I was exaggerating a little for comic effect, but basically it's reactions like yours, to people who have actually been rehabilitated by our deeply flawed justice system, that end up causing them very serious hassle.

I don't think the VT was celebrating Jack. He was there as someone with knowledge of the topic to help his son. As I mentioned in my original post, I don't think it was a particularly clever thing to do in regard to the dead bloke's family, but setting him up as a role model it was not.

And how it isn't risking your reputation as a rehabilitated upstanding citizen, to go on telly in the full knowledge your violent past might be dragged through the mud, is beyond me.

You claim not to be the sort of person that wants people drummed out of their homes, yet you are still unwilling to admit that their admission of guilt and stay in prison might have changed them as people, and will forever brand them as 'violent killers' rather than 'someone who killed someone else and has served his punishment, and hasn't done anything bad since'.

I find your logic rather hard to take. Either damn them or don't damn them, but don't pretend you think it's OK for them to be part of society if you can't bear to think they might have reformed.

There's no irony in the fact I don't watch the show OR have read the story to have an opinion on it, and that is because tabloid media shouldn't dictate policy.

G

It may have been a little insensitive to the family of the man who died but since we don't have the full story here we don't know what happened in the pub brawl or how the man ended up dying. Things are rarely as black and white as they are painted and it wasn't murder which would be a whole different matter.

It was a long time ago and presumably the guy has been working in boxing since then so I don't see the problem.

People have been convicted of crimes where there are hugely mitigating factors which may or may not be considered in sentencing.

Papers are notorious for sensationalising stories with The Sun being a prime offender.

I'm fine with them being part of society. Just don't parade them on the telly as mentors on how to be more aggressive. It's not that hard to understand.

Lol. There is actually quite a lot of irony in the fact that despite not watching the show, or having read the story, you came on here to condemn people for discussing a story you were judging purely based on it's headline. And actually got completely wrong...

I agree, you put it better than I would have.

We haven't heard Danny's father's side of the story and as someone said earlier he only got 21 months so there had to be some mitigating circumstances. He might have just been defending himself or someone else, we don't know.

I don't like the way papers dig up all sorts of stuff on the celebrities or their families entering these competitions. Whatever Danny can't be blamed for any of it at all.

He's served his time and everyone deserves a second chance.

That said, it is incredibly crass and insensitive of him and the production staff to put him on screen. Especially, as has already been mentioned, it was highlighting his fighting skills which killed a person. Anyone who can't see how inappropriate that is staggers me.

Exactly. Nobody is saying he doesn't deserve a second chance at life. But putting him on telly as a fighting coach and mentor is stunningly inappropriate.

(Incidently, LazySusan, if he was acting in self-defence he wouldn't have been convicted of the crime. It's a defence to a charge of manslaughter. And a 21-months jail sentence is pretty lengthy. Few crimes get you sentences longer than that.)

I don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest - at the end of the day Danny was doing the song from Rocky for his routine and surely all his dad was doing was helping his son with his routine?? His dad was not getting "celebrated" in my opinion - he was just supporting his son and improving his performance with his boxing background.... I understand that the victim's family aren't going to be exactly thrilled with him being on TV though but at the end of the day, it was over 10 years ago, he's served his time...

Murder - rape - aggravated robbery/burglary gbh - drug trafficking and arson; the list goes on.

My thoughts:-[LIST][*]We don't know all the facts - and 21 months suggests mitigating circumstances.[*]In the absence of evidence to the contrary it seems safe to assume that Jack has been rehabilitated into society; has not transgressed further and thus is entitled to a second chance.[*]He was not teaching his son how to kill someone - simply the technique required to enact the role of a boxer.[*]I thought we'd gone beyond visiting the sins of the father onto the son.[/LIST]

Couldn't have put it better myself!!

What's your point - the most extreme of offences get longer sentences obviously (GBH normally wouldn't). The vast majority of offences get far less. 21 months is a long sentence - it doesn't suggest mitigating circumstances particularly. It's about what you'd expect from manslaughter in the circumstances described. I'm slightly curious that people are so desperate to make out that it's some sort of minor crime.

