|
Post by salopstick on Feb 10, 2016 17:21:26 GMT
We need the boards resident lawyer to give us daily updates
|
|
|
Post by gonk on Feb 10, 2016 17:28:52 GMT
I'm staggered Sunderland let him play while this was hanging over him. The fact he's pleaded guilty makes the decision to let him play all the more incredible. You are right there mate ,What surprised me most was that there fans sticking with him.
|
|
|
Post by draytonstokie on Feb 10, 2016 17:29:31 GMT
That doesn't reflect well on Sunderland playing him all this time. With him clearly knowing what he'd done. If they don't sack him for gross misconduct the FA need to step in. I am not sure how it reflects on Sunderland if as I understand it he only changed his plea to guilty when he appeared in Court today after his barrister asked for two of the charges to be put to him again. Is it not safe therefore to assume Sunderland accepted his original plea of not guilty and were prepared to support him until all the charges were proven or as happened today he changed his plea? Innocent until proven etc I don't believe Sunderland acted inappropriately.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 10, 2016 17:31:59 GMT
I'm surprised Sunderland hasn't sacked him yet
|
|
|
Post by cozmick on Feb 10, 2016 17:34:20 GMT
Looks like the mackems are sticking their heads in the sand.
Their message board is banning people for posting info......
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 10, 2016 17:37:13 GMT
I'm staggered Sunderland let him play while this was hanging over him. The fact he's pleaded guilty makes the decision to let him play all the more incredible. You are right there mate ,What surprised me most was that there fans sticking with him. i don't think they did anything wrong in playing him. we have a system over there that gives us all the freedom of being innocent until proven guilty...simply being arrested for something shouldn't mean someone has to have their career destroyed. now he's plead guilty it's 100% the right time to do it (and if i was Sunderland i'd be seeking legal advice if they kept him on based on his word that he was innocent) however, to get rid of him months back before anything had been proven would have been totally unjust.
|
|
|
Post by retired1 on Feb 10, 2016 17:45:32 GMT
He can join Rolf et al in Stafford prison.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 10, 2016 17:47:01 GMT
Looks like the mackems are sticking their heads in the sand. Their message board is banning people for posting info...... If they're posting info relating to the case then i'd imagine it's nothing to do with "sticking their heads in the sand" and far more due to the fact that they would be in a legal shitstorm for allowing people to post that kind of info while there's an ongoing criminal case being carried out
|
|
|
Post by steino72 on Feb 10, 2016 18:00:54 GMT
I didn't realise we had so many would be QC's on here? If I'm ever in a spot of bother, I shall seek a number of you out!
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2016 18:01:27 GMT
You are right there mate ,What surprised me most was that there fans sticking with him. i don't think they did anything wrong in playing him. we have a system over there that gives us all the freedom of being innocent until proven guilty...simply being arrested for something shouldn't mean someone has to have their career destroyed. now he's plead guilty it's 100% the right time to do it (and if i was Sunderland i'd be seeking legal advice if they kept him on based on his word that he was innocent) however, to get rid of him months back before anything had been proven would have been totally unjust. It appears he has lied to his employers as well, I would have thought they have a strong case for dismissing him for gross misconduct if that is the case, how anyone can defend this sort of behaviour is beyond me and hopefully the vast majority of people in this country.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2016 18:05:11 GMT
Looks like the mackems are sticking their heads in the sand. Their message board is banning people for posting info...... If they're posting info relating to the case then i'd imagine it's nothing to do with "sticking their heads in the sand" and far more due to the fact that they would be in a legal shitstorm for allowing people to post that kind of info while there's an ongoing criminal case being carried out Why would they ?, it appears that this info. is already out in the public domain, plenty of reports of the on goings on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 10, 2016 18:06:26 GMT
He can join Rolf et al in Stafford prison. Rolf could show him how to play with his didergy do.
|
|
|
Post by madasasnake on Feb 10, 2016 18:10:50 GMT
It is a very emotive and misunderstood area of law.
For all any of us know, he might have always admitted planning to meet her and having done so, kissed her. It's fairly pathetic but I'm not entirely sure it warrants some of the desired punishment alluded to on this thread,
The more serious charges are proceeding to trial so it might be an idea to await the jury's verdict on those before condemning him to death by stoning.
Although I accept that he is slightly older, any member of this board who, as a fifteen year old kid, assessed his girlfriend's consent by putting his hand up her top, or more, to see what the reaction was, was, by definition, committing a sexual assault and is therefore a Schedule 1 Sex Offender. That doesn't make happy reading does it?
The law is hugely out of date compared to most European Jurisdictions.
I don't know enough about the case to comment and I don't suppose many people do.
