• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    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.
Dogbark said:
Since when did all police evidence get 100% convictions? Interesting development if so.
Click to expand...

Isn't the point that potentially, there's a lad there who could end up in jail and on the sexual offences register for predatory behaviour in seeking out a child to have sex with? Now he may be acquitted but there exists at least some evidence that he has been involved in the above. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate for him to represent the Club until it's all been sorted. I certainly don't want to see him in the shirt until any evidence has been dismissed.
 

Dogbark said:
But they haven't and there's fuck all you can do about it. Move on.
Click to expand...

I can exercise my right to free speech and say I think it's wrong. I can also choose to not go to the match if I so desire.

If that's okay with you, Mr Politburo.
 
JimmyQuinn said:
And therein lies the proof that you're morally destitute. How pathetic.
Click to expand...
Disagree completely. I'm far from morally destitute I just don't think the answer is simple, I think it's a minefield. I understand everyone will have different opinions, but I don't think Sunderland supporters should call fellow supporters for having different opinions
 
janey said:
Disagree completely. I'm far from morally destitute I just don't think the answer is simple, I think it's a minefield. I understand everyone will have different opinions, but I don't think Sunderland supporters should call fellow supporters for having different opinions
Click to expand...

You think a relegation battle supersedes a child sex case?
 
gavinmcant said:
Isn't the point that potentially, there's a lad there who could end up in jail and on the sexual offences register for predatory behaviour in seeking out a child to have sex with? Now he may be acquitted but there exists at least some evidence that he has been involved in the above. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate for him to represent the Club until it's all been sorted. I certainly don't want to see him in the shirt until any evidence has been dismissed.
Click to expand...
Even if you didn't have arguably one of your best players turning out for a year, when potentially he could be found not guilty.
I really don't know the answer and am playing devils advocate but it's a possibility

JimmyQuinn said:
You think a relegation battle supersedes a child sex case?
Click to expand...
Did I say that, I said its a minefield, there is no easy answer but calling fellow fans pathetic for having a different view isn't the answer.
I know exactly what I said and exactly my views but hey go ahead fill your boots and twist it to suit your agenda
 
janey said:
Even if you didn't have arguably one of your best players turning out for a year, when potentially he could be found not guilty.
I really don't know the answer and am playing devils advocate but it's a possibility


Did I say that, I said its a minefield, there is no easy answer but calling fellow fans pathetic for having a different view isn't the answer.
I know exactly what I said and exactly my views but hey go ahead fill your boots and twist it to suit your agenda
Click to expand...

Right, well, no, the reason I asked you that is because it wasn't you I said was 'morally destitute'. You then weighed in defending yourself against that - which implied you echoed his view that a relegation battle is more important.

Edit: also, I have no agenda. Not sure what it would be?
 
Dogbark said:
Him playing football while awaiting trial, doesn't conflict with the judicial process surely?
Click to expand...

Again, check back through my posts and not once have I argued my viewpoint is based upon the legality of SAFC's decision. It's a moral thing.
 
Sumdumgi said:
The original suspension was to allow an investigation to take place and establish the situation. It's not considered as a disciplinary action and in law suspensions are recommended for creating a space for consideration to be made in response to events. In effect there has been a decision made to allow the law to take it's course as people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's not an 'about face' at all.
Click to expand...
Fair enough Sumdimgi, I understand your point, but it does not sway me from believing that the club have/are displaying both naivity and inconsistency in their thinking. If, as you say, the initial suspension was indeed to facilitate "a space for consideration in response to events" then in my mind that same consideration applies - more so- to events which have then taken a more serious turn ( in this case the laying of charges). So, while I acknowledge your argument, I maintain there has been an " about face " in the club's thinking.
 
JimmyQuinn said:
Right, well, no, the reason I asked you that is because it wasn't you I said was 'morally destitute'. You then weighed in defending yourself against that - which implied you echoed his view that a relegation battle is more important.

Edit: also, I have no agenda. Not sure what it would be?
Click to expand...
Truthfully I think it's a difficult situation, my stance is I wouldn't want to be the person making the decision. If it was going to be sorted quickly then suspend him, but it's very likely it will take months.
In that time the case might be thrown out, it might get to court and he might be found innocent or guilty.
There is just too many scenarios to judge as it stands. But it doesn't make anyone defending the decision of the club morally bankrupt, imo of course
 
Tmm24 said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Not sure what to make of this
Click to expand...

"Jill Saward was the first rape victim in England to waive her legal right to anonymity and she has urged fans to boycott the Stadium of Light because of the decision."

Someone tell her we aren't mags. Idiot
 
In my opinion he shouldnt be in the squad now hes been charged i just feel its a distraction not only to him but the whole team and one we could do without. As much as i do believe in innocent until proven guilty i do feel its reflecting badly on the club letting him play and we have enough to worry about as a club atm
 
I do wonder how his teammates feel about it, I imagine we would have suspended him if they weren't supportive but it's a terrible situation. One for the "body language experts" I'm sure.
 
ZOMBIES said:
I do wonder how his teammates feel about it, I imagine we would have suspended him if they weren't supportive but it's a terrible situation. One for the "body language experts" I'm sure.
Click to expand...
And regardless of the rights and wrongs you know the TV commentators will pick up on this. Imagine if he got a winner
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top