Oliver is nothing more than a promoter of the Saint Jamie Oliver Corporation.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't....
Only an individual can rehabilitate themselves, they can only do that once they fully accept their wrongdoing, accept their punishment and complete their punishment in full.
Cheekyboy, and do you have a view that this has or hasn't happened to the person mentioned? He's had 4 years inside, he may have come out a changed man who wants to get his life back on track and an apprentice scheme seems a good way of doing this. Alternatively, he may still be a dangerous and unrepentant man, we don't know this and so the only judgement we can make is based on the British justice system that has decided he is able to return to certain types or work.
As I said before, of all the jobs he could have done on his return to the outside work, I would have thought that locking someone in a kitchen away from the general public for 12 hours a day would be seen as a better job that most others he could do.
I hope chip has his flame retardent suit on.
I understand the point you are trying to make so clumsily, even though I'm not agreeing with you entirely.
In an ideal world, men and women would have the sense to not drink so much that they lost control of their senses. In an ideal world, the laws designed to prevent this would be properly enforced, i.e. drunk and disorderly, not serving drunks.
We do not live in this ideal world, and I just hope my kids grow up knowing what is right and wrong
seems reasonable, unlike a footballer in the public eye and seemingly in denial/unrepentant of what he has done.assuming this person will get a job somewhere, surely a job where he is in a kitchen and away from the general public for long hours
Yes he is right to hire him, The man was found guilty, tried and has served his sentence. He should, subject to any overriding terms of his release be free to work in any job.
Asbestos Is my middle name,
Clumsily you say, deliberately thought provoking i say, Infact some of my posts could be considered modern art.
As I said before, of all the jobs he could have done on his return to the outside work, I would have thought that locking someone in a kitchen away from the general public for 12 hours a day would be seen as a better job that most others he could do.
Apologies I did not realise he was being locked away in a kitchen. If he is locked away for the 12 hours what does that say for his four year rehab and the effectiveness of his punishment ?
Is it not quite possible that this chap will now be working alongside colleagues who have been a victim of the type of crimes he has actually committed?
That would probably be the case anywhere he worked.
Jamie Oliver, a guy who talks the talk, then walks the walk.
Because if a woman can be absorbed (doubt that's the right word) from the responsibility of there actions because of being too far gone surely the same applies to men.
Do you think so little of men, that we are incapable of not raping when we're drunk?
I don't really know exactly how I feel about it but I think people should do what they feel is right, which Jamie Oliver seems to be doing. And it doesn't feel like a PR stunt since "no such thing as bad PR" is bollocks. So good for him basically. If I was in his shoes I don't know if I'd feel the same but I hope I'd do what I thought was right.
Rockape63 - MemberSo has the convicted rapist footballer, but a lot of people don't want to see him get back into the game.
People see footballers as role models. Don't really know why, they're qualified to do the job because they're good at kicking things and running around in circles not because they're excellent human beings. But as long as people and especially kids look up to them, it's probably a bit troublesome having some of them be convicted shitebags.
I think his lack of remorse complicates things but if you maintain your innocence, you can't show remorse, it's a nasty wee catch 22. Whether he's genuinely innocent, genuinely thinks he's innocent, or actually knows he's guilty but is claiming to be innocent, it all ends up the same.
I think what's worrying here is he sought employment at an establishment named Fifteen.
Do you think so little of men, that we are incapable of not raping when we're drunk?
I am talking about a drunken one night stand, something I have enjoyed, that always finished with an awkward goodbye or a morning rematch, never having my collar felt.
I think Jamie Oliver has done the right thing.
molgrips - MemberOliver is nothing more than a promoter of the Saint Jamie Oliver Corporation.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't....
I know shocking, isn't it? he tried to improve the quality of school meals and stop kids being fed shite food. Awful. Now he's looking at helping rehabiltate a criminal, hopefully moving him a way from a cycle of re-offending, what's the world coming to?
he should just send a free sub to the daily mail to everyone. that would make the world a better place, according to some on here.
Apologies I did not realise he was being locked away in a kitchen. If he is locked away for the 12 hours what does that say for his four year rehab and the effectiveness of his punishment ?
Cheekyboy, that was reference to the joys of being a junior chef. No, he won't be physically locked up but he will be in the kitchen of for the best part of 12 hours a day.
People see footballers as role models. Don't really know why, they're qualified to do the job because they're good at kicking things and running around in circles not because they're excellent human beings. But as long as people and especially kids look up to them, it's probably a bit troublesome having some of them be convicted shitebags.
