Danny Simpson Guilty - Avoids Jail

[AKCJ]

I don't get your point.

Really? Pearson Jr betrayed the clubs trust on a goodwill tour of their owners homeland. That is why he was sacked.

[Thracian]

Good post.

Indeed.

For all the pedestals we put people on I don't think I've met any men - and very few women - who could even loosely be classed as saints. Quite the contrary and if I listed every misdemeanour I knew about over the years, starting with myself, it would run into volumes.

I don't go whacking women though. But many do and a good few women whack men, make no mistake. In Beaumont Leys and Mowmacre Hill it might be the women who are marginally more frightening and their language while ranting in the street - particularly at anyone around in an official capacity - would turn even the stormiest sky blue.

I watch football for the football. I don't get turned on by men in shorts and have never much understood hero worship of any type of person. Pleasure from achievement, yes, but I've never really imagined footballers as roll models - or anything special away from the game - for all that some might try to be.

Yet the irony is, that in time of war, we make heroes of the hardest or bravest for all that they too would likely not want their dirty linen washed in public. Wars bring out the worst as well as what might be conceived to be the best in people. But we rarely get the full story let alone full understanding!

And when it comes to being judgemental, where does it end? I know a woman who claims she lost her husband to a Leicester politician, while the shit clinging onto Janner's dead body seems unending...long after alleged events which may have been covered up by all and sundry (for whatever reasons).

I really don't know how we get political candidates at all given the proverbial skeletons in so many people's cupboards, but I do believe that when people have finished their sentences, the judgements should end and most folk (arguably all folk) should be given every opportunity to rebuild their lives because it's better for them and probably better/safer for our society.

Hence he should have every right to air his views on television - about anything, including relationships. Indeed it might be that his experience makes those views more pertinent rather than less so.

If Danny Simpson intends to learn from his mistakes (as seems the case) and lead a better life, he should be encouraged, and good luck to him. I'd think that whether he was a good footballer or a beggar in the street.

[Captain...]

Simpson is different to Pearson and Vardy, it was a horrible crime that he was punished for, but a lot of doubt has been thrown over it by the victim withdrawing her statement and claiming his innocence.

 

What all that means for his punishment and his role at the club is down to those that know him and the facts and what he has done to rehabilitate (it is clear he was suffering anger issues as this wasn't his first violent incident). I thought at the time, and after the verdict the club should have sacked him, and I still find it difficult to give him my full unconditional support, but I also believe in second chances and if he has sorted out his issues and personal life then nobody can argue he isn't taking his second chance on the pitch. The only worry is if he lets himself down again off the pitch and how that would reflect on the club.

 

All of that aside I would still think it would wise of the club to keep him out of the media as much as possible, if MOTD or QOS want a Leicester player, send out our Captain, or our  longest serving player, or someone who is looking to raise his  profile with an England call up, or the top goal scorer in the league, or Huth or Fuchs or just ban all media appearances until the end of the season focus on football. Don't allow a controversial figure on prime time TV when it will inevitably cause his past to be raked up.

[AmyLGK]

He hasn't been invited onto loose women FFS.

He's gone on to talk about sport. Given that he is free to do so and that he is serving the sentence the court has given him, I see no problem.

Then trouble is that these women don't see that. They think he is some dangerous women beater looking for his next victim. They talk about equality but seem to think that some people deserve it and some don't.

 

 

LOOSE WOMEN?!?!?!?!! 

 

[what?]

Simpson is different to Pearson and Vardy, it was a horrible crime that he was punished for, but a lot of doubt has been thrown over it by the victim withdrawing her statement and claiming his innocence.

 

Has it? The police caught him in the act, he was tried, found guilty and convicted. There is a long depressing history of allegations against men in the public eye being withdrawn at the last minute just when it might damage their careers and we shouldn't underestimate the control that victims of domestic abuse can remain under, even after coming forward. The assumption of innocence just because a possible victim changed their mind about testifying is a bit naive - not that it is always disingenuous of course but I think in his case it's clear that he was guilty 

 

For my two cents if was foolish of the BBC to invite him on and the club should have predicted this sort of response and moved in to stop it before it got this far. He's stepped up this season and played very well but I'd still rather he wasn't representing the club and if it was up to me (obviously it's not!) I'd replaced as soon as possible. 