I would like to say, let's wait until we know what has happened, but given the media in this country and the desires of social media: I don't suppose that we ever will.
|
|
|
Post by gonk on Feb 10, 2016 18:14:40 GMT
You are right there mate ,What surprised me most was that there fans sticking with him. i don't think they did anything wrong in playing him. we have a system over there that gives us all the freedom of being innocent until proven guilty...simply being arrested for something shouldn't mean someone has to have their career destroyed. now he's plead guilty it's 100% the right time to do it (and if i was Sunderland i'd be seeking legal advice if they kept him on based on his word that he was innocent) however, to get rid of him months back before anything had been proven would have been totally unjust. Any normal person would have been suspended pending the court case .Also we see at stoke the number of kids that do trips around the club on match day would anyone be happy knowing a alleged sex offered was employed at the club to let there kids go there.,but in there case they where that desperate to stay in the prem there was no way they would suspend him.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Feb 10, 2016 18:17:36 GMT
Could end up getting his self felt up for the next 10 or more years.
|
|
|
Post by Waggy on Feb 10, 2016 18:21:14 GMT
Hang him
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Feb 10, 2016 18:24:01 GMT
Perhaps we should lower the age of consent as all these birds out and about these days look at least 20 and are obviously up for it....
Have we had the 'well he's only doing what other lads of his age do on a Saturday night' defence yet?
|
|
|
Post by haway on Feb 10, 2016 18:25:58 GMT
As I alluded to earlier, he and his lawyers told us he was confident about getting away from this free and told us he wasn't guilty. He has went back on those claims today which is a kick in the bollocks for the club.
The club didn't do anything wrong playing him as he said he wasn't guilty beforehand (probably just to get a few weeks pay) - the only way the club can be blamed is if we play him AFTER the sentencing.
|
|
|
Post by cozmick on Feb 10, 2016 18:32:22 GMT
hawayHave the club said owt about releasing him?
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Feb 10, 2016 18:33:38 GMT
Lets hope he gets sentenced faster than those Paedo's in Rotherham and Rochdale, they should castrate the feckin lot of them depraved perverted bastards, then brand them on their foreheads with a large letter P using no anaesthetic for either. Do you think he'll get put away or has he done a deal with the CPS?
|
|
|
Post by wrighter on Feb 10, 2016 18:34:11 GMT
It is a very emotive and misunderstood area of law. For all any of us know, he might have always admitted planning to meet her and having done so, kissed her. It's fairly pathetic but I'm not entirely sure it warrants some of the desired punishment alluded to on this thread, The more serious charges are proceeding to trial so it might be an idea to await the jury's verdict on those before condemning him to death by stoning. Although I accept that he is slightly older, any member of this board who, as a fifteen year old kid, assessed his girlfriend's consent by putting his hand up her top, or more, to see what the reaction was, was, by definition, committing a sexual assault and is therefore a Schedule 1 Sex Offender. That doesn't make happy reading does it? The law is hugely out of date compared to most European Jurisdictions. I don't know enough about the case to comment and I don't suppose many people do. I would like to say, let's wait until we know what has happened, but given the media in this country and the desires of social media: I don't suppose that we ever will. Common sense, at last.... Well said
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 10, 2016 18:34:50 GMT
in which case you need to look at the charges read out in court then mate. this is NOT, i repeat NOT a case of bumping into a girl who looked older. he has plead guilty to charge that SPECIFIED that he KNEW she was under the age of 16. in my opinion that one line RAF has used "have to ask for ID...give them an alcohol breath test to make sure they don't cry rape" is 1 where i see what he's saying in the grand scheme of things but in this particular matter it's fucking disgusting. Johnson has ADMITTED HIMSELF that he KNEW she was under 16 and did it anyway. i also don't see why RAF is happy to not castigate Johnson until he knows all the fact yet is happy to try to defend him in that way without knowing all the facts. for anyone to try to even slightly defend him (when he himself had admitted he knew what he did was against the law) is absolutely fucking abhorrent!!!!! Yeah RAF's line about being all restrained and not judging "until we know the facts" was rather amusing, given his initial rush to introduce imaginary mitigating factors partially absolving Johnson - without knowing the facts.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 10, 2016 18:40:39 GMT
None of us would be calm if a 25 year old man tapped up your daughter and arranged to meet her knowing she was 15
The grooming case is watertight hence the guilty plea.
This alone is jail time.
The grooming laws are there for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 10, 2016 19:00:23 GMT
in which case you need to look at the charges read out in court then mate. this is NOT, i repeat NOT a case of bumping into a girl who looked older. he has plead guilty to charge that SPECIFIED that he KNEW she was under the age of 16. in my opinion that one line RAF has used "have to ask for ID...give them an alcohol breath test to make sure they don't cry rape" is 1 where i see what he's saying in the grand scheme of things but in this particular matter it's fucking disgusting. Johnson has ADMITTED HIMSELF that he KNEW she was under 16 and did it anyway. i also don't see why RAF is happy to not castigate Johnson until he knows all the fact yet is happy to try to defend him in that way without knowing all the facts. for anyone to try to even slightly defend him (when he himself had admitted he knew what he did was against the law) is absolutely fucking abhorrent!!!!! I wasn't defending anyone Mick and I take absolute fucking exception to you even suggesting as much. Unlike some of the knee jerk kangaroo court cunters on here I was more than happy to wait for absolute fact before calling him a peado or nonce and condemning him to a baseball batting. This kind of case is so prevelant in this day an age it's never fucking cut and dry. If what you have quoted is actually fact from the court I hope the cunt gets his bollocks cut off. Please don't ever accuse me of something like that again. H
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 10, 2016 19:02:21 GMT
If they're posting info relating to the case then i'd imagine it's nothing to do with "sticking their heads in the sand" and far more due to the fact that they would be in a legal shitstorm for allowing people to post that kind of info while there's an ongoing criminal case being carried out Why would they ?, it appears that this info. is already out in the public domain, plenty of reports of the on goings on the internet. I mean names of people involved etc. (which haven't been released).
