Your profile says something about you limiting who can see you post.
Edit: Strange now it says the same as the banned guy.
Antony under investigation by Brazilian authorities for domestic abuse | Inquiries ended | Back in the squad
- Thread starter laughtersassassin
- Start date
Edit: Strange now it says the same as the banned guy.
I’m going out on a limb but I think that was a joke
I wasn't around back then either, but if you ever bump into a thread from some 20 years ago, you'll be amazed at the level of sexism and homophobia that was apparently absolutely normal back then. Society, and with it the Caf, has changed remarkably since then in terms of inclusivity and what's acceptable in terms of insulting humour etc.
I'm giving Greenwood and Antony the benefit of the doubt but it's not that serious. Sheesh.
Bad takes on all sides.
Don't feel obliged to come back if you're not enjoying it, I don't think you'll be missed too much.
You get the same screen for both permabanned users and non-banned users who have enabled a privacy setting.
Wow, really? Well, you are probably right.
Now, when thinking about myself, I did not post anything on social media back then, but if I did... well, who knows... it might be equally disgusting to me today... I have changed my mind on a lot of issues during my life, to the point that it is hard to recall my old self's opinions anymore. But, I have also met people who never change their opinion on anything, and they think that this is great because it means they are stable and constant and firm and dependable. I disagree with this. A long time ago, I read this:
"Those who have exactly the same opinions when they are 20 and when they are 60, have learned nothing from life!"
That was to a guy who said something about me too basically being scam run by greedy, vindictive women who just wanted to destroy successful men for fame and money. Where is the nuance or reality in what he said?
What we know about me too is that it was/is a good thing that allowed a lot of previously “untouchable” people to face justice and exposed a very dark side to the entrainment industry. But like everything in life something good that helps people will always get exploited by a minority. It does not invalidate the value or benefit of that thing.
It’s like dialling 999 for an emergency a great thing that saves lives and protects people. But (hypothetical state) if 1 in 50 calls are fake or for insurance scams no one is going to start questioning the validity of 999 and the great help it offers. I can think of other, more practical examples but don’t want to go down that rabbit hole.
You've managed to use, in earnest alarmingly, the most prevalent alt-right tropes and have agreed with the single worst take in this thread, so perhaps it is you who needs to look in the mirror and become educated and stop writing "drivel and rubbish" as you hypocritically acuse others of doing.
A cone would be better
I've been here for 19 years. Back then the bad posters were called "r*tards"and kept around to be mocked. Now they get banned. It's better now.
Times change, I'm proud to be thought of as a woke social justice **** snowflake by out of touch, gammon faced, Daily Mail reading Talksport listeners.
The only response that shocking post deserves.
MG thread, Am I the worst thread on RedCafe.
Antony thread, Hold my pint son
Antony thread, Hold my pint son
What a miserable, lonely existence you must have.
This is a completely uneducated body language analysis but often when you see interviews like this, even the lay man can see signs or have an inclination that the person is showing signs of lying. The simple reactions of scratching nose, touching face, coughing etc when asked a difficult question and potentially lying.
Watching that video interview, at no point did I think “this guy is guilty” or have the feeling he was lying. He’s either a fantastic actor or he’s telling the the truth.
Of course this is no way to come to the conclusion of his innocence. But just my first thoughts. I really hope for his sake he is innocent and whoever is the guilty party is brought to justice.
How did you get that from the comment you quoted? I'll happily go after people that spout hate and venom but that felt unnecessary and random. MattyLT on the other hand is fair game.
Pretty much this. Either way it doesn’t seem like he’ll be truly “innocent” in the age of social media. If he’s found innocent it will be claimed it’s because it was hard to prove (which may well be the case). There’s no real way of coming out of this as clean as before the accusations.
You can choose to not show anything when someone clicks on your profile in the privacy settings. So that wouldn’t necessarily signify the person has been banned.
As a Brighton fan, what are you're thoughts on the handling of the Bissouma case? Didn't you sell him to Tottenham during an open police investigation?
Last edited:
Wow, over 4,800 posts and no reaction score at all and still a newbie........I wonder why
Because there was no such thing as newbies or likes when he registered.
Could he he genuinely believe in his head he's not wrong (even if he is)
I've met bad people who honestly don't see anything wrong with what they're doing and can tell you in a straight face that's not what they did 10 minutes after they did it. Not once but all the times.
Aaaah that makes a bit more sense so!
The New Member tag is indicative of his current posting status (i.e. banned).
2006
I dont think LGBT term has been coined back then. The caf still houses some banned words today like Re**** and I think some now homophobic slurs are still OKed back then. But to be fair.... 16 years ago is a long time in LGBT movement.
I was still using dial up, the last era of it.
This place was genuinely filled with creative writers you can feel something special about certain posters.
The banters could be brutal but somehow felt as if nothing personal. People could duke it out and back for a pint the next day. These days a minor spat and off you go to the ignored list. Kinda like an Irish bar I think, you brawl and shake hands after that.
Plech, would make the current jester in general looks pale in comparison. Now the idea of funny thread is some unfunny parody to thread that's not even funny to begin with... like how you butter your sandwich... only to replace sandwich with ham. Unimaginative. Back then the 50 posters that shook the caf, turn to kopites 1-50, room 1 o'Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime, this is spartaas were legendary thread you need to read that once.
I dont think anyone has the flair to do the top 50 posters anymore since this place has gotten much bigger.
Ah... good ol times. Now you can't even say i think X players is bad withour someone looking to proverbially knifing you around the alley looking to vent their opinion. Maybe United doing well have something to do it.