A lot depends on the individual but it's always made me laugh how people react differently to each case. There have been several footballers jailed over the years for all sorts of things from assault to rape and even causing deaths each vilified to varying degrees yet all, IIRC, continued their careers. People still refer to St Ryan as the 'model professional' and a role model to follow forgetting that he'd battered one of his girlfriends in public and slept with his sister in law for 8 years. I wonder if it would've been different if charges had been pressed rather than cash changing hands.
FWIW, I think JO has been very brave & respect his decision - not sure I'd do the same but I guess he has all the facts as opposed to the press take on it.
I've always hated Jamie Oliver, not really sure why i, just thing he's a massive twunt! This has done nothing to change that.
I wouldn't want to work with a convicted peado and rightly or wrongly I wouldn't employ one either. I don't care if that is discriminatory it's just the way I feel.
Fortunately, or not as the case maybe, I don't own my own company and don't have to employ people so it doesn't really matter!
I know shocking, isn't it? he tried to improve the quality of school meals and stop kids being fed shite food. Awful. Now he's looking at helping rehabiltate a criminal, hopefully moving him a way from a cycle of re-offending, what's the world coming to?
So you say the rapist has not been fully rehabilitated ? then why has he been released ?
My point is simple:
Four years is paltry for rape !
Only the offender can rehabilitate themselves !
I care not a jot for JO or his various self -promoting missions !
If you wish to worship at the altar of celebrity then fill your boots !
he won't be physically locked up but he will be in the kitchen of for the best part of 12 hours a day.
Feeling slighty paranoid as one of the other chefs looks over and smiles while slowly chopping a carrot.
Also I think sex with a twelve year old is automatically rape as opposed to sex with a minor, so he could have had a relationship with a 12 year old or hid Behind the bushes at the local playground waiting to pounce, Whether that makes a difference.
Sorry if there is a back story in the article as I did not read it all, as I like to steam in half cocked.
Well four years inside for what could be the total ruining of a young girls life is ridiculously low, and as for rehabilitation, do people really believe the system can rehabilitate ?
But whose fault is it the sentence is lenient?
May be being a bit thick but he was convicted of raping a 12 year old, which makes him a rapist but with a very young victim - a crime for which he has served the sentence handed down to him.
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. (wikipedia for quick ref)
I can't seem to find if he falls into the latter category or the former, neither particularly pleasant but there seems to be a desire to conflate the two.
Do I agree with what JO has done - yes in principle, as long as the victim is receiving support to come to terms with the crime he committed against her.
I am talking about a drunken one night stand, something I have enjoyed, that always finished with an awkward goodbye or a morning rematch, never having my collar felt.
Presumably that's because it wasn't rape. I have this old-fashioned notion that men and women should be able to get drunk without being molested.
How many kids has Oliver got ?
3 or 4 ... I think.
Funny how society looks at the footballer as a role model for our kids(rightly or wrongly) ...
Yet some of us adults aren't looking up to someone who really IS leading by example.
+1 Oliver.... good man
So you say the rapist has not been fully rehabilitated ? then why has he been released ?
Part of rehabilitation is re-joining society. This is what Jamie is presumably trying to help with. Whether or not the offender has served an appropriate amount of time for the crime he committed is not up to him.
Even if you disagree with the decision he has made I don't think it can be looked at as a PR stunt......if so he should seek new management.
Does Junkyard do copying and pasting for The Telegraph.
Given the politcs and typos it's the guardian
Brace of JP and Great ape expressed it best IMHO..I would copy and paste but .....
Presumably that's because it wasn't rape. I have this old-fashioned notion that men and women should be able to get drunk without being molested.
Yes but if you were drunk but not langing, and spent the night with a young woman who was several sheets to the wind.
The fact she grabbed your junk and said ride me big boy would not save you from a rape charge if it was decided she was not in fit state to give consent.
If you read my original post they were three variations of sleeping with a drunk woman, one completely unacceptable deliberately setting out to take advantage of a woman incapable walking in a straight line.
One where your are pretty sure you would be having consensual sex but your conscience tells you you should behave.
And one where both parties are several parts pissed so if you have sex (not rape) how can one be made responsible and the other absolved.
And one where both parties are several parts pissed so if you have sex (not rape) how can one be made responsible and the other absolved.
