|
Post by basingstokie on Mar 4, 2015 19:12:59 GMT
Bearing in mind what some said on here about how badly Evans was treated, I accept that Johnson is certainly innocent until proven guilty as long as they accept that Evans is guilty, having been proved guilty. Sadly, Evans still doesn't accept that. I absolutely agree with 'benefit of the doubt' in all cases until the case is proven. Very good point and made me think about my own double standards. Johnson = innocent for now, but I do honestly believe that Evans is innocent and think he was victim of a miscarriage of justice in Court.
|
|
|
Post by wrighter on Mar 4, 2015 19:38:52 GMT
Bearing in mind what some said on here about how badly Evans was treated, I accept that Johnson is certainly innocent until proven guilty as long as they accept that Evans is guilty, having been proved guilty. Sadly, Evans still doesn't accept that. I absolutely agree with 'benefit of the doubt' in all cases until the case is proven. Very good point and made me think about my own double standards. Johnson = innocent for now, but I do honestly believe that Evans is innocent and think he was victim of a miscarriage of justice in Court. Fully agree re; Evans
|
|
|
Post by snapper23 on Mar 4, 2015 20:03:30 GMT
Intermediate Police bail is perfectly common. The prosecution just need more time to assess the evidence. No one should assume guilt or innocence at this point. If they had enough evidence he would have been charged Sent from my SM-G900F using proboards And until that outcome is confirmed, both Johnson and the girl involved should not have been named Absolutely right but guess what.... Sent from my SM-G900F using proboards
|
|
|
Post by snapper23 on Mar 4, 2015 20:07:59 GMT
He probably had no idea she was 14 but he deserves this for cheating on his girlfriend If every man or woman who had strayed was exposed to this type of intrusion and vitriol, law and order would break down. Just because he earns £X thousand per week doesn't mean due process does not apply to him. Some on here need to distinguish between envy and morality. Sent from my SM-G900F using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Mar 4, 2015 20:20:55 GMT
Just read that apparently this girl is infatuated with Johnson and was bragging to her friends and online about non-existent sexual encounters between them. The girls Father found read these comments and the police were involved.
|
|
|
Post by snapper23 on Mar 4, 2015 21:05:47 GMT
Just read that apparently this girl is infatuated with Johnson and was bragging to her friends and online about non-existent sexual encounters between them. The girls Father found read these comments and the police were involved. Not surprisingly I guess. It points to how the Police have to take their time to get this right. I wonder who let it out of the bag, assuming your source is correct Sent from my SM-G900F using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 22:16:33 GMT
He probably had no idea she was 14 but he deserves this for cheating on his girlfriend If every man or woman who had strayed was exposed to this type of intrusion and vitriol, law and order would break down. Just because he earns £X thousand per week doesn't mean due process does not apply to him. Some on here need to distinguish between envy and morality. Sent from my SM-G900F using proboards Envy, what is there to envy? Him possibly sleeping/straying with a 14 year old girl. If found guilty it is morally wrong and disgusting. Do you think every man would do it?
|
|
|
Post by unknown182 on Apr 23, 2015 14:16:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bowyer83 on Apr 23, 2015 14:18:35 GMT
Deserves everything he gets imo
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 14:22:29 GMT
Not important in the grand scheme of things but does that rule him out for Saturday? (I'm assuming he'll get bail won't let me open the link?)
|
|
|
Post by unknown182 on Apr 23, 2015 14:39:35 GMT
Not important in the grand scheme of things but does that rule him out for Saturday? (I'm assuming he'll get bail won't let me open the link?) you should probably transfer him from your fantasy team
|
|
|
Post by haway on Apr 23, 2015 14:39:37 GMT
Innocent till proven guilty of course, but it doesn't look good for him if the police have enough evidence to charge him Not important in the grand scheme of things but does that rule him out for Saturday? (I'm assuming he'll get bail won't let me open the link?) Difficult situation, but I don't expect him to play again this season.
|
|
|
Post by nantwichstokie on Apr 23, 2015 14:40:43 GMT
If he does play on Saturday he is going to get absolute pelters now!!
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Apr 23, 2015 14:46:36 GMT
If he does play on Saturday he is going to get absolute pelters now!! Hope he does we need a good laugh!
|
|
|
Post by haway on Apr 23, 2015 14:51:19 GMT
If he does play on Saturday he is going to get absolute pelters now!! Hope he does we need a good laugh! A good laugh is chanting 'paedo' at someone? Like I said, I doubt he'll play for the rest of the season
|
|
|
Post by jbstokie on Apr 23, 2015 14:57:14 GMT
No chance he'll play again this season.
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Apr 23, 2015 15:01:40 GMT
I hope he's sat on the bench Saturday I really do
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 23, 2015 15:13:36 GMT
Got to feel for Sunderland a bit. Anything that can go wrong and it normally does.
