I'm not a fan of boxing but even I know there is a world of difference between an uncontrolled brawl in a pub and a boxing match.

Was Mr Young a boxer at the time of the fight in the pub? If not then you can't draw a direct correlation between the two things.

Even more of a shame that you read my post without realising that it wasn't addressed to you - still I won't take that as an insult.

It may not have been addressed to me specifically, but referring to "parties" implies that your comments apply to anyone on this thread who does have a problem with what happened.

The rehabilitation of offenders act says that anyone who has spent between 6months and 2 and a half years in prison is deemed to have their conviction "spent" after 10 years.
The slate is said to wiped clean.
It seems from what is reported here that Danny's father would come into that category (unless he's been in further trouble of course).

Once the slate is wiped clean there is no need to disclose details of the conviction except in particular circumstances.

The point here is that society has deemed that after a certain period of time without being in trouble an offender is thought to be rehabilitated. Someone who is felt to be rehabilitated shouldn't continue to be punished after they have paid their dues to society. Why should Danny and his father continue to be punished by excluding him from his son's achievements?

One other point....boxing should not be equated with a pub brawl, one is regarded in society as a sport, the other as a crime.

I think if I was wanting to show that I'd left a violent past behind, the first thing I'd turn to wouldn't be an activity which entirely consists of punching people, preferably in the head, ideally until they lose consciousness. With a high risk of permanent brain damage. But there you go.

Reckon I'd probably take up quilting instead. Or maybe cross-stich...

Ignazio, regardless of who your insults were aimed at, they were totally unnecessary and offensive. Just accept that sometimes other people have different opinions than you - there's no need to bring down a perfectly civilised argument to that level.

To a certain degree, I think there are two issues here. The first one is that Danny's father has committed a crime (although we don't know all the background), but that he has done his time and therefore deserves a second chance and rehabilitation. IMO this is particularly so as the crime sounds more accidental than intentional. Now I know that doesn't make a difference with regards to the victim or the family of the victim, but it makes a difference when it comes to the character of the perpetrator. As such, I agree that he had every right to be on TV etc., and i don't have a problem with it.

However, I still think that it was insensitive and that there was a lack of judgement on Danny's father's side and the producers. If I had accidently killed someone for instance by drink driving, I would certainly not go on TV and teach someone how to drive under the influence of alcohol. Taking a persons life accidently must be hard and must stay with you for the rest of your life (I have a friend who killed someone with her car, and she doesn't drive anymore). If I killed someone because of some punch up, I probably would not go on and teach boxing in a gym (but maybe he is doing it to show youngsters how to use their fists responsibly, I don't know), and I would not appear on TV doing it (the family of the victim would remain in my mind).

Sorry Eejit, but you brought it on yourself by responding to my original post (about how I thought Danny's dad had served his sentence and that he deserved a second chance) and comparing what he did to a convicted rapist appearing as a seduction consultant.

Your logic about whether you actually consider Danny's dad an irredeemably violent bastard or a rehabilitated offender who just shouldn't have advertised his boxing wares on telly has veered back and forth wildly.

Ignazio's point was to say that the Sun have turned a molehill (death after a brawl, done time 10 years ago, no bother since) into a mountain (violent killer, should never have been allowed to support his son etc) and those who take this side are, in all fairness, agreeing with the point made by the paper, whether you read it or not.

And you would be wrong to, as that would be a crime.
Boxing is not a crime, it is a sport: one that popular heroes BarryMcGuigan and Joe Calzaghe have made a respectable living from. The problem here is that some people seem to be regarding a rehabilitated life teaching a legal sport as an extension of a lethal pub brawl committed many years ago and punished for.

Rational as ever lach, good work

I think the third issue is the father-son dynamic, which I've mentioned several times and nobody else has picked up on.

If your son needed help with a boxing issue and you were a boxing coach, would you say 'no sorry son, I can't get involved cos my fists killed someone 10 years ago and I'm afraid it'll come back haunt us both', or would you say 'sure mate, come here, I'll show you what to do'?

We don't know when the decision to film this was made, and you can be sure that the decision was mainly the producers'. I doubt very much Jack or Danny wanted to bring up Jack's past at that point - a possible error of judgement, but understandable when it's your son's reputation (And, to a lesser degree, your own rehabilitated one) on the line.

If Jack entertained any thoughts that his past might have reared its head, perhaps he quashed them in favour of supporting Danny. I think it's more likely that the idea of it becoming a tabloid story just didn't occur to the Youngs, because I'm sure it would have to the producers - and I'm not sure they'd care.

That's slightly misrepresenting what I said - I just pointed out that following your argument, the latter would also seem to be appropriate to appear on the TV. If I recall correctly, you said you said, yes, you believed that the rapist should also be able to appear as a 'seduction consultant', and that that would be appropriate and not something people should find offensive.

Afraid we have to differ there, but I respect your right to hold even that opinion, and that you're consistent at least!

