|
Post by metalhead on Feb 12, 2016 12:54:18 GMT
So because other cultures allow it we should? I know your point but we have to hold ourselves up to our own standard and this guy is genuinely unpleasant. A few snippets from court, just for all those who think Johnson might have been 'a bit unlucky'. What a lovely man. He was fucking grooming her and some people thought it was acceptable to defend this utterly despicable filth. Edit: Oh and btw, remember my point about her age still being open ended? Yeah, she was 16 in November, and they were texting on NYE, so she was JUST 15. Not 2 weeks off her 16th birthday. Utterly disgusting. I did not infer any such thing. We should NOT ALOW IT!
But we can't stop it mate..... we can only stop it in our own culture and we are... by hopefully locking this disgusting nonce away.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Feb 12, 2016 12:58:55 GMT
I did not infer any such thing. We should NOT ALLOW IT!
But we can't stop it mate..... we can only stop it in our own culture and we are... by hopefully locking this disgusting nonce away. We could do something through the UN I'm sure as some of these sick countries are members!
|
|
|
Post by Bick on Feb 12, 2016 13:00:52 GMT
The kissing a girl really isn't an issue here - she was in a club and that was more the staffs fault.
The grooming however is sickening and he deserves all he gets.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 13:04:04 GMT
But we can't stop it mate..... we can only stop it in our own culture and we are... by hopefully locking this disgusting nonce away. We could do something through the UN I'm sure as some of these sick countries are members! Quite, but let's just stick to the Adam Johnson case eh?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Feb 12, 2016 13:05:18 GMT
But we can't stop it mate..... we can only stop it in our own culture and we are... by hopefully locking this disgusting nonce away. We could do something through the UN I'm sure as some of these sick countries are members! The UN are an utterly toothless organization.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Feb 12, 2016 13:05:37 GMT
Theres some real gallows humour jokes flying around at the moment.... And just for the record - off with his knackers !!
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Feb 12, 2016 13:05:50 GMT
The kissing a girl really isn't an issue here - she was in a club and that was more the staffs fault. The grooming however is sickening and he deserves all he gets. Quite evidently that had come outside of the club as well mate.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 12, 2016 13:11:34 GMT
Do you really think we're going to allow posts questioning whether it's wrong to have sex with a 15 year-old to remain on the board? Absolutely not, but you've also got people like me, iwebbyyy and mickmills tearing them a new arsehole? By censoring them, they'll only think more of the same crap that they already think. to be fair mate although i see exactly what you're saying, i can see why admin did it. the people who think/post those kind of opinions aren't going to change their mind because we convince them to, all it would actually result in is a thread where people argue, go OTT and start insulting each other which then belittles the importance and the severity of the subject matter being discussed. as well as that, do we really want members of the public who just visit our forum from time to time (as many on here visit other clubs boards as well) seeing those kinds of comments and wrongly presuming it's a representative opinion of Stoke fans? deleting those kinds of comments is not really a big problem as far as i'm concerned, simply means we can stay on track without being dragged into needless slanging matches if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 12, 2016 13:19:16 GMT
The kissing a girl really isn't an issue here - she was in a club and that was more the staffs fault. The grooming however is sickening and he deserves all he gets. ?????????? their first meeting was behind a chinese takeaway at which point he already knew her age. are you suggesting that if they met in a club after that, then even though at that point he knew she was under 16 as long as the bouncers let her in then it was fair game to forget about that, presume she's now suddenly grown up by 2 years and blame the bouncers for letting her in??????
