Forum menu
He should be treated like any other person who is guilty of the crime. And we really do not need to know the details....
But his position* was a factor in the crime - as would a teachers position be in grooming a pupil. I doubt he'd have got very far if he was a Sunday league player.
(*his wage is not though).
But his position* was a factor in the crime - as would a teachers position be in grooming a pupil.
Hardly the same, Teachers are by definition responsible for Children welfare 8 hours a day. Footballers are not.
Hardly the same
Nobody has said it's the "same", only that it's a factor.
Nobody has said it's the "same", only that it's a factor.
Exactly. These players have a godlike status among a subset of teenage fans - he abused that position to coerce one into underage sex, and that has to be an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing.
Also, maintaining his innocence of the grooming offence right up to the court date, probably just to keep the money rolling in, has meant the victim has been deluged with threats and abuse for over a year.
the sun are doing their best to compare him to Huntley and Bellfield 😯
[img] 
[/img]
Of course, the other side to this is that in quite a few allegedly enlightened European/western countries this wouldn't be a crime, however morally reprehensible his actions were?
That's irrelevant.
That's irrelevant.
not really - if we consider, as a nation, that sex with a 15 year old is a perversion, then why are we happy to be in a union with nations that tolerate such perversion ?
Another reason to get out of the EU...
"However, she was only just under the age of consent. Are you telling us that if she was say, six months older, it would be perfectly OK? Which I think is the OPs point. I don't know her exact age. What if it was a day before her birthday? A day after?"
She'd just had her 15th birthday when he started to groom her - she'd told him that. She'd told him that she wasn't old enough to go out, and the text messages show that it was him that kept on turning the conversations sexual. His behaviour was classic grooming, very similar to the guys in Rochdale and Rotherham - find a vulnerable/impressionable teenage girl, flatter her and give her gifts, build a relationship and pressure her into thinking that she owes sexual favours before escalating the abuse.
European countries with a lower age of consent do have disclaimers written into law - for example, countries with an age of 14 have laws such as its a criminal offence if someone 'abuses their position' to have sex with an under 18, or that it's a criminal offence to have sex with somebody under 16/18 if they're not emotionally or physically mature enough to fully understand the act, or that 14-16/18 is only legal if there's no more than a two year age gap between the partners.
Go and have a read about the various conditions surrounding lower ages of consent across Europe TurnerGuy. Come back to us when you understand the matter at hand a little better.
Thread about grooming someone under the age of consent becomes someone's reason to "get out of the EU..."
Weird with a tinge of sinister.
not really - if we consider, as a nation, that sex with a 15 year old is a perversion, then why are we happy to be in a union with nations that tolerate such perversion ?Another reason to get out of the EU...
I didn't realise this was a thread about the EU.
if we consider, as a nation, that sex with a 15 year old is a perversion, then why are we happy to be in a union with nations that tolerate such perversion ?
We consider that people abusing their position to groom a child for sex, knowing them to be underage, is a serious crime.
Your attempt to link this crime to the EU referendum is in extremely poor taste.
IMO it's a simple abuse of position and grooming. Quite right he should go down, and go down hard for a very long time. I have no sympathy for anyone, whatever status or profession, who grooms and commits Sex crimes with minors.
If you want my opinion on his employer, well I think they've been very naive and lack the moral backbone to manage a club, legal support and advice or not. Any management team employing someone who confesses, or is told of an arrest by the police for a charge of this nature, and chooses to ignore and do nothing, legal advice and support or not, and continues to support the employee who has commited these offences should in any moral standing community either sack or stand down from a position of management.
Clearly the management support child abuse.
Sunderland imo acted correctly and in accordance with the law, he said he was not guilty and would plead that way. They suspended him but could not do more till plea / trial. Bikebouy you cannot terminate someone's contract just for being charged with something. I had an ex colleague who was charged with fare dodging (one of the high profile cases) he could not be fired till he was proven guilty
As for Johnson I find it hard to believe this was a first liason with a young fan. His sentence, assuming 5 years, seems correct. He used his position of notoriety to groom a girl who had just turned 15, the 10 year age difference is very relevant. It does however highlight how weak sentencing is for other crimes.
As for EU reference, two things. In Italy the age of consent is 14, if he where not British we couldn't deport him as he has a human right to a family life with his daughter, case law precedent defined by ECJ.
