Howmanheyman 33180 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Im sure Remy was on bail for gang rape " allegations" but the adoring Mag fans blanked that one out and cheered him along Desperate for points maybe ? Funny as fuck are the deluded ones are you on acieeed! Acieeed! :) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894 Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Im sure Remy was on bail for gang rape " allegations" but the adoring Mag fans blanked that one out and cheered him along Desperate for points maybe ? Funny as fuck are the deluded ones He was acquitted, but you're a makem so don't let facts get in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4379 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Difference between acquitted and charges dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894 Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Difference between acquitted and charges dropped. Not as big as between charges dropped and pleading guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21620 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 They didn't really have any other choice. Expect 65page threads on rtg extolling the "inherently moral" values of the club. Meanwhile, we should resurrect Stokoeshop Just had a look and yep, that's basically what's happened. The club are blameless and we're scum for point scoring. Fact is, SAFC played a player who was charged by the CPS for sexual crimes against a child. Although they wouldn't have known of his guilt, they knew full well it was a strong possibility, otherwise he wouldn't have been charged. They played him purely for financial reasons and many of the fans turned a blind eye as they cheered him. The fact Johnson denied it is completely irrelevant, what the fuck did they expect him to say, admit he was a nonce? The club have literally no choice but to sack him now so they get zero credit for that. The player should have been suspended on full pay from the start until resolution of the case, this is normal and fair practice. But no, the club decided to knowingly play a player who was probably a paedophile, in front of a stadium packed with families. Shameful, and even more shameful are their fans who are making a virtue of the club's actions, and trying to censor others who are rightfully challenging this reinterpretation of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 It was the smallest of crimes before. They were chanting "he shags who he wants". Now to suit their point scoring argument it's suddenly the most deplorable crime imaginable. The desperation to defend their shit stained club on RTG is almost difficult to watch. I do wonder though how somebody defending these charges managed to get bail though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohhh_yeah 2964 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Meanwhile, we should resurrect Stokoeshop A 'shop should be made using this theme: http://www.complex.com/sneakers/2014/06/the-complete-history-of-the-adidas-predator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/just-been-watching-some-of-the-6-in-a-row-mag-twattings.1199065/ They don't count any more you fucking beasts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42427 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Just had a look and yep, that's basically what's happened. The club are blameless and we're scum for point scoring. Fact is, SAFC played a player who was charged by the CPS for sexual crimes against a child. Although they wouldn't have known of his guilt, they knew full well it was a strong possibility, otherwise he wouldn't have been charged. They played him purely for financial reasons and many of the fans turned a blind eye as they cheered him. The fact Johnson denied it is completely irrelevant, what the fuck did they expect him to say, admit he was a nonce? The club have literally no choice but to sack him now so they get zero credit for that. The player should have been suspended on full pay from the start until resolution of the case, this is normal and fair practice. But no, the club decided to knowingly play a player who was probably a paedophile, in front of a stadium packed with families. Shameful, and even more shameful are their fans who are making a virtue of the club's actions, and trying to censor others who are rightfully challenging this reinterpretation of reality. Well said, Sir. NSFM(ackems) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42427 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Let's be honest here, who is surprised that the knuckle draggers are struggling to see what he's done wrong, other than him straying from family members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGingerQuiff 2412 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Wonder how much he stung them for in the year following his tactful 'not guilty' lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Im sure Remy was on bail for gang rape " allegations" but the adoring Mag fans blanked that one out and cheered him along Desperate for points maybe ? Funny as fuck are the deluded ones Case in point tbh, trying to draw parallels between Remy and Johnson? You're thicker than I thought you were. As far as I was aware Remy was never charged? He was arrested under suspicion, the same that Johnson was (which is when your club suspended him) except Johnson was then charged with crimes (as far as I know Remy never was) which is when the club lifted the suspension and begun playing him. Your team played a nonce, pack in trying to defend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 The "classy club" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonasjuice 0 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Rape Wars! Phillipa Forrester better be getting a rise for traversing the backstage area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noelie 103 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I guess on occasion I'm a bit of a devil's advocate, but the Chronicle is saying; "sexual activity with a child" Now I want to know at what age does a child stop being a child? 