I used to think our fans are some classy bunch, and RAWK is the looney ones. But boy 10 years in the barrens really does our heads in. We used to laugh at Suarez antics, now some good portion of us dont even mind Mason coming back, the gymnastics in defending Giggs shenagigans, openly courting Qatar while boycotting the WC just months before. Another 16 years without winning the league... I'd think we're not that far of.
Sorry. Abit nostalgic
I lurked back then and people used to speak their minds, there seemed less of a hive mind in general. There were some interesting personalities for sure, but I was so young I probably didn't get most of the jokes until years later. Fun times though
I'm as uneducated as you are but I watched it and didn't come to the same conclusion. He kept talking on and on which is something guilty people usually do when interviewed by the police and aren't bright enough to give a no comment interview. Would be interesting to see what an actual expert thinks of it.
What he says may have some effect on public perceptions of the situation, but it in the absence of evidence, it wont hold much sway imo.
I have no opinion either way, but I do know that you don't need to be a fantastic actor in order to get away with a lie.
I also firmly believe that a lot of people will see mostly what they want to see when they watch that interview.
I also firmly believe that a lot of people will see mostly what they want to see when they watch that interview.
We need a formation without a right wing
Seriously, I only hope this goes to court in order for all facts to be exposed in front of a jury. And when the trial will reach an end, there will be someone vindicated and there will be someone punished. The only thing that matters is that the side being found in the wrong ends up paying the price.
Didn't see this posted yet
And meanwhile she (Ingrid) has stated that she went to see him strictly on business (i.e. no romantic intentions).
If there's a WhatsApp exchange that can be used as evidence in his favour, well, I guess the question has to be: is she uncommonly reckless/stupid? Surely, she must see the absolute folly in lying about something he can so easily disprove.
Also, how plausible is her version? She went to England for the sole purpose of...what, some kind of banking thing? Is she his personal financial adviser (and is it common for her to visit him, in persona, at hotels)? Why not at his home?
I dunno, at first glance there's a few things there that don't make obvious sense.
To be clear, I'm not implying that she's lying - simply that I don't get it (the important parts I have been able to read seem to have been run through Google Translate.
ETA As for him, I don't see him saying anything about her motive (that was a bit vague with regard to the main accusation too if you ask me). Has it been suggested that the banker is in cahoots with the DJ? And if so, what about the student?
If there's no connection between the three, well: his story has to be, then, that three separate women have decided to falsely accuse him because...they hate his guts? Want to ruin his life? Are crazy as hell?
(Money? Seems a bit odd, except for the student, perhaps.)
It's quite a tangled web, this.
If there's a WhatsApp exchange that can be used as evidence in his favour, well, I guess the question has to be: is she uncommonly reckless/stupid? Surely, she must see the absolute folly in lying about something he can so easily disprove.
Also, how plausible is her version? She went to England for the sole purpose of...what, some kind of banking thing? Is she his personal financial adviser (and is it common for her to visit him, in persona, at hotels)? Why not at his home?
I dunno, at first glance there's a few things there that don't make obvious sense.
To be clear, I'm not implying that she's lying - simply that I don't get it (the important parts I have been able to read seem to have been run through Google Translate.
ETA As for him, I don't see him saying anything about her motive (that was a bit vague with regard to the main accusation too if you ask me). Has it been suggested that the banker is in cahoots with the DJ? And if so, what about the student?
If there's no connection between the three, well: his story has to be, then, that three separate women have decided to falsely accuse him because...they hate his guts? Want to ruin his life? Are crazy as hell?
(Money? Seems a bit odd, except for the student, perhaps.)
It's quite a tangled web, this.
Last edited:
F***ing hell. This has escalated quickly. Not sure why the media only focuses on United players being accused.
The fella in North London must feel he is next. Wish Rachel Riley supported Arsenal.
All you lot are fools for defending/accusing Antony (or Greenwood). Best leave it to the professional. Thats how civilised societies work.
From an FFP point of view this is a disaster for the club. £180m down the drain.
Hopefully this convinces the Glazers to sell up.
Hakuna Matata
The fella in North London must feel he is next. Wish Rachel Riley supported Arsenal.
All you lot are fools for defending/accusing Antony (or Greenwood). Best leave it to the professional. Thats how civilised societies work.
From an FFP point of view this is a disaster for the club. £180m down the drain.
Hopefully this convinces the Glazers to sell up.
Hakuna Matata
Because United drive clicks and there’s an entire content hungry media ecosystem that benefit from it - particularly on social media.
Lesson for Antony: Just keep it in your pants and focus on your football, preferably using both legs, not just the left.
My understanding of that case is that he was arrested on the scene, and then released under police investigation of one alleged offence of sexual assault. My understanding is that Bissouma underwent police interview under caution, as is usual for anyone accused of a serious crime.
Beyond that, all I know is no further action was taken,
Getting name-dropped in random "back in my days" meltdowns is kinda funny. Even more so because I'm neither a Ronaldo "fanboy" (always found it cringe adults even using that term) and I like EtH, though I don't think he's infallible - like every other manager.
Whole post comes off a bit unhinged.
I don't think you should be taking it so personal people don't want United to be associated with Greenwood or Antony. I think Greenwood should have been allowed to return simply because he wasn't convicted in a court of law and because reportedly the club's own investigation ascertained he wasn't guilty of what he was initially charged with. Though people should reserve the right to question how thorough the process was - and I understand why people don't want him back. Antony reportedly has 3 women giving testimony of his supposed abhorrent behaviour, you can just post "I'll wait for further developments" if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and go about your day. Similarly, it's OK for people to not want that stuff around United and your use of "social justice keyboard warriors" as a derogatory term is curious. Are you mad at people for wanting social justice?
