Hartlepool Aiming to be Most Hated Club in English Football

[spen666]

If this story has any truth in it

https://fanbanter.co.uk/disgraced-footb ... ague-club/

Probably a load of crap, but if it is true, then they will rapidly become most unpopular club

[lo36789]

doesn't sound like Hartlepool have aimed to do anything other than be named very vaguely as "an insider". Be very unlikely their transfer targets for 7 months away would be in any sort of shape.

[shildonlad]

Doubt any club in the pyramid would touch the guy. Fans would boycott and sponsors would pull out. Would be some unsavoury chanting from fans


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BUSHEAD]

Once he's served his time, should be free to play for whoever wants him.

Football fans of wherever he ended up would soon forget his past when he banged in a load of goals or created countless assists .

As for opposition fans, that's par for the course most weeks .

Players who have killed people have gone on to play again, so I think AJ will certainly play somewhere, either home or abroad.

[H1987]

I generally believe in rehabilitation where possible, but it's a bit difficult when they're a public figure. I wouldn't want him near my football club, that's for sure.

That said, Lee Hughes came back, and what he did was far, far worse. So i wouldn't be that surprised.

[Darlogramps]

This is the thing for me. He'll have served the sentence as set out by our justice system.

While I'd be uncomfortable with him returning to a prominent position, I'm also very uncomfortable with the idea of society inflicting on him a second punishment by denying him the chance to carry out the job he wants to do. If a club doesn't want to hire him, that's their prerogative. But if they do, I don't like the idea of public outrage, petitions, protests etc designed to pressurise clubs into not hiring him. After all, he's already served his punishment.

The way I see it, if you're going to place faith in the judicial system, you also have respect and have faith in the punishment handed down to him.

[Ghost_Of_1883]

This is the thing for me. He'll have served the sentence as set out by our justice system.

While I'd be uncomfortable with him returning to a prominent position, I'm also very uncomfortable with the idea of society inflicting on him a second punishment by denying him the chance to carry out the job he wants to do. If a club doesn't want to hire him, that's their prerogative. But if they do, I don't like the idea of public outrage, petitions, protests etc designed to pressurise clubs into not hiring him. After all, he's already served his punishment.

The way I see it, if you're going to place faith in the judicial system, you also have respect and have faith in the punishment handed down to him.

Exactly this.

Has parallels with religious belief where apparently you get your punishment for a crime in life, then get punished all over again (in hell, forever) which is obvious shite.

And so it's also shite that people would want to punish him again by making him unhireable after serving his punishment.

It says in the article that he may get a middle east club or a turkish club - to be fair he'd fit right in there as some backwards muslim countries allow men to marry 9 year olds!

[lo36789]

I agree really. If people have problem with him playing again after release then their complaint is should be with the judicial system which let him out again young enough to play again.

Letting him play again isn't forgiving him for his crime, it is saying that he has served the appropriate punishment for what he did and that he is rehabilitated and won't re-offend.

[spen666]

....

It says in the article that he may get a middle east club or a turkish club - ....

That would be a non starter for at least the 3 years he was on licence (after his release from prison) as his licence conditions would automatically prevent him moving abroad.

[spen666]

I agree really. If people have problem with him playing again after release then their complaint is should be with the judicial system which let him out again young enough to play again.

....

I agree with this. Its not his fault he received what some people perceive as a lenient sentence.

Its also not wrong that he is able to and seeks to gain employment after his sentence

[theoriginalfatcat]

This subject has been done to death, in multiple pages of discussions re Ched Evans.

It's the same question - should someone who's been found guilty of a crime and served their sentence be stopped from gaining employment?

As Bushead points out above, some players have committed worse crimes than Johnson.

[loan_star]

by denying him the chance to carry out the job he wants to do.

But if he had been a very good teacher or social worker?
I agree that you can't go on punishing someone for a mistake but I think there are some jobs that the line has to be drawn at. As a footballer he would be put in the exact same position again with young lasses possibly fawning over him and him being in close contact with them at matches and other functions and the temptation could well rise again.
I can't see it happening in this country to be honest.

[Spyman]

Slightly different in that a teacher/social worker is in direct contact with minors in order that do that job.

You can be a footballer and avoid direct contact with children.

by denying him the chance to carry out the job he wants to do.

But if he had been a very good teacher or social worker?
I agree that you can't go on punishing someone for a mistake but I think there are some jobs that the line has to be drawn at. As a footballer he would be put in the exact same position again with young lasses possibly fawning over him and him being in close contact with them at matches and other functions and the temptation could well rise again.
I can't see it happening in this country to be honest.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[swadquaker]

I did a straw poll in the pub and apparently they already are

[lo36789]

Slightly different in that a teacher/social worker is in direct contact with minors in order that do that job.

