The Fish 9240 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Lets not do anything hasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26833 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 To be honest, that looks to me like they suspended him while they made their minds up what to do with him, then he's insisted his innocence and they've given him the benefit of the doubt. 'Benefit of the doubt' If they were comfortably in mid-table he'd have remained suspended, it was purely because they were in the shit that they let him play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26833 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I think peedoofsunderland would suit you much better anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9240 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 'Benefit of the doubt' If they were comfortably in mid-table he'd have remained suspended, it was purely because they were in the shit that they let him play. Dunno, perhaps. End of the day he was innocent until proven guilty so you can't really have a go at sunderland for treating him as an innocent man. If they knew he was going to plead guilty to the charges, then they're scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30807 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 That's going to have any browsing mackems in a fucking fizz and no mistake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJRvd9JAgTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Dunno, perhaps. End of the day he was innocent until proven guilty so you can't really have a go at sunderland for treating him as an innocent man. If they knew he was going to plead guilty to the charges, then they're scum. That's the one for me like. That would clearly show how classy they are. I think if he was telling them he was innocent they'd have been right to allow him to do his job as normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35595 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I don't think his employer has any right to know what he's discussing with his legal counsel. I suspect he's sworn blind to them that he's innocent, and his lawyers have since said "you're not like". I think the club probably only found out either today or very recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18051 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Dunno, perhaps. End of the day he was innocent until proven guilty so you can't really have a go at sunderland for treating him as an innocent man. If they knew he was going to plead guilty to the charges, then they're scum. Hold on, being suspended, pending his court case, is not assuming he's guilty. It's what happens in most cases I can think about. It would happen to me if I was charged. Look at the fuss over Chad Evans who ateotd had served his sentence. It's utterly reprehensible what SAFC has done as a club imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18051 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I don't think his employer has any right to know what he's discussing with his legal counsel. I suspect he's sworn blind to them that he's innocent, and his lawyers have since said "you're not like". I think the club probably only found out either today or very recently. Except Johnson is thick as pig shit and stupid people rarely make good liars. Out of interest, do people know what their company's policies are concerning serious allegations like this? I'd be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30807 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I don't think his employer has any right to know what he's discussing with his legal counsel. I suspect he's sworn blind to them that he's innocent, and his lawyers have since said "you're not like". I think the club probably only found out either today or very recently. Think different rules apply when it's all played out in the public domain like this. They'd have known (or wanted to know) what the crack was as soon as the allegations arose. Obviously the legal advice he's been given (which he's clearly acting upon) would've been more recent but probably a while back. I suppose the club were in a difficult position once they'd stood by him. They didn't have to keep playing him though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6094 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6094 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18051 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 To be honest, that looks to me like they suspended him while they made their minds up what to do with him, then he's insisted his innocence and they've given him the benefit of the doubt. Also I don't get this. I assume he has always, until today, maintained his innocence. He was suspended for weeks iirc. So then he's charged, and the club say "ah, it's only underage sex AND grooming, that's not so bad, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt......"? Makes no sense. The CPS were convinced they had a case. That means that, statistically speaking, he was probably going to be found guilty. Yet it's okay for the club to play him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30807 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Ewerk has it spot on imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9240 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Also I don't get this. I assume he has always, until today, maintained his innocence. He was suspended for weeks iirc. So then he's charged, and the club say "ah, it's only underage sex AND grooming, that's not so bad, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt......"? Makes no sense. The CPS were convinced they had a case. That means that, statistically speaking, he was probably going to be found guilty. Yet it's okay for the club to play him? Don't follow your first point here. Surely the timeline is; He's charged, the club suspends him, he denies any wrongdoing, the club assumes his innocence & reinstates him. Subsequently he pleads guilty. Also the CPS are hardly infallible, I wouldn't take their eagerness to pursue a case as evidence of guilt. If their case was built mainly on the testimony of the girl and that had turned out to be false, they'd have been confident, but actually had no case at all, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I believe they have more evidence than what the girl has told them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30807 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The thick fucker was probably texting her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6094 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) You would assume so if he's pleaded guilty. There's a saying in law, 'Don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to.' The CPS must feel they have enough evidence to bring the case and be confident of a conviction Edited February 10, 2016 by StraightEdgeWizard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18051 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Don't follow your first point here. Surely the timeline is; He's charged, the club suspends him, he denies any wrongdoing, the club assumes his innocence & reinstates him. Subsequently he pleads guilty. Also the CPS are hardly infallible, I wouldn't take their eagerness to pursue a case as evidence of guilt. If their case was built mainly on the testimony of the girl and that had turned out to be false, they'd have been confident, but actually had no case at all, no? Well no, I thought the club reinstated him immediate after the CPS had made a decision to charge him, which I always thought bizarre. But obviously the real reasons for the club's actions have been stated by ewerk, the club were desperate to avoid relegation at this stage and we're missing him on the pitch. Secondly, it was obvious the CPS had electronic evidence of grooming imo, it was never one person's word against anothers. How much the club knew, I don't know, but usual procedures for an ethical employer would have been suspension on full pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Mackems shouldn't have presumed his guilt or innocence, because of the nature of the allegations he should have been suspended pending the outcome. Have they had a points deduction yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14914 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 If he'd been working in the public sector or in any corporate set up am thinking he'd have been suspeneded as soon as he was charged? There's probably hundreds of teenage girls go to Sunderland games. What a shower of morally bankrupt cunts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/ian-huntley.1198632/. Edit: been pulled now. Basically a thread asking if other fans would accept Ian Huntley as a squad member if he scored vs us in the derby Edited February 10, 2016 by TheGingerQuiff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The admission of grooming and limited sexual contact to me makes it sound as if hes guilty of much worse. You have to ask whether someone who goes to the effort of grooming a 15 year old would stop at kissing. The guilty admissions sound to me like something his lawyers have come up with to mitigate the sentence. All just speculation of course but the evidence against him must be pretty bad for him to make any admission of wrong doing given the implications for him. More than a "his word against her word" type situation anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anorthernsoul 1221 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Unbelievable the amount of thick fucking idiots supporting him clearly misunderstanding what grooming actually is. His lass wants shot with shit aswell the money grabbing split arse cunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 If he's released by SAFC we'll probably sign him on a free 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