Howay 12496 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) Because being "charged" with something , doesnt mean people are guilty. Geordie Logic Where did I say they were the same thing? However the CPS rarely charges people unless they feel they have good evidence, are you unaware that trials are expensive and trying to avoid them is a big part of law? They clearly had the evidence of phone contact etc, the defence will have probably been aware of the evidence. The fact is he was charged with grooming and sexual relations with a minor, often people under those sort of charges are put on paid suspension from work (if the company is following the whole innocent until proven guilty reasoning) but your lot actively played a man charged with a serious crime to save their own skin, it's disgraceful and you should get familiar with the difference between being under suspicion of something and being charged with something, you (and a lot of your peers) are seriously underestimating what being charged with something means. Your lot went fucking berserk when Remy played for us and he was never even charged, not even close to it. Your post is simply uninformed, under-educated logic. Edited February 20, 2016 by Howay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haydnator 45 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 It's Brass Eye isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 27514 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Jap's eye round here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I ♥ Daddys Cock 0 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Where did I say they were the same thing? However the CPS rarely charges people unless they feel they have good evidence, are you unaware that trials are expensive and trying to avoid them is a big part of law? They clearly had the evidence of phone contact etc, the defence will have probably been aware of the evidence. The fact is he was charged with grooming and sexual relations with a minor, often people under those sort of charges are put on paid suspension from work (if the company is following the whole innocent until proven guilty reasoning) but your lot actively played a man charged with a serious crime to save their own skin, it's disgraceful and you should get familiar with the difference between being under suspicion of something and being charged with something, you (and a lot of your peers) are seriously underestimating what being charged with something means. Your lot went fucking berserk when Remy played for us and he was never even charged, not even close to it. Your post is simply uninformed, under-educated logic. A lot of people including me were totally wrong. Like i said , i personally didnt think he would be so stupid to do the crimes he has admitted to. He told his wife/gf after arrest that the girl was 16 . Who knows what he actually told the club aswell. We will never know. But you can be certain he wont have admitted the crimes to the club He deserves whats coming to him. But it would be ignorant to think he had admitted to the club what he had done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Be a canny big fuck up by police if the girl was actually 16 Mong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Where did I say he admitted anything to SAFC? My point is I find it utterly bizzare and pretty abhorrent that your club played a bloke charged with those offences, especially after suspending him when he was being questioned initially. He should have been put on paid suspension. I also find it fucking hilarious that you lot are trying to take some sort of stand in all of this after the way you all went on after we played Barton (after he served his time) and Remy (after he was arrested under suspicion and no charge followed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4002 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 There's also the element of him working for a business which has access to kids - that alone should have seen him suspended and banned from the premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26793 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 There were a couple of Coronation Street actors charged with sexual offences and were immediately suspended pending the outcome. Both were acquitted and returned to work. Seems to be the normal way of doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Unless you're a "classy" club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13915 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 There were a couple of Coronation Street actors charged with sexual offences and were immediately suspended pending the outcome. Both were acquitted and returned to work. Seems to be the normal way of doing it. Unless you're about to get relegated and it involves your best player. I can't believe the mackems would even try to spin it any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I ♥ Daddys Cock 0 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Where did I say he admitted anything to SAFC? My point is I find it utterly bizzare and pretty abhorrent that your club played a bloke charged with those offences, especially after suspending him when he was being questioned initially. He should have been put on paid suspension. I also find it fucking hilarious that you lot are trying to take some sort of stand in all of this after the way you all went on after we played Barton (after he served his time) and Remy (after he was arrested under suspicion and no charge followed). He pleaded not guilty though in his 1st court appearance last year. Why suspend someone who pleads not guilty ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26793 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Did you miss my post above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 In case they're lying and because of the nature of the charges and because they work near Children. Ken Barlow and Kevin Webster pleaded not guilty and had their suspensions lifted after acquittal. Where are you struggling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Ian Huntley pleaded not guilty, would you have wanted him at work whilst awaiting trial? School caretaker wasn't he? Mackems completely showing themselves up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 27514 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 In case they're lying and because of the nature of the charges and because they work near Children. Ken Barlow and Kevin Webster pleaded not guilty and had their suspensions lifted after acquittal. Where are you struggling?He struggles to breathe through his nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 He pleaded not guilty though in his 1st court appearance last year. Why suspend someone who pleads not guilty ? Have a read of NJS and Ewerks posts that came before your response and The Ginger Quiffs response after your post for the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30758 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 He pleaded not guilty though in his 1st court appearance last year. Why suspend someone who pleads not guilty ?So you could cover yourself in the eventuality you were employing a lying paedo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I ♥ Daddys Cock 0 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Have a read of NJS and Ewerks posts that came before your response and The Ginger Quiffs response after your post for the answer. Ian huntley and coronation st. set employment standards ? Are you