Lee Hughes

[Stranded]

But it's only priviledged because the public at large choose to give football this aura which raises it above what it actually is.

I could understand the point a bit more if he were running for public office, he's not, he kicks a bit of plastic round a park.

[TBM]

But it's only priviledged because the public at large choose to give football this aura which raises it above what it actually is.

I could understand the point a bit more if he were running for public office, he's not, he kicks a bit of plastic round a park.

leather.....

[handbags_harris]

I'm still waiting for Loyalroyals explanation on what released prisoners allowed professions are. Tea bag makers? Willow basket weavers?

He did the crime, he's served the time (in line with standard UK criminal justice laws/guidelines) and he's earning a wage (and thus paying "his way"). He doesn't play for Reading.

What i meant was that Footballers are role models. It's a job, thousands of people would love to do. I don't think there should be second chances when you threw away a previlaged job, as being a footballer.

In all countries there are accepted forms of discipline, yet no country that I know of actually further punishes an offender by banning him from his profession, whatever that may be. Whether you like it or not you cannot have one rule for one and one rule for another based on their professon whether it is in the public eye or not.

Scenario: if Richard Branson committed a similar offence and was subsequently found guilty at court and imprisoned, do you then say that he shouldn't be the head of the Virgin brand because of his conviction? He is also a role model for a number of children and is also very much in the public eye is he not?

[papereyes]

It surely depends on the crime committed.

There are certain crimes which do result in you being banned from certain jobs but that's for a specific threat to a specific minority.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

I'm still waiting for Loyalroyals explanation on what released prisoners allowed professions are. Tea bag makers? Willow basket weavers?

He did the crime, he's served the time (in line with standard UK criminal justice laws/guidelines) and he's earning a wage (and thus paying "his way"). He doesn't play for Reading.

What i meant was that Footballers are role models. It's a job, thousands of people would love to do. I don't think there should be second chances when you threw away a previlaged job, as being a footballer.

In all countries there are accepted forms of discipline, yet no country that I know of actually further punishes an offender by banning him from his profession, whatever that may be. Whether you like it or not you cannot have one rule for one and one rule for another based on their professon whether it is in the public eye or not.

Scenario: if Richard Branson committed a similar offence and was subsequently found guilty at court and imprisoned, do you then say that he shouldn't be the head of the Virgin brand because of his conviction? He is also a role model for a number of children and is also very much in the public eye is he not?

I'd assume there would be pressure from the Virgin share-holders for Branson to step down.

[Ian Royal]

[handbags_harris]

It surely depends on the crime committed.

There are certain crimes which do result in you being banned from certain jobs but that's for a specific threat to a specific minority.

Ok, revision required, obviously any person who is convicted of an offence on a child is then banned from working with children, but that's the only one I can think of. I suppose if Hughes was a driver of some sort he wouldn't be able to drive for another 5 years due to his 10 year driving ban. So my comment is actually quite a silly one!

I'd assume there would be pressure from the Virgin share-holders for Branson to step down.

Re-read my comment - it deals with Government and Judicial systems, not shareholders, therefore your opinion is disregarded as it has no substance in law to back it up.

The fact is that Hughes's conviction didn't impinge on his ability to perform his role as his job wasn't as to drive vehicles, it was to play football. By that token he shouldn't be banned from playing football. And anyway, where do you draw the line? Do you ban Hughes from playing football altogether?

[LoyalRoyalFan]

It surely depends on the crime committed.

There are certain crimes which do result in you being banned from certain jobs but that's for a specific threat to a specific minority.

Ok, revision required, obviously any person who is convicted of an offence on a child is then banned from working with children, but that's the only one I can think of. I suppose if Hughes was a driver of some sort he wouldn't be able to drive for another 5 years due to his 10 year driving ban. So my comment is actually quite a silly one!

I'd assume there would be pressure from the Virgin share-holders for Branson to step down.

Re-read my comment - it deals with Government and Judicial systems, not shareholders, therefore your opinion is disregarded as it has no substance in law to back it up.

The fact is that Hughes's conviction didn't impinge on his ability to perform his role as his job wasn't as to drive vehicles, it was to play football. By that token he shouldn't be banned from playing football. And anyway, where do you draw the line? Do you ban Hughes from playing football altogether?