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 10, 2016 19:05:53 GMT
in which case you need to look at the charges read out in court then mate. this is NOT, i repeat NOT a case of bumping into a girl who looked older. he has plead guilty to charge that SPECIFIED that he KNEW she was under the age of 16. in my opinion that one line RAF has used "have to ask for ID...give them an alcohol breath test to make sure they don't cry rape" is 1 where i see what he's saying in the grand scheme of things but in this particular matter it's fucking disgusting. Johnson has ADMITTED HIMSELF that he KNEW she was under 16 and did it anyway. i also don't see why RAF is happy to not castigate Johnson until he knows all the fact yet is happy to try to defend him in that way without knowing all the facts. for anyone to try to even slightly defend him (when he himself had admitted he knew what he did was against the law) is absolutely fucking abhorrent!!!!! I wasn't defending anyone Mick and I take absolute fucking exception to you even suggesting as much. Unlike some of the knee jerk kangaroo court cunters on here I was more than happy to wait for absolute fact before calling him a peado or nonce and condemning him to a baseball batting. This kind of case is so prevelant in this day an age it's never fucking cut and dry. If what you have quoted is actually fact from the court I hope the cunt gets his bollocks cut off. Please don't ever accuse me of something like that again. H Apoliogies RAF (genuinely) if i got the wrong end of the stick and misrepresented your meaning. As i said, my main concern with you using that particular line was that it would drag us into a thread discussing Ched Evans etc. (Where i agree your line is applicable) when this case bears no similarities to it. No offence intended
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 10, 2016 19:06:11 GMT
in which case you need to look at the charges read out in court then mate. this is NOT, i repeat NOT a case of bumping into a girl who looked older. he has plead guilty to charge that SPECIFIED that he KNEW she was under the age of 16. in my opinion that one line RAF has used "have to ask for ID...give them an alcohol breath test to make sure they don't cry rape" is 1 where i see what he's saying in the grand scheme of things but in this particular matter it's fucking disgusting. Johnson has ADMITTED HIMSELF that he KNEW she was under 16 and did it anyway. i also don't see why RAF is happy to not castigate Johnson until he knows all the fact yet is happy to try to defend him in that way without knowing all the facts. for anyone to try to even slightly defend him (when he himself had admitted he knew what he did was against the law) is absolutely fucking abhorrent!!!!! Yeah RAF's line about being all restrained and not judging "until we know the facts" was rather amusing, given his initial rush to introduce imaginary mitigating factors partially absolving Johnson - without knowing the facts. They weren't imaginary though, they are facts from other such cases that could be taken into account, and I wasn't trying to absolve anything of the sort. That is just your halfwitted misunderstanding and given your fuckwitted track record its not fucking surprising. H
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 10, 2016 19:08:30 GMT
I wasn't defending anyone Mick and I take absolute fucking exception to you even suggesting as much. Unlike some of the knee jerk kangaroo court cunters on here I was more than happy to wait for absolute fact before calling him a peado or nonce and condemning him to a baseball batting. This kind of case is so prevelant in this day an age it's never fucking cut and dry. If what you have quoted is actually fact from the court I hope the cunt gets his bollocks cut off. Please don't ever accuse me of something like that again. H Apoliogies RAF (genuinely) if i got the wrong end of the stick and misrepresented your meaning. As i said, my main concern with you using that particular line was that it would drag us into a thread discussing Ched Evans etc. (Where i agree your line is applicable) when this case bears no similarities to it. No offence intended You did get it wrong, but I accept your apologies. Like I said if those are the facts he needs a fucking doing! H
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Feb 10, 2016 19:09:41 GMT
I didn't realise we had so many would be QC's on here? If I'm ever in a spot of bother, I shall seek a number of you out! Don't think anyone needs to be a "would be QC" when the defendant pleads guilty mate. Hardly as if it's people giving any legal viewpoints, just stating facts as to what the charges are and the fact that he himself said he did it
|
|
|
Post by stokie1130 on Feb 10, 2016 19:27:29 GMT
Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedJust been in the Sunderland fanzine to just see what they are all saying like, to see if they are in the same mindset as the majority of us and this is what I found, I'm quite shocked to be honest, seems like a proper kop out to me and makes me feel very uneasy, are some of them actually thinking of defending him???
|
|