Yes, Jermaine Jenas was stupid, but he’s served his punishment and yet the cancel culture mob still want to burn him at the stake – he deserves his second chance, writes SIMON JORDAN

Man makes mistake, suffers consequences and needs to correct behaviour. I agree with that.

But if the aim is to completely destroy them, and if that’s not enough burn them at the stake, I think it says as much about the self-righteous critics as the original perpetrator.

I am, in this, referring to Jermaine Jenas who last weekend returned to work for my radio station talkSPORT six months after being sacked by the BBC for sending inappropriate messages to female colleagues and the subsequent ridiculous over-reaction to his re-emergence, from certain quarters.

I’m not overly interested in deliberating the subjectivity as to whether Jenas is a good pundit or presenter. However, more importantly, I do believe – unless guilty of an offence from which there can be no rehabilitation – people who have made errors of judgement should be able to be redeemed.

I’d personally have no problem working with Jenas if the station asked me to. I’d judge him only on whether the words coming out of his mouth were interesting or not!

To make it clear, I am no apologist for unacceptable behaviour towards women given we’re in a society where domestic abuse and other despicable things are on the increase. I have a young daughter and consider myself well aware of the challenges. I don’t take them lightly.

Yet there has to be a point where consequences for people who have got it wrong don’t have to go on forever.

The details of Jenas’ messages have not been made public though his declaration he ‘did nothing illegal’ is not challenged.

Nobody likes the idea of Jenas sending sexualised texts but it’s not as if he went unpunished. He was binned from Match of the Day where he was favourite to take over from Gary Lineker as main presenter and from The One Show which had given him a platform outside sport reaching millions of homes.

He’s no doubt lost commercial opportunities and his reputation but, even more significantly for him, likely caused mayhem in his home life and great distress to his family.

So, what is the next step according to those still not satisfied and want even more retribution? As I mentioned earlier, burn him at the stake? In the end, the listeners will be the ones who determine what they think of Jermaine Jenas. If they don’t like him, they’ll be turning off.

I’ve no doubt Jenas has suffered plenty already, even if self-inflicted. His biggest challenge moving forwards is to do with his personal life and those relationships with his wife and children. So I don’t understand people being offended on behalf of others to try to end his professional life too.

I am extremely precious and protective of who I am associated with both personally and professionally but I’ve no issue with talkSPORT giving him an opportunity.

I wasn’t consulted beforehand but, perhaps unlike certain others be it employees or in my case a contracted relationship, I wouldn’t have expected to be.

Do you want to draw a straw poll every time an executive has to make a decision? It is nonsense – you can’t run every aspect of business by consultation.

If Jenas has met the standards of a very significant news organisation who are well aware of the way people should and shouldn’t behave, I don’t really know why it should be drawn out as a four-act play by the people who are affronted by something that didn’t happen to them.

Jenas did an interview on the station last week with a colleague ahead of his comeback game as a match summariser at Aston Villa on Sunday.

He was comprehensively quizzed and described his past actions as a ‘mistake’ and ‘wildly inappropriate’.

I’m not sure if I was him, given I’d done it all before, I would have wanted to have sat there and been examined and potentially judged in such circumstances. But there you are, I guess those are the consequences of poor behaviour, you get opined on by ‘new colleagues’!

The important point is Jenas is entitled to redemption. Given the reaction it creates in today’s climate, I would suggest it is brave and commendable for the station to hand him that chance.

If the world had a more reasonable, balanced, pragmatic, fair and equitable outlook, I don’t think his reappearance on the airwaves would be controversial.

I find it almost incredible the lack of self-awareness in certain publications who have repeatedly railed against cancel culture but now appear to be endorsing the very thing they purport to dislike – because they feel they have the moral high ground via a series of pontificating, pious and condescending articles, or maybe that’s the modus operandi of certain broadsheets.

Is there an argument that maybe he could be a little more aware of the people that were the recipients of his unwanted sexual texts, rather than just the effects on himself? Possibly! But there is a part of me that believes even if he wrote an apology in blood, that wouldn’t be enough for certain motivated factions.

I saw him in reception at talkSPORT the other day and we said hello. I don’t know him well, to me he is someone who seemed to be doing a decent job because he got a lot of work, and then set his career on fire because of stupidity.

If someone wants to give him an opportunity to redeem himself, he is entitled to take it. The people he has to explain his actions to are those he actually offended and the nearest and dearest he hurt. For the rest of us, we should get on with our business, and let him get on with his.

Those who complain, suggest what he should or shouldn’t say or suggest that he doesn’t deserve any kind of future livelihood, I can’t help but find myself wondering how perfect they are in their lives.

Why Ange must adapt 

I’m perplexed that managers like Ange Postecoglou know the importance of short-term results but still prioritise long-term philosophy.

When legitimate claims about Tottenham’s injuries arise, it’s his job to look at the manner in which they play and change to something more sensible in the circumstances. There is no point dying on the hill for any other principle than winning.

In isolation, getting knocked out of two cups by Liverpool and Aston Villa isn’t a sackable offence. But it’s dicey when you are also 16 points away from the top four.

He now needs to win the Europa League to keep his job. If he’s knocked out and finishes midtable, you couldn’t really make a case for him not to be fired. Unless of course you are in the ‘everything is Daniel Levy´s fault’ gang.

Ange might say he has adapted, but I don’t think he has. I think he has a belief system he won’t compromise on – and what is the point of sticking to your principles if it means losing your job.

Super Bowl should learn from us, not the other way around 

The Super Bowl puts on a wonderful spectacle but in terms of global audience it’s dwarfed by the Champions League final which is measured in hundreds of millions rather than tens.

I am not averse to all the pazazz and appreciate big-time sport is becoming more and more about entertainment.

But we don’t have to look at the Americans and go ‘please, teach me’.

The reason the NFL play competitive matches in Europe is because they still need to grow their sport. ‘Our’ football, particularly the Premier League, is already there.