 

Not to shift any of the blame from Simpson but there is an extra layer of hypocrisy to this as well. The tv schedule is heaving with men convicted or accused of abuse against women and we're all happy to ignore it and watch the shows and enjoy the films. Singling him out like this is questionable.

[notnow john]

What I find disturbing is that Simpson,whilst serving a sentence for violance against a women,

Is chasing celebrity status.

Total lack of self awareness, I felt we should have sacked him when convicted and still do.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Well he's off the emoji-to-do list. D***head.

 

 

 

 

 

Ehh... I'm a hypocrite.

[Captain...]

Has it? The police caught him in the act, he was tried, found guilty and convicted. There is a long depressing history of allegations against men in the public eye being withdrawn at the last minute just when it might damage their careers and we shouldn't underestimate the control that victims of domestic abuse can remain under, even after coming forward. The assumption of innocence just because a possible victim changed their mind about testifying is a bit naive - not that it is always disingenuous of course but I think in his case it's clear that he was guilty.

 

A fair point, but there have been further accounts of him and the victim putting aside their differences and getting on, I know domestic violence is a minefield especially with a kid involved, and victims are known to defend their attacker. The fact that the statement was made in the first place does point towards guilt, and he was found guilty, but the fact she has withdrawn her statement could indicate a number of things, which perhaps we shouldn't speculate too much on, one of which though could be that the incident was exaggerated and the statement could have been made in anger and it was not as serious as first thought. 

 

With her statement it becomes a very clear case. Without it there is doubt.

 

Either way I completely agree that the BBC and the club should have thought about this a bit more and maybe picked up one of the many professional footballers that aren't currently serving a sentence for violent behaviour.

[ScouseFox]

A lot of the initial outrage was a reaction to Pearsons sacking. If Pearsons son was sacked (which nobody was against at the time) why wasn't Simpson?

because ones good at footy and one isn't

[inckley fox]

I'm glad I wasn't the only person who found some of yesterday's remarks on this thread a little embarrassing. I look at quite a few other clubs' forums from time to time and, while a forum is never going to be accurately representative of a club's fans, they do tend to colour your opinion if fans comes across as arrogant or moronic, so I'd hate for anyone to look at ours and think we were full of contempt for people who felt uncomfortable with Simpson being on TV. 

 

The tidal wave of condemnation of the three youth team players felt like a case of us vilifying players because it was easy for us to vilify them. The issue became cloudier when Pearson was dragged into it, when Vardy was accused of racism, when Simpson was found guilty of domestic abuse, or people cast their minds back to Morgan's drunk-driving.

 

Even if the distinction is that the sacked players were on club duty, it still feels like shaky ground - after all, few of us had wanted to see Collymore sacked a decade-and-a-half ago, and there's a dangerous precedent being set if you fire players for being drunk idiots on a club-sponsored piss-up, as well as a hint of hypocrisy if you're appalled by abhorrent behaviour at work, but are happy to overlook it when it's out-of-hours.

 

The distinction was always that these three players were - and, for a time, Simpson was - expendable, whereas Vardy wasn't. And the impression fans of other clubs may get from looking at the changing sentiments in this thread is that for some the moral compass is chucked out of the window as soon as there's something to gain from doing so. It's interesting to see the posts saying people never wanted to see Simpson in a City shirt again evaporating as people were 'converted' because of his excellent performances.

 

As for the BBC, well, I can see why people might say that they should be more discerning with the people they pay a fee to, especially in light of developments in the past few years, but it's important to draw some kind of line between what someone has to say about football, and what sort of person they are. I teach Ginsberg even though he was a member of NAMBLA, love 'Station to Station' even though Bowie was extolling the virtues of Nazi wizardry at the time, and I support Leicester even though some of their players aren't the sorts of people I'd like to share a beer with.

 

And, in truth, I'm not sure the BBC have an obligation to make sure they only view the opinions of lovely, law-abiding people any more than the Oscars have an obligation to nominate black actors who don't deserve to be nominated, purely in order to use their power to promote a multi-cultured society (as much as I like to see ethnic diversity being showcased, surely the trick is for film-makers to give them challenging roles, rather than awards ceremonies to pretend that they have).