As for EU reference, two things. In Italy the age of consent is 14, if he where not British we couldn't deport him as he has a human right to a family life with his daughter, case law precedent defined by ECJ.
more #jambafacts it's not the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice ]ECJ[/url] its the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights ]European Convention on Human Rights[/url] which was established at the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights ]European Court of Human Rights[/url] which is not the EU
if he where not British we couldn't deport him as he has a human right to a family life with his daughter, case law precedent defined by ECJ.
Handy you mentioned that I am currently invovled in getting some ne'er do wells deported and our Q.C, junior and the relevant Home Office Solicitors haven't noticed that we're wasting our time as they all have kids, I'll point them to this and we can foget about it and go to the pub 😉
@Klunk it was a broad reference and in any case we cannot overule the ECJ because of our membership of the EU. How it was setup is irrelevant, its about the way the EU has migrated and increased its influence.
bikebouy - you are actually aware that this is the UK, not North Korea? Fortunately, if you're accused of anything here, you get to go to trail. A proper trial too. Not one conducted by the tabloid press.
He told his employer that he was innocent of all charges, and intended to please not guilty to all those charges against him. Surely if they then sacked him, he'd be able to take them to court for unfair dismissal?
So don't rail against his employer. They just did what they were legally, contractually obliged in doing, given the information they were supplied.
And I don't understand why the police have now weighed in, and said that they told Sunderland about all the charges against him. Yeah... and....?
Go and have a read about the various conditions surrounding lower ages of consent across Europe TurnerGuy. Come back to us when you understand the matter at hand a little better.
As far as I can see (wikipedia) some countries have age restrictions and some don't.
Not defending the bloke, just think he looks a bit like Rupert Friend...
Quite. If it turned out they'd sacked someone on the back of some baseless allegations, he'd be enforcing payment on the remaining years on his contract if the charges were dropped or thrown out of court. Obviously they would lose quite a handy player too, but that's as self-interested as it gets, and given they suspended him in the first instance, probably not their guiding principle.
I haven't read the details but did the police tell SAFC of the charges, or i understood they'd actually shared some of the evidence as well.
That said - if he maintains innocence up to (and suppose he had beyond the pleading stage of the trial) it's not for the police or the club to say whether the evidence is right or not.
On the other hand - proven guilty or not, most employers have the ability to terminate employment for behaviour likely to damage their reputation.
I suspect - it was in his interest to stay employed to bank as much cash as he could knowing he was guilty and would be a/ going to prison and b/ unemployable as a footballer thereafter. Don't know if that is dishonest or not - just trying to salvage what he can for his family while he can.
And it was probably also not against Sunderland's interests to not invoke any disrepute clause, to fall back against a legal 'innocent until proven guilty' safety net, and use him to avoid relegation, figuring the smell would go away faster than the impact of dropping to the Championship and missing out on the big money.
All IMHO of course.
proven guilty or not, most employers have the ability to terminate employment for behaviour likely to damage their reputation.
If Premiership clubs enforced that, none of them would be able to scrape a team together most weeks
I suspect - it was in his interest to stay employed to bank as much cash as he could knowing he was guilty and would be a/ going to prison and b/ unemployable as a footballer thereafter.
That was precisely what I thought.
The argument would be whether anything they do nowadays can bring their reputation any further down.
Although i suspect groping a 15 year old still just about gets over that threshold.
[ some of my club's recent signings - I'm not sure if it damages their reputation or just calls into question their claim to be a 'football' club. Cos some of them sure as hell aren't footballers]
And I don't understand why the police have now weighed in, and said that they told Sunderland about all the charges against him. Yeah... and....?
Suspect if you look on facebook for the leading officer on the case, you'll see a Newcastle supporter 😆
he broke the law and he deserves to be punished. That said i don't think hes a 'peodo' in the strictest sense (oviously in the eyes of the law he is), 15 year old girls aren't children. Its the grooming and taking advantage bit which is the sickening bit imo...i know someone who met his wife when she was 15 and he was around 22. They've been married for 15 years.
Hes clearly an arrogant dick..why would you cheat on your GF with anyone, especially when she loooks like his misses and hes just had a kid
That said newcastle fans have him nailed...
nsfw....
