Kurt Zouma

[evensteadiereddie]

"Stop caring about this, there's worse things".

I missed anybody saying that bit - which post is it in ?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://twitter.com/footballdaily/statu ... tgdaw&s=19

Superb whataboutary...

He's kind of got a point though.

Also, if Zouma gets "fired" he can just go and find another club who would love to get him for free.

[spt_claret]

"Stop caring about this, there's worse things".

I missed anybody saying that bit - which post is it in ?

It's cute demanding exact quotes and playing dumb about a summary of a person's argument but it's not very effective. He keeps insisting people should care less about this and stop being so bothered and continually appealing to the worse crime of child abuse, implying people can't or don't care about both.
What's less cute is your peculiar moral relativism that if a person eats meat or is in any way hypocritical that erases all of their moral argument and is therefore equivalent to what they morally oppose.
Yes hypocrisy is an ethical failing, its human nature and you'll be hard pressed to find someone who isn't hypocritical but it's still a failing. It also doesn't invalidate their argument that something else is wrong, just that perhaps their motives are insincere. Anybody defending child abuse can clearly be held in low regard- not happened here for all your talk of other threads.
As for eating meat- I stopped recently after several years of cutting down and being selective but I would never argue someone can't oppose animal abuse because they eat meat. The act, the intent and the purpose are all different and these matter in morals and law. Someone getting injured as part of their job whether accidentally as say a builder or by process as say a boxer, has not been as morally wronged as someone who is assaulted unprovoked. Not all wrongs are equal, and someone is perfectly capable of eating meat and opposing animal abuse and maintaining a consistent moral framework. Purity spirals do nothing but sideline things.
To be clear: Yes, child abuse is worse than animal abuse. I haven't seen anyone even dispute this let alone defend child abuse.
The only people downplaying or trying to shush anything are Burnley Ace and you.

[dermotdermot]

Some people could be (or are) argued to serve no purpose whatsoever. God knows most posts on this messageboard serve no purpose.
Ethics based around raw productivity don't tend to provide a great moral framework.

What the **** are you going on about.

[spt_claret]

What the **** are you going on about.

You argued it's not worth caring about this because you think cats are nasty and "serve no purpose".
I pointed out that's an absolutely **** poor argument.

[evensteadiereddie]

"The only people downplaying or trying to shush anything are Burnley Ace and you."

Sorry, spt, that's rubbish. Not once have I belittled this issue nor asked people not to air their views so, rather like the accusation that BA had stated "Stop caring about this, there's worse things" you're making stuff up which is both embarrassing for you and unhelpful to this debate.

As I said to the other poster struggling to understand the issue, I would never condone cruelty in any form but, on the other hand, I'd never ignore posters who are happy to indulge in social media - led outrage at Zouma's actions yet are remarkably quiet on other, perhaps more pressing, humantarian problems.

I think we're all agreed that there can be no defending Zouma's behaviour.

[spt_claret]

"The only people downplaying or trying to shush anything are Burnley Ace and you."

Sorry, spt, that's rubbish. Not once have I belittled this issue nor asked people not to air their views so, rather like the accusation that BA had stated "Stop caring about this, there's worse things" you're making stuff up which is both embarrassing for you and unhelpful to this debate.

As I said to the other poster struggling to understand the issue, I would never condone cruelty in any form but, on the other hand, I'd never ignore posters who are happy to indulge in social media - led outrage at Zouma's actions yet are remarkably quiet on other, perhaps more pressing, humantarian problems.

I think we're all agreed that there can be no defending Zouma's behaviour.

I'm making nothing up he's devoted the entire thread to getting angry at and trying to talk down people angry about this.
Still yet to see this humanitarian hypocrisy or why that's currently your big bugbear and erasing any merit people have in being angry here.
Not sure we can all agree.
It's the strangest thread I've read for a while this. The people who want others to be less interested or keep making ad hominems and referring to other (equally or more severe) issues are the ones who keep this thread going, all because they keep arguing why people should focus on other things instead of this.

[Burnley Ace]

Perhaps you should be calling for more resources for the police and CPS then rather than insisting people should care less about this.
It is absolutely whataboutery. Hypocrisy here requires people to defend child abuse which isn't happening. I care very deeply about child abuse and suspect everyone in this thread does with the possible exception of you, who is using it purely as a rhetorical tactic to try silence indignation about animal abuse.
Is your argument that unless people spend all their time campaigning about child abuse they have no right to complain about any other wrong? I don't see you talking about any particular child abuse cases. There's regrettably more than enough in the news at any time.
Feel free to talk about them, and if people here dismiss it you have a point on hypocrisy. But all you're doing is choosing the strange hill to die on of "Stop caring about this, there's worse things".