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 13:23:49 GMT
Mods/Admis - Why were posts from this thread deleted last night? We're all adults, just not necessary in my opinion. I don't particularly like Sunderland, or their fans (sorry haway ) but to those saying they handled this wrong, no they didn't. Sunderland handled this situation admirably, they should be roundly praised by all, not criticized ( nicholasjalcock ). Suspending or sacking Adam Johnson before he was found guilty would have set an incredibly dangerous precedent. Like it or not, football clubs are global organizations and as such big decisions they make can funnel down through society. If Sunderland had suspended Johnson, it would have sent a message to other companies around the world that the correct course of action when a man is accused of a sexual crime is to simply suspend or sack them, no questions asked. Do you want to live in a country where someone can spitefully and quite effectively ruin your life by falsely accusing you of rape? It's already happening and it seems the CPS are quite happy for it to happen. The accusation is NOT the evidence. The evidence is the evidence. Adam Johnson is guilty, but until it was proven (or admitted), he HAD to be treated as an innocent man. Radical feminism is becoming dangerously influential, both in government and the media. Men are being found guilty without any sort of trial, just because 'someone says so'. In a world where a dongle joke can lose a man his job and career, where brushing past a famous actress can result in a false sexual assault accusation and 15 months of your life being ruined (of course, her identity is protected for legal reasons *cough*), where Nobel prize winning scientists can lose their jobs on the back of serial lies by 'feminist academics', Sunderland have stood up and done the right thing. They supported their man, while he maintained his innocence. Once that situation changed, they have also done the right thing and terminated his contract. I don't think they could have handled it any better actually, well, except for maybe sacking him 5 minutes after he pleaded guilty rather than a day. Their handling of Adam Johnson should be held as the benchmark for other businesses, other football clubs and probably Alison Saunders and the CPS. Fair comments here. I wouldn't say the false accusers are 'feminists' though. More deranged spiteful loonies happy to ruin somebody's life over an often petty grudge.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Feb 12, 2016 13:27:07 GMT
I dont see him ever playing top flight again. Championship club at best. Too much of a risk for a big club to take him on. I can see him ending up at somewhere like Hartlepool in a couple of years. i don't see him playing any level of professional football again mate. we all saw the media and PR outrage at Ched Evans when Sheffield United were thinking of keeping him. That was a bloke who still insists he's innocent and had a far far smaller media presence in the game than Johnson does and Johnson has also freely admitted he did it (at least 2 charges anyway). complete PR suicide for any club at any level to go near him from here on in i reckon. career over, done, finito, dead as a fucking dodo Could easily be as you say, but many probably presumed the same about Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick, both of whom have managed to stay within the game at a very decent level.
|
|
|
Post by unknown182 on Feb 12, 2016 13:41:48 GMT
Apparently Vatican City have offered him a long term deal
|
|
|
Post by imho on Feb 12, 2016 13:47:30 GMT
Think it's a bit different in Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick cases compared to Chad evans and this case.
The inclusion of drink and it's obvious effects on decision making, against planned well thought out actions for starters.
His career is over, he shouldn't even be allowed out - personally I think the same about Chad (as a convicted rapist) .
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Feb 12, 2016 13:52:38 GMT
Think it's a bit different in Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick cases compared to Chad evans and this case. The inclusion of drink and it's obvious effects on decision making, against planned well thought out actions for starters. His career is over, he shouldn't even be allowed out - personally I think the same about Chad (as a convicted rapist) . Ched Evans and this case have very little in common.
|
|
|
Post by imho on Feb 12, 2016 13:55:29 GMT
Think it's a bit different in Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick cases compared to Chad evans and this case. The inclusion of drink and it's obvious effects on decision making, against planned well thought out actions for starters. His career is over, he shouldn't even be allowed out - personally I think the same about Chad (as a convicted rapist) . Ched Evans and this case have very little in common. Never said they did - read what I put.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Feb 12, 2016 13:58:05 GMT
Ched Evans and this case have very little in common. Never said they did - read what I put. I read what you put.
