• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

BBC Johnson free to play for Sunderland

  • Thread starter Thread starter RTG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

PTR said:
Oh wow, didn't expect that.

Not that I'm against him, or pre-judging at all. But the media-storm and the abuse in the grounds is going to be awful.

Not at all what the club needs to be part of.
Nor his family tbh.
Click to expand...
or the girl and her family, must feel like a massive kick in the teeth made even worse given they are sunderland fans.
 
walesie said:
One lass taking offence doesn't & shouldn't dictate the clubs policy.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with gender - males will equally be offended when it comes to cases of alleged child abuse. However the club's stance on this is quite bizarre. Initially they suspended Johnson after arrest but before he was formally bailed yet they now sit on their hands and do nothing after he has been charged! I argued at the time that the club should have made their decision once he had been bailed and not before but it seems most on here disagreed and supported the club for suspending him because he had been arrested. I think most employers would suspend an employee if he/she was charged with serious sex offences so it comes as a surprise that the club haven't. Totally inconsistent if you ask me but hey, we have a legal expert in the form of our CEO so what do I know! Meanwhile I suggest that the club has decided to see the public reaction before making any decision to play Johnson. If there is a significant reaction they will simply not play him without the need to suspend him.
 
It seems another poor decision by the club, right or wrong...the lad should be taken out of the firing line. Or is the club hoping that something stupid is said in the press which will kill the case Which goes along with the clubs comments regarding fair hearing etc?
 
"The club recognises that the formal legal process must take its course and whilst our position remains unchanged, we will keep the matter under review,"
Click to expand...

You think that means if the shitstorm is big enough they'll bottle it?
 
I think Sunderland's hands are tied on this issue. I believe the Players Association have step in and read the rights to Sunderland. The sponsors surely would be loud and clear by now. Some facts behind the scenes that we all do not now about may be why this descision was made.
 
RichD said:
It seems another poor decision by the club, right or wrong...the lad should be taken out of the firing line. Or is the club hoping that something stupid is said in the press which will kill the case Which goes along with the clubs comments regarding fair hearing etc?
Click to expand...

Which do you think would work better for that - suspending him, or saying he's eligible to be picked but not playing him?
 
Discopants91 said:
You think that means if the shitstorm is big enough they'll bottle it?
Click to expand...

I think they're just covering all the bases with this one, I suppose it's what any prudent employer would do when the employee is so high profile. I'm not sure why the club's getting so many daggers for this.
 
Discopants91 said:
This is a great case for arguing that the victim and accused should be anonymous until a verdict is reached.
Click to expand...

That would be seriously flawed.

Mary Hinge said:
It does cover the actual fact that he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law...
Click to expand...

Absolutely. However, an employer suspending an employee is not a judgement on guilt or innoncence nor is it depriving someone of their liberty.

The issues of suspension from work and guilt in a court of law are separate. If that court of law finds someone guilty, the company who allowed the convicted person to continue to represent them have been employing a guilty person from the moment he or she committed the crime.

Im no legal expert nor would I profess to be but the club have dealt with this very differently to how most employers would.
 
Tin Soldier said:
5 live now very wooly statement from the club re whether he will play but we are going to get pelters for this across the UK . If he plays and is then found guilty this will beat any of the Ched Evans fiasco
Click to expand...
This decision isn't even comparable in my opinion. The 'Ched Evans fiasco' only occurred after he had been convicted in a court of law, he played up until his trial with very little said. As daft as the press can be there won't be any retrospective wrath or witch hunt of the club if AJ's subsequently found guilty, not en masse anyway.

Those saying if he's found guilty then the club will look foolish, does that mean that if he's found innocent then the club's vindicated and made a good decision? The outcome of the case makes no difference to the decision today whether you agree with it or not. The club's chosen to deem him innocent until proven otherwise, I'd say they could've called it either way. Their main mistake in all this, in my opinion, with the benefit of hindsight, was reacting to the arrest with a suspension in the first place, or revoking it in the first place. Should've been one or t'other.
 
If he scores the winner against Stoke and Southampton, how many people will be criticising the club? Serious question.
 
Hep said:
morals for what, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. The legal process could take months or years - why should we suspend him? It's not like he's a primary school teacher.
Click to expand...

The trial is on May 20th.

He's not a primary school teacher so we shouldn't hold him to a decent moral standard? He's a bloke who is applauded on a weekly basis by people on the basis of the club he plays for, and in being charged with this he's tarnished the club's image - the club had a chance to do the right thing, morally, and suspend him until it's over.

Instead they've put Premier League survival over morality. Class.
 
Hep said:
morals for what, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. The legal process could take months or years - why should we suspend him? It's not like he's a primary school teacher.
Click to expand...

Because he is going to be on trial for serious allegations. The fact they suspended him when arrested initially, but let him play after being charged makes the club look stupid tbh.

Don't agree with club, but i'm sure it'll split opinions
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top