[Closed] Jamie Oliver - Are some people beyond redemption?

did he cycle to work then?

that's a bit daily mail, would you like to post the full story (on the correct forum)so we can make considered opinion.

Posting in the wrong forum.. Are some people beyond redemption?

I figured you could find the full story. Mods please move to chat 😳

I'm surprised his wife would post a thread like this tbh.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jamie-olivers-restaurant-hires-convicted-4449275

I'm for rehabilitation for what it's worth but this seems commercial suicide.

Any reliable links rather than the mirror?

It's the job of the justice system to punish criminals, not the general population.

Eh? He's done his time hasn't he. Or is he supposed to never work again and never reintegrate in to society?

Edit: ^^^ well put

Did jamie Oliver personally recruit him?

[i]Eh? He's done his time hasn't he. Or is he supposed to never work again and never reintegrate in to society?[/i]

So has the convicted rapist footballer, but a lot of people don't want to see him get back into the game.

Or is that another thread?

Hasn't Jamie Oliver done quite a lot in hiring previous offenders and people who've struggled to get jobs? So a guy leaves jail and is picked up by a scheme to do just this?

Also, assuming this person will get a job somewhere, surely a job where he is in a kitchen and away from the general public for long hours is exactly what the baying masses would want?

I guess he'd rather see a punished and rehabilitated offender moving on and doing something productive with their life over being left on a downward spiral into who knows what sort of issues due to being isolated, vilified and unemployable. I agree with him. The former is a better outcome for everyone. Brave of J.O., and could backfire, but he's putting his money where his mouth is.

So has the convicted rapist footballer, but a lot of people don't want to see him get back into the game

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11166299/Jamie-Oliver-takes-on-paedophile-as-restaurant-apprentice.html ]Here's the Telegraph Drac if that's any better[/url].

After reading the article again, he probably wasn't right to hire him. Not because he was a convicted rapist, but because the scheme exists to help disadvantaged young people who've had a tough upbringing, whereas this lad hasnt had a tough upbringing, he inflicted that on another young person.

This decision is very altruistic however I think Jamie is going to find the public less accepting than he is.

Really fail to see the problem here.

People who want the sanctions for these kinds of crimes to be greater or longer-lasting need to take it up with their elected representatives, rather than criticising employers who, in Jamie Oliver's case at least, are trying to rehabilitate people back into society in a perfectly legal and proper way.

The Telegraph report is almost identical to the Mirror's. Does Junkyard do copying and pasting for The Telegraph.

This decision is very altruistic however I think Jamie is going to find the public less accepting than he is.

Yeah that's a better way to put it, however the dramatic news reports don't help.

from the telegraph article -

He was put on the Sex Offenders' Register indefinitely and banned from being near young girls without permission, according to reports.

that alone would be enough to put me off giving the paedophile a job

the scheme exists to help disadvantaged young people who've had a tough upbringing, whereas this lad hasnt had a tough upbringing, he inflicted that on another young person

The article I read didn't say anything about his upbringing.

I don't quite understand the title - is "beyond redemption" a reference to the ex-con or to JO?

Either way, it demonstrates little faith in the ability of our justice system to administer appropriate punishments and in the apparently open-hearted way a businessman is prepared to put his neck out.

The article I read didn't say anything about his upbringing.

Good point.

Edit: Unfortunately too late to strike through my post in light of the flaws in my logic.

The ex con - Sorry was half asleep!

Is it not quite possible that this chap will now be working alongside colleagues who have been a victim of the type of crimes he has actually committed?

Good article on similar subject(right to rehabilitation) here http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/16/ched-evans-punished-rapist-rehabilitation only about Ched Evans. As long as he's not working with kids it shouldn't be a problem.

Im glad to see that others on here [s]support[/s] accept the decision to hire the guy.
Clearly what did, without question was very wrong. There seems to be this view in society that he can never redeem himself because of the crime he committed. He's served his sentence and the are restrictions on his life too.
At what point is he considered to have paid his dues? When he's been hung from the nearest tree?

Explain what is unreliable about the mirror please drac.

As regards the Ched Evans case, the principal problem for me seems to be the lack of contrition, which has made life even more difficult for his victim. I would have seen that as a vital first step of rehabilitation that needs to happen before any thought of employment.

I thought the Blades had sacked him, but I see reports that Nigel Clough has spoken to him and is awaiting the club owners' verdict on re-hiring him?

Explain what is unreliable about the mirror please drac.

