Mate i'm lucky, on a colleagues tab, but pitching for a big job. i thought you were based down here?
i'm inclined to believe the 'somehings rotten' jibes. nee smoke and all that
Johnson formally charged
- Thread starter C19RK73
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Mate i'm lucky, on a colleagues tab, but pitching for a big job. i thought you were based down here?
i'm inclined to believe the 'somehings rotten' jibes. nee smoke and all that
I was throughout art school but finished art school with an art school degree which apparently is about as useful as if it had been written on bog roll. I've had to move to me muva's in Oxford before the move to Aus.
End of this year/start of next dependant on when (If?) they approve my visa application! Yeah She's called the shots and I'll be over there long term.
Can't say I complained too much.
Hello, how are you tonight?Your fans look like right ****s now after the chants supporting him
Nice of you to drop by.
What's the charge ....... combing someone's hair without due care and attention?
Not really for a first arrest. If they feared he would attempt to pervert the course of justice or interfere with the witnesses then perhaps. A danger to the public would have to be a more serious offence (in the eyes of the law).
Bullshit. I know lads who've met girls in nightclubs, dropped them at home the next day and had cud knocking on their door 2 weeks later and then been formally charged within a month. I worked for the courts for a while and saw this happen time and again to people who have done nothing wrong but the cops always seem to side with the parents. One lad was filmed taking a girl into a club who was 15. Got done for sex with a minor and is in the register now. He met her in a pub 10 minutes before the footage but couldn't prove it so his evidence meant **** all and he got done. Still reckon it's bullshit but also reckon he's ****ed now
Whatever the outcome of the trial, AJ is guilty of putting himself in a position for this to happen. He has a privileged position...living the dream...a professional footballer. A bag of talent, loads of money and a beautiful woman and baby at home. But this case could highlight the arrogance of modern day footballers who think they can have what they want ...but lets wait and see what the final outcome is.
If what Nads says is right, AJ's case has nothing to do with the story you've just written mate, the term 'Grooming' apparently means he was fully aware of her being a minor. If that's the case, it's pointless drawing comparisons with lads you know who've fallen victim to the fake ID or the girl who looks 18, it's completely irrelevant.
Grooming only occurs if they fully know that the other person is under age or don't reasonably believe that they are 16 or over. You cannot groom someone who tells you that they are 16 or older. It's under s.15 Sexual Offences Act 2003. Grooming means that they are fully aware that the other person is under 16 or they have a reasonable belief that they are. The grooming charge would suggest that there is evidence that AJ communicated with the girl either via mobile, social media or both and that he [or she] suggested that they meet up for the purpose of a sexual offence under ss. 9,10 and 11 of the SOA 2003. He has either said something stupid off the cuff, or has intended to meet the girl for sex. Innocent until proven guilty, but this particular one is not looking good.
The only grey area for me, was if he'd been texting a 15 year old girl, not knowing she was 15, yet because of her age, it was technically called 'grooming'. That's the bit that was confusing me, numerous lads have cleared that up now, cheers.
I don't think the term, 'Innocent until proven guilty' is applicable here, it's like saying a player is innocent of a breaking his opponents leg until the FA determine his length of ban, after a nasty two footed tackle. He's obviously done it, so there's no innocent about it, whatsoever.
He isn't just 'under arrest on suspicion of' grooming, he's been charged. The weakest excuse in the book is coming up, 'somebody else must have had my phone'.
Again from working in the courts you see people done for "Grooming" but the only evidence is that she said he knew how old she was - Either way I think he's ****ed in football even if he's found not guilty. I'm sticking with the "innocent until proven otherwise" personally but the press have already judged him before the charges were brought.
If he's guilty of all charges (and I mean properly guilty - not convicted on hearsay evidence and opinion) then good riddance - real pity as I think we need him this season but guess the club should have something to say on losing out on his value!
That's the problem I have with this. The fact that he has been charged with grooming. It would suggest that he crossed a line. It may be he innocently messaged her and suggested they meet. Maybe to give her a signed shirt for example. But the grooming in combination with three charges may indicate something far sexual in their conversations.
My biggest problem with this is that I know of people who have been arrested for trafficking 14 and 15 year old girls that don't make it into any newspaper or onto any top news website - Johnson sleeps with a 15 year old (wrong in all sorts of ways by the way but certainly not a patch on what the other people mentioned have done) and he is the first story on there. I'm not (in any way) defending him if he's guilty - but szurely more publicity should be afforded to far worse cases