₦airaland Forum

akwesenana:
The suppose don settle this matter at least 3 months after Greenwood was cleared of all charges. By now dust for don settle and he for don know as him life go be, whether to go school or to find team or to work for McDonald's.
The people running this club are grossly incompetent and it reflects in our daily dealings.

They should have let him go months ago and allowed him try to organise himself elsewhere but they were too incompetent to know that they were incompetent.

Sitting here in my office in Australia I knew since last year that the club wouldn’t retain him but the club itself didn’t know that. They can’t even read their own minds.

They just wasted additional time dilly dallying as they do with practically everything else.

Jeremy doku and Dani olmo. Man city will farm this league welll . Man u eyes no dey catch such players...

sod09:
E ti gba alejo oran ni thread yii 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Alejo ọ̀ràn ń lá ni ó.

A40:
Lol. Those people with their name like musical instruments

Koromone and Funfere

You had full adults behaving like clowns and covering her behind cos na Femco member. We told them she knew about everything and was covering up till the brother himself exposed her. And why? Cos the same babe wanted to perform and impress her feminazi mob by distancing herself from the brother.

Till bobo decide say make e kuku dabaru everything

Hypocritr people always holding people to standards that they are not living themselves

This is just the Crux of the matter. Court has declared him not guilty but social media and woke movement decided to still do their own jungle justice until they succeeded in turning him to a jobless man like Ole, Nobody said greenwood didn't harass his girlfriend but still hanging on to the basis of that act after both court, club, Harriet and her father seemed to have moved on emphasizes the phrase that if man was God there'll be no second chances.
If zouma can be dragged to the point of losing endorsements after the backlash because of mmowu, then it'll be a matter of time before another lesser object like a rat or flower is fitted into the fairness and equality umbrella.

Donjazet only wanted to be seen as a defender of Liberty but he seems to forget that true Liberty is about justice, fairness, equity, compromise and compassion where and when necessary.

Amoto94:
Donjazet only wanted to be seen as a defender of Liberty but he seems to forget that true Liberty is about justice, fairness, equity, compromise and compassion where and when necessary.

Bro literally stated that he supports jungle justice.
TWICE

Amoto94:
Donjazet only wanted to be seen as a defender of Liberty but he seems to forget that true Liberty is about justice, fairness, equity, compromise and compassion where and when necessary.

There is truth in this, what you seem to be forgetting is that the first step of justice is the admonishment of guilt by the culprit. That is to say, the guilty party accepts that what he did is absolutely terrible, but in a situation whereby people are still making excuses for the culprit without recognizance of his fault exposes that unwillingness for the issue to be sufficiently addressed and justice meted out.

You can hear people still saying till now that the court has declared him not guilty when nothing of the such happened. So can you see that justice hasn't taken it's course yet?

akwesenana:
Bro literally stated that he supports jungle justice.
TWICE

There's this famous saying here, I'm responsible for what I type, not responsible for how you understand it. You continue to exhibit a flagrant misunderstanding of nuances.

I didn't say I support jungle justice as a form of justice but indeed there are some rare instances where I certainly won't mind. I specifically said, one where the judicial system has very obviously failed in carrying out justice especially for very worst politicians.

If you can't understand that single nuance, that's on you. Would I want a thief beaten and killed on the street before he has had his day in court, NO!. would I want a corrupt politician who stolen billions of dollars meant for building hospitals and schools stoned on the streets after going through the court and being declared "not guilty" based on corruption and technicalities? HELL YES!

H

YourBestWriter:
Inconsistency is the number one characteristic of an average player. Was it not rashford that was scoring goals last season? This season he is already showing his inconsistency. Bruno have never had a consistent good performances in a season since his first season. It was only during that his first season under solskjaer that he performed so well. Martial same thing, garnacho, Antony, like 95% of this squad is average.

There was a time manutd had players that are top class. They played at the highest standard for consecutive years and were proved worthy of the shirt. This current players are a disgrace to that shirt.

LoL...was that first or half season?

He came in January

donjazzet:
There is truth in this, what you seem to be forgetting is that the first step of justice is the admonishment of guilt by the culprit. That is to say, the guilty party accepts that what he did is absolutely terrible, but in a situation whereby people are still making excuses for the culprit without recognizance of his fault exposes that unwillingness for the issue to be sufficiently addressed and justice meted out.

You can hear people still saying till now that the court has declared him not guilty when nothing of the such happened. So can you see that justice hasn't taken it's course yet?

The accuser dropped the case and is even pregnant for the accused there is more to the story than what we are meant to believe, the accuser has since dropped the case why can't others move on instead of trying to tie the boy to the stake and burn him alive? Isn't this akin to crying more than the bereaved?

Havertz29s:
I agree with u, both are inconsistent but i don't think they are average.

They're very very average players it you have the courage to look away from stats and focus on gameplay.

Those 2 play a lot of rubbish footy

akwesenana:
Nice.
Do/did you support his killing?

I'm not equipped with enough facts on the issue to form a personal opinion on it.

