Can't believe what Sky News reporter just said re child sex abuse victim of Adam Johnson

[ofuckit]

Did anybody else see this? I'm horrified and a bit disturbed tbh.

The reporter was talking to an ex footballer about the case and said 'Do you think it's hard for people to understand how hard it is to deal with the temptations put in the way of footballers'.... 😟
The ex footballer responded in agreement with the reporter, saying how oh yes it's very hard for them, etc....

So we can assume from this that these men see children as 'temptations put in their way'?

i feel sick 😞

I don't think it will ever be uncovered, because there's far too much money at stake. But I firmly believe if the surface was scratched there are scandals in football which would dwarf the BBC ones.

Agree about his plea being totally irrelevant. At least one person at the club knew he had sent those texts(which made me feel sick to my stomach) and knew he has kissed her.
Putting the 2 together should have meant he didn't play for the club full stop.

The CEO is a lawyer- she knows the not guilty plea in this case, with the evidence she had seen, would mean very little.

And yes to the way it's been handled making it much more difficult for his victim. She knew she was telling the truth and the club helped the belief that she might not be. An awful thing to publicly deal with at 15.

Nor does anyone else

From the looks of the posts on this thread some people seem to think Sunderland should have sacked him as soon as he was charged.

they lifted the suspension they had put him

They didn't suspend him at any stage. I understand those who think they should. But just as some campaigners are saying that a failure to suspend him sent a message that he was probably innocent, suspending him would have been regarded by many as meaning the club thought he was guilty.

I am to some degree playing devil's advocate here. I am not entirely sure what the club should have done. I think they were in a difficult situation. We can see the outcome from him being found guilty when they didn't suspend him. I suspect they would also have come in for heavy criticism if they had suspended him and he had subsequently been found not guilty. Perhaps the best thing would have been if Johnson had announced that he needed to concentrate on his defence and wouldn't be playing until the trial was over.

I do think he cynically timed his guilty plea so he could keep playing and earning, whether with the knowledge of the club or not, I don't know.

Prh in the same way as your employer can sack you for a crime even if you haven't been found guilty in court (based on balance of probability) I think they should have sacked him.

It seems the club was aware of at least part of his behaviour, and it was behaviour that could bring and now are bringing the club into disrepute - not to mention criminal.

Fact is, they wanted to keep him playing. If he hadn't been doing very well, they would have at the very least suspended him, if not sacked him outright.

I understand the issue around presumption of innocence but it seems bizarre to me that anyone should be working when going through a criminal court case. Suspension with pay seems fair to me, like sick leave.

I said exactly the same to DH last night, even though it's not the clubs fault they should have suspended him on full pay pending the outcome. There is no way I would be allowed to continue at work if it was me and I don't even work with children. I would be surprised if many companies would allow an employee to continue at work TBH. We have had to suspend people on full pay following much lesser accusations. It is for the best for the employer, employee particularly if they were to be innocent and colleagues.

Yy to Sunderland Football Club. Hideous priorities. They suspended him when charges were brought. Then after they found out everything he had done they lifted the suspension. Purely because he would plead not guilty.

So they made ££. He made £££. And essentially they gave him a public stamp of approval. The impression being that they condoned his behaviour.

I agree innocent until proven guilty. So they were right not to sack him until the verdict came in. But surely the suspension should have remained in place until the verdict was given?

But then I guess men first, then football, then women. With young, vulnerable women an especially girls right at the bottom of the pile.

Ffs

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in employment law though. So they wanted to keep him.

What the actual f*? What has happened to journalism these days. Did the editor of the show or whatever not pick up on it?

Exactly. Employers can dismiss someone for that sort of conduct regardless of whether a criminal trial has been concluded. And they had the evidence to do so - masses of it.

I would be astonished if footballers, who are in the public eye and function as brand ambassadors for clubs, didn't have a clause in their contracts about conduct likely to bring the club into disrepute.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in employment law and in this case his employer knew he'd done it. There are plenty of things that your employer can dismiss you for without a crime having to be proved or criminal charges brought.

They are talking about this on The Wright Stuff right now, will be interesting to hear what people have to say during the phone in after the break.

I agree they should have suspended him for the duration of the case, not for a measly 16 days, then let him play for the next year. It reflects very badly on Sunderland FC and Football as a whole.

One guy thinks its 'outrageous' that the Police showed the club some of the text conversations between Johnson and the girl.

For me I thought my new found ability to use my sexuality to out manoeuvre older men fantastic, I could control men twice my age. Really, they were my victims

No, THINK! YOU were the victim if what you say was true and you were manipulating older men into being with you. Even if that's hard to stomach.
They're ADULTS, and as such should have known to stay the hell away from a child instead of jumping at the chance to take advantage of you instead.
God this thread is well depressing.

He fucking googled "age of consent in Britain" ffs

This is my friends story - from her blog - worth a read as it sums up a lot of the issues but it could be triggering - it covers a sexual assault and feelings of guilt and shame when she was 14

it is very relevant to this thread www.sobadass.me/2016/03/03/he/

Stealth sorry if I have missed a question, an answer to what?

They didn't suspend him at any stage.

After Johnson's arrest in March 2015, the club suspended him, but then lifted the ban following talks with his representatives and the Professional Footballers' Association.

from the BBC News website. Maybe you should let them know they have it wrong.

So... they suspended him, then reinstated him after the meeting they had with him, his father and his barrister. Despite knowing what he had done, because he was going to plead not guilty, because on balance of probabilities a rich, white man will get away with rape almost every time.

People who play devil's advocate when it comes to rape and abuse trails tend to be utter wankstains, I've heard. I, of course, couldn't possibly comment.

trials*

When will he be charged and where is he now?

I assume you mean sentenced, not charged?

He is currently free, until sentencing.

I made the mistake of watching The Wright Stuff on plus 1, and they didn't seem to have much to say on it about this.

Then I made the bigger mistake of looking at their comments on their Facebook page.

For some reason they keep deleting mine.

They seem quite happy to let comments stand saying she knew what she was doing and was in it for the money.

And they are leaving the comments about how fifteen is almost an adult, fifteen year olds are not children, how they might look like they are 18 or 20 or 25 so he might have just made a mistake.

And they are leaving the comments about him just being weak-willed and how he made a mistake.

All of that seems fine by them.

They don't seem so keen on my comments pointing out that he knew her age, that she was groomed, that he was the one who knew what he was doing, that he's admitted he wanted to make her feel she owed him sex and that actively grooming a child isn't a mistake but a deliberate act.

Every time I've pointed any of that out they have deleted me.

It's always the money.

Ched Evans' victim was also apparently in it for the money.

Where is this fictional money supposed to be coming from?