anyway this thread has taken an interesting route given the relative quantities of reliable information and supposition. back to the topic... i think it's been mentioned before, if his job does not put drunk women in harm's way there's surely no justification under our legal system for him to exclude him from his profession just because we are offended by his presence.
I don't actually think anyone during the thread disagrees with that. Some may wish it but realise that the law has served. What would be interesting would be to revisit this IF his lawyers had his sentence overturned and he was then declared innocent.
Brecon, I don't disagree with your point. Maybe I should have expressed my view differently at the point I was responding to the post that I responded to. Maybe I should have said that in the eyes of the law he has commuted a crime and the law (to date) has proven this. He is guilty of a crime and therefore a criminal. No matter what degree he commited, he is currently a criminal amd therefore he did wrong in the eyes of the law and the jury or judge that found him guilty. That was my point I was trying to make.
I swear many football clubs would take convicted criminals into their squad whilst they were still serving time. There is no morale code at most clubs as long as a mush can kick a ball into a net.
yep commercial decision. nile ranger is still in work. that's a bigger travesty. he's an ongoing liability, as is ravel. edit: though nile is apparently getting £150 a week basic
An interesting point but what facts we do know is enough for me not to change my mind as to how I personally feel about him. They may change the terminology of the action but in my eyes it is the same what ever name you put to it. However that is just my view others may disagree......