Nobody is talking about 'visiting the sins of the father onto the son'. Stop raising straw men to knock down. If he hadn't been wheeled out on the show as Danny's mentor to teach him to be more aggressive, then nobody would be mentioning it at all. When they took that decision it became an issue, as anybody could have told them it would.

My thoughts on the subject are that if it was my father, brother, son or friend that the guy killed (however accidental...he was charged with manslaughter) then I would NOT be thrilled seeing the guy on the television....especially trying to teach his son how to FIGHT.

Very insensitive...in my opinion

I just don't think you can protect everyone from everything. Sometimes life is tough and unfair. We don't know all the facts of the case and some time ago I might have felt differently but I have met a murderer and someone convicted of armed robbery and the facts seem bad but when you get the back story there is a whole different side.

The guy paid his debt by doing the time. You can't go on punishing him.

Why do you keep describing it as "to teach him to be more aggressive" when what it looked like he was doing was helping his son adopt the poise and stance of a boxer?
Danny was not being taught how to beat people up like Ronnie Kray for a Krays-themed ice dance. They were filmed training in a boxing gym and my impression was that Danny's father worked there.

My point is that manslaughter can be subject to a discretionary life sentence - therefore 21 months suggests mitigating circumstances.



The above comment from your earlier post suggests that the son is indeed being judged by his father's wrongdoing - no attempt to deflect discussion from the main issue there; ergo - no straw man argument.

It's only an issue because the judgemental (goaded by that bastion of fair play The Sun) have made it an issue. Clearly these parties don't believe in second chances.

Far too rational my friend.

21 months is a fairly short sentence for manslaughter. Recently near where I live a neighbour recently ended his 18 months prison service. His crime? Having a fist fight in a pizza shop. The guy fell after a punch, hit his head on the counter and died. He was labeled a murderer by the community and had to leave to start up a new life.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that ITV thought this through at all because they haven't. Danny could have had his Dad's training without it being filmed or simply gone elsewhere for it. What I am saying is that not everyone who goes to prison comes out a menace to society. Is the man bigging up his crime on the TV? No. Is he teaching his son to be violent? No. If the Sun hadn't dug this up no-one would be the wiser? People commit crimes and do terrible things but not all of them stay that way. Prison is there for a reason, to rehabilitate. Unfortunately in this country that system will never work because people are prejudiced dipshits.

Typical of The Sun, I think! Dredging up scandal to discredit people. That said, he shouldn't have been on screen. The victim's family must have felt pretty awful.

No, the post quite clearly stated that the only reason I was criticising Danny was for allowing his dad to appear on the VT as a mentor in that particular context. He should have known that that was likely to prove quite objectionable to a lot of people - Danny may not be terribly bright, but it doesn't take Einstein to work that much out. Nobody is holding him responsible for the killing carried out by his dad - stop trying to claim that people are. If you do put up straw men, at least have the guts to admit you're doing it.

The second chances thing is - and you know it - another straw man. Nobody is saying killers shouldn't be given second chances. They're saying that they shouldn't be given a slot on a popular television show mentoring someone on how to look more aggressive.

We don't even know they watched the original programme - the first they heard could have been via The Sun - and we all know how sensitive they are.

He was mentoring him on how to look like a boxer. That's the area of work the rehabilitated Mr Young has gone into. Boxing is not a crime, Mr Young was not teaching Danny to commit a crime - or even to perform as someone who was committing a crime. He was teaching him about boxers and boxing, which happen not only to be legal, but also to be his area of expertise.

Punching people is his area of expertise?

Clearly you didn't even bother to read my post.

I'm not judgemental and I would never and have never read that rag.

You however seem incapable of accepting that others have differing opinions without insulting them. It's a real shame.

Boxing, and all that that involves, is his area of expertise, if he works as a boxing trainer - just like Rocky, who Danny was performing as.
If he has served his sentence and is now rehabilitated, he has a right to train his son in a legal activity (boxing) the same as anyone else.