Johnson in the sun...


Status
Not open for further replies.
Well my main point was about it not doing the victim any favours. She will read this and it will presumably upset her quite a bit. Why couldn't the Sun get the footage and just send it in to NOMS if they were that concerned about it? Putting it online just rams it in the victim's face imo.
cos he's a ex England and premier league footballer so it'll sell papers. For it's really shows how stupid Johnson really is as he was clearly getting set up , yet continued to open his mouth..He's clearly must have said similar before for someone to video it...
 
If he had done it in France no one would have any issue with it. He's an idiot.

cos he's a ex England and premier league footballer so it'll sell papers. For it's really shows how stupid Johnson really is as he was clearly getting set up , yet continued to open his mouth..He's clearly must have said similar before for someone to video it...

It was clearly a set up :lol: Were they standing there with big cameras, lighting and with mics on the go?
 
He's not doing himself any favours. Best he keeps his head down and his gob shut.
 
Never ceases to amaze me how the same posters flock to these threads to pick from the following shite arguments

'His sentence was too harsh'
'He was penalised for being a footballer'
'The headline is sensationalist'
'Other people have done worse'
'There are other crimes that are worse'
'She was nearly an adult'
'He's not a paedophile'
'The paper reporting this was a disgrace'

are the ones who get so terribly affronted at the suggestion they are defending him.

No excuses, no mitigation, end of story IMO.
 
I didn't have a pop - I asked if your point was that it's ok for people to think like that.

Believe it or not, past comments can be relevant as they're not mutually exclusive from people's views expressed here.

This is a thread people want to discuss so I don't want a prolonged side argument, so I'll leave it here.

This is how you started your 'discussion' ...... "Eh? He played for SAFC so fuck morality?"

If you think that's OK then don't complain if I respond in kind, you've taken a harmless comment and 'interpreted it' how it best suits you.

As for people defending his actions 'because he played and scored for us', you're now saying your comments weren't referring to anyone on this thread, not one person.

Pleased we've cleared that up ..... or if you're so desperate to accuse people perhaps you could post just one, of the many, posts from people doing what you claim.
"a view supported by plenty of things I've heard and seen written since this whole sorry affair began."

In my opinion you're looking at other posters commenting on the length of his sentence etc, then simply deciding it's because their judgement is clouded.

That's a little arrogant imo.

Well my main point was about it not doing the victim any favours. She will read this and it will presumably upset her quite a bit. Why couldn't the Sun get the footage and just send it in to NOMS if they were that concerned about it? Putting it online just rams it in the victim's face imo.

:eek:
 
The other stuff he said is true and worrying, in that any lad and lass could have sex and if she's been drinking he risks being done for rape. That can't be right like.

Must be a nightmare for young lads these days, their chat up lines have to include a demand to see ID, have them sign a consent form and to walk in a straight line whilst being videod.
 
Never ceases to amaze me how the same posters flock to these threads to pick from the following shite arguments

'His sentence was too harsh'
'He was penalised for being a footballer'
'The headline is sensationalist'
'Other people have done worse'
'There are other crimes that are worse'
'She was nearly an adult'
'He's not a paedophile'
'The paper reporting this was a disgrace'

are the ones who get so terribly affronted at the suggestion they are defending him.

No excuses, no mitigation, end of story IMO.

But I do think his sentence was too harsh :lol:

Why is this a shit argument?

At the time after his trial, when people were saying "ah well he didnt do anything wrong really" I was one of the main posters saying what he did was wrong, that it was an abuse of power/ trust and it was completely inappropriate behaviour.

But I still think the sentence was too long. I often read cases and think "that sentence was too long" or "that sentence was too short". Do you not? Do you think every sentence is right?

I don't see what the issue is with disagreeing with the length of his sentence. It has fuck all to do with him playing for us. I thought it was shameful he was still allowed to play once he was charged. I do think he deserved to be punished. But 6 years? Nah.
 
This is the thing that boils my piss. Yes, he's a f***ing arsehole. YES he abused his position. BUT, he IS NOT A PAEDO!
It's the sun we're on about Fletch. Their grip on reality is tenuous at the best of times, they have demonstrated countless times in the past they will go to press with anything and everything that generates income, regardless of veracity. It's one of the down sides of having a relatively free press. The people that buy it, and the ones that lap up this drivel need to have a word with themselves because as long as it sells the sun will keep printing it.
 
But I do think his sentence was too harsh :lol:

Why is this a shit argument?

At the time after his trial, when people were saying "ah well he didnt do anything wrong really" I was one of the main posters saying what he did was wrong, that it was an abuse of power/ trust and it was completely inappropriate behaviour.

But I still think the sentence was too long. I often read cases and think "that sentence was too long" or "that sentence was too short". Do you not? Do you think every sentence is right?

I don't see what the issue is with disagreeing with the length of his sentence. It has fuck all to do with him playing for us. I thought it was shameful he was still allowed to play once he was charged. I do think he deserved to be punished. But 6 years? Nah.

Cracking post.
 
Never ceases to amaze me how the same posters flock to these threads to pick from the following shite arguments

'His sentence was too harsh'
'He was penalised for being a footballer'
'The headline is sensationalist'
'Other people have done worse'
'There are other crimes that are worse'
'She was nearly an adult'
'He's not a paedophile'
'The paper reporting this was a disgrace'

are the ones who get so terribly affronted at the suggestion they are defending him.

No excuses, no mitigation, end of story IMO.
I wonder how many of those people would have dobbed him into the polis had they been privy to his goings on before the whole thing blew up in his face? I'll wager a fair percentage would have had the view that they were better off protecting the reputation of the club rather than doing the right thing.
 
I wonder how many of those people would have dobbed him into the polis had they been privy to his goings on before the whole thing blew up in his face? I'll wager a fair percentage would have had the view that they were better off protecting the reputation of the club rather than doing the right thing.

I reckon you're wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top