No it isn’t and I’ve explained why. That you can’t understand that is your issue and to state I don’t care about child abuse is simply quite pathetic but not unsurprising coming from you.

[spt_claret]

No it isn’t and I’ve explained why. That you can’t understand that is your issue and to state I don’t care about child abuse is simply quite pathetic but not unsurprising coming from you.

You explained nothing you just said it's not whataboutery, called it histrionics and then went on about hypocrisy. You also ignored my point about a better argument regarding police resources.
I didn't say you don't care I said you're only really using it as a tool to argue with people angry about Zouma, which you are, and doesn't reflect especially well as to you actually caring. You probably do care and I apologise for implying otherwise but your weaponising of it as a debate tactic isn't great.
As for "Coming from me" I'm unsure as to why. I can't remember us interacting on this forum previously.
I tend to steer clear of non football topics where possible as I come here for football and otherwise either feel I have nothing much to add that others aren't saying, or don't especially want to get into debates on a football forum. This was a rare exception because I didn't think such a clear cut topic could be so contentious.
The thing I don't understand from you is why you keep going, especially if you don't want people to keep on about this.

[evensteadiereddie]

I'm making nothing up he's devoted the entire thread to getting angry at and trying to talk down people angry about this.
Still yet to see this humanitarian hypocrisy or why that's currently your big bugbear and erasing any merit people have in being angry here.
Not sure we can all agree.
It's the strangest thread I've read for a while this. The people who want others to be less interested or keep making ad hominems and referring to other (equally or more severe) issues are the ones who keep this thread going, all because they keep arguing why people should focus on other things instead of this.

Sorry, bud, I'm keeping the thread going for this post at least, just to put you straight.

You quoted BA as saying something he didn't. You claimed I talked about meat eating. I hadn't.

These were either mistakes or lies.



So you don't think we should all agree that Zouma's actions were horrible ? Aye, OK then....

[Jakubclaret]

Interesting that you should be the first to come back, Jakub....

There were plenty on here not particularly bothered about or showing much compassion ftowards those deaths, one of those things, their own choice , not our responsibility, send 'em back etc etc.....

And again, Jakub, before your next incoherent stream of consciousness is turned on, I'll make it clear that I don't condone any form of cruelty towards animal or human.

I also don't condone pious, mealy-mouthed hypocrisy.

I’ve not come across any posts specifically stating the channel deaths were acceptable, what some people correctly stated is that the people shouldn’t have been trying to cross the channel to start with & the deaths could have been avoided, the people crossing the channel who tragically died were silly people but the deaths were unacceptable really & shouldn’t have happened, if we wasn’t so welcoming to these people they wouldn’t be trying to get here in the first place.

[evensteadiereddie]

Exactly - you've proved my point brilliantly.

Well done, lad.

[Jakubclaret]

Exactly - you've proved my point brilliantly.

Well done, lad.

All I’ve proved is that you are factually incorrect in stating that people on here were in acceptance regarding the tragic fatalities, the posters I came across were absolutely horrified at the deaths.

[evensteadiereddie]

"........the people crossing the channel who tragically died were silly people but the deaths were unacceptable really & shouldn’t have happened, if we wasn’t so welcoming to these people they wouldn’t be trying to get here in the first place."


I can tell you're "absolutely horrified"..............do you ever read your stuff before you submit it ?

[HahaYeah]

Kurt Zouma's brother is suspended by his football team for filming cat-kicking video as pressure mounts on West Ham to follow suit and dump £29m star from their squad

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... video.html

[Lowbankclaret]

Probably, given one is public sector, the other private and the differing roles they different employment contracts. If she is found not guilty perhaps they will have to compensate her, who knows.

Why do think there’s a difference between being employed in the private or public sector. If they are not treated the same , one would win a discrimination case. The rules are not different and cannot be in law.

[evensteadiereddie]

I'm not sticking up for the prat but am genuinely interested on what grounds Zouma could be sacked.

Stupid, horrible behaviour but more sackable than , say, being convicted of drunken driving ?

