• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.

I am leaning towards the view that the club was lied to by the player and found itself in a position where they had no choice but to remove his suspension. As other have said though, had he been one of the lesser players he would probably been suspended regardless.

I imagine the clubs that went down last and are going down this season might want the PL to take action if they thought that the club knew and put their own interests first.
 
Don't think there's anything in the rules that prevent you from fielding someone waiting to go on trial.

I'm sure we could have selected any male who had the right to work in this country and was registered with the FA.

It's entirely an ethical issue - and from that perspective there are serious questions to answer. You can't be docked points for lack of morals though.
 
partridge amongst the pig said:
Aye. Morally though... Can't take points off for lack of morals though.
Click to expand...

If the PL want to do something they will. Watch Leicester win then get told CL qualification rules have changed and only teams finishing 2 to 5 get in.

Seriously though, there's no way they could impose a points deduction.
 
Sima said:
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?
Click to expand...

You must be logged on to see external links


Aggravating
  • Offender ejaculated or caused victim to ejaculate
  • Threats to prevent victim reporting the incident
  • Offender aware that he or she is suffering from a sexually transmitted infection
Mitigating
  • Small disparity in age between the offender and the victim

No aggravating, no mitigating imo.

Culpability:
The culpability of the offender will be the primary indicator of offence seriousness, and the nature of the sexual activity will provide a guide as to the seriousness of the harm caused to the victim. Other factors will include:

  • the age and degree of vulnerability of the victim - as a general indication, the younger the child, the more vulnerable he or she is likely to be, although older children may also suffer serious and long-term psychological damage as a result of sexual abuse;
  • the age gap between the child and the offender;
  • the youth and immaturity of the offender; and
  • except where it is inherent in an offence, any breach of trust arising from a family relationship between the child and the offender, or from the offender's professional or other responsibility for the child's welfare, will make an offence more serious.
Then:

Type/nature of activity: Penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth or penetration of the vagina or anus with another body part or an object
Starting points: 4 years custody
Sentencing ranges: 3 - 7 years custody

So the offence includes anything inc. penile down to finger... Finger is obviously at the lower end. She's at the higher end of the age bracket (but abuse of a position of trust obviously makes it worse)...

IMO 3 years is a good place to start for likely sentence. Certainly I'd be amazed if it was 5.

You have to consider that penile penetrations of 12 year olds etc are in the same sentencing guidelines as this....
 
xmfd said:
Aye you're right. He ran the fun length of the pitch though, he must have known it was the last time he'd ever get the chance to do it.
Such a waste of talent.
Click to expand...

Still can't believe he had the gall to run the entire length of the pitch to taunt the Mags even though he knew fine well he was guilty. The lad doesn't seem to have shown even the slightest hint of genuine remorse throughout this whole saga.
 
draper said:
I am leaning towards the view that the club was lied to by the player and found itself in a position where they had no choice but to remove his suspension. As other have said though, had he been one of the lesser players he would probably been suspended regardless.

I imagine the clubs that went down last and are going down this season might want the PL to take action if they thought that the club knew and put their own interests first.
Click to expand...
What's with the f***ing obsession over a PL investigation, the clubs statement and stance is very clear that they had no idea he was guilty, so drop the PL intervention shite
 
draper said:
I am leaning towards the view that the club was lied to by the player and found itself in a position where they had no choice but to remove his suspension. As other have said though, had he been one of the lesser players he would probably been suspended regardless.

I imagine the clubs that went down last and are going down this season might want the PL to take action if they thought that the club knew and put their own interests first.
Click to expand...

The club did nothing illegal. And you can't get punished for lack of morals.

Not that I'm saying how they've acted is right. Cos it isn't.
 
cronnyberg said:
Regardless of how much the club knew and when they new it, that statement is terrible IMHO. The wording makes it look like they knew but don't want to admit it, so instead they shift the goalposts and say they didn't influence his plea.

Whether they influenced his plea decision isn't the question. The question is whether they knew and still played him. That's what the fans and the public want to know. A "lawyerish" statement such as this just adds fuel to the fire.

Absolutely gutted about this whole debacle. I know Johnson had a bit of a reputation for being a knob, but would never have guessed any of this. He completely deserves to go away for as long as has been suggested, and if Byrne knew and allowed him to play, she deserves the chop.

I know it's hard to say what you would do in someone else's shoes, but if there was a KNOWN sex offender playing for the club I love, my dad loves and my grandad loved, and I had the ability to stop that, there is no question I would have done so. Knowing and doing nothing is worse than relegation IMO, because we will now forever be known as the club that let him play.

If Byrne knew (which admittedly is still questionable) then she has taken away our integrity, and I don't know how long it will take us to get it back.
Click to expand...

This has summed up my feelings perfectly.

Honestly i'm gutted and pissed off that we'll be remembered for this for years and years to come.
 
Dogbark said:
So they really need to respond to Johnson's statement in court that they knew what he'd been up to?
Click to expand...

If I was CEO of a company, and I was accused in court of having proof that an employee of mine had kissed a 15 year old and I had all the grooming messages, and it wasn't true, and I issued a statement about it, then yes, I would make f***ing sure I refuted everything he said that wasn't true in my statement. That doesn't seem like an unfair expectation imo.
 
haway said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Aggravating
  • Offender ejaculated or caused victim to ejaculate
  • Threats to prevent victim reporting the incident
  • Offender aware that he or she is suffering from a sexually transmitted infection
Mitigating
  • Small disparity in age between the offender and the victim

No aggravating, no mitigating imo.

Culpability:
The culpability of the offender will be the primary indicator of offence seriousness, and the nature of the sexual activity will provide a guide as to the seriousness of the harm caused to the victim. Other factors will include:

  • the age and degree of vulnerability of the victim - as a general indication, the younger the child, the more vulnerable he or she is likely to be, although older children may also suffer serious and long-term psychological damage as a result of sexual abuse;
  • the age gap between the child and the offender;
  • the youth and immaturity of the offender; and
  • except where it is inherent in an offence, any breach of trust arising from a family relationship between the child and the offender, or from the offender's professional or other responsibility for the child's welfare, will make an offence more serious.
Then:

Type/nature of activity: Penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth or penetration of the vagina or anus with another body part or an object
Starting points: 4 years custody
Sentencing ranges: 3 - 7 years custody

So the offence includes anything inc. penile down to finger... Finger is obviously at the lower end. She's at the higher end of the age bracket (but abuse of a position of trust obviously makes it worse)...

IMO 3 years is a good place to start for likely sentence. Certainly I'd be amazed if it was 5.

You have to consider that penile penetrations of 12 year olds etc are in the same sentencing guidelines as this....
Click to expand...

Fit that around the other cases then to show where 5 years may be harsh.
 
draper said:
I am leaning towards the view that the club was lied to by the player and found itself in a position where they had no choice but to remove his suspension. As other have said though, had he been one of the lesser players he would probably been suspended regardless.

I imagine the clubs that went down last and are going down this season might want the PL to take action if they thought that the club knew and put their own interests first.
Click to expand...

Not really a matter for the PL imo, irrespective of the rightness or wrongness of the decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top