They haven't got many decent players, and he's one and he's now virtually removed from the equation
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 23, 2015 15:18:17 GMT
Got to feel for Sunderland a bit. Anything that can go wrong and it normally does. They haven't got many decent players, and he's one and he's now virtually removed from the equation Agreed - I can't imagine him playing until after the trial - and you'd expect his career would be over if he is found guilty as charged.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 23, 2015 15:25:03 GMT
Wow, if they've charged him, they must be absolutely certain some shit has gone on. Grooming as well. That's one hell of an accusation. That's a lot more than just "met her in a pub and she said she was 18". Grooming implies he knew the girl, perhaps a neighbour(?) and was possibly texting, Facebooking, e-mailing her on a regular basis.
I hope the evidence is more convincing than the Ched Evans case. There were more holes in that than a piece of swiss cheese... yet they still put a potentially innocent man away.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 15:58:52 GMT
Deserves everything he gets imo He's only been charged, not convicted! point stands though if he's found innocent then he deserves what he gets i.e. nothing if he's found guilty then he deserves what he gets i.e. a prison sentence where he gets bum raped in the showers
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 16:01:04 GMT
Wow, if they've charged him, they must be absolutely certain some shit has gone on. Grooming as well. That's one hell of an accusation. That's a lot more than just "met her in a pub and she said she was 18". Grooming implies he knew the girl, perhaps a neighbour(?) and was possibly texting, Facebooking, e-mailing her on a regular basis. I hope the evidence is more convincing than the Ched Evans case. There were more holes in that than a piece of swiss cheese... yet they still put a potentially innocent man away. it's been going around for ages now that he knew the girl and her family for ages before anything happened. and...can we not turn this into another Ched Evans thread mate (thought i'd request that early before you start quoting Jean Hatchett again )
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 16:20:34 GMT
Wow, if they've charged him, they must be absolutely certain some shit has gone on. Grooming as well. That's one hell of an accusation. That's a lot more than just "met her in a pub and she said she was 18". Grooming implies he knew the girl, perhaps a neighbour(?) and was possibly texting, Facebooking, e-mailing her on a regular basis. As the article reads the grooming charge he faces is a result of the new law passed tocombat increasing sexual approaches to children on-line, ie the new offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming. This makes it a crime to befriend a child on the Internet or by other means and meet or intend to meet the child with the intention of abusing them. The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment and the second charge it seems likely implies that having met the girl the CPS have been presented with evidence that suggests some sexual activity then took place when they met. It seems likely that there is very little similarity between these charges an Ched Evans 'conviction' good point actually!!! Evans' case was rape and the issues questioned were that of consent. no-one has implied lack of consent here, simply the fact the girl wasn't old enough to legally give consent as she was underage. the 2 situations definitely shouldn't be confused (although to be fair to metalhead i think he was simply pointing out that the Evans' case was based on evidence that some have disputed and didn't seem concrete. i don't think he was comparing them in terms of offence)
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 23, 2015 17:02:15 GMT
Wow, if they've charged him, they must be absolutely certain some shit has gone on. Grooming as well. That's one hell of an accusation. That's a lot more than just "met her in a pub and she said she was 18". Grooming implies he knew the girl, perhaps a neighbour(?) and was possibly texting, Facebooking, e-mailing her on a regular basis. I hope the evidence is more convincing than the Ched Evans case. There were more holes in that than a piece of swiss cheese... yet they still put a potentially innocent man away. it's been going around for ages now that he knew the girl and her family for ages before anything happened. and...can we not turn this into another Ched Evans thread mate (thought i'd request that early before you start quoting Jean Hatchett again ) Mick, I've got no intention of turning this into a Ched Evans thread. The two situations are nothing alike.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 23, 2015 17:07:38 GMT
Wow, if they've charged him, they must be absolutely certain some shit has gone on. Grooming as well. That's one hell of an accusation. That's a lot more than just "met her in a pub and she said she was 18". Grooming implies he knew the girl, perhaps a neighbour(?) and was possibly texting, Facebooking, e-mailing her on a regular basis. As the article reads the grooming charge he faces is a result of the new law passed tocombat increasing sexual approaches to children on-line, ie the new offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming. This makes it a crime to befriend a child on the Internet or by other means and meet or intend to meet the child with the intention of abusing them. The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment and the second charge it seems likely implies that having met the girl the CPS have been presented with evidence that suggests some sexual activity then took place when they met. It seems likely that there is very little similarity between these charges an Ched Evans 'conviction' Sounds like a very important law in the modern technology age. I'm aware the cases are nothing alike. Merely they both involve well known players.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Apr 23, 2015 17:18:26 GMT
I hope he's sat on the bench Saturday I really do He won't.
|
|
|
Post by turtlefox on Apr 23, 2015 17:24:06 GMT
Now he has been charged his footballing days are over, no matter what the outcome .
|
|
|
Post by lordherefordsknob on Apr 23, 2015 17:25:01 GMT
Wasn't he suspended by Sunderland until his trial?
|
|
|
Post by mywaydesolzan on Apr 23, 2015 17:28:03 GMT
Now he has been charged his footballing days are over, no matter what the outcome . What on earth do you base that on?
|
|
|
Post by mywaydesolzan on Apr 23, 2015 17:30:42 GMT
Wasn't he suspended by Sunderland until his trial? Initially but they soon repented.
|
|