That said i don't think hes a 'peodo' in the strictest sense (oviously in the eyes of the law he is),
No he's not. Paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children. He's a sex offender. Still not something to put on your house sign, I suppose.
No he's not. Paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children. .
didn't realise there was a distinction in the eyes of the law. Makes sense...
The distinction in law separates children under 13, and children aged 13 to 15 not pre or post puberty and a 15 year old is a child.
The word paedophile doesn't come into the legal definition. It's more a potential description of the individual's severe personality disorder.
Would 'wrong'un' be a better word?
Would 'wrong'un' be a better word?
😀
Whilst I am not condoning his actions one bit. I find it interesting that he is likely to get a harsher sentence than if he punched her in the mouth and broke her jaw for something she wanted to do and was bragging to her mates on social media about.
I think 'Nonce' could still apply legitimately here, since his new position is likely to be on the Rule 45 wing rather than the right wing.
binners - Member
bikebouy - you are actually aware that this is the UK, not North Korea? Fortunately, if you're accused of anything here, you get to go to trail. A proper trial too. Not one conducted by the tabloid press.He told his employer that he was innocent of all charges, and intended to please not guilty to all those charges against him. Surely if they then sacked him, he'd be able to take them to court for unfair dismissal?
So don't rail against his employer. They just did what they were legally, contractually obliged in doing, given the information they were supplied.
And I don't understand why the police have now weighed in, and said that they told Sunderland about all the charges against him. Yeah... and....?
I can say and think what I like, I'm not alone in my opinion either.
I think to some degree his employer is complicit in this, suspension isn't enough he should have been sacked there and then. And you can sack anyone for pretty much anything and certainly "bringing the game into disrepute" or "not representing the company in the correct manner that we expect in the public environment" is pretty much enough, plenty have been sacked for these type of incidents.
And I agree with the police wading in now stating their actions, good on em' they should state the facts, in this high profile case. If now they've only just come out and said they told the club of the incident and it's potential consequences then thats right, the case is closed and they can say what happened.
I think you quite like the fact that the club shunned responsibility.
I can't decide whether you're a tabloid columnist, maybe Richard Littlejohn, or you're presently sat in a Wsetminster think tank writing the Tories new employment legislation
Ether way I claim my bag of sweets
[quote=bikebouy ]I can say and think what I like, I'm not alone in my opinion either.
Sure, but you're wrong (I'm resisting giving examples of other things lots of people agree with 😉 ). No you can't sack people for pretty much anything.
Let's just imagine for a moment somebody who is falsely accused. They go to their employer expressing their innocence, say they will plead not guilty and fight the charges. Their employer sacks them. Subsequently they are found not guilty. In what way has this person not represented their company properly, or brought anything into disrepute? Can you imagine the field day the lawyers would have?
As far as Sunderland were aware, what was the difference between Mr Johnson and the fictional person I've just described?
Sunderland are being treated a little unfairly in this IMO, innocent until proven guilty.
And I agree with the police wading in now stating their actions, good on em' they should state the facts, in this high profile case. If now they've only just come out and said they told the club of the incident and it's potential consequences then thats right, the case is closed and they can say what happened.
The police don't decide who is guilty or otherwise, thankfully.
Ahh, have a go bikebouy for thinking differently to you. Why not.
You can get ride of someone for very minor indiscretions, this is a big one.
But you lot carry on supporting both his and the clubs actions.
It is football after all, clearly above any moral or law based society.
[quote=bikebouy ]But you lot carry on supporting both his and the clubs actions.
and there we go...
[img] 
[/img]
How about you try addressing the points I made - there are a few question marks in there you could try providing replies to if you think I'm wrong.
You can get ride of someone for very minor indiscretions, this is a big one
For which they have now sacked him, now it's been proved he did something wrong.
How about you stop defending the actions of him and the club.
Sunderland are being treated a little unfairly in this IMO, innocent until proven guilty.
I would've thought, given the nature of the charges, that many employers would put the employee on gardening leave, pending the outcome of the trial.
[quote=bikebouy ]How about you stop defending the actions of him and the club.
Here's a smiley one for you 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
.
There was me thinking the H in IMHO meant honest. Apparently it means hindsight.
Actually it means humble. 🙂
Everyday is a school day.
...here's hoping that school day doesn't end up in the back of a footballer's Landrover.