ChatterBank0 min ago
Adam Johnson
142 Answers
Has just been sentenced to 6 years...stupid boy
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by catswhiskas. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Let me take this opportunity to apologise to mr hughes for calling him a self inflated bombast who is given to endlessly and exhaustively musing on the thinnest of gruel and whose self importance knows no ends
It is Good Griday so sorry -Andie - it was punctilious and cruel of me to point out that you endlessly dispute with AOG about your name - Hughes, the Man Hughes or Huzie along with loud complaints from you
and yet when AOG hits the bongo drum by confusing length and longitude your forgiveness and good humour was an inspiring example to us all
It is after all Easter
I apologise ....
I will limit my comments on Andy J to sanctimomious sentiments without hope of redemption of any sort in the future
It is Good Griday so sorry -Andie - it was punctilious and cruel of me to point out that you endlessly dispute with AOG about your name - Hughes, the Man Hughes or Huzie along with loud complaints from you
and yet when AOG hits the bongo drum by confusing length and longitude your forgiveness and good humour was an inspiring example to us all
It is after all Easter
I apologise ....
I will limit my comments on Andy J to sanctimomious sentiments without hope of redemption of any sort in the future
tambo
mine also. Just an opinion. Not offensive. No breach of Site Rules.I have given it some thought and can only put it down to a personality clash. :-)
mine also. Just an opinion. Not offensive. No breach of Site Rules.I have given it some thought and can only put it down to a personality clash. :-)
PP > sex offenders have gone back to playing football havent they ?
or are we saying once out of clink they should be prevented from doing anything else in their black miserable lives ?
I can't think of any professional players who have been convicted of any sexual related crime and gone back to playing in any of the top divisions. That's not to say they shouldn't. It is more the case as to whether any prospective employer would do so.
I suppose one of the best examples of a non sex related crime related to Lee Hughes. Obviously, there is the latest matter relating to the appeal of Ched Evans where judgment has been reserved.
Like I have mentioned, once any time has been served then that person should be allowed to seek appropriate employment.
or are we saying once out of clink they should be prevented from doing anything else in their black miserable lives ?
I can't think of any professional players who have been convicted of any sexual related crime and gone back to playing in any of the top divisions. That's not to say they shouldn't. It is more the case as to whether any prospective employer would do so.
I suppose one of the best examples of a non sex related crime related to Lee Hughes. Obviously, there is the latest matter relating to the appeal of Ched Evans where judgment has been reserved.
Like I have mentioned, once any time has been served then that person should be allowed to seek appropriate employment.
“The judge's sentencing remarks have been alluded to now and again. They are irrelevant: He made his decision first, and then formulated his remarks to "back-up" his decision.”
That is not quite correct. In fact it's completely incorrect. The remarks form the basis for the judge's decision. To arrive at his sentence he would have consulted the sentencing guidelines, determined a “starting point” for an offence of such seriousness then incorporated any aggravating and mitigating circumstances before arriving at a final conclusion. The sentencing remarks are merely a formal record of that process. Judges do not simply decide on a sentence on a whim. The process is considerable in its detail and you will see from the remarks that many aspects of the evidence that was heard were mentioned. If you attend a Crown Court trial you will see most judges making their own handwritten notes of the evidence as it is presented. They use these notes when directing the jury at the end of the trial and when arriving at a sentence in the event of a conviction.
It is only in recent years that such comprehensive sentencing remarks have become the norm (though it has been common practice – indeed mandatory – in Magistrates’ courts for many years). I can recall the sentencing remarks of His Honour Mr Justice Melford Stevenson when sentencing Ronnie Kray for the murder of Jack “The Hat” McVitie:
“Ronald Kray – I am not going to waste time on you. Society has earned a rest from your activities. You will go to prison for Life and you will serve a minimum term of thirty years before you are considered for parole.”
A little different to the fourteen pages or so that Mr John was afforded.
