partridge amongst the pig
Striker
You are though. Anyway, he's not our problem any more. I'm more pissed off about being lied to by the club.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good point, but I don't see him doing much decreasing the way this case has gone.
How are you ranking these cases (still no actual evidence) to show they are worse than what Adam Johnson done? What factors are you taking into consideration?
That's it lets close all discussion forums down as you clearly aren't allowed to discuss something unless you are an expert in that subject
I'm saying that if he gets anything north of 5 years its absolute madness.Never mind hoying smiles out there. You are on this thread acting like Rumpole of the bailey ffs. You are outraged at a sentence that hasn't even been handed down yet
Where?Female teachers / teaching assistants having sex with minors and receiving no jail time.
Legally we did nothing wrong
Why does that offend you thoughPeople are getting outraged at a sentence that hasn't been given yet ffs
I'm saying that if he gets anything north of 5 years its absolute madness.
But you love a little nibble yourself though rob, its blatantly obviousPeople are getting outraged at a sentence that hasn't been given yet ffs
You're probably too old im afraid.Where?
So they really need to respond to Johnson's statement in court that they knew what he'd been up to?Nobody is saying there's an obligation man
If a hundred people came out and alleged the whole SAFC board were corrupt and all the worst allegations you can imagine etc etc. then there would be no 'obligation' to respond, but it would be best advised they did.
The only time you can be 'obligated' to talk in the UK is when you're told to by a court, but it doesn't mean it's not f***ing stupid not to in other situations.
Not one person has said in 72 pages of this thread SAFC have a legal obligation to reply, just that it would be in their best interests to, if they have nothing to hide.
Choon!I think the offence he's up for includes anything from sexual contact to penile penetration so the fact the starting point is 5 years doesn't mean that in his case it is. She's at the top end of the age bracket and digital penetration would be less than penile but we'll see when the verdict is announced.
Based on my own opinion, and I don't think i'd be alone in thinking that either.Again, based on what?
Right there and then he has to be presumed innocent?
As I said I think if you look at the offence it includes any age (e.g. down to a proper child - 3 or 4) and includes anything from penile penetration to less, and he's up for digital penetration. On both fronts he's in deep shit and will probably end up in prison but the fact the sentencing range is so wide doesn't mean he'll get the full whack of it.
Based on my own opinion, and I don't think i'd be alone in thinking that either.