She not the patron anymore, she resigned before she when public, and what the **** is a patron it's a nothing position, if she was a board member fair enough but she's not she a nobody in terms of that football club
I guess the difference would be that Tyson does not represent her club or have contact with the young people that she was formerly patron of. Aye gorgeous though.
I hope that your comments in this thread are just a poor attempt at a wind up - as if you are serious oh dear She is not a patron anymore because she has just resigned - and the reason she has resigned is "My decision is made on the fact that I don't believe a convicted rapist, as in Ched Evans, should go back to a club that I am patron of and should go back into the community to represent the community." You might not agree with her but if that is what she thinks she is completely right to distance herself from an official role with the club
Let me get this right then, because she resigned from her position with the football club before the interview with Newsnight, the issue no longer had anything to do with her so she should have shut the **** up. Is that? Just out of interest, why do you think Newsnight invited her on the show? Do you reckon they had a spare 5 minutes so the news editor said, "I know, let's get Charlie Webster in the studio and have a bit of a chat about things." Or do you think she was asked to come on to the show because she had resigned from her position and that is a newsworthy story? If the patron of a charity is such a nothing position, as you have claimed, why would a heavyweight news programme like Newsnight be interested in her views?
And that sentence alone should sum up why Ched Evans can't return to professional football. As a player he would have regular contact with children (youth teams, mascots, etc) and as a convicted sex offender he should not be able to pass an enhanced CRB check.
I didn't realise until a couple minutes ago that she was sexually abused by her running coach as a youngster, I can now see why she's taken the stance she as and been outspoken about subject that as effected her directly in the past, fair play to the lass.
You can say that about owt when you reduce it to a general description - Why are deaths news? People die all the time. Why was the Royal baby such an event? Thousands of married couples have kids every day etc.
Yeah I remember at the time stories in the press about how much the other SSN women hated her for it. They are trying to get ahead in life as good sport journalists and they felt (and I agree) that Charlie by doing so harmed the chances of the women on Sky Sports being seen as more than just eye candy.
In a way they have a point but at the same time a few male footballers have stripped off for cash but we dont think of all footballers as eye candy
It's up to her what she does and nobody else, with everyone putting their own life's out in the public domain, they think they have the right to comment on what everyone dose, she broken no laws, so why do people feel they have the right to condemn people for conducting themselves in the way they see fit it's nothing to do with anyone else.
True but that's society in general as women have it alot harder than blokes to be seen as more than eye candy or meat to look at. You wouldn't find the other SSN women in lads mags. Apparently it was like an unwritten rule amongst the women to not do it and she broke it. It might explain why she's hardly ever seen on the channel anymore.