Indeed he does. I knew the knee jerk reaction it would get and it's made me laugh. Maybe it was my thread title...

Should a governing body be able to decide on behalf of a commercial organisation who they can and cannot employ based on their conduct outside the workplace?

If I pass my ATT exams and subsequently get convicted of a violent criminal offence, should the ATT or CIOT be able to prevent me from earning a living in tax for as long as they think is appropriate?

Yeah he obviously has an anti-Saints agenda:

"Unlike many in the sport, this writer has no problem with Pryce and Reardon avoiding jail time. There are far more dangerous characters out there and it's doubtful if locking either of them up would have served any useful purpose."

But yeah he is calling for them to be 'strung up'.

Also its not very clear why he brings up the Bailey/Walker incident but while that was obviously more severe they were both young and also (IIRC) it was their first offence, unlike Pryce where we all know his history.

Agree, most of the negative comments are probs from people who havnt read the full article.

He does'nt keep the Bailey and Walker incident out of it. He brings it up. The facts are the Pryce and Reardon incident was all over the radio station i listen to. Non rugby leaguie followers would have heard that and would be put off Rugby League by it.

Do the RFL want to sit back and let these type of headlines overwrite the positive things that happen every week in Rugby League? Because that has happened over the last few weeks.

Peter Smith - Leeds Trolling Legend?

I don't disagree with you as such. I was simply pointing out that the situation isn't quite as straight forward as you initial post suggested. I did also concede at the time that the comparison with other professional registrations wasn't entirely valid, but you must concede that there are parallels.

I suppose, with no particular reference to this case, or that of Cockayne, Bailey/Walker, Raynor or anyone else, the question is does the RFL, who oversee the registation in this particular profession, consider that part of the terms of that registration is connected to the role in the community and as an ambassador of the profession. If not, as you say, cool. I think it should be looked at though. Not in regard to Pryce or Reardon whose cases are now in the past from my point of view, but as a matter of policy for future reference.

Would they?

I don't recall Lee Hughes doing bird for actually killing someone putting too many people off going to watch football.

An intersting point Andy. Perhaps any such voilent conduct would not reflect badly on the AAT governing body, but it would on the Rugby Football League who are in the media's eye at all times.

A question for each profession to consider on it's own merits. The GMC, for example is certainly empowered to take those steps, and would likely be minded to do so. Likewise the GTCE. As pointed out above by Mr TheVee, there may be more pressing reasons for them to do so than is the case for a RL player. Hence the RFL should make it's own decisions about what does and does not constitute bringing the profession into disrepute, and what penalties members found to have done so should face.

Accountancy etc is a little outside my experience. Are the ATT allowed to withdraw your registration if your conviction was relevant to your work, for example a conviction for fraud?

They are, indeed withdrawal is mandatory for situations such as bankruptcy or entering an IVA for example.

Not being an ATT member however doesn't stop me from working in tax in the same way as a GMC ban stops a doctor from practicising or banning someone from RL prevents them from earning their living in that way.

The trouble with that line of argument is that the culprit would also rather coach your kid to play RL than scrub walls. There has to be some punitive element to the punishment surely?

I would suggest that "Community Service" should force people to do work that best serves the community in question.

Not sure having Pryce scrubbing walls is particularly valuable for the community. Getting him involved with awareness/coaching schemes with kids who look up to him is likely to have far more impact than a cleaner wall somewhere.

If the Judge wanted a stronger punishment than unpaid work serving the community, he wouldn't have given him community service.

All IMO of course.

Salary caps and overseas quotas?

The Solicitors Regulation Authority can ban anyone working in a solicitors firm based upon criminal activities.

Governing bodies in all professions and careers can and do exactly that.

Don't dictate whether any particular individual can be employed, just restrict the amount their employer is allowed to spend and who they can spend it on.

Point taken about the SRA, I had forgotten they can do exactly that. Is "character" as important in a rugby player as it is in a solicitor or doctor however?

No, but then there's the public eye and "role models"element I guess.