That is not quite correct. In fact it's completely incorrect. The remarks form the basis for the judge's decision. To arrive at his sentence he would have consulted the sentencing guidelines, determined a “starting point” for an offence of such seriousness then incorporated any aggravating and mitigating circumstances before arriving at a final conclusion. The sentencing remarks are merely a formal record of that process. Judges do not simply decide on a sentence on a whim. The process is considerable in its detail and you will see from the remarks that many aspects of the evidence that was heard were mentioned. If you attend a Crown Court trial you will see most judges making their own handwritten notes of the evidence as it is presented. They use these notes when directing the jury at the end of the trial and when arriving at a sentence in the event of a conviction.
It is only in recent years that such comprehensive sentencing remarks have become the norm (though it has been common practice – indeed mandatory – in Magistrates’ courts for many years). I can recall the sentencing remarks of His Honour Mr Justice Melford Stevenson when sentencing Ronnie Kray for the murder of Jack “The Hat” McVitie:
“Ronald Kray – I am not going to waste time on you. Society has earned a rest from your activities. You will go to prison for Life and you will serve a minimum term of thirty years before you are considered for parole.”
A little different to the fourteen pages or so that Mr John was afforded.
-- answer removed --
it seems to me that there's few things more guaranteed to polarise passion on AB - on both sides - than the matter of footballers who are brought before the court for one reason or another.
i can hardly wait for the reserved judgement upon one Mr Chedwyn Evans - particularly if his appeal gets knocked back.
i can hardly wait for the reserved judgement upon one Mr Chedwyn Evans - particularly if his appeal gets knocked back.
Mush > it seems to me that there's few things more guaranteed to polarise passion on AB - on both sides - than the matter of footballers who are brought before the court for one reason or another.
There have been at least three lengthy threads on this subject and you are right about the passion on both sides. For my part, my views would have been the same irrespective of whether the person standing trial for the same offences was a footballer or not.
Cases rest on the evidence not the profession. Footballers are still humans aren't they?
There have been at least three lengthy threads on this subject and you are right about the passion on both sides. For my part, my views would have been the same irrespective of whether the person standing trial for the same offences was a footballer or not.
Cases rest on the evidence not the profession. Footballers are still humans aren't they?
//Footballers are still humans aren't they? //
they are. but it seems the offending of no other group of "the convicted" in the public eye has been so robustly defended, nor their transgressions excused in whole or in part.
Tony Adams. Joey Barton (twice). Ched Evans. Lee Hughes. Terry Fenwick. Gavin Grant. Marlon King (more than once). Guy Madjo. Luke McCormick. Mark Ward. now with Mr Johnson, the rolecall of shame grows larger.......
they are. but it seems the offending of no other group of "the convicted" in the public eye has been so robustly defended, nor their transgressions excused in whole or in part.
Tony Adams. Joey Barton (twice). Ched Evans. Lee Hughes. Terry Fenwick. Gavin Grant. Marlon King (more than once). Guy Madjo. Luke McCormick. Mark Ward. now with Mr Johnson, the rolecall of shame grows larger.......
Mush - yes, there's plenty more footballers. The difference in this case is the nature of the offences and the guilt attributed to the victim by Johnson's 'defenders'.
There appears to be more poor conduct relating to sport these days on and off the sporting arena. Whether it be assault, drug use, failing of drug tests, match-fixing, cheating.
Can this increasing breakdown be attributed to too much money, too much time on their hands, lack of morals and responsibility, education, inflated sense of ego and celebrity?
There appears to be more poor conduct relating to sport these days on and off the sporting arena. Whether it be assault, drug use, failing of drug tests, match-fixing, cheating.
Can this increasing breakdown be attributed to too much money, too much time on their hands, lack of morals and responsibility, education, inflated sense of ego and celebrity?
Latest Posts
Labour's Lead Evaporating.....
News1 min ago
Well At Least We Can Expect Poise,...
News4 mins ago
Labour Extends Lead Over Tories.
News5 mins ago
News18 mins ago