In my view, along with others, he should have had a longer sentence. I didn't say he can't play football, but goal celebration's like that are disrespectful and silly.

[FiNeRaIn]

lol 5 pages top trolling loyalroyal. Not even remotely convincing bait. Good work.

[papereyes]

I think also there's some involving fraud and certain positions within companies and, iirc, some offences preclude you from careers in the legal profession and the armed forces.

At the heart of this, you wanted one club to take a moral stand and say "actually, we don't want you". But he's valued by the clubs and, presumably, their fans because he scores goals at a lower level.

Its depressing but I genuinely do not believe you can set up laws to stop ex-prisoners from getting employment outside of specific cases.

I didn't say he can't play football

erm ...

I don't think there should be second chances when you threw away a previlaged job, as being a footballer.

These footballers don't have the right to play football again, because they blew there chance when they commited a terrible crime.

But Lee Hughes is a professional footballer. I feel that he should not be on the pitch. He had the chance to be a footballer and he blew it by commiting a serious crime.

When Lee Hughes went into prison, in my view, his football career should be over.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

We are all entitled to our views.

[papereyes]

That really wasn't the point being made ...

[LoyalRoyalFan]

That really wasn't the point being made ...

I know. However I know i will get slated for anything I say on this thread. We are all entitled to our views. I respect yours and I hope you respect mine.

[handbags_harris]

You beat me to it papereyes, they were exactly the points I picked out.

To pick up on another point by LoyalRoyalFan, and going off subject a bit, why do you think he should have been made to fulfill his whole six-year sentence? Is it because your perception of him is as a person who is a bit of a c*nt, despite almost certainly not knowing the man, and certainly never taking any notice of his behaviour inside prison? He was given a six-year custodial sentence, three years to be served on probation, standard fare for any person jailed for that length of time. Again, you can't make rules for one person and alter them for another.

[handbags_harris]

That really wasn't the point being made ...

I know. However I know i will get slated for anything I say on this thread. We are all entitled to our views. I respect yours and I hope you respect mine.

I don't believe you've been slated, other people on the thread have differing opinions to yours and have argued quite succinctly against it. The crux of the issue is that you can't have one rule for one and one rule for another, simply because he happens to be a pretty decent footballer.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

You beat me to it papereyes, they were exactly the points I picked out.

To pick up on another point by LoyalRoyalFan, and going off subject a bit, why do you think he should have been made to fulfill his whole six-year sentence? Is it because your perception of him is as a person who is a bit of a c*nt, despite almost certainly not knowing the man, and certainly never taking any notice of his behaviour inside prison? He was given a six-year custodial sentence, three years to be served on probation, standard fare for any person jailed for that length of time. Again, you can't make rules for one person and alter them for another.

However, footballers get let off a bit to easily.

[papereyes]

That really wasn't the point being made ...

I know. However I know i will get slated for anything I say on this thread. We are all entitled to our views. I respect yours and I hope you respect mine.

You've not been slated. Gently mocked: maybe.

[Ian Royal]

That really wasn't the point being made ...

I know. However I know i will get slated for anything I say on this thread. We are all entitled to our views. I respect yours and I hope you respect mine.

FYI everyone is indeed entitled to an opinion, it doesn't mean it is necessarily right, or that others should respect the opinion, or the person, just the right to have one.

Otherwise we would have to respect people with the opinion that all children should be brutally raped to death with a cactus.

[Archie's penalty]

You beat me to it papereyes, they were exactly the points I picked out.

To pick up on another point by LoyalRoyalFan, and going off subject a bit, why do you think he should have been made to fulfill his whole six-year sentence? Is it because your perception of him is as a person who is a bit of a c*nt, despite almost certainly not knowing the man, and certainly never taking any notice of his behaviour inside prison? He was given a six-year custodial sentence, three years to be served on probation, standard fare for any person jailed for that length of time. Again, you can't make rules for one person and alter them for another.

We could continue this dicussion over a beer at the pub?

And then you could drive home drunk?

[Ian Royal]

I volunteer Woodcote, Royalee or snowball to be knocked down and killed.