ThaiLatic Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Some of you may already be aware of this story. I guess that there are some parallels with Lee Hughes, although she wasn't a high profile sports woman when she was sentenced. I believe that everybody deserves a second chance. He was stupid, more than stupid, but now, with the whole footballing world watching, he will not be able to put a foot wrong. Incidentally, during my time working in Wolverhampton, I used to visit Featherstone Prison once a week. The prisoners came from many different backgrounds. Some of the inmates were full of remorse for their crimes and were determined to make amends and turn their lives around. Others, you just knew, would re-offend and spend their lives in and out of prison. By the way, I'm not a vicar Thai Prisoner Wins Female World Title By Ronnie Nathanielsz Thailand’s Sor Siriporn has earned the distinction of being the first prisoner to win a world boxing title with a unanimous ten round decision over Japan’s Ayako Miyano at the Klong Prem Prison in Bangkok. Samson was serving a ten year prison term for peddling drugs and has two more years left on her sentence. After the fight the director general of the Corrections Department indicated that the new WBC women’s light flyweight champion could be granted parole which would enable her to fight abroad. Samson who lost in her first attempt to win the WBC minimum weight title against another Japanese, Nanako Kikuchi last May 10 moved up in weight to score a comfortable victory over Miyano. Judge Jae Bong Kim of Korea scored it 97-93, Franz Marti of Switzerland 100-91 and Noppharat Sricharoen of Thailand 98-92 all for Samson who improved her record to 8-2 with 2 knockouts. Miyano who had a record of 4-2-1 as a minimum weight and moved up in weight to fight Samson for the world title had a less than impressive record once again raising questions as to how she could fight for a world title. She won her last fight, a six round decision in February 12 against Gypsy Taeko, a southpaw with a record of 4 wins, 8 defeats and 5 draws. On December 15 last year Miyano lost a four round decision to Mayumi Kubo who had a record of 1 win, 5 defeats and 1 draw while on April 30 last year Miyano was knocked out in the fourth round by Nao Ikeyama. Internationally respected New Zealander Bruce Mc Tavish who has lived in Angeles City, Philippines for the past 40 years was the third man in the ring. McTavish who also refereed the last title fight of Samson was quoted by Edward Thangarajah of the Bangkok Post as saying “given the wonderful circumstances in which it was held, it gives me a unique feeling. I will never forget this contest.” Inmates from the Klong Prem prison followed the action on television while some prisoners were allowed to come out and watch the fights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdw76 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 but whatever he does do for us, it'll be that Oldham Athletic have scored rather than Lee Hughes You've covered yourself there haven't you! He's a footballer again now, playing for Latics, accept it. His days as a prisoner are over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) He doesn't deserve a 2nd chance....he never gave them in that car one. See my previous post. He gets a second chance whether or not you think he deserves one. Tough. Them's the breaks. Edited August 20, 2007 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 He doesn't deserve a 2nd chance....he never gave them in that car one. That's your reasoning? Where's the bigger picture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 That's your reasoning? Where's the bigger picture? Nope, that's not my only reasoning. There's plenty I think about it, just not getting into it. My perogative is that I think he's scum. But unfortunately (and yes PWD! I have accepted it) I'll have to watch him play for us. Where do we stop? People be happy having peados playing for us next? I also find it interesting how some are saying that if he had gone to another club, they'd probably be up in arms about it. Bit hypocritical for them to then find it more acceptable when it's us they're going to play for. I'm saying what I'd feel if it was us, Coventry or whoever else he might play for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) Nope, that's not my only reasoning. There's plenty I think about it, just not getting into it. My perogative is that I think he's scum. But unfortunately (and yes PWD! I have accepted it) I'll have to watch him play for us. Where do we stop? People be happy having peados playing for us next? I also find it interesting how some are saying that if he had gone to another club, they'd probably be up in arms about it. Bit hypocritical for them to then find it more acceptable when it's us they're going to play for. I'm saying what I'd feel if it was us, Coventry or whoever else he might play for. Hang on a minute Ross, I think that's a bit below the belt for a start, but no matter what the offence, if they've served their time and are eligible for parole, then they would be allowed to come back to whatever their chosen profession (of course with a clause preventing them from working in a role where they could be a risk to a particular group - eg paedophiles not being able to work with children etc) . If Hughes had been a plumber earning £60k per year before he went inside, should he then not be allowed to work as a plumber after his parole? Edited August 20, 2007 by danoafc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Nope, that's not my only reasoning. There's plenty I think about it, just not getting into it. My perogative is that I think he's scum. But unfortunately (and yes PWD! I have accepted it) I'll have to watch him play for us. Where do we stop? People be happy having peados playing for us next? I also find it interesting how some are saying that if he had gone to another club, they'd probably be up in arms about it. Bit hypocritical for them to then find it more acceptable when it's us they're going to play for. I'm saying what I'd feel if it was us, Coventry or whoever else he might play for. People be happy having peados playing for us next? SORRY Ross , but that is one of the most idiotic similarities that have been banded about on Radio (that phone in talk show) on MB's and one of the most stupid summing up drivel that I have seen you post !!! The evil that is paedophilier is a Premeditated act of pure evil ADAM, HUGHES were stupid Woodgate and Paedo's were Premeditated !!!! Massive difference.. I would rather Hughes be working to earn a living than for me and other tax payers continue to pay for his up keep .. Worked as a cleaner, footballer, chef - once you have done your time why cant you go back to your job unless you have been convicted of a crime affecting your vocation !