Just asking.

[TheFamilyCat]

IMG-20220210-WA0004.jpg (107.71 KiB) Viewed 3026 times

[Lowbankclaret]

I'm not sticking up for the prat but am genuinely interested on what grounds Zouma could be sacked.

Stupid, horrible behaviour but more sackable than , say, being convicted of drunken driving ?

Just asking.

The lady who got sacked for hitting her horse, sets a precedent. The horse likely suffered less damage than the cat.

[joey13]

IMG-20220210-WA0004.jpg

Says the drunk driver

[evensteadiereddie]

Not necessarily, Lowbank, it will be entirely up to WHU.
Talking of precedents, it was only a few years back that three Derby players and another unnamed passenger - everybody round here knows who he was - were involved in a drunken driver road smash. Of the three players involved, Gough - not driving but past his sell-by date - was the only one sacked. The other two players, reasonable assets at the time, were kept on.
His case went to court and he won.
If Zouma is important to WHU, they are hardly likely to sack him for something like this, are they ?

[spt_claret]

Sorry, bud, I'm keeping the thread going for this post at least, just to put you straight.

You quoted BA as saying something he didn't. You claimed I talked about meat eating. I hadn't.

These were either mistakes or lies.



So you don't think we should all agree that Zouma's actions were horrible ? Aye, OK then....

I didn't quote him, I summed up his argument which is nothing but deflection towards bigger issues, I think it's pretty fair to sum that up the way I did, I used quotation marks to signify the summation, clearly that was an unforgivable sin.
Realise now it was a different poster talking about eating meat- hold my hand up on that one, apologies.

Really cute on the last bit. I (rather obviously) mean there's posters here who I don't think do think his actions are horrible given their incessant equivocating and excuse-making. You're a tad sanctimonious and like to argue in bad faith, or play dumb to try get people to explain until you can leap on a gotcha. Seen your type at uni, it's very disingenuous.
But crack on 'bud'. Keep putting words in people's mouths, keep projecting that onto people who challenge you, keep making excuses.
As for the drunk-driving comparison- I'd agree that a footballer should be sacked for drink-driving as well. Again, it can be both, not either-or.

[Jakubclaret]

"........the people crossing the channel who tragically died were silly people but the deaths were unacceptable really & shouldn’t have happened, if we wasn’t so welcoming to these people they wouldn’t be trying to get here in the first place."


I can tell you're "absolutely horrified"..............do you ever read your stuff before you submit it ?

It was tragic what happened & ultimately the people lost their lives but you can hardly call the decision the people made wise. It’s unacceptable in terms of the people having nobody to advise them otherwise or dissuade them, you have said something & you have nothing to back it up with so I’ll leave it there, if you hack it don’t back it.

[bfcjg]

images.jpeg-1.jpg (5.22 KiB) Viewed 2840 times

Tiddles contacts her cousin for help.

[Claretforever]

Rather than be sacked, because we all know he’d be picked up by another team quickly and on similar wages, a long ban, maybe even until the end of the season with his wages until then given to cat/animal charities, which he’d have to agree with I imagine?

Surely that would be more of a benefit than sacking? And it would be in the news longer too, meaning it gets the message across for a sustained period. Oh, and he can’t own animals again.

[evensteadiereddie]

I didn't quote him, I summed up his argument which is nothing but deflection towards bigger issues, I think it's pretty fair to sum that up the way I did, I used quotation marks to signify the summation, clearly that was an unforgivable sin.
Realise now it was a different poster talking about eating meat- hold my hand up on that one, apologies.

Really cute on the last bit. I (rather obviously) mean there's posters here who I don't think do think his actions are horrible given their incessant equivocating and excuse-making. You're a tad sanctimonious and like to argue in bad faith, or play dumb to try get people to explain until you can leap on a gotcha. Seen your type at uni, it's very disingenuous.
But crack on 'bud'. Keep putting words in people's mouths, keep projecting that onto people who challenge you, keep making excuses.
As for the drunk-driving comparison- I'd agree that a footballer should be sacked for drink-driving as well. Again, it can be both, not either-or.

Apologies accepted !

Glad to see your uni education wasn't wasted............


I'm not sure what words I've put into people's mouths, it's you, after all, that has just admitted to doing just that.

What is "projecting that onto people who challenge you" supposed to mean ? Do you actually know ?