 

And, equally, it seems odd to suggest that Leicester City have an obligation to employ only morally upstanding individuals to kick a ball around in a game full of utter d***heads. If that were the case, then we should all be on the side of the feminist criticism of Simpson on the BBC, and we should all be smiling with satisfaction as our Morgan-less, Simpson-less, Vardy-less outfit plummeted towards relegation.

 

At the same time, on those occasions when the club does the sensible thing and separates morality from ability, we don't need to kid ourselves that a guy who may well be a nasty piece of work is - in actual fact - wonderful because, it turns out, he's pretty good.

[Webbo]

Really? Pearson Jr betrayed the clubs trust on a goodwill tour of their owners homeland. That is why he was sacked.

That's fair enough, I couldn't tell which side of the argument you were on.

 

It's arguable that domestic abuse is worse than calling someone slitty eyed but that's neither here nor there, the 3 players involved were stupid enough to make a video and distribute it and got what was coming

[Bluetintedspecs]

You can tell there's over a week between games again

[lestajigs]

You can tell there's over a week between games again

[bluemat]

There won't be time to discuss this's when we are playing in the champions league

[majaco]

Bloody moaning lesbians!

How offensive is this to people?  Of course people react to abuse.  People have opinions.  Comments about sexuality as a result..?  

 

The law has dealt with Simpson.  It has been questioned whether he should have been sacked.  He is still playing successfully but he has been dealt with by the courts.  

 

People who object to him are no different to many people on this forum.  Women's rights, people's rights are important.  This comment is like time travel to the 1970s.

[Wymsey]

How offensive is this to people?  Of course people react to abuse.  People have opinions.  Comments about sexuality as a result..?  

 

The law has dealt with Simpson.  It has been questioned whether he should have been sacked.  He is still playing successfully but he has been dealt with by the courts.  

 

People who object to him are no different to many people on this forum.  Women's rights, people's rights are important.  This comment is like time travel to the 1970s.

I think he was being slightly sarcastic, but still.

[ChrisFilter]

Many an honest word said in jest. A ****ing stupid comment. Embarrassing.

[Renart]

I can't agree with this, Renart.

We have a legal system in place to determine, and implement, a suitable punishment for his crime. Losing his employment as well is punishing him twice for the same offence, and has a disproportionate effect on his life, imo.

 

I appreciate this and I know that your response is principled and not based on the player - the same can be said for mine. I would like a little consistency and therefore the club either keeps out of all external 'issues' or applies the standards equally.  I am very much in favour of rehabilitation and would never begrudge Simpson the chance of rebuilding his career elsewhere if he had been sacked, but I do believe he should have been sacked. This is based on the same principles that were applied to the sacking of Pearson, Hopper and Smith. You might argue that the difference is that these players were on a trip organized by the club, and were, therefore, 'representatives' of the club's standards, but I believe in the modern game the same level can be applied to Simpson. In fact, I would argue that the offense in Simpson's case was far worse. People in high-profile positions also have responsibilities outside of their day jobs - that are in fact extensions of their work life. Politicians, actors etc fall into the same bracket. Punishment for crime is never, and never has been, simply a case of authoritarian punishment - there are always social and financial consequences. This is also part of the deterrent and is not just reserved for footballers - these are found at all levels - and does not mean that individuals should not be given the chance to be reformed. 

 

The problem is drawing a link between the offending individual and the job - which can be done in the case of Pearson, Hopper and Smith as it was on a club organized tour. But, I would argue that the reputation of the club and the ambassadorial role of the players is implicit in the contracts of the players, and as such the actions of Simpson damaged the reputation of the club and would be grounds for dismissal. 

[BoyJones]

Simpson denies the charge, the so called victim denies the charge, the police contradicted themselves. It is on file that the policemen gave conflicting evidence.

If Simpson is found innocent following his appeal, will you all accept the courts decision, or will some continue to take the view that he must be guilty because one policeman says so.

Having studied law, I take no view until the final appeal decision; adjudged guilty first time around is normally only the first step in the process. Until the full process of law is exhausted and he is finally found either innocent or guilty, just let him get on with his life.