But on the surface, I can understand why citizens will be happy to kill a dictator who has ruled them with an iron fist for more than 40 years. I can understand that but as I said, I don't have enough facts on the matter.

donjazzet:
I'm not equipped with enough facts on the issue to form a personal opinion on it.

But on the surface, I can understand why citizens will be happy to kill a dictator who has ruled them with an iron fist for more than 40 years. I can understand that but as I said, I don't have enough facts on the matter.

If you aren't equipped with enough facts, why did you reference it here?

akwesenana:
If you aren't equipped with enough facts, why did you reference it here?

I will say this again, I am flabbergasted by your inability to understand nuances. You are dumbing down the conversation.
What happened to Gaddafi was jungle justice and one which on the surface the average man can align with.

Let me ask you this, if you hear that the north Korean public has revolted against their leaders and killed them, wouldn't you be happy that justice has happened?
What about Cameroon? Iran nko? Russia? Countries where their dictators have essentially declared themselves rulers for life.

How would you react knowing that the people themselves killed their own leaders?

donjazzet:
There's this famous saying here, I'm responsible for what I type, not responsible for how you understand it. You continue to exhibit a flagrant misunderstanding of nuances.

I didn't say I support jungle justice as a form of justice but indeed there are some rare instances where I certainly won't mind. I specifically said, one where the judicial system has very obviously failed in carrying out justice especially for very worst politicians.

If you can't understand that single nuance, that's on you. Would I want a thief beaten and killed on the street before he has had his day in court, NO!. would I want a corrupt politician who stolen billions of dollars meant for building hospitals and schools stoned on the streets after going through the court and being declared "not guilty" based on corruption and technicalities? HELL YES!

Jungle justice is a deviation from the ubiquitous idea that a criminal is innocent before proven guilty.
Maybe you might want to explain what you meant when you said that the term "innocent before proven guilty" is for the court and not for the masses.

Moreover, you went on to reference arguably one of the most prolific incidents of jungle justice this century has seen.
Gaddafi wasn't even given a chance to surrender.
At least Saddam Hussein, despite "launching dozens of nuclear weapons" on his people was given a chance at "fair trial".
Over the past few hours, you've made a couple of statements which contradict your fair and equal and just stance.
In summary, you're being hypocritical.


Might not come as a surprise to many who know you btw.

melodyogonna:
Greenwood isn't very bright normally. No be him break Covid protocols few years ago?

Yea at England camp.

E no get sense right from time. Unfortunately for him, his lack of sense and discretion ruined him.

Even though I feel he got unfairly treated in the whole matter, in the grand scheme of things, may be he probably deserved it to learn his lesson in life, because the guy is going to get worse as he gets better and popular in football. May be this is life's way of humbling him early in life to be a better person in future

Says the West are the standard for justice and equity bla bla bla.
In the same breath acknowledges that the West are bias in handing down sanctions.

Says he stands for freedom and liberality.
In the same breath condemns the universal notion "innocent before proven guilty"
Goes on to reference a major example of jungle justice.
Then denies being a supporter of jungle justice.

But na me dey "dumb down" convo.

Osanobua.

A40:
Lol. Those people with their name like musical instruments

Koromone and Funfere

You had full adults behaving like clowns and covering her behind cos na Femco member. We told them she knew about everything and was covering up till the brother himself exposed her. And why? Cos the same babe wanted to perform and impress her feminazi mob by distancing herself from the brother.

Till bobo decide say make e kuku dabaru everything

Hypocritr people always holding people to standards that they are not living themselves

This their stupid movement is all hypocrisy.

Her brother was assaulting people but she'll be the one to first post about how CEOs assault staff members.

Hand don touch am. Hand go touch everybody las las.

afrodoc2:


What was he offering?

You can see the fruit of his labour here. Page don full.

Na me for dey argue now.

odizeey:
You can see the fruit of his labour here. Page don full.

Na me for dey argue now.

So e get who you sef fear? You come dey form say you dey busy.

Nice one. I know who to call for you next time.

[quote author=donjazzet post=125271538]I would never understand feeling sorry for a perpetrator of a crime. A criminal!

You guys just do not want to reckon with the fact that this dude did something absolutely terrible and people are genuinely angry with him for the terrible thing he did.

Again, read this transcript line by line and if possible listen to that audio.

Mason Greenwood pro footballer for Manchester United F.C got exposed by Harriet Robson for basically RAPE! The audio below is very hard to listen to. Trigger Warning! #DramaAlert pic.twitter.com/YVTYA4vKsT

— KEEM 🍿 (@KEEMSTAR) February 1, 2022

is an audio even AI can create

Don't believe this

donjazzet:
Indeed, proving the crime of rape is a very very high threshold.
If not for this live recording this girl did now, absolutely no one would agree with her of she said that she was raped!
I mean, even with the Audio that we can all hear of a rape happening, some people are still willingly providing cover for Mason, now imagine that she went to court with just this recording and even with that, he was pronounced not guilty because the recording is not sufficient evidence, do you think people will still believe that he was guilty??