|
|
|
Post by ElworthPotter on Feb 12, 2016 13:58:12 GMT
The kissing a girl really isn't an issue here - she was in a club and that was more the staffs fault. The grooming however is sickening and he deserves all he gets. A lot of people have jumped to the conclusion the girl was in a club got chatting to him and it was therefore her fault or the doorman's or whoever. It has come out in the trial this morning that they got in touch on social media, and she told him from the get go that she was 15. You can place the blame on her for being daft or old beyond her years if you like, but the bottom line is this 20-something professional footballer knew from minute one that this girl was 15 years old and should be put away for a very long time
|
|
|
Post by gonk on Feb 12, 2016 13:59:55 GMT
I don't think they have handled properly.As i said early in the tread he should have been suspend till it was sorted out one way or the other.As now people are saying that they only keep playing him so they could stay up last season. spot on point made below yours mate. Sunderland DID originally suspend him but it was after talks with the PFA that they re-instated him. he was originally arrested nearly a year ago, you can't suspend someone on full pay for over a year (which it will be by the time the trial is over) and just let them sit there taking a wage without playing. that would look even worse IMO...suspend someone because they MAY be a criminal (which is all it was at the time..MAY not IS) and pay that possible criminal tens of thousands a week for doing fuck all? that's a far worse message to send out. If Johnson has lied to the club, the PFA and presumably the club's and the PFAs lawyers then the fault lies with him and him alone. If thats the case and the PFA thought he had no case to answer after Sunderland had suspended him they should have paid his wages.With whats been said above it seems that Sunderland and PFA have taken the side of Johnson instead of a unbiased view and welfare of the girl involved.To me if the police are taking on anyone with money and charging them i would have thought they had a strong case for conviction.
|
|
|
Post by imho on Feb 12, 2016 14:04:09 GMT
Never said they did - read what I put. I read what you put. Good. Hope you understood that I stated that the Hughes and McCormick cases had a link between them and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Feb 12, 2016 14:08:28 GMT
Think it's a bit different in Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick cases compared to Chad evans and this case. The inclusion of drink and it's obvious effects on decision making, against planned well thought out actions for starters. His career is over, he shouldn't even be allowed out - personally I think the same about Chad (as a convicted rapist) . I imagine this is in relation to my reply. Can I just say that I did not directly compare the events of any of these cases. I simply evaluated the likeliness of any continuation of a sporting career following the events of a serious crime.
|
|
|
Post by haway on Feb 12, 2016 14:11:52 GMT
The updates are disgusting and show AJ for what he is, a dirty nonce. I am fucking fuming here, very soon after his lass gave birth to his child too - disgusting.
Lock Big Sam in a cell with him for 5 mins and get him to show no fucking mercy, or any hard man for that matter. Hope he never plays football again, the fucking rat.
|
|
|
Post by imho on Feb 12, 2016 14:12:46 GMT
Think it's a bit different in Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick cases compared to Chad evans and this case. The inclusion of drink and it's obvious effects on decision making, against planned well thought out actions for starters. His career is over, he shouldn't even be allowed out - personally I think the same about Chad (as a convicted rapist) . I imagine this is in relation to my reply. Can I just say that I did not directly compare the events of any of these cases. I simply evaluated the likeliness of any continuation of a sporting career following the events of a serious crime. Never took it that you did mate. Just pointing out why I think some footballers can continue with a career after a conviction and some can't and in my opinion it's down to the nature of the crime.
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Feb 12, 2016 14:18:07 GMT
I imagine this is in relation to my reply. Can I just say that I did not directly compare the events of any of these cases. I simply evaluated the likeliness of any continuation of a sporting career following the events of a serious crime. Never took it that you did mate. Just pointing out why I think some footballers can continue with a career after a conviction and some can't and in my opinion it's down to the nature of the crime. It seemed the examples you used, were the same I used. However, you seemed to think I was comparing the crimes, which I wasn't. Are we thinking Johnson is likely to get a sentence longer than a manslaughter charge? I suppose if he is found guilty on all charges, perhaps a lengthy sentence is forthcoming, but what is he likely to get for pleading guilty to grooming but isn't found guilty on anything else? I personally don't think anything will generally stop a footballer from continuing in their profession, unless the length of sentence directly affects the person from maintaining fitness and practice. Another example, Marlon King has come back each time after lengthy spells in jail.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Feb 12, 2016 14:23:40 GMT
spot on point made below yours mate. Sunderland DID originally suspend him but it was after talks with the PFA that they re-instated him. he was originally arrested nearly a year ago, you can't suspend someone on full pay for over a year (which it will be by the time the trial is over) and just let them sit there taking a wage without playing. that would look even worse IMO...suspend someone because they MAY be a criminal (which is all it was at the time..MAY not IS) and pay that possible criminal tens of thousands a week for doing fuck all? that's a far worse message to send out. If Johnson has lied to the club, the PFA and presumably the club's and the PFAs lawyers then the fault lies with him and him alone. If thats the case and the PFA thought he had no case to answer after Sunderland had suspended him they should have paid his wages.With whats been said above it seems that Sunderland and PFA have taken the side of Johnson instead of a unbiased view and welfare of the girl involved.To me if the police are taking on anyone with money and charging them i would have thought they had a strong case for conviction. This is totally bullshit as I've demonstrated in one of my previous replies. Sunderland and the PFA were right to stick with Johnson, until his admission. They've since done the right thing and sacked him. So far, the only thing to come out of this whole mess shining is Sunderland football club, their handling of this situation has been exemplary.