Because consent hasn't been given. Though seeing as you bring it up, I find it highly unlikely that the situation you describe is of any significance in the context of 20,000+ reported rape cases each year.
I am commenting on your comments on my post, what is your point.
Do you think so little of men, that we are incapable of not raping when we're drunk?
How did you get this from my OP.
I have had a barmaid serve me drinks all night and then take me to bed when the pub closed, I was not raped because I decided so the next morning and the morning after, but I could have been if I regretted it and a court said I was to drunk to give consent.
It is complicated and about knowing right from wrong and I could meet a drunk woman and sleep with her.
The next morning she could ask for my number and could be the beginning of something beautiful or she could call the police and I do a stretch at her majesties pleasure.
My behaviour could be identical in both cases.
For the record I don't take advantage of drunk woman but I have let them take advantage of me a couple of times but only after being suitably lubricated (drunk) myself.
My point is simple:
based on the the rest of your post, there'll be a reason for that!!!
EDIT exclamation points added for effect because you seem to like them!!
Are you drunk now? As you seem to be having a conversation with yourself 😀
a court said I was to drunk to give consent.
As a bloke, there is one part of your body which gives consent and you can only be too drunk to give consent if that part says so.
Unless you're opening the back door and then deciding next morning you're not a friend of Freddy
!!BANg!!
How did you get this from my OP.
Because you suggested that drunk men who don't obtain consent should be absolved of their crime.
Anyway, you seem to be more concerned with pursuing whataboutery than anything substantive, so I'll leave it there.
Well, I suppose he could just live on benefits that the rest of us pay for because he's "unemployable" instead of getting the job and doing something useful. 🙄
Because you suggested that drunk men who don't obtain consent should be absolved of their crime.
Exactly where did I suggest that?
Wait are you suggesting when I say drunk you think I mean unconscious.
If so, that did not even enter my head.
beefheart - Member
I think what's worrying here is he sought employment at an establishment named Fifteen.
Well at least he's raised his aim a bit...
I'm not sure you can be in the rehabilitation business and only deal with lovely people. Presumably some people here would like to see Fifteen staffed entirely by rosy-cheeked apple scrumpers, of which there are not many in central London.
It's got to be much better that the guy is stably employed and working with adults than being on the dole and wandering the streets purposeless.
Edit
There's a big fancy hotel near us that employs ex offenders. I know this because I know both of the lads they've employed. The hotel actively encourages the prison I work in to 'produce' (for want of a better term) decent, qualified chefs through the catering course that our prison offers.
Good thing I say.
Good on Jamie Oliver I say. He seems to be one of the few "celebrities" to use his status to actually try and make a difference.
People in his position are damned if they do and damned if they don't: If he does nothing, then he is yet another fat-cat celebrity; if he does something he is purely doing it to further his bank balance.
If only more were like him, and I include those "non-celebrity" keyboard warriors in that, many of whom do nothing.
It seems a couple of philosophical issues are implicit in this debate. So let’s presume (for the sake of argument and indeed because it seems to line up with most of the views on here) that most fair minded folks are broadly in favour of allowing ex-prisoners a second chance and believe that having served one’s time, whatever length of time the justice system has allocated, means they have received a punishment for their crimes. I am of this opinion.
I think from this shared starting point, people’s views diverge on two main issues:
1. Is there something unique about sex-related crimes (rape or paedophilia in these cases) that means such offenders possess certain psychological characteristics which should impact how they should be treated after being released? Such issues could be whether simply spending time in prison is enough to rehabilitate them, or whether safety measures for members of the public should be taken, ie not working near kids.
2. Another issue is whether what we would do in Jamie Oliver’s (or the FA’s) situation should be the same as what we think they should be doing. That is to say, many folk have asked if JO would have hired the guy if one of his own kids was the victim. Although this seems like a reactionary emotive response, it raises an interesting question. If you would not hire and work with the guy yourself, if your kid were his victim, then isn’t that showing a sort of disrespect to the victim and her actual parents in JO’s case?
Personally, I think a lot of people who would generally believe in giving ex-offenders a second chance run into difficulty when their intuitions conflict with 1&2 above. So they’re theoretically in favour of JO’s decision but may have an intuition that sex crimes are particularly heinous and that they would not want to work with someone who sexually assaulted their child, sister, brother.
So it’s hard to be objective about something we feel subjectively about.
So it’s hard to be objective about something we feel subjectively about.
Hence why we have a Judicial system decide the guilt and punishment. As said above, it is not up to the general public to punish.
