Welcome to our forums.

Am I the only person here into cricket?

Well I didn’t expect the muppets to come away with a first innings lead but Archer bowled his socks of and the catches stuck. Lets hope they can do something with it today and press on for the win.

Essex UK

coolonespa wrote:

On the back foot again

It’s the ‘Muppet Show’

London

On the back foot again :-( That score is unlikely to be enough on this pitch.

Essex UK

This is a very interesting one and I have to say I have much empathy with both of your views. So I went back to the definition of what a knighthood is:

“A Knighthood is a title that is given to a man by a British king or queen for his achievements or his service to his country. A man who has been given a knighthood can put ‘Sir’ in front of his name instead of ‘Mr’.”

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/knighthood

So if we see this simply as a reward system for achievements or service, their criminal record is irrelevant. They achieved, they get rewarded.

On the flip side, should we feel a knighthood should be representing the best of being British including an admirable moral compass, then of course it should be withheld or stripped as appropriate. Looking outside sport at Sir Philip Green as an example of questionable moral values somewhat devalues the honour.

Essex UK

JoCarroll wrote:

Even disputed speeding offences (heard in a criminal court), @Fossil, or stupid things done by adolescents (minor shoplifting, smoking cannabis)?

Speeding although dealt with in a criminal court does not attract a criminal record. A criminal record is given for an offence that can attract a prison sentence, that is the easiest way I can put it. As for things done as a juvenile, in most cases these are not taken into account on reaching I believe the age now is 21 years unless they were indictable offences. Certainly I believe anyone who is convicted under the Serious Crime Act 2015 or the acts that preceded this should not be considered.

Unfortunately Jo we will have to differ, probably because of my life before retirement.

London

Even disputed speeding offences (heard in a criminal court), @Fossil, or stupid things done by adolescents (minor shoplifting, smoking cannabis)?

You might have led a totally blameless life, Alan – and well done if you have. But many people do stupid things when they’re young or life is tough – and I don’t think they should be defined by that. If people put things right – appropriate remorse, working make changes etc – then I think they shouldn’t be excluded from rewards in later years.

JoCarroll wrote:

Surely it depends on the offence?

Sorry Joe, in my book anyone with a criminal record is not fit to be a ‘Lord of the Realm’.

London

Fossil wrote:

Should a person with a criminal record receive a knighthood!!

Surely it depends on the offence?

As far as Boycott is concerned, its his lack of remorse that I object to. His dismissal of any suggestion that he has caused distress, or – as he still insists he is innocent – even though there were photographs and a court found him guilty and gave him a suspended prison sentence – he could have shown significantly more understand of the impact of domestic abuse, particularly on women. Something along the lines of continuing to dispute the Court’s judgement and regretting the distress this has caused to women etc etc would have gone down better. Just saying he didn’t give a toss – that’s the bit that’s truly offensive.

Lets rename it the “Muppet Show” because that’s what they played like, a load of muppets.

On another theme I see there are calls to strip Boycott of his knighthood. Should a person with a criminal record receive a knighthood!!

London

JoCarroll wrote:

Oh well, we must find some magic at the Oval.

Yes please

Essex UK
1080 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top