The Sun - 'Joey Barton should be banned from professional Football'

[AndyJR 0]

So should he?  Personally I think with all the anti-social behaviour, someone who has launched a premeditated attack on a 16 year old and who is supposedly a role model for youngsters should be banned from playing professional football.  If not for ever than at least a few years. 

[DOGGER 0]

Ban him for life, it''s the only way!

[ricky knight 0]

Being in the Sun, says it all, as i have already stated, 6 months is his sentence, right or wrong, once he has done he has served his time, then should be allowed to get on with life.

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

He''s low-life scum and a chav, and in a lot of ways I''d love it, just love it, if he was to receive a life ban from playing professional football, but wouldn''t this move make him even worse? He''d probably then devote his entire life to petty crime and street thuggery instead of just some of it.

[BigGreenStoppingMachine 0]

doubt it, he''d just co-write an autobiography and live off the profits for the rest of his life

[Paul Spector 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"]Being in the Sun, says it all, as i have already stated, 6 months is his sentence, right or wrong, once he has done he has served his time, then should be allowed to get on with life.[/quote]

Agreed.

[Robert N. LiM 4,500]

[quote user="ricky knight"]Being in the Sun, says it all, as i have already stated, 6 months is his sentence, right or wrong, once he has done he has served his time, then should be allowed to get on with life.[/quote]What a joy to read a post of yours and agree with it 100% Ricky. Spot on.

[Hannibal 0]

I also agree with Ricky, If everyone who had a run in with the law wasn''t allowed to play football, half the grass roots football would vanish overnight.

[Dr. Bunsen 0]

yep quite agree get him out off football hes a thug

[Anderz 0]

It does raise the question of whether a known purveyor of violence who has been found to administer bodily harm should be allowed to compete in an environment where people have to put themselves in a position of potentially harming others. A sex offender wouldn''t be allowed to work in an environment where aspects of his/her crime could be repeated, so should it be the same for a known aggressor..? For me, I am not greatly interested in Joey Barton as an individual or anything he does, just wondered what you peeps think of the overall situation. 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"]Being in the Sun, says it all, as i have already stated, 6 months is his sentence, right or wrong, once he has done he has served his time, then should be allowed to get on with life.[/quote]

Agreed [Y]

The bloke''s a cock and he''s been handed his punishment in a court of law. Once he''s served his time he should be allowed to play again.

[Baldyboy 0]

do those that think barton should be banned think pattison should be banned too? at the end of the day both have a criminal record so should both be treated the same? i think so.

[we8wba 0]

THUG

him and lee hughes should be banned permently and any other clown who is just a plonker

i mean they have everything in the world and 1millions people in the uk alone would love to trade jobs but can they keep stum for 15years of professionalism no

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="JaundicedJockGeorgy"]

He''s low-life scum and a chav, and in a lot of ways I''d love it, just love it, if he was to receive a life ban from playing professional football, but wouldn''t this move make him even worse? He''d probably then devote his entire life to petty crime and street thuggery instead of just some of it.

[/quote]

I have to say I agree with you and Ricky - he is a scum bag but we have to live by some sort of consistent legal code. When he has served his punishment (assuming he can still sit down!) he should be able to continue his career. I also think that Lee Hughes is scum but, having served his punishment as handed out by a court, he should be able to attempt to work again.

And, no, I am not trying to equate what both of them were found guilty of in any way, shape or form - just saying that once they have served the punishment that society hands to them they should be able to try and get on with their lives - otherwise the rule of law becomes meaningless (as some may argue it is already).   

If anything should be subject to debate, it is the severity of sentence handed out by the courts - particularly in the case of Hughes.

    

[7rew 0]

I also agree, once hes done the time, he should be aloud back to his previous work, if he can get it.  I hope Newcastle Don''t have to pay him/ have a huge fine they can hit him, with though.  It doesn''t do their reputation any good.The only reason he should be banned from playing football is if he were to commit an offense that would get him banned from watching football.  A football banning order would do this.

[7rew 0]

Anyone think we should try to sign him? He may have to drop down a league.  Him and Taylor would make the opposition nervous of playing us!

[Arthur Whittle 0]

Look once hes served he should be free to do what he wants. Waht else do you suggest? Ban everyone released from prison from working in their trade and live on the dole instead? that will do the country a lot of good.

If anyone should have been banned it was Lee Hughes-but he was sentenced, done his bit for the crime he done, and like it or not, he has to work again.

[NorwichsNewFinest 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"]Being in the Sun, says it all, as i have already stated, 6 months is his sentence, right or wrong, once he has done he has served his time, then should be allowed to get on with life.[/quote]

As much as I don''t wanna sound like I''m sitting on the fence there are many factors to look at here. 1st of all, I''m in complete agreement with you Ricky. Everybody has the right to a second chance afer serving a punishment for a crime. However, one minor factor which came up in the first post on this thread I also happen to agree with. Whilst I would not deny the right of someone to be able to work for a living, this man has repeatedly flouted the law & behaved like a mindless thug. As a role model to young children and in the public eye, his behaviour (whether he wants it to or not) may affect the way youths behave because they''ve seen one of their heroes do it? How do you stop it though? Anger management? maybe a reduced pay packet conditional upon 18months good behaviour?........... (That might mean a Premiership footballer might just have to scrape by on £2-3k per week but might be nonetheless deemed a deterent??????)

Just throwing it out there....................

[Branston Pickle 3,690]

I''m in agreement with Ricky - the fact that he is a footballer is irrelevant, why on earth should he be banned for something that has absolutely nothing to do with the game? 

What about Lee Hughes who killed someone whilst drunk driving? He didn''t get a ban yet someone died because of his actions.  Perhaps more relevant here - what about Jonathan Woodgate, who along with a bunch of other peopel was found guilty of affray (a racially motivated attack?) for which one of the group involved got 6 years for gbh and affray - he wasn''t banned from the game, and has since played for England with barely a murmer about it. 

No, this is just media garbage, just about what you''d expect from the Sun.  Yes the guy is a loose cannon to say the least, and you''d probably give him a wide berth if you saw him out and about, but in this country the idea is that you do your time for the crime and get to make a fresh start.  Rightly or wrongly (rightly imo) that is the general idea of our judicial system, the fact that is profession is football is irrelevant.