|
Post by olie1824 on Mar 6, 2019 11:10:05 GMT
They are debating on talksport at the moment that with Adam Johnson to soon be released, having served 3 years of a 6 year sentence, would any fans welcome seeing him at their clubs?
Interesting topic, is there anyone on here that think his return to football in any capacity would be acceptable and if so would you welcome him to Stoke?
Personal opinion is that I’d rather see us in the conference than see him in our side.
olie1824
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 6, 2019 11:19:20 GMT
I certainly wouldn't want him at Stoke. But I do think that if someone serves their punishment (and he has) then there should be no bar on them resuming their employment (in most jobs) - providing that someone is willing to employ them.
Obviously if someone has been convicted of an offence involving children they should not be allowed to work as a teacher or in a children's home or youth centre etc. etc. But if someone wants to give him a job in football (other than coaching children) they should be allowed to do so. If you could bar him from playing football you could argue that he should be barred from working at ANY job and that just isn't right.
|
|
|
Post by adi on Mar 6, 2019 11:21:28 GMT
They are debating on talksport at the moment that with Adam Johnson to soon be released, having served 3 years of a 6 year sentence, would any fans welcome seeing him at their clubs? Interesting topic, is there anyone on here that think his return to football in any capacity would be acceptable and if so would you welcome him to Stoke? Personal opinion is that I’d rather see us in the conference than see him in our side. olie1824 You don’t need to put your username at the bottom pal it’s permanently at the top. No chance he will get another job in football now. Things like Deeney assaults and Barton can be forgiven but not interfering with children, no matter the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by olie1824 on Mar 6, 2019 11:28:38 GMT
I certainly wouldn't want him at Stoke. But I do think that if someone serves their punishment (and he has) then there should be no bar on them resuming their employment (in most jobs) - providing that someone is willing to employ them. Obviously if someone has been convicted of an offence involving children they should not be allowed to work as a teacher or in a children's home or youth centre etc. etc. But if someone wants to give him a job in football they should be allowed to do so. If you could bar him from playing football you could argue that he should be barred from working at ANY job and that just isn't right. I fully understand this argument and it is what the talksport hosts are saying , but I have some issues with it , 1) a large part of being a footballer is being an icon to the community and to the youth of society, I think it would look incredibly bad for someone convicted of paedophilia to be placed into this position. 2) a part of a footballers role is work in the community , hospital visits, school visits, presentations at football schools , surely none of this could happen ? 3) there is surely an argument that yes he has served his time inside but that was only part of his punishment, another part of his punishment was to be on the sex offenders register for life , a punishment that is set to continue , I can’t see how some one his still ‘serving’ part of their punishment can be allowed back into such a privileged profession Olie1824
|
|
|
Post by FranktheRabbit on Mar 6, 2019 11:34:23 GMT
They are debating on talksport at the moment that with Adam Johnson to soon be released, having served 3 years of a 6 year sentence, would any fans welcome seeing him at their clubs? Interesting topic, is there anyone on here that think his return to football in any capacity would be acceptable and if so would you welcome him to Stoke? Personal opinion is that I’d rather see us in the conference than see him in our side. olie1824 I'd say due to the nature of the crime he committed, that there won't be a great deal of clubs that would want him in all honesty. He hasn't conducted himself very well in anyway, before or during prison. There are particular leaked videos I've watched of him where he is bragging about his crime to other prisoners. Whether it was to fit in and get some acceptance I don't know but there are no excuses for what he did. What's to say that if he's employed by a big team again, that he won't do exactly the same. Once a nonce, always a nonce in my eyes. I personally wouldn't want him here, or anywhere near the football league. I would be happy to see the horrible little fucker rotting somewhere in a pub league. No less than what he deserves really.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 6, 2019 11:35:11 GMT
I certainly wouldn't want him at Stoke. But I do think that if someone serves their punishment (and he has) then there should be no bar on them resuming their employment (in most jobs) - providing that someone is willing to employ them. Obviously if someone has been convicted of an offence involving children they should not be allowed to work as a teacher or in a children's home or youth centre etc. etc. But if someone wants to give him a job in football they should be allowed to do so. If you could bar him from playing football you could argue that he should be barred from working at ANY job and that just isn't right. I fully understand this argument and it is what the talksport hosts are saying , but I have some issues with it , 1) a large part of being a footballer is being an icon to the community and to the youth of society, I think it would look incredibly bad for someone convicted of paedophilia to be placed into this position. 2) a part of a footballers role is work in the community , hospital visits, school visits, presentations at football schools , surely none of this could happen ? 3) there is surely an argument that yes he has served his time inside but that was only part of his punishment, another part of his punishment was to be on the sex offenders register for life , a punishment that is set to continue , I can’t see how some one his still ‘serving’ part of their punishment can be allowed back into such a privileged profession Olie1824 It won't bother me if no club offers him a job - I'll lose no sleep whatsoever. But that is very different from saying he should be barred from any job other than those which involve working with children I take your point about players being "icons" but that is a decision that the player and any potential employer should take. That is very different to saying he should be barred from a job as a player. As for charity work - I'm sure there are plenty of ways in which he could contribute to charitable works without having too high a public profile - agreeing to donate 10% of his take home pay to the club's nominated charities, for example.
