Julian Radbourne Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Daily Mail gonna Daily Mail. Laws to protect dogs, but not our children? by JAMES SLACK  Last updated at 2:59 PM on 22nd September 2011  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...l#ixzz1Yhw6JoZT That whole article is bullshit. Narrow minded people preaching bullshit to even more narrow minded people  At least they didn't end it by saying "this wouldn't have happened if Princess Diana was still with us!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted September 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted September 22, 2011 That's the Express. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members nfc90210 Posted September 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 22, 2011 That's the Express. Â I'm surprised that the Daily Express haven't run an article exploring the possibility that somewhere in the world Maddie is being forced to take part in cage fights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metallica Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Love how thick the dad is. If his son wasn't doing this, he'd be out on the streets causing trouble. Good parenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Pin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It's 2 eight year olds in a cage, fighting in front of a drunken crowd. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where that's going. You can rabbit on all you like about judo and karate but it isn't seen in the same way at all. To most people it will come across as a junior Bum Fight. Was the bout supervised by any accredited organisation? Why weren't they wearing any head protection? Seriously - why weren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members nfc90210 Posted September 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 22, 2011 It's 2 eight year olds in a cage, fighting in front of a drunken crowd. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where that's going. You can rabbit on all you like about judo and karate but it isn't seen in the same way at all. To most people it will come across as a junior Bum Fight. Was the bout supervised by any accredited organisation? Why weren't they wearing any head protection? Seriously - why weren't they? Â Because they weren't striking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmcstyles Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 It's 2 eight year olds in a cage, fighting in front of a drunken crowd. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where that's going. You can rabbit on all you like about judo and karate but it isn't seen in the same way at all. To most people it will come across as a junior Bum Fight. Was the bout supervised by any accredited organisation? Why weren't they wearing any head protection? Seriously - why weren't they? Â Because they weren't striking. These are the narrowminded people that are making a seem worse than it is, no one can sit back do the simplest bit of research just type into google SUBMISSION GRAPPLING you'll find no striking there. Â I went to a fight night at the Barnsley Metrodome a few months back they had two 8 years GIRLS doing Muay Thai for the UK title, no one battered a eye lid that was infront of shit load of drunken idiots but it was in a ring not a cage. And that night one trainer ko'ed another trainer (a woman too) no one said fuck all not in the papers NOTHING. Â The matter of the fact is that just because these youngsters grappled in a CAGE and NOT boxing ring or a matted area the narrowminded morrons in this country have something else to complain about. When in the end they were competing in something that was as dangerous as soccer or any other kid sport. Â (Pardon my dylexia on this one) Â CASE CLOSED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Useless aside, at the pub quiz tonight, one of the pub quiz teams altered their usual quiz team name and were called "Gary Glitter's Cage Fighting Kids", which raised a smile amongst the regulars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John. Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 One reply from the Daily Mail..Good to see the post has no political leaning, oh hold on! Â "Which rather begs the question: in what sort of country do the police pursue with the full force of the law those who encourage dogs to fight one another, but turn a blind eye when adults do the same with children Because it was held in the Preston Labour Club ==== Politicised Police, Social Workers etc etc ===== I bet they would have been round in a flash if it had been at the Conservative Club." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 It's 2 eight year olds in a cage, fighting in front of a drunken crowd. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where that's going. You can rabbit on all you like about judo and karate but it isn't seen in the same way at all. To most people it will come across as a junior Bum Fight. Was the bout supervised by any accredited organisation? Why weren't they wearing any head protection? Seriously - why weren't they? Â - Were they drunken? How do you know. Did you breathalise all of them? Â - It really IS the same as Judo and Karate. Hell I've seen much worse. I remember being a judo class at the age of 8 twenty of us being made to be thrown on the ground constantly in the hopes of attaining a colourful belt. This MMA demonstration was WAY safer in comparison. Â - To most people it DIDN'T come across as a junior barn fight. Go look at the comments on most of the news articles, and you will see its mostly seen as being blown out of proportion. Â - The reason for there being no head gear is as follows; 1) Its not necessary and wouldn't add any real added protection 2) Head gear is impractical in a grappling contest (imagine trying to safely and legally escape grapples whilst worrying about having a giant foam head 3). Head gear supplies something else for the opponent to grab a hold of, so would be unfair to both competitors. Â AND finally... the police investigated it... they said there was nothing to pursue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted September 23, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 23, 2011 At least they didn't end it by saying "this wouldn't have happened if Princess Diana was still with us!" Why would they? Â It's 2 eight year olds in a cage, fighting in front of a drunken crowd. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where that's going. You can rabbit on all you like about judo and karate but it isn't seen in the same way at all. To most people it will come across as a junior Bum Fight. Was the bout supervised by any accredited organisation? Why weren't they wearing any head protection? Seriously - why weren't they? You're right, judo and karate aren't seen in the same way, but that doesn't make the comparison any less valid. It's not like these kids being made to fight to the death, they were taking part in what was effectively an exibition amature wrestling match. Why weren't they wearing head protection? Because they didn't need to! They were grappling, not striking. Â I really don't get the fuss here. When I heard about it on Radio 1 yesterday they gave a headline along the lines of "Kids being put in cages and made to fight" Borat popped into my head talking about retards. Then I wondered in what country could such a terrible thing happen. Of course then I found out they were actually doing MMA. The media has blown this up to sounds really bad when it's really no different to any other contact sport that kids take part in and the crowd is no different either, I've seen kids take part in boxing matches at events that mostly have adults on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Why would they? Â Because most days their main headline is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted September 23, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 23, 2011 Why would they? Â Because most days their main headline is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 That's the Express. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted September 23, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 23, 2011 My parents get the mail, its full of shit no doubt, but I can't remember the last time Princess Diana even got a mention. It's a stereotype exaggerated for comic effect. It doesn't really need proving or disproving. And Woy is right, it's the Express. Â I'm sure Russell Howard will love all you guys nicking his material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.