Well, you're consistent now at least, though you're not really answering the point to which I was responding

Well, but not every pub brawl is initiated with criminal intent. Imagine you go to the bar, and you bump into someone and that person starts attacking you right away (because they are drunk). As a consequence you push the person, and they hit their head on a table and die. What then? For all we know that's what happened in the case of Danny's father. Driving is not criminal, but what happens if because of inattention I overlook a stop sign? Then it becomes criminal! I'm just aware that I have been lucky so far that I haven't been involved in anything like that, I certainly don't think it's just because I'm a brilliant driver or a peaceful non-violent person.

I'd feel a bit sick if I'm honest...and probably wouldn't want anything to do with them.

However, that is only my opinion - and I'm sure people will have different ones.

At the end of the day, that little push killed a man...stopped him living, and I don't think he should be training his boy to 'fight' on itv.

I also don't believe for a second that all he did was give the man a 'little push' that put him in a coma and killed him. He is a trained boxer after all...and I'm pretty sure this is what did it.

It would be if that was what I said - but it wasn't!

If you 'battered' someone to death in that way it would probably be murder. Manslaughter (in the sort of circumstance apparently referred to here) is where you violently assault someone in some way, and death results, even though it can't be proved that you intended the harm to them to be quite as extreme as death. The existence of the violent criminal assault is what makes you responsible for the death.

I'm afraid I cannot see anything in my posts that can be construed as insulting. Furthermore I've yet to see any evidence that you are accepting my right to an opinion different to your own - on the contrary you think it sufficient to dismiss my arguments as straw men - unworthy of consideration: so I hardly think you're in a position to take the moral high ground on this issue.

I disagree with many of your comments - but in the words of Voltaire

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Please allow me similar freedom to express my views

In all honesty, I don't know how I would feel - it's very possible that in those circumstances I would not be able to hold firm to what I believe to be right. However, it is the law of the land. A sentence that was deemed appropriate was given and was served, and it's in society's interests as well as the ex-con's that he should be rehabilitated as a law-abiding citizen. There is a reason why an impartial jury and judge make legal decisions rather than victims' family members, who, understandably, can't be expected to be impartial.

I'm not praising him. I didn't say he was teaching people about aggression. I have no idea what he has or hasn't done, just throwing up the fact there are many alternatives which can put a more positive spin on the thing.

It was over 10 years ago his conviction is spent - it ought not to affect what he can or cannot do now.

And teaching someone to 'look like a boxer' (in an ice dance for goodness sake - we are not talking something aggressive here!) is not 'training his son to fight'

And much as I have sympathy for the victims family, given it was manslaughter (i.e not intentional) and a spent conviction, I don't think we as a society or the TV company had any duty to protect them from seeing him in any capacity. Here he was helping his son. Maybe it was unfortunate that it was in a boxing context but as I stated previously I don't believe boxing can be directly related to a pub brawl.

But we dont' know that, and we don't know if he was a trained boxer at the time. As such you cannot say or conclude "this is what did it". We only know what the Sun is feeding us, which is probably a big pile of sh*te!

If you take a life, you have to bear the consequences, and he has done that.

As long as you're using reasonable self-defence, there would be no criminal assault, so you wouldn't be guilty of manslaughter. If you picked up a chair and repeatedly smacked them across the head with it, say, in contrast, you probably would be! As equally you would be if there wasn't an element of self-defence.

When you're in a car you do have some responsibility to drive carefully, because you are in control of what is effectively, after all, a lethal weapon of sorts. But even if you're driving carelessly, there's not an intention to cause harm - in a violent criminal assault there most definitely is.

I realize that this wasn't addressed to me, but I think what I would do would be to help him with it but without appearing in the VT.

I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't know.

You have absolutely no facts to go on to say these things.

You don't know how the brawl started. You don't know if Mr Young was a boxer at the time. You have no knowledge at all of the circumstances surrounding the crime so how can you possibly come out with the fact you are "pretty sure this is what did it"

In other words = what lach doch mal said!

Your right, I have absolutely no facts..

except the knowledge that his father was arrested for causing the death (some way or another) of another human being...

And i think this is enough...to be honest.

