with as many opportunities as possible.

and some fans are campaigning that a certain type of woman is not welcome in our club. They don’t fit our “family values” and they need to be removed from the place.

kinda creeps me out that a lot of fans would feel this way about women.

I don’t care about betting company’s or whatever. I do care about every decision the club makes involving a purity decision from a self appointed council overseeing what is and isn’t “proper”

im not alone on my opinion btw. I’ve spoken to fans outside of this forum and they are with me. Men and women. This site is a bubble.

[spindrift 23]

If you coerce, trick of threaten women into sexually explicit activities you will end up in prison and on the sex offenders' register where you belong.

 

 

 

 

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

3 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

All I know is I’ve been posting on here about women’s rights to choose what they’d like to do, without control, and to provide them with as many opportunities as possible.

and some fans are campaigning that a certain type of woman is not welcome in our club. They don’t fit our “family values” and they need to be removed from the place.

kinda creeps me out that a lot of fans would feel this way about women.

I don’t care about betting company’s or whatever. I do care about every decision the club makes involving a purity decision from a self appointed council overseeing what is and isn’t “proper”

im not alone on my opinion btw. I’ve spoken to fans outside of this forum and they are with me. Men and women. This site is a bubble.

Honestly? You still think you're some champion of women's rights?

TheRealBuh? More like TheRealDuh.

[The Real Buh 3,423]

1 minute ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Honestly? You still think you're some champion of women's rights?

TheRealBuh? More like TheRealDuh.

Nope, but I know weird “creepy” controlling behaviour when I see it.

and women do as well.

[FatCanary 249]

3 minutes ago, spindrift said:

If you coerce, trick of threaten women into sexually explicit activities you will end up in prison and on the sex offenders' register where you belong.

 

 

 

 

Is it lyrics Rudyard Kipling rejected?

[The Real Buh 3,423]

3 minutes ago, spindrift said:

If you coerce, trick of threaten women into sexually explicit activities you will end up in prison and on the sex offenders' register where you belong.

 

 

 

 

If there’s any evidence the girls involved were forced or there’s any illegality involved whatsoever then that is of course wrong and I’ll take everying back but there is literally zero evidence of that.

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

1 minute ago, The Real Buh said:

Nope, but I know weird “creepy” controlling behaviour when I see it.

and women do as well.

After accusing forum users of committing controlling and coercive behaviour, you're now calling them creepy too? 

You just don't know when to stop those sausage fingers (every pun intended) typing, do you?

[Haus 259]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I don't entirely disagree but this business seems to be particularly obscure and murky, come out of nowhere to throw big money around, with it not being obvious where their financial backing has come from. They seem to have no significant social media presence and Google doesn't show their website on the top couple of pages, it is really odd.

If Virgin Betting popped up tomorrow,  with Richard Branson's big cheesy grin in the press release, you'd know that he is a tax avoiding greedy c*nt, but you wouldn't be worried that the £50m he'd thrown at launching it originated from, I don't know, money laundering for despot dictators or drugs cartels or something. 

Its because their main business is gambling in countries where gambling is illegal - so they pay for sponsorships to get their brand name on TV in these countries where they cant advertise. 

[Mello Yello 2,280]

It's on the local BBC news now.....and we're off......

[Bort 34]

55 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

You don't become that rich without pillaging from somewhere or exploiting, whether that is resources or just the environment in general.

There's a sliding scale though isn't there, I like to think that our society retains enough of a moral compass to reach a general consensus on morality.

Sorry to pipe up again after our run-in the other day TVB (no hard feelings I hope) - I blame you for bringing up topics which I find interesting!

Just wanted to say it's nice to see such strong critique of billionaires in your first point, though being a raging lefty I'd of course argue that our society does overlook exploitation of the working class, hence accrual of obscene wealth still being a possibility.

So, regarding the "are these women being exploited?" question, my answer would be "yes, along with anyone else who has to work for a wage in order to survive". The debate on here seems to revolve around the fact that we all have our own tolerance in terms of the degree/type of exploitation we apparently consider acceptable.

[spindrift 23]

1 minute ago, The Real Buh said:

If there’s any evidence the girls involved were forced or there’s any illegality involved whatsoever then that is of course wrong and I’ll take everying back but there is literally zero evidence of that.

There is plenty of evidence. I even posted the examples.

 

We know that women have been coerced, threatened and tricked into these acts. We know that the company involved has alliances with hard-core pornographers and we know that they used trickery and evasion to circumvent UK ASA rules. The evidence is clear, the evidence shows that this firm uses deceit and lies to evade the rules and break the advertising standards.

 

"We need to ascribe the highest, purest motives to a gambling company who we know breaks the rules and exploits women!"

 

We most certainly don't.

 

 Let's face it, your educational level is not high. You don't understand how apostrophes work, you can't spell simple words, you have a nasty and creepy attitude toward women and you dislike being proved wrong. If your points are refuted you immediately change the subject. You're not very well informed or bright so you become emotional when your argument is demolished. It's unedifying.

[Monty13 2,229]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I do agree.

You don't become that rich without pillaging from somewhere or exploiting, whether that is resources or just the environment in general.

There's a sliding scale though isn't there, I like to think that our society retains enough of a moral compass to reach a general consensus on morality.

JK Rowling's wealth is pretty much on par with Philip Green's for example. Both now only dollar billionaires rather than pound billionaires, one because they've given a lot of their wealth away to good causes, the other because they've had to repay a large chunk of the money they effectively pillaged from the pension funds of their employees.

I'm sure you could find something to dislike JK Rowling for. But I know which one I'd rather have owning Norwich City football club.

Just an FYI JK Rowling is probably not a good example, she’s been pretty thoroughly panned recently for her views on trans rights. I didn’t know anything about it either until I saw some very vocal stuff that was really negative about her.

[canarydan23 4,060]

10 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Just an FYI JK Rowling is probably not a good example, she’s been pretty thoroughly panned recently for her views on trans rights. I didn’t know anything about it either until I saw some very vocal stuff that was really negative about her.

Another FYI, what JK Rowling was getting thoroughly panned for was utter horsesh*t peddled by morons, and funnily enough, today a the Court of Appeal has actually set out a judgement that proves the grief she was getting was utter horsesh*t.

Maya Forstater lost her job because she held the belief that sex is immutable and cannot be changed and said as much on social media. As a direct result of that, her contract of employment was not renewed. She took her employer to a tribunal and inexplicably lost. In response, many people came out in support of her and a hashtag #IStandWithMaya erupted. JK Rowling pledged her own support with this...

...does any sane person think that is worthy of abuse? Following it, she doubled down and has come out supporting the so-called "gender-critical" viewpoint, railing publicly against marketing materials that are reluctant to use the word woman and instead use terms like "womb-haver" and "menstruator". Once again, nothing unusual or cruel, nothing personally insulting and nothing controversial.

Anyway, Maya Forstater understandably took the tribunal judgement to appeal and this morning the Court of Appeal released their judgement and ruled that no one should be discriminated against for holding the belief that sex is real, important and not to be conflated with the relatively modern concept of gender identity.

So, JK Rowling is an exceptionally good example. Admittedly she has the financial safety net to do so, but she came out fighting for people who had been unfairly treated despite the fact that, evidently from your comment, it would do her serious reputational damage, including her having to put up with sh*tty actors like Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint publically throwing her under the bus, despite the fact that a professional career in acting would never have come their way if it wasn't for JK Rowling.

So, in case you didn't know, the "incredibly vocal stuff that was really negative about her" will almost certainly have been disingenuous garbage from misguided or malicious idiots.

Anyway, back to the less explosive topic of fellating meat products...