Good question, the tabloids are renowned for their reliable and unbiased ethical reporting on news items (or things they deem newsworthy) after all.

Only the other day, I saw the Sun running a front page tagline, "CLASSICAL MUSIC SPECIAL - I twerk my boobs to Motzart".

Out of interest,
Who would be happy to work alongside someone who had been convicted of raping a 12 year old when they was 19.
If it had been many years ago and he had proven to been a model citizen since but just out of prison.

Also if Jamie hires other ex offenders will there be a problem as far as would they view him as they would have done back on the wing. And with alice gross not even buried a lot of people would still be very emotional about such subjects.

But if a job and a chance to rejoin society could be what it takes to stop him reoffending rather than sitting around all day in a bedsit on benifit.

Cougar - the tabloids may not always cover the stories you would like to read, but they are surprisingly fastidious about being accurate.

Eg. Most of the phone hacking derived stories were true, just not very ethical.

The daily star being an exception of course.

They happily make stuff up.

The daily star being an exception of course.

They happily make stuff up.

See below

[img] [/img]

Yeh, but it's cheaper than the Mirror.

Or did they make that up too...

they are surprisingly fastidious about being accurate.

This is a wind up, right? They twist the truth, they misquote, they love to miss details out too so people misinterpret the real truth and love a bit of sensationalism.

Either we lock people up and throw away the key, or execute them, or we have to have a system that enables them to be reintegrated back into society. I'd prefer the latter, and good luck to Jamie. Let's hope the media don't ruin it for all involved.

I've not followed the Ched Evans case but again, once sentence is served, he has a right to live in society that ideally requires him to to gain employment. Sadly the media storm may prevent that.

As I understand it, not having followed it closely, but he is still hoping to get the conviction quashed, hence apparent lack of contrition. Wasn't this tbe case when some nutter named the victim on twitter as well?

It's cheds girlfriend running the campaign to clear his name..
Either she must really love him or she just does not want to get off the gravy train.

As I understand it, not having followed it closely, but he is still hoping to get the conviction quashed, hence apparent lack of contrition. Wasn't this tbe case when some nutter named the victim on twitter as well?

That was the one.

Ah, I see he's lost a couple of appeals, but is going to the Criminal Cases Review Commission shortly. I wonder on what basis he contests it, and if he will accept the verdict if it goes against him there? You would need pretty significant new evidence or grounds to overturn it.

His girlfriend isn't on a gravy train. Her millionaire father is bank rolling the campaign to clear his name, apparently.

I've not followed the case, try and avoid tabloid frenzy gossip, but this case seems complicated.

So, for those who think that people convicted of certain offences should never be given employment ever again, what's the alternative? Presumably living out the rest of their days living on state benefits?

Apart from anything else, who's more likely to pose an ongoing or future risk of serious offending behaviour: the person who served their sentence and has been able to rebuild their life, gain a sense of purpose and make a positive contribution, or the one we've told has no role to play in society?

Well four years inside for what could be the total ruining of a young girls life is ridiculously low, and as for rehabilitation, do people really believe the system can rehabilitate ?

Only an individual can rehabilitate themselves, they can only do that once they fully accept their wrongdoing, accept their punishment and complete their punishment in full.

Oliver is nothing more than a promoter of the Saint Jamie Oliver Corporation.

with regards to sleeping with a woman who is paraletic being rape,

There is a high street near me where at 2 in the morning on a Saturday is packed with young woman with skirts up there arses staggering down the road.

Now if I was laying in bed at 12 o'clock at night thinking I fancy a shag, get myself spruced up and hit the town looking to pick up one of the previously described woman, not snatch but chirps.
And was successful that on the chip scale of wrong would top the scales.

If I went out for the evening met a young woman and we got on famously, I paced myself but she was knocking them back. And I had to literally hold her up while escorting her back to my place that would also rate high on the scale.

But if we are both off our tits, staggering off trying and failing to do the walk from the monkeys, it would not even register.
Because if a woman can be absorbed (doubt that's the right word) from the responsibility of there actions because of being too far gone surely the same applies to men.

Also if a young woman off her tits glassed another woman would she be afforded the same irresponsibility as if she shagged an ugly bloke and regretted it.

Oliver is nothing more than a promoter of the Saint Jamie Oliver Corporation.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

Only an individual can rehabilitate themselves, they can only do that once they fully accept their wrongdoing, accept their punishment and complete their punishment in full.