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 are called teenagers. Again, at what age do you stop being a child? In my day, 14 & 15 were normal school leaving ages when you left and went to work 44 hours a week if you found a job. At 15-1/4 you could join the Royal Navy as a Boy Seaman. I know cos I was gonna do it but parents had to OK it and mine didn't. Did you know that 2 winners of the Victoria Cross weren't even 16 years of age. I in no way condone Johnson and what he did, I just have a problem with the "child" bit. Teenager, young girl, young woman, when does the child bit kick in or exit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobos 298 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Well, nolie, it kicks in with the age of consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42427 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I can see the point that Noelie is trying to make, I think. Different people hit sexual maturity at different ages-sometimes the difference between two teenagers of the same age can be startling. The point he's missing, though, is that the lass here was 15yrs old, and he knew she was. In the eyes of the law, she's a minor. No grey areas. No ifs or buts. He groomed a kid. He did it over the course of three months, knowing she was underage, has admitted to "kissing her in a sexual way", and is now being tried on two more serious charges of "sexual penetration with a minor" If he's found guilty of that, he's looking at 14yrs in jail. To address Noelie's point about 17yr old lads seeing 15yr old lasses, yes, it happens, regularly. There's probably a good few on here who dated younger lasses at 17. But that's a 2 year age gap, and in reality, very little difference in maturity. Johnson was 28. She was 15. To put it in perspective, she's closer in age to my 8yr old daughter than she is to Johnson, by a considerable margin. I've read numerous fucking Neanderthals trying to apportion some blame to the lass, which is fucking despicable. I'd ask those numpties one question- if the 15yr old lass had been a 15yr old lad, would they be laying the blame on him? Would they fuck. He's got no excuses, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21915 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I sort of see what Noelie is saying. It's at the more marginal end of the nonse scale. There's a big difference between grooming an actual pre-pubescent kid and a 15 year old. But what Jonson did was creepy -particularly as he knew how old she was, it was illegal and he knew that as well so he deserves what he gets now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Aye, stuff between teenagers has and will always go on, especially with all those hormones raging. Also Noelie is commenting on a different era and as with all things just like race and homosexuality (is that word still allowed ??) times move on. At the end of the day the law has to be the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I just can't see what he's going to do with the rest of his career. Any British professional club wouldn't buy him, even foreign ones (other than the Phillipines) would think twice. Maybe he'll end up at a nonce league club somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4379 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Aye, stuff between teenagers has and will always go on, especially with all those hormones raging. Also Noelie is commenting on a different era and as with all things just like race and homosexuality (is that word still allowed ??) times move on. At the end of the day the law has to be the law. I think when we've discussed this before I've said that the whole age of consent is a bit strange as from a biological pov, when the body's ready it's ready and the discrepancies in the age and it's history suggest that most people accept that teenagers are always going to have a go. I think the main purpose of the law now and the reason it seems right is precisely for this situation to protect kids under 16 from inappropriate advances from older people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1245 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I sort of see what Noelie is saying. It's at the more marginal end of the nonse scale. There's a big difference between grooming an actual pre-pubescent kid and a 15 year old. But what Jonson did was creepy -particularly as he knew how old she was, it was illegal and he knew that as well so he deserves what he gets now.I think you've hit the nail on the head there. It might not be as disgusting as what catholic priests have been doing for years but it's still morrally and legally wrong and there is no defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35079 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I guess on occasion I'm a bit of a devil's advocate, but the Chronicle is saying; "sexual activity with a child" Now I want to know at what age does a child stop being a child? 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 are called teenagers. Again, at what age do you stop being a child? In my day, 14 & 15 were normal school leaving ages when you left and went to work 44 hours a week if you found a job. At 15-1/4 you could join the Royal Navy as a Boy Seaman. I know cos I was gonna do it but parents had to OK it and mine didn't. Did you know that 2 winners of the Victoria Cross weren't even 16 years of age. I in no way condone Johnson and what he did, I just have a problem with the "child" bit. Teenager, young girl, young woman, when does the child bit kick in or exit? I think they're just using the correct legal term. I do take your point though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30602 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) Edited February 12, 2016 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30602 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now