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 6, 2019 11:37:19 GMT
According to people Shamima Begum knew what she was doing at 15, but in this Adam Johnson case the girl clearly had no idea what she was doing. To be honest I'd give him another chance at life.
|
|
|
Post by olie1824 on Mar 6, 2019 11:39:00 GMT
I fully understand this argument and it is what the talksport hosts are saying , but I have some issues with it , 1) a large part of being a footballer is being an icon to the community and to the youth of society, I think it would look incredibly bad for someone convicted of paedophilia to be placed into this position. 2) a part of a footballers role is work in the community , hospital visits, school visits, presentations at football schools , surely none of this could happen ? 3) there is surely an argument that yes he has served his time inside but that was only part of his punishment, another part of his punishment was to be on the sex offenders register for life , a punishment that is set to continue , I can’t see how some one his still ‘serving’ part of their punishment can be allowed back into such a privileged profession Olie1824 It won't bother me if no club offers him a job - I'll lose no sleep whatsoever. But that is very different from saying he should be barred from any job other than those which involve working with children I take your point about players being "icons" but that is a decision that the player and any potential employer should take. That is very different to saying he should be barred from a job as a player. As for charity work - I'm sure there are plenty of ways in which he could contribute to charitable works without having too high a public profile - agreeing to donate 10% of his take home pay to the club's nominated charities, for example. All excellent points and ones that I can fully respect, the former Crystal Palace chairman on talksport ( I forget his name ) , takes it to a whole different level , he seems to be saying that he has served is prison time and that’s that and the abuse he would getting from fans is punishment enough , can’t agree with that viewpoint personally. ( not for a second saying that you would either , just adds another opinion into the debate
|
|
|
Post by bertiestan on Mar 6, 2019 11:39:54 GMT
there's enough wankers wearing the red n white at the moment without there being another....its a massive no from me.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 6, 2019 11:42:46 GMT
I think due to work that football clubs do in the Community these days it wouldn't be possible and would present a massive safeguarding issue with mascots...visitors et cetera. So whilst in theory, a former inmate shouldn't be barred from jobs, the nature of his crime (unlike drink driving, rape allegations) may actually precipitate a legal issue that would prevent him from getting other jobs despite "serving his time" I can't see any club being bothered enough to go through the rigmarole of signing him, the social media buzz that would ensue and then the potential effect it would have on his teammates before even confronting any legal issues.
All this said, Luke McCormick and Lee Hughes had no problem walking back into football after causing death by dangerous driving, I doubt given the explosion of social media since those respective events that any club would risk signing Adam Johnson for the reasons stated above.
