Sunday People Transfer Rumour

[Bert]

If he signs, (which I doubt) then he signs. What can we do about it? Not go to the games? What's that going to achieve? Surely you could still go to games, and just not cheer Lee Hughes?

He may be a complete ****, but if Nige thinks that he's right for the team, then so be it. He's done a pretty good job so far this season and I'm certainly not going to question anything he does right now.

[Thracian]

What did the Guardian have to say, Thrac?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4989612-103690,00.html

[Katy]

If he signs, (which I doubt) then he signs. What can we do about it? Not go to the games? What's that going to achieve? Surely you could still go to games, and just not cheer Lee Hughes?

He may be a complete ****, but if Nige thinks that he's right for the team, then so be it. He's done a pretty good job so far this season and I'm certainly not going to question anything he does right now.

I remember doing something very similar when David Speedie signed for us. I never clapped any of his goals in the time he was with us, I do the same for Dickov now. I'm afraid I hold a grudge when it comes to people taking the piss out of my club.

Not sure how I feel about Hughes to be honest.....

[Scow]

We need a striker with pace.

Lee Hughes is not that.

[Finnegan]

We need a striker with pace.

Lee Hughes is not that.

Agreed. I would also like to add that there are non-footballing reasons I wouldn't want Hughes but they're more linked to recent incidents than his criminal record.

I just think the man'd be trouble in all honesty. Wouldn't want anyone from that squad.

[Alf Bentley]

Not only did Hughes kill and cripple people, he showed scant regard for haing done so and was far more concerned about the consequences to himself. He's the pits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1469003/Fo...-six-years.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-47...build-life.html

It's the very fact that he chose to return to football that I have the most problem with.

I'm sure we've all sometimes behaved in ways we're ashamed of, though hopefully not ending lives.

Whether he should have served a longer sentence is a matter of opinion, but we live under the rule of law, he paid the legal penalty and is now entitled to get on with his life.

But if you were truly ashamed of something you'd done - something that had ruined lives and that was public knowledge - would you immediately take up a high profile occupation inviting public adulation? How must the victims' families feel if they see him on TV celebrating a goal?

[Alexikokopops]

Glad I am not the only one to think that.

Lee Hughes caused death by dangerous driving, and fled from the scene of an accident, that can never be condoned.

However, if we were to lambast and never let criminals back into society, then we would have an awful lot of crims on the dole.

He did the crime and has done his time. As Daggers said, he wouldnt request a longer sentence, he got out on good behaviour, and has since gone on to do charity work. This doesnt make up for what he has done, not saying it has.

However, he deserves his second chance does he not? Or are we to wipe every criminal off the face of the earth? if we didnt allow Lee Hughes back into employment, then he would be on the dole, and collecting taxpayers money. Instead he is earning £x a year, and contributing to society, and keeping a roof over his head for his family and kids (cue the 'what about the family of the people he killed' debate)

He took his chance with oldham and has made it a relative success, has taken the torrent of abuse every week (though not much at our place, i must say) and got on with it.

This.

[General Smuts]

Don't get me wrong I'm not exactly bouncing off the walls at the prospect of him coming here but nor will I boycott or turn up to boo.

How many games have you been to this season?

I don't understand some people labelling him shit, 18 goals this season and was once worth £5million...

This is the silliest thing i've ever read. 2 words sweetheart. Carl Cort. And he was worth 7million.

at this rate Luke McCormick may become a viable option

Certainly better in goal than David Martin ...

[Daggers]

We need a striker with pace.

Lee Hughes is not that.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the nub of the matter - and is why angst in this thread is pointless.

[Rocky Dennis]

Just because the law states he has served his time it does not mean I have to agree!

If that tosser spent 50 years in prison that would not be enough, the family of those killed will all suffer for the rest of their lives, no doubt with considerably less money than Hughes.

I think that Oldham made a completely immoral decision to employ him and this was another nail in the coffin of football, watching him and that shitty goal celebration sickens me and if we did sign him I would no longer support City.