Glad to see you actually understood the drink-driving comparison. I did wonder.

[evensteadiereddie]

It was tragic what happened & ultimately the people lost their lives but you can hardly call the decision the people made wise. It’s unacceptable in terms of the people having nobody to advise them otherwise or dissuade them, you have said something & you have nothing to back it up with so I’ll leave it there, if you hack it don’t back it.

You said you and/or other people on here were horrified by those Channel or Mediterranean deaths.

Your post regarding their "silliness" suggests that is not the case.

Your final statement " you have said something & you have nothing to back it up with so I’ll leave it there, if you hack it don’t back it." is absolute garbage even by your standards. Completely illogical and meaningless.

I suppose it beats your usual schtick of writing "I'll leave it there and wish you a good night" when you've made an arse of yourself yet again.

[evensteadiereddie]

Just as a matter of interest, has Ashley Barnes' drink-driving case been up yet ?

[NottsClaret]

It is absolutely whataboutery.

It's a crazy story and a wonderfully bizarre thread. But in short, I'd agree with this.

[Jakubclaret]

You said you and/or other people on here were horrified by those Channel or Mediterranean deaths.

Your post regarding their "silliness" suggests that is not the case.

Your final statement " you have said something & you have nothing to back it up with so I’ll leave it there, if you hack it don’t back it." is absolute garbage even by your standards. Completely illogical and meaningless.

I suppose it beats your usual schtick of writing "I'll leave it there and wish you a good night" when you've made an arse of yourself yet again.

The channel deaths brought up mixed emotions for me, I did think their actions were silly but that’s doesn’t mean I thought their deaths were acceptable, like I say the onus is on you to back up what you’ve stated & so far you haven’t done, I’m completely opposed to any sort of immigration but I don’t want the people to die on the journey coming here I’d rather they arrived here safely & then deported straightaway on the shores.

[spt_claret]

Apologies accepted !

Glad to see your uni education wasn't wasted............


I'm not sure what words I've put into people's mouths, it's you, after all, that has just admitted to doing just that.

What is "projecting that onto people who challenge you" supposed to mean ? Do you actually know ?


Glad to see you actually understood the drink-driving comparison. I did wonder.

You're the most insufferably smug and disingenuous poster on this board.
You are putting words in my mouth by quite deliberately interpreting summations as quotations even after repeat clarification, by quite deliberately misinterpreting comments such as my doubting people care, which becomes "you don't think we should all agree Zoumas actions were horrible?"- the exact opposite of what I have said repeatedly. You're not so stupid as to believe that it's deliberate misinterpretation to score a point via ridicule.
"Projecting onto people who challenge you" = accuse others of what you're doing, insulate yourself against criticism and accusation of the same preemptively. It's straight out of some rather effective yet rather ruthless political strategy books, Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals comes to mind. Ridicule rather than debate to draw emotional reaction and leave no point for a counterpoint, try to force people outside their area of expertise by forcing them to overexplain, turn a negative (playing dumb) into a positive by making your opponent talk until you can trip them up, zero in and isolate specific people or things for attack, make the other person live up to their own rules without needing to do the same. If you've not read it you would probably enjoy it as you're already hitting a lot of the marks, it's an excellent manual for winning arguments or campaigning but it has absolutely no need for those arguments to be based in truth or ethics.
At no point are you engaging sincerely with points made. You either ignore them entirely, decide you can discount them because of something you don't like about the poster, or deliberately misinterpret them then play dumb.
You're more interested in getting to feel like you've one upped strangers on a football forum, than the topic at hand, ideally by aggravating them until they give up. This could have merrily died by now if you didnt keep insisting on trying to feel like a winner, and has gotten completely off the topic so I won't be posting in here again. I'm sure you'll take that as a win.

[basil6345789]

He’s dropped the cat from 3 foot and then pushed it along a tiled floor with his foot. Not nice but he’s not punted the cat through a first floor window! Fine him 2 weeks wages and give it to a cat sanctuary!

He volleyed it, as recorded by his brother - they were putting on a show not very funny!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Just as a matter of interest, has Ashley Barnes' drink-driving case been up yet ?

£13k fine and a 12 month ban in June last year.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

West Ham players are unhappy at finding out Zouma is one of the club's top earners and a number are seeking pay rises as a result.

[Burnley Ace]

Why do think there’s a difference between being employed in the private or public sector. If they are not treated the same , one would win a discrimination case. The rules are not different and cannot be in law.

