http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ate-fight.html

I read that earlier.

I am surprised that he was selected.

I wonder what sort of attack actually gets you imprisoned.

Much as this makes me lose a lot of respect for James, I don't think it should affect the way we consider him on the programme. It's supposed to be about their skills, not their personal lives.

It will affect me. He is a nasty piece of work and I wouldn't want to do business with him. I have no respect for him.

Whilst I appreciate that in certain situations it is hard to avoid any crossover, I try to avoid looking at people on a personal level whilst assessing their performance on the show. I respect Katie Hopkins on her performance actually, because she was a strong task performer, no matter what else you can say about her. That said, if I was Lord Sugar it may hold me back from choosing him, just because it could harm reputations.

Sad to read but I'd like to believe he is no longer a threat to society. It doesn't say it but hopefully he will have been required to take anger management classes.

By the looks of things the BBC knew, and let him on the show.

I understand the 'you've done your time' argument- but quite simply, my litmus test is simple- Could it have happened to me? as I've never beaten up anyone in my life, the answer is simple- No.

To be honest 99.9% of the population would never start attacking someone. If he's talking to your girlfriend make it clear she's spoken for. You don't resort to violence.

Hopefully goes sooner rather than later.

I respect your right to hold your opinion but I don't share it. LS wont choose him.

Interesting, considering he is 27 now and this happened in 2009 he was around 22 years old at the time.

I am 22 now and have never done anything like this, and nor has anyone I am friends with. Youth is not an excuse, and quite frankly 22 isn't that young anyway.

No, you don't resort to violence, but neither do you dictate who your girlfriend can talk or not talk to. "Spoken for" indeed!

well, there's 'talking to' and 'talking to' isn't there?

If he was trying to chat her up, and being a nuisence, then I do reckon you are entitled to step in. (but not violently).

Agree

I detected a bad vibe from him at the end of the last episode when the guy saved from being fired asked him if he was happy to see him. They both seemed to be eye balling each other to an extent.

I think they're in love.

Imagine a relationship about them being mentioned to Sugar and the look on his face?!

This happened before with Katie Hopkins and the guy she was getting it on with at the time, Paul I think his name was.

I thought it was the beginning of a romance.

He did actually say that he doesn't mind relationships so long as it doesn't affect the work. The problem with Katie and Paul was that Paul didn't bring Katie into the boardroom when he should have done. Workplace romances happen in the real business world, so it would be pretty unreasonable of Lord Sugar to say that they can't happen - I personally would not do that, just because it would make things awkward if it didn't work out and we still had to work together, but some people go for it. So long as they can still consider one another as colleagues, it isn't a problem.

I trained with a firm of accountants who didn't allow work romances but they still happened. I had one and my girlfriend kept her flat because she couldn't give her address as the same as mine. We were out on audits so it's not like we met each other at work very often.

I think that's foolish, you can't determine what people do in their personal life. However, I do think it's a foolish idea to get involved in that sort of thing.

Um, it's probably THE reason they cast him.

Reality shows love people with criminal records - they want fights!

Oh look.
The Daily Fail has found another poor sod to pick on.
And when you read the article, they can't even get their facts right.
But they still get linked to....

How long exactly should someone have to "pay" for a crime after it's first committed? I mean sure, the fact that he committed it in the first place should raise some concern about his character, but considering it's been five years (almost a fifth of his life) without re-offending, I think you have to start giving people the benefit of the doubt at some point.

LOL. This is the forum that still hasn't forgiven Cheryl Cole for throwing a punch 11 years ago.

Sadly, it's not something restricted to Cole, or even this particular forum. There appears to be a not-insubstantial amount of people on the internet who think that if you ever commit any crime more serious than jaywalking, you deserve to be permanently demoted to some sort of societal underclass and be barred from certain careers and opportunities.

The mentality almost seems to be "I've never committed any crimes, therefore anyone who's experienced success after committing a crime is unworthy of that success."

There is no point in having a criminal justice system if not to rehabilitate people and make them behave better when leaving (and actually I think that our justice system has a lot of flaws when it comes to that, but that's a conversation for another time). If we're going to tell people that they are restricted from certain jobs and parts of society afterwards, it completely defeats the object of serving their sentence. Obviously with some professions it makes sense (a child abuser should always be barred from working with children, for instance) but for the most part re-entering society should mean that they are able to re-enter all parts of it unless they are a danger to themselves or others.