Aibu to not understand why anyone would want to drink a drink indorsed by a convicted rapist

[griphook]

I was in tesco today and there is a new energy drink on sale made by mike Tyson and I was really shocked that firstly it was in sale in tesco and secondly that anyone would want to drink something made by a rapist. It made me wonder how low tesco will go. What next shipman shrimps.

Or aibu because the man was convicted and served his time so therefore deserves a second chance.

Am half way through a complain to tesco, but then I started to wonder. What do you think.

My point about Chris Brown for example is that most people love to hate Tyson but don't apply the same to other Woman hating crimes and are complete hypocrites.

As for grading serious crimes I would actually say most crimes are down to poverty, enviroment and mental health and those issues should be more widely tackled in society instead of locking them up and branding them for life. With the exception or any child abuse/serial killers.

Also a white British housing estate is completely different from a black American ghetto. Unless your from there you wouldnt grasp it fully.

I am not a MT fan btw

That is where we will have to agree to disagree.

Rape/Child Abuse/Murder

There is no grading.

Unless you are taught, through the constant down-playing of rape over the years, that Rape is NOT IMPORTANT and SHE PROBABLY ASKED FOR IT.

Misogynistic upbringing at it's finest.

brandy - you are making assumptions, about what knowledge I have.

Not of the Ghetto, as I clearly stated.

I did not say that my council estate is White British either. I said I am.

I think rape can be a very grey issue sometimes, also murder can be justified sometimes. So yes agreed to disagree.

But if the person has done time and paid the price for their crime (whatever the crime) should they not have a clean slate?

I/my children would never buy Chris Brown's Music anyway but yes I'd try do stop them

I can't argue my point with you anymore as I disagree so strongly with you on most of your beliefs, as we say agree to disagree.

Well the post isn't about you Brian I assumed when you said housing estate you meant a British one.

No, nor is it about you brandy.

But when assumptions are made, I like to clarify

Didn't he bite someone's ear off too? UANBU

Or aibu because the man was convicted and served his time so therefore deserves a second chance

That.

Thankyou for your clarification

And after he served his time he did indeed bite someone's ear off. I also think that rape sentences are too short so he served the time the Courts thought long enough. I can choose to disagree.

So do people not believe in redemption? does a person never pay for their crimes? So is a shoplifter always a shoplifter and never to be trusted in case they steal off you? What about if they stole because they were hungry or their child was hungry?

What about a teenage hooligan who gets in a few fights has a few joy rides goes to prison and comes out grows up and sorts himself out, would he always be that hooligan to you? or a voilant thug because of a few fights?

If thats the case why do we even have a justice system if we don't feel they pay for their crime.

Argh I can spell violant

yeah jumping through hoops I just wikied Craig Charles and he has been acquitted you are out of order bringing his name into it

The man is always guilty on here omfg.

I believe in rehabilitation. I worked in alcohol and drug rehab, Social Services, with offenders in and out of prison, homeless shelters and so on. For twenty years. I now work with homeless families.

I just don't like the transformation of someone who was so violent becoming a 'cool' icon. The drink offends me less than the film gigs.

CC was indeed acquitted but the facts that were established during the case and admitted by him and his defence all cast him in a very bad light indeed. The acquittal doesn't mean he is a fine, upstanding citizen, they mean he was found not guilty of the specific charge.

Just because someone is acquitted, doesn't mean they didn't do the crime.

It just means they were found not guilty and should be treated by the law, media etc., exactly the same as though they had never been accused.

Most rapists are never accused in the first place. Only about 4-6% of rape allegations are a false but only 6% of rape allegations end in a guilty verdict. That is the context in which men accused of rape, are acquitted.

Bbj you can't direct me to anything because there's nothing to direct me to. Catgirl's original point stands: the rape of men is seen for the barberous act it is while the rape of women is seen as not worth making such a fuss about.

FastidiaBlueberry

"Bbj you can't direct me to anything because there's nothing to direct me to."

No, you can't prove a negative, which also means that you cannot prove the point that you (or Catgirl) are trying to make either. It is purely supposition - assumption - presumption - surmise - guess - conjecture.

"the rape of men is seen for the barberous act it is while the rape of women is seen as not worth making such a fuss about."

What utter bullshit. Male rape was legal until 1994 fgs.

And add in the complete denial about the extent of male rape in prisons.

Nobody denies the extent of mail rape in prison. When a man gets sent to prison, the probability of him being raped, rises to the same level as that of women's probability of being raped or sexually assaulted when they are not in prison. Who has denied that? No one on this thread which is about a male rapist of a woman. But of course we must never mention male violence against women, without remembering their violence against other men. Perish the thought that women should ever discuss women without discussing men at the same time, that might give them the silly idea that their human rights matter almost as much as those of men.

You could easily prove me wrong bbj, by linking to a case of a rapist of a man, being held up as a role model, if such a case existed. It doesn't though so you can't, hence catgirl and I continuing to be right and you and the other one continuing to be wrong.

Apologies for spelling mistakes, misplaced commas et cetera, via dodgy phone and rsi