They have different contracts of employment.

[Burnley Ace]

Rather than be sacked, because we all know he’d be picked up by another team quickly and on similar wages, a long ban, maybe even until the end of the season with his wages until then given to cat/animal charities, which he’d have to agree with I imagine?

Surely that would be more of a benefit than sacking? And it would be in the news longer too, meaning it gets the message across for a sustained period. Oh, and he can’t own animals again.

Does he get that special treatment because he’s rich or a football player? One rule for them one rule for the rest of us?

[Jakubclaret]

They have different contracts of employment.

Both still should be following ACAS as close as possible, in an employment tribunal it would be frowned upon if 1 wasn’t.

[Chobulous]

You're the most insufferably smug and disingenuous poster on this board.
You are putting words in my mouth by quite deliberately interpreting summations as quotations even after repeat clarification, by quite deliberately misinterpreting comments such as my doubting people care, which becomes "you don't think we should all agree Zoumas actions were horrible?"- the exact opposite of what I have said repeatedly. You're not so stupid as to believe that it's deliberate misinterpretation to score a point via ridicule.
"Projecting onto people who challenge you" = accuse others of what you're doing, insulate yourself against criticism and accusation of the same preemptively. It's straight out of some rather effective yet rather ruthless political strategy books, Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals comes to mind. Ridicule rather than debate to draw emotional reaction and leave no point for a counterpoint, try to force people outside their area of expertise by forcing them to overexplain, turn a negative (playing dumb) into a positive by making your opponent talk until you can trip them up, zero in and isolate specific people or things for attack, make the other person live up to their own rules without needing to do the same. If you've not read it you would probably enjoy it as you're already hitting a lot of the marks, it's an excellent manual for winning arguments or campaigning but it has absolutely no need for those arguments to be based in truth or ethics.
At no point are you engaging sincerely with points made. You either ignore them entirely, decide you can discount them because of something you don't like about the poster, or deliberately misinterpret them then play dumb.
You're more interested in getting to feel like you've one upped strangers on a football forum, than the topic at hand, ideally by aggravating them until they give up. This could have merrily died by now if you didnt keep insisting on trying to feel like a winner, and has gotten completely off the topic so I won't be posting in here again. I'm sure you'll take that as a win.

One of the best character assessments I have ever read. Spot on.

[Bosscat]

You're the most insufferably smug and disingenuous poster on this board.
You are putting words in my mouth by quite deliberately interpreting summations as quotations even after repeat clarification, by quite deliberately misinterpreting comments such as my doubting people care, which becomes "you don't think we should all agree Zoumas actions were horrible?"- the exact opposite of what I have said repeatedly. You're not so stupid as to believe that it's deliberate misinterpretation to score a point via ridicule.
"Projecting onto people who challenge you" = accuse others of what you're doing, insulate yourself against criticism and accusation of the same preemptively. It's straight out of some rather effective yet rather ruthless political strategy books, Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals comes to mind. Ridicule rather than debate to draw emotional reaction and leave no point for a counterpoint, try to force people outside their area of expertise by forcing them to overexplain, turn a negative (playing dumb) into a positive by making your opponent talk until you can trip them up, zero in and isolate specific people or things for attack, make the other person live up to their own rules without needing to do the same. If you've not read it you would probably enjoy it as you're already hitting a lot of the marks, it's an excellent manual for winning arguments or campaigning but it has absolutely no need for those arguments to be based in truth or ethics.
At no point are you engaging sincerely with points made. You either ignore them entirely, decide you can discount them because of something you don't like about the poster, or deliberately misinterpret them then play dumb.
You're more interested in getting to feel like you've one upped strangers on a football forum, than the topic at hand, ideally by aggravating them until they give up. This could have merrily died by now if you didnt keep insisting on trying to feel like a winner, and has gotten completely off the topic so I won't be posting in here again. I'm sure you'll take that as a win.