As I said before, of all the jobs he could have done on his return to the outside work, I would have thought that locking someone in a kitchen away from the general public for 12 hours a day would be seen as a better job that most others he could do.

I hope chip has his flame retardent suit on.

I understand the point you are trying to make so clumsily, even though I'm not agreeing with you entirely.

In an ideal world, men and women would have the sense to not drink so much that they lost control of their senses. In an ideal world, the laws designed to prevent this would be properly enforced, i.e. drunk and disorderly, not serving drunks.

We do not live in this ideal world, and I just hope my kids grow up knowing what is right and wrong

assuming this person will get a job somewhere, surely a job where he is in a kitchen and away from the general public for long hours

Yes he is right to hire him, The man was found guilty, tried and has served his sentence. He should, subject to any overriding terms of his release be free to work in any job.

Asbestos Is my middle name,
Clumsily you say, deliberately thought provoking i say, Infact some of my posts could be considered modern art.

As I said before, of all the jobs he could have done on his return to the outside work, I would have thought that locking someone in a kitchen away from the general public for 12 hours a day would be seen as a better job that most others he could do.

Apologies I did not realise he was being locked away in a kitchen. If he is locked away for the 12 hours what does that say for his four year rehab and the effectiveness of his punishment ?

Is it not quite possible that this chap will now be working alongside colleagues who have been a victim of the type of crimes he has actually committed?

Jamie Oliver, a guy who talks the talk, then walks the walk.

Because if a woman can be absorbed (doubt that's the right word) from the responsibility of there actions because of being too far gone surely the same applies to men.

Do you think so little of men, that we are incapable of not raping when we're drunk?

I don't really know exactly how I feel about it but I think people should do what they feel is right, which Jamie Oliver seems to be doing. And it doesn't feel like a PR stunt since "no such thing as bad PR" is bollocks. So good for him basically. If I was in his shoes I don't know if I'd feel the same but I hope I'd do what I thought was right.

Rockape63 - Member

So has the convicted rapist footballer, but a lot of people don't want to see him get back into the game.

People see footballers as role models. Don't really know why, they're qualified to do the job because they're good at kicking things and running around in circles not because they're excellent human beings. But as long as people and especially kids look up to them, it's probably a bit troublesome having some of them be convicted shitebags.

I think his lack of remorse complicates things but if you maintain your innocence, you can't show remorse, it's a nasty wee catch 22. Whether he's genuinely innocent, genuinely thinks he's innocent, or actually knows he's guilty but is claiming to be innocent, it all ends up the same.

I think what's worrying here is he sought employment at an establishment named Fifteen.

Do you think so little of men, that we are incapable of not raping when we're drunk?

I am talking about a drunken one night stand, something I have enjoyed, that always finished with an awkward goodbye or a morning rematch, never having my collar felt.

I think Jamie Oliver has done the right thing.

molgrips - Member

Oliver is nothing more than a promoter of the Saint Jamie Oliver Corporation.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

Apologies I did not realise he was being locked away in a kitchen. If he is locked away for the 12 hours what does that say for his four year rehab and the effectiveness of his punishment ?

Cheekyboy, that was reference to the joys of being a junior chef. No, he won't be physically locked up but he will be in the kitchen of for the best part of 12 hours a day.

People see footballers as role models. Don't really know why, they're qualified to do the job because they're good at kicking things and running around in circles not because they're excellent human beings. But as long as people and especially kids look up to them, it's probably a bit troublesome having some of them be convicted shitebags.

A lot depends on the individual but it's always made me laugh how people react differently to each case. There have been several footballers jailed over the years for all sorts of things from assault to rape and even causing deaths each vilified to varying degrees yet all, IIRC, continued their careers. People still refer to St Ryan as the 'model professional' and a role model to follow forgetting that he'd battered one of his girlfriends in public and slept with his sister in law for 8 years. I wonder if it would've been different if charges had been pressed rather than cash changing hands.

FWIW, I think JO has been very brave & respect his decision - not sure I'd do the same but I guess he has all the facts as opposed to the press take on it.

I've always hated Jamie Oliver, not really sure why i, just thing he's a massive twunt! This has done nothing to change that.

I wouldn't want to work with a convicted peado and rightly or wrongly I wouldn't employ one either. I don't care if that is discriminatory it's just the way I feel.

Fortunately, or not as the case maybe, I don't own my own company and don't have to employ people so it doesn't really matter!