This forum thread is starting to make me a bit uncomfortable...wish i hadn't started it now lol.

Thanks for the legal lesson. In real life things aren't quite as black and white, if someone attacked me and I feared for my life I might pick up the chair and hit them until I'm safe (sorry I'm a coward and a pacifist, but I value my life).

In that case I would have had no prior intention of causing harm.

Depending on how many of my friends and how many of the victims friends are there to give evidence, I might find myself with criminal charges even if I used self-defence (I'm not convinced the legal system is fool proof).

I don't mean to say that driving is the same as a punch up in the pub, but the idea is that going to the pub and driving a car are supposedly innocent activities that could lead to the death of a person, even if you are not necessarily the most violent or careless person in the world.

Never underestimate ITV's cluelessness...

(Or should that be their desire for publicity... )

Yeah, well, that would be the sensible thing - IF you thought for a moment that the story would come out, and IF you thought that it would merit a tabloid mention, and (crucially) IF you thought it was going to be filmed for TV in the first place.

I mean, given the evidence of producers' manipulation so far this series, I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd said to Danny 'oh we'll get you a boxing coach' and Danny said 'oh, it's OK, my dad's helping me' and they then went 'oh good, can we come and film him?' Can you still back out at that point?

Hindsight's a useful tool in us saying what we'd have done, but I can see how Danny's dad could just have assumed it wouldn't be any kind of problem for him to help and that he wasn't the sort of person who'd end up in the papers.

Well the law kind of does matter in these situation. It's not your prior intention that matters. It's the reasonableness of your actions. If you genuinely believed your life was in danger, then almost anything would be reasonable to fend them off, and so count as self-defence. If, in contrast, you believed they were about to hit you with a feather, pulling a gun on them probably wouldn't be reasonable...

Obviously if there was any possibility of claiming self-defence, you'd be want to raise that as defence, and not plead guilty.

Going to a pub really isn't terribly likely to lead to you killing anyone - I think you're probably safe to down a pint or two. Just stay out of any brawls...

It's a good job he was only teaching Danny how to act the role of a sportsman participating in a legal sport (as Sylvester Stallone did in Rocky), rather than teaching him how to do anything like that, then.
Ultimately, he has served his time for whatever he did and he is now undertaking legitimate work in the sports industry. He should be entitled to appear on television obeying the law.

I guess it's possible that it might have happened that way. It would be a bit naive, though. I would have thought if your child was in show business, you would be a bit more clued up about such things, and certainly his agent/management/publicist ought to be.

You've seen Danny in action, right? I'm guessing his 'Ambrosia custard' intellect comes from his dad's side of the family

Why would the heck would he have been teaching him how to do that?

It wasn't props week...

Having said that, I'd be quite excited about Danny's routine this week if it involved him and Frankie attacking each other with chairs! (I think Frankie would probably emerge victorious... )

Uncomfortable because you find yourself condemning a man about whom you know absolutely nothing? Or because others are defending something you find indefensible (regardless of any mitigating circumstances)?

Well I take your word for it. Finally I can leave the house after all this time of self-induced hermitage (not a word I know) and brace the world again, always armed with a feather of course.

By the way, I know you are a big supporter of Kieron. Would it have influenced your views or opinion of Kieron if it had been his father (I don't mean this in an offensive way, just wondering).

By the way, GAZB2 I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with having started the thread. It has raised some interesting and to a certain degree philosphical questions about the nature of crime and rehabilitation, but it was bound to attract people with strong opinions (the same when you talk about death penality in the case of child murderers).

Edit: Just realised that I got GAZB2 wrong, but I'll keep the last paragraph anyway.

Danny's probably my second-favourite person remaining in the contest, now that Daniella has gone off the boil. I just don't think, if what the Sun claimed was true, that it was clever move for him, his dad, and ITV. It hasn't made me hate him or anything - that would be ridiculous. I just think it's a situation that should have been avoided by all concerned. I wish him all the best in the contest though - I'm relying on him to beat Gary!

So no, if it had been Kieron's dad, I would have felt exactly the same way.

Never leave the house without a feather for defence - that's Broken Britain for you...