Thanks Fordy.

www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-6263444 www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-6263429 www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-6263399

www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-6263444 www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-6263429 www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-6263399

In what way is the Express obliged to spin stories so as not to harm WTRLFC? Come off it Bren.



In fact I would be most annoyed if they had not. I want people to know that these people exist even in the greatest game and always have and always will. They hide in plain sight, Eden was a hero at BV in the late 80's early 90's and a fave of mine - who'd have known - I didn't! People must remain aware that being a star sportsman doesn't guarantee you a star person. Trust me bad though this one is I know of worse in the game that were covered up and shouldn't have been.



Why people insist on spinning this myth that RL/RU/Football etc players are a noble breed apart is beyond me - if I hear the expression "role model" one more time I will scream. It's a trite and glib load of old tosh IMHO which has been brought into the game by wally's like Eddie and Stevo who have nothing more imaginative to add.



It was IMO relevant as RL has a high percentage of kids watching and playing it and I don't see how that means the WE hates us.

I agree with the first part whole heartedly Vastman. I also had fond memories and I feel like they have been wiped out now. These things should not be hidden and the judge in the case according to the reports I have seen have graded this as the worsed possible level of Child porn. I shudder to think what that actually means (please no-one explain)



The role model part I feel slightly different I think.

The players are putting themselves in a job where kids (and older) do aspire to be like them. They don't have to be role models, but they should not assume the role, and then dash it all with something stupid.

The game more than the player has a responsibility to their supporting community if they want to keep that community funding their activities.

There is not much that would make me stop watching rugby and Wakefield in particular but if say we were sponsored by the National Front (as they were called in my day) or started linking to porn from the web site, I think I'd have something to say and would probably take my money elsewhere.

With that in mind the governing body and clubs will be very interested in their players public image, and by effect, whether they are role models or not.



Robbie Hunter-Paul talks about this in his book. He explains how you create a brand for yourself. He also says though, you don't have to do it and no one should make you......but don't expect the rewards that come with being a role model if you don't.

I've got no argument with the latter paragraphs - I agree with you in large part and I don't think I've ever been caught up in that particular myth; I've known a few players over the years and with some notable exceptions, they haven't been particularly impressive people - just good at rugby.



As for the first part - I'm not suggesting it should have been covered up in any way or even spun. I'm questioning the need to include 'Wildcats' in the headline, given that his tenure was many years ago and he's done other jobs since; clearly it's worth mentioning in the story, but the headline seems unnecessary - that is all.

Because IMHO it's still relevant no matter how long ago - not all pedo's are loners and freaks some look and act like real men when they are anything but. Bit like the Grims fairytale's for me, they still get the message across. Statistically every club in the last 20 years will have had a rapist or a pedo in their player ranks we just had ours named and shamed and rightly so for me. Human nature is hardly the fault of WTRLFC any more than it is that of the BBC's - if people chose to view us negatively over that then frankly they are not worth the effort.

Perhaps I'm just naïve in my hope that a local rag would see the harm of making a link between a community focussed organisation and a paedo, when it's not necessary.

Having spent twenty plus years working for WDH it would have made more sense leading with that surely.

I wonder why they didn't?

Is anything to do with the rugby club a chance of sensationalising the story, something in this instance i think is unnecessary and quite unpalatable.

The story is provocative and emotive enough.

Of course it is. Standard journalistic policy. Sadly the story wouldn't be as attention grabbing had WDH replaced Wakefield Trinity in the headline.

Am i being naive then to say this story is about a man who has done a horrible disgusting thing and it should make no difference who or what he is, just what he has done and that he has been punished?

It should be, the story is disgusting enough, but there will always be a sensationalist angle the press will make of any story.



I remember a headline from a few years back when a dead body was found in the garden of a convicted pedophile. He had nothing to do with the body, but the headline read 'Dead body found in Pedo's garden'.

Just the headline ''Wakefield man...'' would have been sufficient. There was no need to bring Trinity or Cas into it until the small print considering the time passed since he played and the possibility he might not have been into that sort of thing when he did play. But hey, sensationalisation sells papers, unfortunately.