You can be a footballer and avoid direct contact with children.

by denying him the chance to carry out the job he wants to do.

But if he had been a very good teacher or social worker?
I agree that you can't go on punishing someone for a mistake but I think there are some jobs that the line has to be drawn at. As a footballer he would be put in the exact same position again with young lasses possibly fawning over him and him being in close contact with them at matches and other functions and the temptation could well rise again.
I can't see it happening in this country to be honest.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Although that is a point. Assuming he is on the sex offenders register does that not pose some challenges to his proximity to children (ie mascots etc.). I don’t really know how the register works does it actually do anything but name you publicly - which is a bit irrelevant given profile of Johnson case.

[loan_star]

Slightly different in that a teacher/social worker is in direct contact with minors in order that do that job.

You can be a footballer and avoid direct contact with children.

Theoretically yes but young lasses go to games and get infatuated with the blokes playing and they are quite capable of making moves despite him trying to avoid them. The temptation could easily pop up.
What about when the club does school visits? "Heres our star players but Adam couldn't come along because he's a sex offender and isn't allowed contact with kids". Not exactly good advertising for the club involved.

[Darlogramps]

What about when the club does school visits? "Heres our star players but Adam couldn't come along because he's a sex offender and isn't allowed contact with kids". Not exactly good advertising for the club involved.

Yep, absolutely a club would handle it like that

I think it's fair to say that most people know and are aware of Adam Johnson and his crimes. Hypothetically, if this scenario was the case, he would be quietly left out of any visit.

Theoretically yes but young lasses go to games and get infatuated with the blokes playing and they are quite capable of making moves despite him trying to avoid them. The temptation could easily pop up.

And by the same logic, he could easily ignore temptation, given the consequences he's already had served on him. Let's not already condemning him, which would go against the whole point of the system of rehabilitation and punishment we already have. Do you really think he'd be just left to restart without any form of monitoring or scrutiny?

Look, I'm not trying to defend him in any way shape or form. What I am arguing for is that people respect the judicial system which has tried him, found him guilty and handed out what it views as being a suitable punishment. Carrying out additional punishments such as preventing him from seeking employment in his chosen field is wrong and dangerous for our society.

Simply, if he wants to be a footballer again, it's up to individual clubs to decide if they want him to sign. If they don't, then that's fine. If they do, then they shouldn't be hounded for it.

[MKDarlo]

If this story has any truth in it

https://fanbanter.co.uk/disgraced-footb ... ague-club/

Probably a load of crap, but if it is true, then they will rapidly become most unpopular club

I wonder if Spen666, as a lawyer of international repute, subscribes to the view that once a convicted criminal has served his time he is free to return to society an attempt to find gainful employment as part of his rehabilitation.

The fact Mr Johnson is a footballer should not preclude him from that even considering his distasteful crime. If it does we are heading in a very dangerous direction recidivism wise!

[loan_star]

The point is that although people should be allowed to integrate back into society after doing their time, there are certain crimes and certain trades that should be beyond them.
Being a highly paid footballer, as he would be at any level, is a privileged position which he abused the first time round. Lee Hughes didn't set out to kill anyone, he made a massive mistake and is still paying for it. Johnson knew exactly what he was doing over a period of time and still went ahead with it.

[don'tbuythesun]

Really impressed with the balanced discussion about this. I presume he'll have to sign on the sex offenders register for life and any contact with children would be assessed whilst in this country. We wouldn't know if there are other players subject to this. Given what he earns from the monies he already has does he need to work?

[Darlogramps]

The point is that although people should be allowed to integrate back into society after doing their time, there are certain crimes and certain trades that should be beyond them.
Being a highly paid footballer, as he would be at any level, is a privileged position which he abused the first time round. Lee Hughes didn't set out to kill anyone, he made a massive mistake and is still paying for it. Johnson knew exactly what he was doing over a period of time and still went ahead with it.

I don't really like the idea of comparing crimes, and saying which is worse. It's just as easy for me to say Hughes killed someone and is back playing football. Therefore Johnson's crime isn't as serious as killing someone and he should be allowed to play.

But that's a crass and simplistic way of looking at it. Ultimately they've both committed offences and been handed sentences.

That is their punishment and saying: "You can't play professional football any more because of a subjective social construct" is creating an arbitrary additional punishment, which is a dangerous road to go down.

I don't see why playing football is any more of a privilege than being a politician or banking executive. I don't agree with that argument at all.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[loan_star]

I don't see why playing football is any more of a privilege than being a politician or banking executive. I don't agree with that argument at all.

How many MPs get voted back in after doing time for a bit of kiddy fiddling? I'd like to bet the answer is zero.
Also, when someone goes for a job there will be a spell on their CV where they are between jobs. Do they lie and pretend they weren't doing time? Any employer doing a proper background check would find out they had been doing time so I hardly think someone leaving prison would go back to being a banking executive.
It wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of sex offenders ended up in either dead end jobs, working for themselves, in a job where they are on their own like delivery driving, or relying on the state.