|
|
|
Post by olie1824 on Mar 6, 2019 11:43:34 GMT
According to people Shamima Begum knew what she was doing at 15, but in this Adam Johnson case the girl clearly had no idea what she was doing. To be honest I'd give him another chance at life. I think it’s obvious the girl knew what she was doing , I haven’t personally heard the viewpoint that she didn’t , ( texts between the pair confirm this I believe, despite what she says), but that doesn’t get away from the fact she was under 16, it’s a huge crime, and a gross one at that , everyone on this board knows that if a 15 year old is making the moves then it’s completely on you if you cross that line and act upon it , I just don’t see how he can be welcomed back into such a high profile position in any capacity
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 6, 2019 11:49:31 GMT
I think due to work that football clubs do in the Community these days it wouldn't be possible and would present a massive safeguarding issue with mascots...visitors et cetera. So whilst in theory, a former inmate shouldn't be barred from jobs, the nature of his crime (unlike drink driving, rape allegations) may actually precipitate a legal issue that would prevent him from getting other jobs despite "serving his time" I can't see any club being bothered enough to go through the rigmarole of signing him, the social media buzz that would ensue and then the potential effect it would have on his teammates before even confronting any legal issues. All this said, Luke McCormick and Lee Hughes had no problem walking back into football after causing death by dangerous driving, I doubt given the explosion of social media since those respective events that any club would risk signing Adam Johnson for the reasons stated above. Being on the sex offenders' register for life means (amongst other things) that the law has decided that there are certain jobs which he should never be allowed to do. If football isn't on that list then, as I see it, he is allowed to play professional football - providing, of course, he can convince a club to employ him. If you don't like it then you should campaign to change the law.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Mar 6, 2019 11:50:24 GMT
He looked like a twat with a hugely smackable face before this anyway.
Avoid.
|
|
|
Post by olie1824 on Mar 6, 2019 11:52:47 GMT
I think due to work that football clubs do in the Community these days it wouldn't be possible and would present a massive safeguarding issue with mascots...visitors et cetera. So whilst in theory, a former inmate shouldn't be barred from jobs, the nature of his crime (unlike drink driving, rape allegations) may actually precipitate a legal issue that would prevent him from getting other jobs despite "serving his time" I can't see any club being bothered enough to go through the rigmarole of signing him, the social media buzz that would ensue and then the potential effect it would have on his teammates before even confronting any legal issues. All this said, Luke McCormick and Lee Hughes had no problem walking back into football after causing death by dangerous driving, I doubt given the explosion of social media since those respective events that any club would risk signing Adam Johnson for the reasons stated above. Being on the sex offenders' register for life means (amongst other things) that the law has decided that there are certain jobs which he should never be allowed to do. If football isn't on that list then, as I see it, he is allowed to play professional football - providing, of course, he can convince a club to employ him. If you don't like it then you should campaign to change the law. Ive had heard of people who have been released having certain rules they have to follow e.g. not being within a certain distance of children ( u16), if this is the case with Johnson then the mascot point is an excellent one
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 6, 2019 11:52:59 GMT
According to people Shamima Begum knew what she was doing at 15, but in this Adam Johnson case the girl clearly had no idea what she was doing. To be honest I'd give him another chance at life. I think it’s obvious the girl knew what she was doing , I haven’t personally heard the viewpoint that she didn’t , ( texts between the pair confirm this I believe, despite what she says), but that doesn’t get away from the fact she was under 16, it’s a huge crime, and a gross one at that , everyone on this board knows that if a 15 year old is making the moves then it’s completely on you if you cross that line and act upon it , I just don’t see how he can be welcomed back into such a high profile position in any capacity I think people overreact to his crime though. Yes he made a mistake, but he clearly was interested in a girl that was not of age however she did look 18+, and he should've immediately stopped contact when he found out. He fucked up and I think he's done his time and that will haunt him for life.
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc on Mar 6, 2019 11:54:06 GMT
My overwhelming feeling is that I hope this thread doesn't spin out for days and descend into argument and vitriol.