|
|
|
Post by imho on Feb 12, 2016 14:24:54 GMT
I think Johnson will end up with the maximum penalty allowed - however long that maybe. My point isn't that the sentence will stop the chap continuing with his career but the nature of the crime itself will make him untouchable.
I'm not saying that what Johnson has done is any worse (or the opposite) but I do think certain crimes carry more negativity with them.
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Feb 12, 2016 14:28:00 GMT
I imagine this is in relation to my reply. Can I just say that I did not directly compare the events of any of these cases. I simply evaluated the likeliness of any continuation of a sporting career following the events of a serious crime. Never took it that you did mate. Just pointing out why I think some footballers can continue with a career after a conviction and some can't and in my opinion it's down to the nature of the crime. how would you feel if Chad Evans has his conviction overturned by the court of appeal , (sorry admin not trying to sidetrack the thread ) just interested !
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Feb 12, 2016 14:31:50 GMT
Never took it that you did mate. Just pointing out why I think some footballers can continue with a career after a conviction and some can't and in my opinion it's down to the nature of the crime. It seemed the examples you used, were the same I used. However, you seemed to think I was comparing the crimes, which I wasn't. Are we thinking Johnson is likely to get a sentence longer than a manslaughter charge? I suppose if he is found guilty on all charges, perhaps a lengthy sentence is forthcoming, but what is he likely to get for pleading guilty to grooming but isn't found guilty on anything else? I personally don't think anything will generally stop a footballer from continuing in their profession, unless the length of sentence directly affects the person from maintaining fitness and practice. Another example, Marlon King has come back each time after lengthy spells in jail. As it stands currently, what he's pleaded guilty to carries a maximum of 18 months Jail.
|
|
|
Post by imho on Feb 12, 2016 14:32:47 GMT
To echo what metalhead has said above Sunderland as a club has done everything right. Suspended him when charge first brought but not sacked him, as he was innocent at that point. Allowed him to play after he and the pfa stated (I presume) that he was innocent and fully able to play and that the nature of the crime was not one that would effect his ability as a footballer. Once guilt was proven / admitted took some time to check everything and get their legal team to draw everything together and then sacked him. Since then remained quite due to the ongoing case. Don't like sunderland but hats of to them.
|
|
|
Post by imho on Feb 12, 2016 14:36:07 GMT
Never took it that you did mate. Just pointing out why I think some footballers can continue with a career after a conviction and some can't and in my opinion it's down to the nature of the crime. how would you feel if Chad Evans has his conviction overturned by the court of appeal , (sorry admin not trying to sidetrack the thread ) just interested ! I would feel fine if the outcome meant he was innocent, he should then be allowed to continue his life in any occupation as a innocent man (don't think it'll happen tho')
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Feb 12, 2016 14:39:48 GMT
how would you feel if Chad Evans has his conviction overturned by the court of appeal , (sorry admin not trying to sidetrack the thread ) just interested ! I would feel fine if the outcome meant he was innocent, he should then be allowed to continue his life in any occupation as a innocent man (don't think it'll happen tho') Thanks , for the record , having read all the transcripts from the trial and the basis for appeal I personally think he will !
|
|