|
Post by Sven on Apr 24, 2015 17:22:35 GMT
Just seen a snippet from Dick Advocaats pre game interview, repoter asked, "if he's in the squad or plays do you think it will draw attention from the fans? Dick Replied "No i don't think so" Oh dear dick you've never been to Stoke have you
|
|
|
Post by TheBra1n on Apr 24, 2015 17:23:01 GMT
and another nail in the premier league coffin, maintaining their position in the premier league is more important than the clubs image, the players mental state and dare i say the alleged victim of what is a horrible offence (speaking as a father)
whether or not johnson is guilty or innocent is irrelevant he should for the good of all parties be kept away from the public eye, and that includes match day activities, it deeply saddens me to think that he is only being kept in the first team because of his teams fortunes, it shouldnt have even been a factor but the fact they suspended him and then back tracked as they became more involved in the relegation fight sickens me to my core, they should have made a decision and stood by it, i have zero respect for anyone involved in the running of sunderland football club and that attitude will probably last a very long time
all i can hope is that justice is done innocent or guilty
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Apr 24, 2015 17:33:15 GMT
In my opinion Sunderland are right to select him, he's innocent until proven guilty, and they are also right to ignore fans of other clubs acting all indignant when in reality they are using this issue to take a dig at an opposing PL club. On the basis he is found guilty then of course that changes the position, he will have to take the punishment and afterwards resume his career.
|
|
|
Post by eddyclamp on Apr 24, 2015 17:56:19 GMT
In my opinion Sunderland are right to select him, he's innocent until proven guilty, and they are also right to ignore fans of other clubs acting all indignant when in reality they are using this issue to take a dig at an opposing PL club. On the basis he is found guilty then of course that changes the position, he will have to take the punishment and afterwards resume his career. If he goes down for this he won't have a career
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 24, 2015 17:59:53 GMT
Innocent or not, if he puts himself out on the pitch then he's fair game IMO. Sorry, tough shit.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Apr 24, 2015 18:10:27 GMT
In my opinion Sunderland are right to select him, he's innocent until proven guilty, and they are also right to ignore fans of other clubs acting all indignant when in reality they are using this issue to take a dig at an opposing PL club. On the basis he is found guilty then of course that changes the position, he will have to take the punishment and afterwards resume his career. Depends on your point of view. If it was your daughter who he was accused of being inappropriate with I'm assuming you wouldn't think the same and be happy seeing him celebrating a goal on TV for example? If it was the bloke sat next to you in the office would you feel the same about his continued presence? Now he might well be innocent (that'll be for a jury to decide) but isn't it in everyone's interest (including his own) to keep him out of the public eye until this is settled one way or the other? That's why it's commonplace to suspend people on full pay pending these type of proceedings. It's the most tactful way of dealing with it for all concerned in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Silkystoke on Apr 24, 2015 18:15:54 GMT
Gotta funny feeling he won't be playing or in the squad, if he is well, Dicks a twat and he should have shit asap..!! Maybe, as soon as he gets off the bus..!!!!
|
|
|
Post by mywaydesolzan on Apr 24, 2015 18:23:17 GMT
Innocent or not, if he puts himself out on the pitch then he's fair game IMO. Sorry, tough shit. Horseshit.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Apr 24, 2015 19:28:41 GMT
He's good to play for me.
It's not the law of the fucking jungle.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 24, 2015 20:26:07 GMT
Innocent or not, if he puts himself out on the pitch then he's fair game IMO. Sorry, tough shit. Horseshit. Whatever dickwat.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2015 20:31:40 GMT
From a law point of view is it legal to have him around mascots and stuff? I'm guessing it is because he hasn't been convicted but I wouldn't want my kid (if I had one) overly near him irrespective of being convicted or not with that charge hanging over his head.
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Apr 24, 2015 20:35:21 GMT
He's going to get absolutely fucking rinsed if he plays.
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Apr 24, 2015 20:47:31 GMT
even if he is on the bench he will get rinsed. but expect the papers to give us a rinsing for doing it
|
|
|
Post by taytotheimpailer on Apr 24, 2015 22:03:10 GMT
From a law point of view is it legal to have him around mascots and stuff? I'm guessing it is because he hasn't been convicted but I wouldn't want my kid (if I had one) overly near him irrespective of being convicted or not with that charge hanging over his head. Are you serious of just an utter cretin?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2015 22:10:04 GMT
From a law point of view is it legal to have him around mascots and stuff? I'm guessing it is because he hasn't been convicted but I wouldn't want my kid (if I had one) overly near him irrespective of being convicted or not with that charge hanging over his head. Are you serious of just an utter cretin? He's facing charges of grooming ffs......deadly serious! Should he be allowed around kids (which he will be) at this point in time with this hanging over his head? I don't think he should. I don't think anyone with these charges over their should. For his good too tbh!
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Apr 24, 2015 22:10:05 GMT
He may be an innocent man.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2015 22:15:36 GMT
He may be an innocent man. He might be, he might not.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Apr 24, 2015 22:15:42 GMT
I think in the circumstances that he should be suspended by his club.. They are in a desperate position, but he shouldn't be playing.