for real ? Lets be realistic. He pleaded not gulity and the club backed him instead of sunspending or sacking him Same reason if you , yourself pleaded not guilty to a crime. You would expect your employer , family etc to back you up ? yes ? Myself , like the club didnt think he would be stupid enough to do what he has eventually admitted to doing. A 28 year old kissed a 15 year old and he will get whats coming to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 So the club put more potential victims at risk on a hunch that he was innocent, despite the CPS thinking he was guilty. Righto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26793 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Ian huntley and coronation st. set employment standards ? Are you for real ? Lets be realistic. He pleaded not gulity and the club backed him instead of sunspending or sacking him Same reason if you , yourself pleaded not guilty to a crime. You would expect your employer , family etc to back you up ? yes ? Myself , like the club didnt think he would be stupid enough to do what he has eventually admitted to doing. A 28 year old kissed a 15 year old and he will get whats coming to him You're still in denial that he got a blowjob off her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 If honest Johnson has fessed up to a kiss and only a kiss then that's all that happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) Ian huntley and coronation st. set employment standards ? Are you for real ? Lets be realistic. He pleaded not gulity and the club backed him instead of sunspending or sacking him Same reason if you , yourself pleaded not guilty to a crime. You would expect your employer , family etc to back you up ? yes ? Myself , like the club didnt think he would be stupid enough to do what he has eventually admitted to doing. A 28 year old kissed a 15 year old and he will get whats coming to him Nah I'm simply not having that, utter nonsense using that sort of logic. I'd say ITV/Granada television is a good example, they're also an industry in the public eye and took the correct action of suspending their employees with pay while they awaited trial. How did Johnson, a man charged with serious offences, deserve any more leniency that that? do you not grasp by this point that suspending someone with pay while they await trial is fairly common for this sort of charge? It is also very different to them saying he's guilty. People have given you two recent examples and you've wrote them off as not credible sources for 'setting employment standards', the Ian Huntley example isn't Ian Huntley setting employment standards is it? I would say it was a government entity, a school, making a decision and yes I would say that is a fairly good representation. What difference does it make what his family did or thought? that's completely irrelevant. No I wouldn't expect my employer to back me up anymore than saying take time off with pay if I was charged with offences as serious as Johnson, especially if I was in a position where I could repeat the offence, which he clearly was as where did he meet her? at a Sunderland signing event... The basis of the reasoning you are using is also very shaky, the club suspended the bloke following his arrest under suspicion but then dropped the suspension and allowed him to play after he was charged, that makes no sense if you are going with your logic. SAFC dropped a bollock on this one, the longer you and other fans keep defending it the dafter you all look. Your club played the cunt to try and save their skin and he definitely helped them do that, it was never about the club protecting his right to a presumption of innocence if that was the case there is nothing wrong with him being paid while suspended, that is the fairest option and the option that covers the club, instead they accepted the risk and have been burnt by it the problem is people like you still trying to defend it. The man whose daughter this is supports your club, she also supports the club, they had to watch this scumbag play every week while they waited for this case to be brought to court. You're clearly fine with that but you must surely see how many are uncomfortable with it. Suspension with pay is the common method no matter what industry, there is nothing wrong with it and it doesn't infringe on the persons presumption of innocence. He will get what is coming to him but your club deserves the shite that is getting thrown at it. Edited February 21, 2016 by Howay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 27514 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Nah I'm simply not having that, utter nonsense using that sort of logic. I'd say ITV/Granada television is a good example, they're also an industry in the public eye and took the correct action of suspending their employees with pay while they awaited trial. How did Johnson, a man charged with serious offences, deserve any more leniency that that? do you not grasp by this point that suspending someone with pay while they await trial is fairly common for this sort of charge? It is also very different to them saying he's guilty. People have given you two recent examples and you've wrote them off as not credible sources for 'setting employment standards', the Ian Huntley example isn't Ian Huntley setting employment standards is it? I would say it was a government entity, a school, making a decision and yes I would say that is a fairly good representation. What difference does it make what his family did or thought? that's completely irrelevant. No I wouldn't expect my employer to back me up anymore than saying take time off with pay if I was charged with offences as serious as Johnson, especially if I was in a position where I could repeat the offence, which he clearly was as where did he meet her? at a Sunderland signing event... The basis of the reasoning you are using is also very shaky, the club suspended the bloke following his arrest under suspicion but then dropped the suspension and allowed him to play after he was charged, that makes no sense if you are going with your logic. SAFC dropped a bollock on this one, the longer you and other fans keep defending it the dafter you all look. Your club played the cunt to try and save their skin and he definitely helped them do that, it was never about the club protecting his right to a presumption of innocence if that was the case there is nothing wrong with him being paid while suspended, that is the fairest option and the option that covers the club, instead they accepted the risk and have been burnt by it the problem is people like you still trying to defend it. The man whose daughter this is supports your club, she also supports the club, they had to watch this scumbag play every week while they waited for this case to be brought to court. You're clearly fine with that but you must surely see how many are uncomfortable with it. Suspension with pay is the common method no matter what industry, there is nothing wrong with it and it doesn't infringe on the persons presumption of innocence. He will get what is coming to him but your club deserves the shite that is getting thrown at it. but you are comparing bet lynch to SAFC. he told club he was innocent typical jawdee etc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Doubt Johnson would have been offended at full-pay suspension btw, better than having "PAEDO!" chanted at him at matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 FuckTheMinors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now