[Darlogramps]

I don't see why playing football is any more of a privilege than being a politician or banking executive. I don't agree with that argument at all.

How many MPs get voted back in after doing time for a bit of kiddy fiddling? I'd like to bet the answer is zero.
Also, when someone goes for a job there will be a spell on their CV where they are between jobs. Do they lie and pretend they weren't doing time? Any employer doing a proper background check would find out they had been doing time so I hardly think someone leaving prison would go back to being a banking executive.

I think you're missing my point.

I'm arguing football isn't that privileged a position at all, certainly not playing non-league football for Hartlepool. I don't understand why you're elevating it to the level of MP or senior figure in the City.

If anything, history proves my point. Football will allow killers like Lee Hughes back into the sport, but politicians found to have broken the law (Chris Huhne, Jeffrey Archer) see their careers in office ended. Even when Ched Evans had a rape conviction (before it was quashed) clubs were looking to sign him, so sexual offences aren't an automatic career-ender.

I disagree that being a footballer at the level Johnson would be going back in at, is as big a privilege as you're making out. Therefore I don't think that's a legitimate argument against him being allowed to play football again.

[loan_star]

I don't see why playing football is any more of a privilege than being a politician or banking executive. I don't agree with that argument at all.

How many MPs get voted back in after doing time for a bit of kiddy fiddling? I'd like to bet the answer is zero.
Also, when someone goes for a job there will be a spell on their CV where they are between jobs. Do they lie and pretend they weren't doing time? Any employer doing a proper background check would find out they had been doing time so I hardly think someone leaving prison would go back to being a banking executive.

I think you're missing my point.

I'm arguing football isn't that privileged a position at all, certainly not playing non-league football for Hartlepool. I don't understand why you're elevating it to the level of MP or senior figure in the City.

You made that comparison, I merely expanded on it.
My point is just that there are some professions where this sort of crime should mean they have no chance of going back to it. My initial comparison was teaching and social working because they would be doing that job where impressionable children / teenagers would be present.
You disagree but I would argue playing a sport for some decent wages is a privileged profession.

[Darlogramps]

You made that comparison, I merely expanded on it.

And in your elaboration of the comparison, you missed my point entirely.

You disagree but I would argue playing a sport for some decent wages is a privileged profession.

Why though? Why is playing non-league football for Hartlepool (which is what the article suggested) such a privileged position? I don't understand how that is the case (And indeed precedent is against you, given there are a number of ex-cons playing in football at lower league level).

[spen666]

I don't see why playing football is any more of a privilege than being a politician or banking executive. I don't agree with that argument at all.

How many MPs get voted back in after doing time for a bit of kiddy fiddling? I'd like to bet the answer is zero.
.....

I am not aware of:
a) Any MP convicted of kiddy fiddling
b) Any such MP standing for real election
c) In any event if you have had a prison sentence of 1 year or more, you are not eligible to be an MP

[loan_star]

You made that comparison, I merely expanded on it.

And in your elaboration of the comparison, you missed my point entirely.

You disagree but I would argue playing a sport for some decent wages is a privileged profession.

Why though? Why is playing non-league football for Hartlepool (which is what the article suggested) such a privileged position? I don't understand how that is the case (And indeed precedent is against you, given there are a number of ex-cons playing in football at lower league level).

But we are specifically talking about a paedophile, not any other type of convict. Grooming an underage child using his privileged position as a footballer to do so.

[Darlogramps]

But we are specifically talking about a paedophile, not any other type of convict. Grooming an underage child using his privileged position as a footballer to do so.

Doesn't necessarily mean he'd do it in future.

You cannot use someone's previous offences to predict their future behaviour.
That mentality would undermine the whole point of the justice system, which is based on punishment and rehabilitation. Otherwise it's one mistake and you're done.

Again, I'm not defending Johnson or his crimes. But what you're doing is judging his future by the actions of his past. And that to me is going down a dangerous route.

And again, I fail to see how being a non-league footballer is the massively privileged position you make it out to be. The idea of society arbitrarily deciding which jobs people are allowed to do is very troubling.

[loan_star]

I didn't say you were defending him.
However this type of offence is deemed bad enough even within the prison community that this type of offender is kept away from the general population. Its a crime thats deemed one of the lowest of the low.

[Vodka_Vic]

Society does indirectly decide. If someone has a previous offence then it has to be declared on a job application. It is highly likely that any application would go straight in the bin. These days you don't even need to have a conviction. If you are CRB checked, then if police have even investigated that goes down on your CRB form, followed by (in small print) no convictions brought. Someone can make a malicious allegation which is unproven, but this has to be declared, and you are unlikely to work again.