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) Hang on a minute Ross, I think that's a bit below the belt for a start, but no matter what the offence, if they've served their time and are eligible for parole, then they would be allowed to come back to whatever their chosen profession. If Hughes had been a plumber earning £60k per year before he went inside, should he then not be allowed to work as a plumber after his parole? I haven't said ban him from football though. As I've alluded to with Maddog, there's a whole bigger picture but I'm not going into it. There's no point, because he is going to play for us and that's that. I'll cheer that Oldham score, not him and won't be singing his name. Others can do what they like. Edited August 20, 2007 by boundaryblue80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) People be happy having peados playing for us next? I see what you're saying... You're saying that playing for the Blues should be viewed as a privilege and an honour, and only those who live up to certain standards should be able to do it. That's fair enough. Anyone know of any football clubs that have similar attitudes to the character of their players and staff? I can think of only one: Arsenal - Tony Adams' old club. Edited August 20, 2007 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I haven't said ban him from football though. As I've alluded to with Maddog, there's a whole bigger picture but I'm not going into it. There's no point, because he is going to play for us and that's that. I'll cheer that Oldham score, not him and won't be singing his name. Others can do what they like. I don't get it Ross. What you saying? Let him play for somebody else? Let him be their problem? What you said was that he was IYO scum and that he didn't deserve a 2nd chance. I'm not giving it a biggie here, I'm genuinely trying to understand your point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdw76 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 and yes PWD! I have accepted it It's pdw.... but anyway, when I said "accept it", I was meaning that he is with us because he was/is a good footballer. We haven't signed him out of sympathy, but have given him a chance to play football again. How you can compare watching Hughes to watching a pedophile is beyond me, a very very different and irrelevant point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky_Latic Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Just an observation. Squad number 9 hasnt been taken yet, looks like Hughes will be wearing 9 once again! I'm pretty sure it was announced when all this came to light that he would be number 9. People be happy having peados playing for us next? You did have some valid points up until this line. That's the one line that was banded about on Talksport and largely why the programme became somewhat of a laughing stock, due to how utterly stupid it is to even suggest the two are anything remotely the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 SORRY Ross , but that is one of the most idiotic similarities that have been banded about on Radio (that phone in talk show) on MB's and one of the most stupid summing up drivel that I have seen you post !!! The evil that is paedophilier is a Premeditated act of pure evil ADAM, HUGHES were stupid Woodgate and Paedo's were Premeditated !!!! Massive difference.. Paedos are also allowed to work when they come out of prison. Are people who commit (serious) road traffic offences worse than people who sexually abuse kids? Or are people losing all perspective in a News of the World type moral outrage lynch mob stylee campaign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 SORRY Ross , but that is one of the most idiotic similarities that have been banded about on Radio (that phone in talk show) on MB's and one of the most stupid summing up drivel that I have seen you post !!! The evil that is paedophilier is a Premeditated act of pure evil ADAM, HUGHES were stupid Woodgate and Paedo's were Premeditated !!!! Massive difference.. I would rather Hughes be working to earn a living than for me and other tax payers continue to pay for his up keep .. Worked as a cleaner, footballer, chef - once you have done your time why cant you go back to your job unless you have been convicted of a crime affecting your vocation !! Agree on the premeditation part....but still does change the morality. This takes the morality to new depths....yes, I'm not saying what Hughes has done is as bad as what Peado's do...what I'm saying is, it's pushing the boundaries....and the bringing up of a Peado playing for us is one of the worst possible one examples to use to say "how far do we go". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdw76 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) Agree on the premeditation part....but still does change the morality. This takes the morality to new depths....yes, I'm not saying what Hughes has done is as bad as what Peado's do...what I'm saying is, it's pushing the boundaries....and the bringing up of a Peado playing for us is one of the worst possible one examples to use to say "how far do we go". Fair enough Ross, I see what you were originally trying to say using it as an example. Oldham AFC have not done anything other than sign a footballer who happened to be in prison at the time (in simple terms). With regard to "how far do we go", surely it is because it is in the public eye that we know about Hughes and the incident. Who's to say we haven't ever signed someone else with a criminal background? Anyway, fair do's. Edited August 20, 2007 by pdw76 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Its very easy to have morals when your position allows it !! Like I said before, when coco said he hoped we/Hughes would fall flat on our faces !!! Will other clubs stand by their morals, if Hughes comes in and scores 25 before xmas .... ( its not impossible, although unlikely ) Everybody who wants to be helped, should be helped ! The greatest evil in the world is not to care ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekWilson_1968 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Oh good, it is discuss Lee Hughes time again! For what it is worth I am in agreement with those that disagree with his signing. There is no other reason other than the fact that stupidly or not, unluckily or not, he got into a car whilst allegedly under the influence and caused the death of two people then ran