Danny could just popped round his father's if he really wanted advice from him. Presumably he's there fairly often anyway. There was no need to film it as the centrepiece of his VT. That's a choice that required the consent of all three of Danny, his father, and the producers, so they all bear some responsibility for it, and for the offence that was inevitably going to be caused.

Invisible post

No but you might go on and teach people how to drive responsibly.

Isn't boxing often used in prisons as a way of channeling aggression. Is it possible Danny's father has maybe helped a lot of young thugs to channel their aggression in a responsible way and therefore done a service to society to atone for his previous sins? There are any number of spins that can be put on the facts. The Sun and some here appear to be choosing a sensationalist one designed to get people riled up about it. Not responsible journalism.

Ah - so if I don't agree with you that makes me gutless. Well the logic of that defeats me - but if that is how you validate your accusations who am I to argue?

Of course I could say 'you are judgemental - so at least have the guts to admit it' but I'm sure you'd call that a straw man argument.


Don't you just love your straw men - and even better you have an amazing ability to detect what I know or don't know without even looking into my eyes.

Some may think Danny insensitive - but others will understand his hopes that the majority took his father's appearance for what it was - an opportunity to help his son with no intent of insensitivity.

Maybe your correct....however he got arrested for taking a life. Not for ' teaching people about aggression' and I'm sure if it was somebody you personally knew that he killed (however accidental) you wouldn't be praising him...and would be pretty p'ssed off seeing him on a DOI video training his son to fight.

In the main I agree with most of what you say. I do think though that it is worth keeping in mind that the difference between the convicted and the victim in the case of a pub brawl is often chance - whoever happens to land the most dangerous punch, so I wouldn't necessarily assume the victim is totally blameless. Very sad when someone dies yes, but I don't necessarily believe that the family should have "control" over the life of the convicted from then on.

To respond to the analogy being used in other posts, that of a rapist teaching seduction, I object most strongly to the suggestion that rape is in any way related to seduction, one is about sexual attraction, the other is about power and aggression. The 2 are considerably further apart even than boxing as a sport and a pub brawl.

You are right, I used the wrong example, although I hope that most people did get my drift. To find a better one, if I had been speed driving and killed someone (which is a crime), and I would then come on TV and teach someone how to speed race (which is not a crime). My point is not that boxing is a crime (not at all - I do boxercise, great exercise; my point was that I thought in the context of his crime, it was rather insensitive. Hope this clarifies this for you.


Good point. To a certain degree, I honestly think it didn't occur to Danny and probably not his father either (and that's where I was coming from with my lack of judgment), and of course he wanted to support Danny (which is commendable). Actually to be fair, I really liked his father in the VT, and I wouldn't condem anyone because of something accidental (I shouldn't be driving, because I might kill someone in an accident).

I should say that I normally don't read the Sun, but I know that everything should be taken with a pinch of salt. I certainly did not approve of their use of the word killer, which I think Danny's father is not (IMO a killer kills with intention not by accident).

If the cap fits.........

Just as others are free to criticise my views, I can't be held responsible for your sensitivities.

It's a forum.

I agree with those who say that, if the man has served his time and has committed no further crimes, he should be given a second chance in society. However, I think his inclusion in Danny's VT was ill-advised, both because it's insensitive to the family of the person Mr Young killed and because it was obvious that it would elicit this kind of contoversy and potentially damage Danny's chances as a result.

I agree and I already made that point in my own post. If this is the case, a proviso about this in the VT would have been great (e.g. Danny's father who works with youngsters etc. etc.). Just to highlight again, I don't have anything against boxing, I don't think everyone who boxes is aggressive etc. I know that boxing can be used to teach youngsters how to deal with aggression.

My point was to try to show the other side, and that there was a lack of judgement.

There's a HUGE difference between an accident, even a death, resulting from driving (legitimate, legal, responsible activity), and a death resulting from, for example, a violent criminal assault (none of the above) - when you start engaging in criminal violence, you then have to take on the responsibility for the results of your actions.

And if it was your father, brother or friend that he put in a coma and killed...would you still think a second chance is deserved ?!?

Does anyone else think that if the producers had known about Mr Young's background, they would have gone ahead and filmed it anyway, on the basis that even the negative publicity will be good for the show?

Or worse, that they DID know and went ahead and filmed it anyway, on the basis that etc etc etc?

And if it was your father, brother or friend that put someone in a coma and killed them...what would you think then?

Sorry, but given the sketchy details of the actual crime, is it not a bit harsh to assume that Mr Y simply battered the man to death in a 'violent criminal assault'?

As previously stated, you don't get 21 months if your attack is brutal, unprovoked and entirely vicious - you get a lot more.

I feel you may not be mitigating as much as you perhaps should.

I'd think they should probably avoid any activity involving violence in the future, I suspect.

I certainly wouldn't be wheeling them out as a mentor on how look more convincingly aggressive on a VT on a popular Sunday-night TV show.