I wonder if any of you Hughes sympathisers have ever lost a loved one to the negligance of somebody else, I doubt it?

[Daggers]

I wonder if any of you Hughes sympathisers have ever lost a loved one to the negligance of somebody else, I doubt it?

Yes, but I reject the term 'sympathiser'.

His name was Rob, he lived in Maidstone and was killed by a drunk driver who ploughed into his Yamaha V-Max. Another of my mates lost one and a half inches from his right leg when he was T-boned in Rushden by (another) drunk driver while riding his Suzuki X7 and is permanently paralysed down that side of his body.

We can turn this into a competition if you fancy - how many friends and relations have you lost?

More importantly - what the fuck has that got to do with the price of fish? Unless, of course, you are related directly to the victims of the incident.

[Rocky Dennis]

Yes, but I reject the term 'sympathiser'.

His name was Rob, he lived in Maidstone and was killed by a drunk driver who ploughed into his Yamaha V-Max. Another of my mates lost one and a half inches from his right leg when he was T-boned in Rushden by (another) drunk driver while riding his Suzuki X7 and is permanently paralysed down that side of his body.

We can turn this into a competition if you fancy - how many friends and relations have you lost?

More importantly - what the fuck has that got to do with the price of fish? Unless, of course, you are related directly to the victims of the incident.

Any Need?

[Thracian]

Just because the law states he has served his time it does not mean I have to agree!

If that tosser spent 50 years in prison that would not be enough, the family of those killed will all suffer for the rest of their lives, no doubt with considerably less money than Hughes.

I think that Oldham made a completely immoral decision to employ him and this was another nail in the coffin of football, watching him and that shitty goal celebration sickens me and if we did sign him I would no longer support City.

I wonder if any of you Hughes sympathisers have ever lost a loved one to the negligance of somebody else, I doubt it?

But you should be careful about making it personal. Yes, of course it IS personal in reality. Extremely personal to those involved.

But the "Tough on Crime But Not In My Time" people find it a lot easier to pretend that it isn't personal.

It's easier to be more excusing of crime and criminals from a distance.

[Flynny]

But you should be careful about making it personal. Yes, of course it IS personal in reality. Extremely personal to those inolved.

But the "Tough on Crime But Not In My Time" people find it a lot esier to pretend that it isn't personal.

It's easier to be more excusing of crime and criminals from a distance.

So justice should be based on the raw emotion of those wronged and not logic? That's no real foundation for anything.

I don't want Hughes because his actions have proved he was a massive, self-serving knobber, and he's already lost one manager his job. The judicial system says he's served his time, but not that he's ceased to be a colossal turd of a man.

[Nationwider]

I wouldn't have him for footballing reasons - not in the Championship anyway. If we stay down, I might be forced to think twice.

I can't say that I particularly care for the guy, but I believe he's showed remorse for his actions and I don't begrudge him the right to play football again.

[carterfox90]

hope this is a wind up

if true my ticket will be up for sale

[Thracian]

So justice should be based on the raw emotion of those wronged and not logic? That's no real foundation for anything.

I don't want Hughes because his actions have proved he was a massive, self-serving knobber, and he's already lost one manager his job. The judicial system says he's served his time, but not that he's ceased to be a colossal turd of a man.

Crime IS emotional. Like football. It only might be unemotional to those who aren't affected.

The very first thing the judge should do when a person has been found guilty and when pronouncing sentence is to imagine that he was the victim.

That is the only justifiable basis for sentencing and one of the reasons that some regimes allow the victims to have a say in the punishment.

Distancing crime from its consequences and the feelings of, and impact on, its victims is a cop out.

[Flynny]

Crime IS emotional. Like football. It only might be unemotional to those who aren't affected.

The very first thing the judge should do when a person has been found guilty and when pronouncing sentence is to imagine that he was the victim.