off. The signing just doesn't sit easy with me. I will admit that I had thoughts about not getting a season ticket this year on the back of him signing for us, but the club are bigger than the individual and we will all hopefully be here a long time after Lee Hughes is but an after thought in the annals of OAFC history. I think it is pointless having a go at those that find that this particular signing leaves a bad taste in the mouth purely as it is each individuals choice to make of it what they will. I will support OAFC whilst he is playing for us, should he score I will cheer the goals that he scores for our club, but as an individual I just can't bring myself to support him as a player. Again, for what it is worth. I think there is a world of difference between the Hughes and Adams situation. They both stupidly got into cars, one whilst under the influence, the other whilst allegedly so. The results are worlds apart though. No matter how lucky or unlucky you deem either individual to be, the facts speak for themselves. Adams left a pile of bricks scattered over a street. Hughes didn't. KtF, Derek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Oh good, it is discuss Lee Hughes time again! For what it is worth I am in agreement with those that disagree with his signing. I think the club and the player are acting virtuously. It's wrong to keep kicking someone for what they did in the very worst moment of their life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted August 20, 2007 Author Share Posted August 20, 2007 I think the point people are trying to make by refering to Adams and Woodgate is that, after the initial hostilities, the player who was the centre of media attention eventually got on with his job. The difference is the nature of Lee Hughes' crime and the fact that he went into hiding, allowing everyone to draw the conclusion that this allowed him to avoid the more serious charge of causing death by drink driving. The player who Hughes should be compared with in terms of his crime is Patrick Kluivert, who was charged with manslaughter after running an art critic over in his new sports car, for which he received only community service and a driving ban - no prison sentence. Kluivert went on to Barcelona, where he formed a strong partnership with Rivaldo which enabled Barça to win the Spanish La Liga in 1998/99. Then he joined Newcastle where he teamed up with Alan Shearer. My point is that I don't remember any of this national media witchunt surrounding Kluivert and Newcastle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekWilson_1968 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I think the point people are trying to make by refering to Adams and Woodgate is that, after the initial hostilities, the player who was the centre of media attention eventually got on with his job. The difference is the nature of Lee Hughes' crime and the fact that he went into hiding, allowing everyone to draw the conclusion that this allowed him to avoid the more serious charge of causing death by drink driving. The player who Hughes should be compared with in terms of his crime is Patrick Kluivert, who was charged with manslaughter after running an art critic over in his new sports car, for which he received only community service and a driving ban - no prison sentence. Kluivert went on to Barcelona, where he formed a strong partnership with Rivaldo which enabled Barça to win the Spanish La Liga in 1998/99. Then he joined Newcastle where he teamed up with Alan Shearer. My point is that I don't remember any of this national media witchunt surrounding Kluivert and Newcastle. Sorry to be picky Diego and just to straighten the facts for clarity on the board, he wasn't found guilty of any misdemeanour involving drink. He was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. It was noted at his trial that he was allegedly drunk, but it was unproven. KtF, Derek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted August 20, 2007 Author Share Posted August 20, 2007 Sorry to be picky Diego and just to straighten the facts for clarity on the board, he wasn't found guilty of any misdemeanour involving drink. He was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. It was noted at his trial that he was allegedly drunk, but it was unproven. KtF, Derek. Glad you've drawn attention to that fact Derek - you're repeating what I said not correcting me. I was refering to the general conclusion drawn by people from the fact that he went missing - to avoid the more serious charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekWilson_1968 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Glad you've drawn attention to that fact Derek - you're repeating what I said not correcting me. I was refering to the general conclusion drawn by people from the fact that he went missing - to avoid the more serious charge. That will teach me to multi task. I did notice, but couldn't get in to edit. Thought it was unusual for you to get factual things wrong. Apologies squire. KtF, Derek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordy Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 I will support Lee Hughes throughout his time at the club. All u refusing to support him should boycott games we don't want you at BP if you aren't going to support the team and as far as i'm concerned if you refused to support a player then you refuse to support the club. For example if Hughes wins a pen and Ricketts slots it away would you cheer ? it's just stupid, get behind the lad ! KTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted August 20, 2007 Author Share Posted August 20, 2007 That will teach me to multi task. I did notice, but couldn't get in to edit. Thought it was unusual for you to get factual things wrong. Apologies squire. KtF, Derek. Cheers. I'm off to watch the Reerves at Port Vale now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Glad you've drawn attention to that fact Derek - you're repeating what I said not correcting me. I was refering to the general conclusion drawn by people from the fact that he went missing - to avoid the more serious charge. The judge mentioned that he went into hiding to avoid more serious charges when handing down the sentence. People seem to think that the fact that Hughes went into hiding (for whatever reason) means that he got away with more serious charges and a more lenient sentence. That might be the case, and it might not. People also seem to think that they are entitled to begrudge Hughes rehabilitation because they think that he got away with something. They're entitled to no such thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.