F. Sidebottom Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 By implication if gambling didn't exist he wouldn't be a scumbag..apparently his poor sensitivities wouldn't have been stretched. On the other hand people like this could quite easily use any excuse for their feeble weaknesses. Rape and sexual assault being a prime example. He's now also the victim of waging a bet...poor sod. Are you just making this up for fun???? Nobody has said anywhere that it's the fault of gambling, and that gambling caused him to behave that way. Quite clearly it isn't - he didn't kill the baby because of gambling - he killed the baby because he was a disturbed freak. But the catalyst to it was the lost bet, NOT the fact that a sports team result went against him for 'fan' reasons. Surely you can understand that now?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 People might or might not be surprised to know that whenver it is the World Cup, cases of domestic violence rocket, an average of 25% according to the police. I don't know whether alcohol consumption which also rises aroung the world cup is a factor, but clearly some sporting events certainly bring out the worst in some men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 People might or might not be surprised to know that whenver it is the World Cup, cases of domestic violence rocket, an average of 25% according to the police. I don't know whether alcohol consumption which also rises aroung the world cup is a factor, but clearly some sporting events certainly bring out the worst in some men Do you remember the Columbian player who was shot after missing a penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Who conceded the goal? I hope the goal keaper doesn't feel guilty about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Why was he allowed anywhere near the girl when he'd broken her ribs a week previous to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassy Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 it says he came home to a dinner on the table, beers in the fridge and footy on the tv, but no mention of the mother !! ihope he rots in jail and suffers everyday. putting sport/gambling or whatever else before his daughter is dispicable, and he had already injured her a week earlier, if this was the case then the mother if no one else should have made sure he didnt go anywhere near the child, id fight to the death to save my children and certainly wouldnt let someone who had already hurt them get near them, what a terrible price the child paid for him not being able to control himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 it says he came home to a dinner on the table, beers in the fridge and footy on the tv, but no mention of the mother !! ihope he rots in jail and suffers everyday. putting sport/gambling or whatever else before his daughter is dispicable, and he had already injured her a week earlier, if this was the case then the mother if no one else should have made sure he didnt go anywhere near the child, id fight to the death to save my children and certainly wouldnt let someone who had already hurt them get near them, what a terrible price the child paid for him not being able to control himself I think a couple of posters failed to grasp this concept. As has been explained by skins. There is a timeline from the beginning to the death of the child. It's easy to pick something from that timeline and say "this was the "fault" as though him losing control at the end of the timeline played less of a part simply because a "point in time" has been chosen. F sidebottom suggests the bet was the catalyst, how does he know that and what is the relevance other than to detract from the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I think a couple of posters failed to grasp this concept. As has been explained by skins. There is a timeline from the beginning to the death of the child. It's easy to pick something from that timeline and say "this was the "fault" as though him losing control at the end of the timeline played less of a part simply because a "point in time" has been chosen. F sidebottom suggests the bet was the catalyst, how does he know that and what is the relevance other than to detract from the result. I think you have drawn attention to much of the confusion around this post-I certainly feel quite disorientated as the initial article is rather lacking in detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I think a couple of posters failed to grasp this concept. As has been explained by skins. There is a timeline from the beginning to the death of the child. It's easy to pick something from that timeline and say "this was the "fault" as though him losing control at the end of the timeline played less of a part simply because a "point in time" has been chosen. F sidebottom suggests the bet was the catalyst, how does he know that and what is the relevance other than to detract from the result. The issue here is that a tiny defenceless child was killed by someone whose job it was to protect her. Isn't that the whole point of being a parent? His behaviour was at fault. IMO its unimportant whether watching football, losing a bet, or any other petty reason triggered his actions. Surely even discussing the reason detracts from the reality, ie the horrific act of killing his own child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 The issue here is that a tiny defenceless child was killed by someone whose job it was to protect her. Isn't that the whole point of being a parent? His behaviour was at fault. IMO its unimportant whether watching football, losing a bet, or any other petty reason triggered his actions. Surely even discussing the reason detracts from the reality, ie the horrific act of killing his own child. I'm not sure why you've singled me out on that unless you've misread me...I'm in agreement with your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.