I hate when people side with blatant injustice.

We are supposed to root for the underdog, for the little man, where is this sympathy for a criminal coming from?

Nothing like justice here.

The even the live might have been fake blood and all that.

afrodoc2:
So e get who you sef fear? You come dey form say you dey busy.

Nice one. I know who to call for you next time.

This guy type of argument na for who dey very liquid o.

I still dey find huge liquidity

timay1:
Yea at England camp.

E no get sense right from time. Unfortunately for him, his lack of sense and discretion ruined him.

Even though I feel he got unfairly treated in the whole matter, in the grand scheme of things, may be he probably deserved it to learn his lesson in life, because the guy is going to get worse as he gets better and popular in football. May be this is life's way of humbling him early in life to be a better person in future

When he messed up on the England trip I remember saying that he needed extra intervention before things got out of hand but people here were defending him that it was being overblown. Maybe if they had done something then this would not have happened.

That you are disciplining a child does not mean you do not love him. It is to prevent stories that touch, and this is a story that really touches. I made peace within my heart after hearing that audio last year that Greenwood would probably never play for Manchester United again.

donjazzet:
You continue drifting soo far from me. You're basically inventing your own narratives and trying to run with it.

BELIEVING that someone escaped justice and ACTING on that impulse are two different things and worse soo acting sooo violently towards that injustice.

I can see and believe that a criminal was free but to then actively support extrajudicial violent acts (jungle justice) is another thing altogether.

Till today, many people believed that oj Simpson was guilty of his crime even though the courts found him not guilty, but it ended his career and many are actually satisfied with that because a life was lost there. But no one went and physically harmed him.

Now not to say we can't have a debate of whether jungle justice in some instances are not justified. I mean, Gaddafi the Libyan leader was killed by the masses themselves, people who who were ruled under his reign of terror for 40 years.
I know I wouldn't be sad if jungle justice was meted on buhari if he was tried for his crimes against Nigeria in court and walked out freely with everyone knowing he gamed the system but knowing that he set this country several years backwards and cost a lot of lives. Now I'm not saying I support it, but I know I won't be sad, that's for sure.

Boss abeg are you gay? Are you a feminist?

dreamxhaser:
Boss abeg are you gay? Are you a feminist?

dreamxhaser:
Boss abeg are you gay? Are you a feminist?

Wetin be this?

Oh boy! See JAMB question.

Donjazet you’d better take things easy.

It isn’t until you fall into a similar predicament that you’ll realize that there are always two sides to every story. Thats when you’ll want to show us the two sides of every truth.

You’re like Dr. Olufunmilayo before Bola came into his life.

Better take things easy.

dreamxhaser:
Boss abeg are you gay? Are you a feminist?

It's alright, I'm not offended by the questions.
What I am is a liberal, an idealist and a humanist who cares about social justice and who cares about a fair and equitable society for all including the minority groups, the disadvantaged and the downtrodden.

I guess this is what you all like to call the "woke mob" even though being "woke" literally means being awake and aware of the injustices and the fundamental prejudices that exists in our society.

dreamxhaser:
This is an audio even AI can create

Don't believe this

AI didn't create this. Stop saying nonsense.

donjazzet:
Well, yes private business individuals acted upon their individual rights to discriminate upon black people and refuse them service and this went on for soo many years infact it was encoded into law at a certain time that blacks were 3\5th of a human and were not equal to a white man, I will also add that Interracial marriage was also forbidden.

As for your question, my answer is yes, but not in the way you framed it, saying there should be a law that "compels" and individual to make cake for gay couples even to his dislike frames it wrongly.

I would rather frame it that it should be illegal to discriminate another individual on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, gender etcetera.
Once there is a hint that a business owner wouldn't attend to someone on the basis of these aforementioned factors, the business should be sanctioned. Because that is blatant discrimination and as a society we should seek to be more tolerant, and not to sanction hate.

When you apply that question with another example, you see the problem, should a Catholic cake baker decide not to bake cake for a Muslim because of his beliefs?

Should a white cake baker decide not to bake cake for a black man because of his racism? We have been here before and we know that it is not a good place to be.

No, private businesses adhered to government-mandated segregation laws. As I mentioned earlier, this comparison is not valid due to significant differences.

You've framed it to align with your argument, suggesting that declining a service or product in a particular context is the same as discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, etc is entirely specious.

There's a clear distinction between outright refusing service based on race/sexuality and declining to provide a service or product for a specific event. One is a complete denial of service, while the other involves the context of the event.

For instance, having a "no gays" sign is a service denial, whereas not catering a gay wedding involves a specific event. In the case of a baker, the issue isn't about refusing service to gays; it's about declining to create specific products tied to a ceremony against the baker's beliefs. How about his freedom of association and the violation of his freedom to excercise his rights?

The core question is: Does an individual business have the right to choose when and how to apply its skills?

Let's say you're Joe Biden's acolyte and speechwriter, can one walk into your business and demand equal access to your services and use of your artistry for Trump?