I know shocking, isn't it? he tried to improve the quality of school meals and stop kids being fed shite food. Awful. Now he's looking at helping rehabiltate a criminal, hopefully moving him a way from a cycle of re-offending, what's the world coming to?

So you say the rapist has not been fully rehabilitated ? then why has he been released ?

My point is simple:

Four years is paltry for rape !
Only the offender can rehabilitate themselves !

I care not a jot for JO or his various self -promoting missions !

If you wish to worship at the altar of celebrity then fill your boots !

he won't be physically locked up but he will be in the kitchen of for the best part of 12 hours a day.

Feeling slighty paranoid as one of the other chefs looks over and smiles while slowly chopping a carrot.

Also I think sex with a twelve year old is automatically rape as opposed to sex with a minor, so he could have had a relationship with a 12 year old or hid Behind the bushes at the local playground waiting to pounce, Whether that makes a difference.

Sorry if there is a back story in the article as I did not read it all, as I like to steam in half cocked.

Well four years inside for what could be the total ruining of a young girls life is ridiculously low, and as for rehabilitation, do people really believe the system can rehabilitate ?

But whose fault is it the sentence is lenient?

May be being a bit thick but he was convicted of raping a 12 year old, which makes him a rapist but with a very young victim - a crime for which he has served the sentence handed down to him.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. (wikipedia for quick ref)

I can't seem to find if he falls into the latter category or the former, neither particularly pleasant but there seems to be a desire to conflate the two.

Do I agree with what JO has done - yes in principle, as long as the victim is receiving support to come to terms with the crime he committed against her.

I am talking about a drunken one night stand, something I have enjoyed, that always finished with an awkward goodbye or a morning rematch, never having my collar felt.

Presumably that's because it wasn't rape. I have this old-fashioned notion that men and women should be able to get drunk without being molested.

How many kids has Oliver got ?

3 or 4 ... I think.

Funny how society looks at the footballer as a role model for our kids(rightly or wrongly) ...

Yet some of us adults aren't looking up to someone who really IS leading by example.

+1 Oliver.... good man

So you say the rapist has not been fully rehabilitated ? then why has he been released ?

Part of rehabilitation is re-joining society. This is what Jamie is presumably trying to help with. Whether or not the offender has served an appropriate amount of time for the crime he committed is not up to him.

Even if you disagree with the decision he has made I don't think it can be looked at as a PR stunt......if so he should seek new management.

Does Junkyard do copying and pasting for The Telegraph.

Given the politcs and typos it's the guardian

Brace of JP and Great ape expressed it best IMHO..I would copy and paste but .....

Presumably that's because it wasn't rape. I have this old-fashioned notion that men and women should be able to get drunk without being molested.

Yes but if you were drunk but not langing, and spent the night with a young woman who was several sheets to the wind.
The fact she grabbed your junk and said ride me big boy would not save you from a rape charge if it was decided she was not in fit state to give consent.

If you read my original post they were three variations of sleeping with a drunk woman, one completely unacceptable deliberately setting out to take advantage of a woman incapable walking in a straight line.

One where your are pretty sure you would be having consensual sex but your conscience tells you you should behave.

And one where both parties are several parts pissed so if you have sex (not rape) how can one be made responsible and the other absolved.

And one where both parties are several parts pissed so if you have sex (not rape) how can one be made responsible and the other absolved.

Because consent hasn't been given. Though seeing as you bring it up, I find it highly unlikely that the situation you describe is of any significance in the context of 20,000+ reported rape cases each year.

I am commenting on your comments on my post, what is your point.

Do you think so little of men, that we are incapable of not raping when we're drunk?

I have had a barmaid serve me drinks all night and then take me to bed when the pub closed, I was not raped because I decided so the next morning and the morning after, but I could have been if I regretted it and a court said I was to drunk to give consent.

It is complicated and about knowing right from wrong and I could meet a drunk woman and sleep with her.
The next morning she could ask for my number and could be the beginning of something beautiful or she could call the police and I do a stretch at her majesties pleasure.

My behaviour could be identical in both cases.

For the record I don't take advantage of drunk woman but I have let them take advantage of me a couple of times but only after being suitably lubricated (drunk) myself.

My point is simple:

Are you drunk now? As you seem to be having a conversation with yourself 😀

a court said I was to drunk to give consent.

How did you get this from my OP.

Because you suggested that drunk men who don't obtain consent should be absolved of their crime.

Anyway, you seem to be more concerned with pursuing whataboutery than anything substantive, so I'll leave it there.