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Apr 24, 2015 22:17:18 GMT
innocent or not you can't deny the supporters the opportunity to give him some flack. Actually I like him as a player and rate him quite highly but I just hate Sunderland and hope all this will contribute to them going down
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Apr 24, 2015 23:00:58 GMT
Are you serious of just an utter cretin? He's facing charges of grooming ffs......deadly serious! Should he be allowed around kids (which he will be) at this point in time with this hanging over his head? I don't think he should. I don't think anyone with these charges over their should. For his good too tbh! Oh for fucks sake. Let's assume for a minute that he actually thought this girl was of legal age (I know a few 14 year olds that could easily pass for 18+, let alone 16), the 'grooming' charge would then be tacked on by the CPS because he'd obviously been in contact with her, most likely talking dirty and arranging to meet, over the internet or via text.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 24, 2015 23:04:14 GMT
He's facing charges of grooming ffs......deadly serious! Should he be allowed around kids (which he will be) at this point in time with this hanging over his head? I don't think he should. I don't think anyone with these charges over their should. For his good too tbh! Oh for fucks sake. Let's assume for a minute that he actually thought this girl was of legal age (I know a few 14 year olds that could easily pass for 18+, let alone 16), the 'grooming' charge would then be tacked on by the CPS because he'd obviously been in contact with her, most likely talking dirty and arranging to meet, over the internet or via text. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. For the interim I can't see how anyone could think it'd be healthy for him to be in that sort of environment and by anyone I include his lawyers, he's opening himself up to all sorts of unscrupulous bastards.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2015 23:19:26 GMT
Can't see the Sunderland players been keen to have him in the squad. He hasn't been to the training ground since he was charged on Thursday. He has also to face up to his team-mates, not ideal preparation for a relegation threatened team.
If he is there give him shit. Go get em Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Apr 24, 2015 23:52:56 GMT
thought of a song for tomorrow but is kinda sick to the tune of monster by the Automatic Whats that coming over a child its a pedo a fucking pedo like a said sick Minus a million for the fair play league
|
|
|
Post by skip on Apr 25, 2015 0:30:27 GMT
He's facing charges of grooming ffs......deadly serious! Should he be allowed around kids (which he will be) at this point in time with this hanging over his head? I don't think he should. I don't think anyone with these charges over their should. For his good too tbh! Oh for fucks sake. Let's assume for a minute that he actually thought this girl was of legal age (I know a few 14 year olds that could easily pass for 18+, let alone 16), the 'grooming' charge would then be tacked on by the CPS because he'd obviously been in contact with her, most likely talking dirty and arranging to meet, over the internet or via text. All any man has to do is ask "are you sixteen" and if there is any doubt keep it in your trousers.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Apr 25, 2015 1:22:47 GMT
From a law point of view is it legal to have him around mascots and stuff? I'm guessing it is because he hasn't been convicted but I wouldn't want my kid (if I had one) overly near him irrespective of being convicted or not with that charge hanging over his head. I feel sorry for you with that attitude. I think you are massively over reacting. The bloke is not charged with molesting kids.He is charged with having sex with a 15yr old.That is legal in many European countries. In the UK if found guilty he may technically be classed as a paedo and will be on the sex register but it doesn't mean he is a threat to society. If this was consensual sex and the girl is not traumatised then, if convicted, I suspect the sentence will be light. The charge of 'grooming'seems more serious to me but I don't know what the law is so I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Apr 25, 2015 4:15:08 GMT
Oh for fucks sake. Let's assume for a minute that he actually thought this girl was of legal age (I know a few 14 year olds that could easily pass for 18+, let alone 16), the 'grooming' charge would then be tacked on by the CPS because he'd obviously been in contact with her, most likely talking dirty and arranging to meet, over the internet or via text. All any man has to do is ask "are you sixteen" and if there is any doubt keep it in your trousers. In the real world it doesn't work like that though. I myself very nearly found my self in the same situation after spending the evening getting frisky with a girl in an over 21s nightclub who looked the age only to find later on, before the deal was sealed I hasten to add, that she was 15. Luckily though, this was back in a time when the whole world didn't go fucking batshit mental over every slight indiscretion. What do you want blokes to do, ask every girl they chat to, online and in the real world, or who they pick up on a night out to produce their passport or photo driving licence before signing a contract?
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Apr 25, 2015 4:47:20 GMT
All any man has to do is ask "are you sixteen" and if there is any doubt keep it in your trousers. In the real world it doesn't work like that though. I myself very nearly found my self in the same situation after spending the evening getting frisky with a girl in an over 21s nightclub who looked the age only to find later on, before the deal was sealed I hasten to add, that she was 15. Luckily though, this was back in a time when the whole world didn't go fucking batshit mental over every slight indiscretion. What do you want blokes to do, ask every girl they chat to, online and in the real world, or who they pick up on a night out to produce their passport or photo driving licence before signing a contract? You still got frisky with her though!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 25, 2015 9:01:59 GMT
This thread was getting a bit out of hand, so we've tidied it up a bit.
Please think about what you are posting.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 11:25:02 GMT
Am I right in remembering a few years ago a Wolves player was facing criminal charges and was still playing, and they had to pixelate his face on MOTD as it could be prejudicial to him getting a fair trial, can't for the life of me remember who it was, but he looked like he had a swarm of bees around his head.
|
|