What both did was wrong but its worse than what Ched Evans did
Ched Evans still protests his innocence to this day, even after doing his time. There is a CHANCE Evans didn't do it. Johnson has pleated guilty to his crimes which means he definitely did it so he is far worse in my opinion
Nope.
Not in the eyes of the law, which at the end of the day is all that matters.
I strongly have to disagree with you there. Innocent people go to prison for crimes they haven't commited. Only Evans & the girl in question know the truth. Life isn't as simple as saying "he's guilty because a jury said so"
If there's a retrial and he's found not guilty, you can't suddenly say "oh well, he was guilty but now he isn't"
He either did the crime or he didn't. It can't be both!
What both did was wrong but its worse than what Ched Evans did
Ched Evans still protests his innocence to this day, even after doing his time. There is a CHANCE Evans didn't do it. Johnson has pleated guilty to his crimes which means he definitely did it so he is far worse in my opinion
Nope.
Not in the eyes of the law, which at the end of the day is all that matters.
Life isn't as simple as saying "he's guilty because a jury said so"
What both did was wrong but its worse than what Ched Evans did
Ched Evans still protests his innocence to this day, even after doing his time. There is a CHANCE Evans didn't do it. Johnson has pleated guilty to his crimes which means he definitely did it so he is far worse in my opinion
Nope.
Not in the eyes of the law, which at the end of the day is all that matters.
Life isn't as simple as saying "he's guilty because a jury said so"
Yes it is.
If that were true, no miscarriage of justice/retrial would ever happen. This discussion could run & run & this thread isn't even about Ched Evans so We'll have to agree to disagree. I clearly don't see life as Black & White the way you do
You have to question him being allowed to play whilst the trial was imminent, especially now given the guilty pleas.
I know innocent until guilty but when you are in a position of influence you have a different set of standards. I'm fully of the opinion that because of their role in young supporters lives, Footballers do have to be judged more harshly, along the lines of a teacher or childminder. They have such a big connection to children, their place of work is frequented by children and they often carry out activities in the community involving kids.
Let's rephrase it. If one of ours was under a similar investigation (I.e serious and with merit - not just some slander case without any grounds) , would you not want the club to proactively suspend the player until he was proved innocent?
You have to question him being allowed to play whilst the trial was imminent, especially now given the guilty pleas.
I know innocent until guilty but when you are in a position of influence you have a different set of standards. I'm fully of the opinion that because of their role in young supporters lives, Footballers do have to be judged more harshly, along the lines of a teacher or childminder. They have such a big connection to children, their place of work is frequented by children and they often carry out activities in the community involving kids.
Let's rephrase it. If one of ours was under a similar investigation (I.e serious and with merit - not just some slander case without any grounds) , would you not want the club to proactively suspend the player until he was proved innocent?
i do understand where you are coming from but i think he was pleading innocent up until very recently.
if they had suspended him and he was found innocent and they were relegated everyone would be saying they should have stood by him.
You have to question him being allowed to play whilst the trial was imminent, especially now given the guilty pleas.
I know innocent until guilty but when you are in a position of influence you have a different set of standards. I'm fully of the opinion that because of their role in young supporters lives, Footballers do have to be judged more harshly, along the lines of a teacher or childminder. They have such a big connection to children, their place of work is frequented by children and they often carry out activities in the community involving kids.
Let's rephrase it. If one of ours was under a similar investigation (I.e serious and with merit - not just some slander case without any grounds) , would you not want the club to proactively suspend the player until he was proved innocent?
Good point pal. I appreciate I am suggesting something that's not legal nor Common practice, I am probably suggesting something that contravenes labour laws.
But labour laws should be secondary to the law of molestation of minors IMO.
You simply cannot have a man score a goal in front of 50,000 on Saturday and then on Wednesday admit to sexual contact with a minor.
What can be done? I guess it's a matter of contract, I'd like to see mechanisms for this brought into sports contracts, allowing suspension when under investigation for certain crimes.
If this effects the PL appeal and consequently Financing, then that will be the mechanism for change. It's easier to be moralistic when those morals can be qua quantified on a balance sheet.
The whole point of the Evans case, wasn't that she "said no" but that in the eyes of the law, due to alcohol, she wasn't in a fit state to say yes, i.e. if you pick up a drunk girl on a Saturday night and have sex with her, even though she consented at the time, the law may deem that she wasn't in a fit state to give consent...
If Johnson had one of sex with an old looking 15 year old, not knowing her age, it would be more understandable, but the charge of grooming is far more worrying.
Saw footage of him walking into the court earlier on Sky News. Some fucking weirdos taking selfies with him and getting autographs. Who are these weirdos!?
He was walking about with a smug, cocky grin even though he knew he was pleading guilty. Mental.
I could understand if he'd picked up a girl in a club and took her home not knowing her age but the fact he's pleaded guilty to grooming means he knew exactly what he was doing and that makes him a wrong en
Gotta wonder at Miss Flounders who is sticking by him...
Yes, I wonder why Miss Flounders is sticking by the multi millionaire Adam Johnson.
I get the money will be the reason but it is truly bizarre, surely people have some form of morale compass and self respect to look beyond that. Especially, dare I say when they look like she does, not exactly going to be short of suiters is she!
I wonder if, now he has pleaded guilty, whether Sunderland can, not just terminate his contract but also sue him for the remainder of it/ reputational damage etc... Maybe not be quite so rich for much longer.
I'd be interested to know what her family think about him pleading guilty as I'm sure I read that they'd released a statement saying they were certain of his innocence.
Comments
If there's a retrial and he's found not guilty, you can't suddenly say "oh well, he was guilty but now he isn't"
He either did the crime or he didn't. It can't be both!
I know innocent until guilty but when you are in a position of influence you have a different set of standards. I'm fully of the opinion that because of their role in young supporters lives, Footballers do have to be judged more harshly, along the lines of a teacher or childminder. They have such a big connection to children, their place of work is frequented by children and they often carry out activities in the community involving kids.
Let's rephrase it. If one of ours was under a similar investigation (I.e serious and with merit - not just some slander case without any grounds) , would you not want the club to proactively suspend the player until he was proved innocent?
if they had suspended him and he was found innocent and they were relegated everyone would be saying they should have stood by him.
But labour laws should be secondary to the law of molestation of minors IMO.
You simply cannot have a man score a goal in front of 50,000 on Saturday and then on Wednesday admit to sexual contact with a minor.
What can be done? I guess it's a matter of contract, I'd like to see mechanisms for this brought into sports contracts, allowing suspension when under investigation for certain crimes.
If this effects the PL appeal and consequently Financing, then that will be the mechanism for change. It's easier to be moralistic when those morals can be qua quantified on a balance sheet.
If Johnson had one of sex with an old looking 15 year old, not knowing her age, it would be more understandable, but the charge of grooming is far more worrying.
He was walking about with a smug, cocky grin even though he knew he was pleading guilty. Mental.
I wonder if, now he has pleaded guilty, whether Sunderland can, not just terminate his contract but also sue him for the remainder of it/ reputational damage etc... Maybe not be quite so rich for much longer.
Gotta be a wrongen to even cheat on that with an adult.