|
|
|
Post by mattyd on Mar 6, 2019 11:54:14 GMT
He will almost certainly end up abroad, subject to visa restrictions of course.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Mar 6, 2019 11:58:22 GMT
wouldnt want him near the club, already been dragged through it enough with drunken Saido and the terrorist bleatings of our resident Fenian, why would we want to add more rot in our core
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 6, 2019 12:01:09 GMT
Have to also add I wouldn't want him at our club.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 6, 2019 12:06:45 GMT
I think due to work that football clubs do in the Community these days it wouldn't be possible and would present a massive safeguarding issue with mascots...visitors et cetera. So whilst in theory, a former inmate shouldn't be barred from jobs, the nature of his crime (unlike drink driving, rape allegations) may actually precipitate a legal issue that would prevent him from getting other jobs despite "serving his time" I can't see any club being bothered enough to go through the rigmarole of signing him, the social media buzz that would ensue and then the potential effect it would have on his teammates before even confronting any legal issues. All this said, Luke McCormick and Lee Hughes had no problem walking back into football after causing death by dangerous driving, I doubt given the explosion of social media since those respective events that any club would risk signing Adam Johnson for the reasons stated above. Being on the sex offenders' register for life means (amongst other things) that the law has decided that there are certain jobs which he should never be allowed to do. If football isn't on that list then, as I see it, he is allowed to play professional football - providing, of course, he can convince a club to employ him. If you don't like it then you should campaign to change the law. I'm not so much highlighting Johnson conviction as the legal issue here, if a club has mascots and young kids (ball boys/girls) around a team with a sex offender in it, there is more than enough justification to say that the club could potentially be foregoing their responsibilities regarding safeguarding. Which if anything did happen, would leave them massively open to litigation. One of the reasons Sunderland got away with not being fined by the FA was because they were able to prove that he was not part of any community engagements immediately prior to his conviction. If any club did sign him, they would have to consider all these factors. So whilst he's perfectly entitled to play professional football, for clubs it's a safeguarding nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 6, 2019 12:13:45 GMT
Being on the sex offenders' register for life means (amongst other things) that the law has decided that there are certain jobs which he should never be allowed to do. If football isn't on that list then, as I see it, he is allowed to play professional football - providing, of course, he can convince a club to employ him. If you don't like it then you should campaign to change the law. I'm not so much highlighting Johnson conviction as the legal issue here, if a club has mascots and young kids (ball boys/girls) around a team with a sex offender in it, there is more than enough justification to say that the club could potentially be foregoing their responsibilities regarding safeguarding. Which if anything did happen, would leave them massively open to litigation. One of the reasons Sunderland got away with not being fined by the FA was because they were able to prove that he was not part of any community engagements immediately prior to his conviction. If any club did sign him, they would have to consider all these factors. So whilst he's perfectly entitled to play professional football, for clubs it's a safeguarding nightmare. A club could get round the mascot issue by sending Johnson out to the dug out with the subs and sending him onto the pitch once the players had completed that daft handshake routine that they do. As to your general point about it being a potential nightmare for clubs to manage. I agree - and that may mean that no club will feel able to employ him. If that is the case so be it - but that is different to saying a club should not be allowed to employ him if it feels it can safely do so.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Mar 6, 2019 12:26:53 GMT
I doubt any football fans will want to see him at their club, and I doubt any youth leaders will want to see him at their club either Jokes aside - he's served his time and hopefully he's learned from it and makes a fresh start at something else.
|
|
|
Post by danceswithclams on Mar 6, 2019 12:37:03 GMT
My overwhelming feeling is that I hope this thread doesn't spin out for days and descend into argument and vitriol. Have you visited The Oatcake messageboard before?
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 6, 2019 12:42:04 GMT
I think he'd compliment James McClean perfectly....
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 6, 2019 12:42:44 GMT
Adam Johnson will be 32 in the summer and hasn't played football for 4 years. In footballing terms alone he will not be a particularly attractive prospect to the professional game.
It would however be interesting to see in what direction the social media debate went if the player in question was a 22 year old from one of our Top Six with a £100m + valuation
|
|
|
Post by auntiegeorge on Mar 6, 2019 12:53:24 GMT
He will go into property development, like all failed footballers, politicians and ex celebs.
It's a well trodden path. A dead cert.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Mar 6, 2019 12:55:22 GMT
Just don't give him a teachers job!
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 6, 2019 12:58:41 GMT
He will go into property development, like all failed footballers, politicians and ex celebs. It's a well trodden path. A dead cert. Set up a few youth centres
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Mackey on Mar 6, 2019 13:21:04 GMT
He’ll end up abroad.
Absolutely impossible to continue with a footballing career in the domestic leagues, he’ll be crucified.
|
|
p9678
Spectator
Posts: 30
|
Post by p9678 on Mar 6, 2019 14:03:43 GMT
Having never been to Her Majesty’s Pleasure I’m not sure how easy it is to stay fit and keep any relatively good footballing ability after 3 years of being locked up? He’s now over 30 and probably pretty shite at football unless HM Moorland are doing well in the prison leagues.
|
|