They did indeed, but more than that – he had served the prescribed legal punishment for his crime as set down by the judge who knew the details of the case. Having served his time, the public then continued to extend their influence and jurisdiction into his employment, fuelled by their opinions based on the press coverage.

I’d argue the public has a right to do this but we need to be careful about how much influence an uninformed public has – and obviously if he’d attempted to get a job as a woman’s coach we have legislative measures to prevent this. Sex offenders register etc. There is nothing about playing football that requires you not to have gone to jail – it was simply public opinion. That’s the element of mob justice here.

I think we can hold private views and moral judgments but we must be careful of extending past legal remedy in public life. That is what the law is for. The sentence in this case was appropriate for the crime – and the conviction was evidently on shaky enough ground to allow a retrial. This wasn’t in the minds of the general public who decided he shouldn’t ever be a footballer again on their own.