That is the only justifiable basis for sentencing and one of the reasons that some regimes allow the victims to have a say in the punishment.

Distancing crime from its consequences and the feelings of, and impact on, its victims is a cop out.

What about when relatively minor misdemeanors cause huge amounts of pain and hurt. In a fatal car crash that's purely accidental and not influenced by alcohol or anything else, where the driver hands himself straight in, is the hurt for the family left behind any less? Not much. Should the sentencing be vastly different? Absolutely.

[Sir Fynwy]

Crime IS emotional. Like football. It only might be unemotional to those who aren't affected.

The very first thing the judge should do when a person has been found guilty and when pronouncing sentence is to imagine that he was the victim.

That is the only justifiable basis for sentencing and one of the reasons that some regimes allow the victims to have a say in the punishment.

Distancing crime from its consequences and the feelings of, and impact on, its victims is a cop out.

Your grasp of the mechanics of the law and the legal system is almost as tenuous as your ability to judge the worth of our former youth team players, why not leave legal comment to the adults.

[Thracian]

What about when relatively minor misdemeanors cause huge amounts of pain and hurt. In a fatal car crash that's purely accidental and not influenced by alcohol or anything else, where the driver hands himself straight in, is the hurt for the family left behind any less? Not much. Should the sentencing be vastly different? Absolutely.

I don't quite understand your point. If there's a fatal car crash that's purely accidental why would anyone be charged? For example a car skidding on black ice or an oil spill while otherwise moving normally.

Even if one of the parties was over the limit but there was no evidence that his alcohol intake had affected his driving or had caused the accident I don't see why he would be charged with anything but the drink-driving offence. I've never yet understood why a drink driver should be automatically seen as the bad guy in an accident.

But if a fatal crash is caused by excess speed or irresponsible/dangerous/careless driving then the culprit should be made responsible for the consequences of their actions in as much as they were to blame.

Factors might make others partially responsible, there's no doubt about that. Like an injured passenger not wearing a seat belt for instance. Or the other vehicle also been shown to be speeding.

But if, for instance, a person pulled out into the middle carriageway of a road without checking it was safe to do so via his his mirror and by checking his blind spot then first and foremost, irrespective of the speed of the upcoming vehicle, that action has, to a great extent, caused the crash and that driver should be sentenced in relation to the consequences.

So many people, while quite happy to punish people for contrived or potential crimes against others, shy away from properly sentencing people for what actually happens (to others).

Ask a motor cyclist how sympathetic he feels when some idiot moves out into a new lane without noticing them. It happens all the time and there are motor cyclists in their graves as a result. Is that sort of thing a minor misdemeanour simply because it was careless/dangerous depending on what label they choose to put on it?

If someone gets involved in an argument, loses his self control and whacks someone but they only sustain a cut lip then the consequence is relatively minor and the sentence should reflect that.

If the victim falls, breaks his neck and dies, the consequences are fatal and he should expect a much harsher sentence assuming, of course, that he'd not been assaulted first.

Nebulous factors like handing themselves in or apologising might be recognised and appreicated but only against the background of sentences which reflect the seriousness of what happened.

Almost anyone will apologise if they think it will get them a lighter sentence - and most times i wouldn't doubt their sincereity - but it doesn't change the consequences of their actions one bit.

Not that I would necessarily wish to send these drivers to prison. But I would see that victims have a say in sentencing and were I one of those victims, in the event of carelessness, I would doubtless favour a long period of community service.

[Thracian]

Your grasp of the mechanics of the law and the legal system is almost as tenuous as your ability to judge the worth of our former youth team players, why not leave legal comment to the adults.

I'll stand by everything I've said about our youth players but while I am quite sure you and yours can quote chapter and verse on legal machinations that doesn't mean I agree with what the laws actually deliver or the basis on which they deliver it.

In fact, like many others, I believe many of our laws to be unnecessarily complex and that they often do little to serve this country or a good many of its people.