Wow don't sit on the fence buddy tell us what you really think about Eddie

[evensteadiereddie]

You're the most insufferably smug and disingenuous poster on this board.
You are putting words in my mouth by quite deliberately interpreting summations as quotations even after repeat clarification, by quite deliberately misinterpreting comments such as my doubting people care, which becomes "you don't think we should all agree Zoumas actions were horrible?"- the exact opposite of what I have said repeatedly. You're not so stupid as to believe that it's deliberate misinterpretation to score a point via ridicule.
"Projecting onto people who challenge you" = accuse others of what you're doing, insulate yourself against criticism and accusation of the same preemptively. It's straight out of some rather effective yet rather ruthless political strategy books, Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals comes to mind. Ridicule rather than debate to draw emotional reaction and leave no point for a counterpoint, try to force people outside their area of expertise by forcing them to overexplain, turn a negative (playing dumb) into a positive by making your opponent talk until you can trip them up, zero in and isolate specific people or things for attack, make the other person live up to their own rules without needing to do the same. If you've not read it you would probably enjoy it as you're already hitting a lot of the marks, it's an excellent manual for winning arguments or campaigning but it has absolutely no need for those arguments to be based in truth or ethics.
At no point are you engaging sincerely with points made. You either ignore them entirely, decide you can discount them because of something you don't like about the poster, or deliberately misinterpret them then play dumb.
You're more interested in getting to feel like you've one upped strangers on a football forum, than the topic at hand, ideally by aggravating them until they give up. This could have merrily died by now if you didnt keep insisting on trying to feel like a winner, and has gotten completely off the topic so I won't be posting in here again. I'm sure you'll take that as a win.

I drew posters' attention to the huge disparity between the massive swell of compassion towards this cat and the apparent lack of corresponding sympathy towards, for example, drowning refugee men, women and kids.
I thought you understood that.
I stated that I don't condone cruelty towards animal or human.
I thought you understood that.
I have not talked about eating meat nor have I accused others of doing anything, never mind what I'm supposed to be doing, I'm just raising the possibility that this media-led mockrage is, arguably, a bit of an over-reaction, a knee-jerk response. Well-meaning, no doubt, but entirely ridiculous.
I thought you understood that.
Loving the"Rules for Radicals" reference..............Ah, Saul...

I think you're probably overthinking things. I've made a point, repeated it clearly for those who can't quite understand and you've panicked and started squealing.

I couldn't care less about "upping" strangers on any forum, football or otherwise, it's just a happy consequence of a poster like you wading in and quickly finding themselves horribly out of their depth....

Anyway, no worries. We're all agreed Zouma's behaviour was terrible, I guesss what happens next, if anything, will be interesting.

I wonder if there'll be a clamour for our very own drunken driver, Ashley Barnes, to be sacked........

See, the real world is not so straightforward after all, is it ?

[Claretforever]

Does he get that special treatment because he’s rich or a football player? One rule for them one rule for the rest of us?

Just because he’s a footballer, and from a financial point of view his wages would do a lot of good for animals. So yeah, one rule for them.

[AlargeClaret]

He should make a huge donation to a cat charity and even maybe a days rescue work with them ? Issue a grovelling “ heartfelt “ apology and we can all move on . WHU will I presume also give him a huge fine and a mini ban .What he did was disgusting , but there’s a need to move on .

[pureclaret]

Only on our forum can a discussion over Mr Zouma and his kicking a cat to if eating meat makes you an abuser of animals, the deaths of people arround the world seeking to avoid persectuion.

[Bosscat]

Only on our forum can a discussion over Mr Zouma and his kicking a cat to if eating meat makes you an abuser of animals, the deaths of people arround the world seeking to avoid persectuion.

Only on UTC pc ... Only on UTC

Funnt as well its always the "Usual Suspects" Kaiser Sosa etc

[Lowbankclaret]

They have different contracts of employment.

Find me any contract of employment that covers animal abuse . Look forward to seeing it.

[Burnley Ace]

Find me any contract of employment that covers animal abuse . Look forward to seeing it.

Don’t be stupid it’s embarrassing.

[Lowbankclaret]

Don’t be stupid it’s embarrassing.

Your the one who is embarrassing. As an ex union representative. You use all the experience to defend your employees. Discrimination is used a lot.
In this case if I was the ladies union rep I would be instantly be using discrimination that a women in a low value wage job was discriminated against a man in a high value job being treated differently for the same perceived crime.
The value of her contract is perceived as lower this his and hence she is being discriminated against on grounds of her sex and value.

[Spijed]

David Moyes said he'll be available for this weekends game.

[Lowbankclaret]

David Moyes said he'll be available for this weekends game.

West Ham have no shame.

[Spijed]

West Ham have no shame.

David Moyes interview:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60345306