Because he hadn’t been found guilty yet you dimwit toad

Adam Johnson’s victim will want to know why the footballer was allowed “back on to the pitch”, the detective who led the investigation into his child sex offending has said.

Christ, can’t we even get the police to understand the innocent until proven guilty bit?

And can we fire this detective just to underline the point?

59 thoughts on “Because he hadn’t been found guilty yet you dimwit toad”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    RIP Presumption of Innocence, you fought valiantly and served us well for many a century.

  2. I could understand a doctor or a teacher accused of something like that being suspended (with pay of course) until the court decides their guilt or innocence but a footballer?

  3. “investigation into his child sex offending”

    It was under-age sex but was it with a child or a young woman? From a legal standpoint it makes no difference, she was under 16 and that’s that. But the media can’t seem to differentiate between under-age sex and paedophilia.

    There’s a chance (now greatly diminished) that I might have sex with a 15 year old who looked older but there’s never been the slightest chance that I’d be interested in a pre-pubescent girl – which is what paedophiles are into.

  4. “Christ, can’t we even get the police to understand the innocent until proven guilty bit?”

    The police have been using the process as punishment for years.

  5. ……and it’s about time this whole business of the police giving comments and briefings to the media after the end of high profile trials stopped. The comments are mainly shite anyway and while I’m sure that individual careers are made on the basis of being televised and saying the right things, it isn’t (IMHO) for the police to explain the evils of the crime, the evils of the perpetrator, the effect on the victim, or how hard they all worked to resolve the crime.

    They’re just supposed to catch the bastards. Fin.

  6. But the media can’t seem to differentiate between under-age sex and paedophilia.

    That’s deliberate. Because the whole strategy has been to confuse protecting children from predatory paedophiles with the “lock up your daughters” instinct to create the moral panic.

  7. My wife used to be a Police officer and reckons anyone accused of a crime should have anonymity until the end of the trial (and further if found innocent) in cases where the same applies for the victims.

    For some crimes, an accusation is all it takes to ruin a life no matter how obviously false.

  8. “Christ, can’t we even get the police to understand the innocent until proven guilty bit?”

    This isn’t a facet of the case where innocent until proven guilty carries a great deal of weight. Johnson was always going to plead guilty, but he claimed innocence right up until the day of his trial – and the appearance is that he did so solely in order to continue to play for his club.

    No-one suggests he should have been jailed without trial, but equally there’s no reason to wait for a verdict from the courts before firing him _if the evidence is overwhelming_. It’s being said that Sunderland were shown evidence sufficient to be quite sure he’d done it, and if so they have some questions to answer given that they have said that they would have fired him straight away if they’d known he would admit to any of the charges: something there is worth discussing.

  9. I don’t get the bit where employers are obligated to fire anyone who is, or may be, convicted of a crime. Where is this law written, and what is the reasoning that justifies it?

    If some person is convicted of drunk driving or common assault, why is their employer obligated to dispense with their services, even if they are a good employee? Should this not be a matter for the employer alone?

  10. There’s potentially little merit from a defendant’s point of view in being given anonymity: a large part of the point of these things being done publicly, and allowing them to be publicised, is to enable potential witnesses, who might not otherwise have known of the trial, to come forward and testify (for whatever reason) to a defendant’s innocence.

  11. Ian>

    It’s not _any_ crime, which should give you a clue. In entertainment – and football is definitely an entertainment business – it’s important that what you’re selling is what people want to see. Kiddy fiddlers are not what people want to see. Well, not when they’re as mediocre at the actual entertaining as Johnson was – if it were Messi who’d done it, perhaps things would be different.

  12. “I could understand a doctor or a teacher accused of something like that being suspended (with pay of course) until the court decides their guilt or innocence but a footballer?”

    Bearing in mind the employer got to see the details of the case… had he been a teacher, he would have been fired ASAP, likely long before it got to court. And indeed he would have been barred from the profession even if found not guilty at court, based on facts admitted. Imagine something similar would apply to a doc.

  13. Dave,

    Why is this a “special” kind of crime then? Should gay actors have been blacklisted? After all they were breaking the sexual morality of their time. You might reasonably say that poofters were not what people wanted to see. And so on.

    More important perhaps, if “people” really didn’t “want to see” him playing football, that would be a straight commercial decision by the club. It seems to me that what you’re saying should be decided by what jourmalists and the Twitterati think people ought to want to see.

    There is it seems to me a very powerful distress among the “right thinking people” of this country that working class oiks like footballists are sexually desirable to many women, because in Progressive thinking, such admiration should be directed (in a suitably chaste manner) towards morally upright SJW Progressives, who in reality most women find as sexually alluring as a lettuce leaf. Hence, this kind of hysteria.

  14. Suspended on full pay pending verdict would have been the right call. Doesn’t presume guilt, allows the defendant to focus on the trial and reduces reputational risk if he’s found guilty.

    Reflex sacking on prosecution would result in expensive employment tribunal claim.

  15. I heard this being discussed on the radio yesterday evening.

    Someone from the club said he told them he was going to plead not guilty to all charges, and they were surprised when he put in a guilty plea to two out of four charges at the start of the trial.

    Given the information they had between arrest and trial, I can’t see how they could have sacked him. Innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

  16. I don’t get the bit where employers are obligated to fire anyone who is, or may be, convicted of a crime. Where is this law written, and what is the reasoning that justifies it?

    If some person is convicted of drunk driving or common assault, why is their employer obligated to dispense with their services, even if they are a good employee? Should this not be a matter for the employer alone?

    I once worked with someone who was found drunk on duty and suspended on full pay until his trial ( for endangering public safety ) was over, he was sacked after being found guilty and getting six months. I can’t remember if he pleaded not guilty but I think so. The rules were tightened up later though and just being found with alcohol in your possession was enough to get you instant dismissal. It seems to be the way things are going, sentence first trial later.

  17. Dave: ‘..there’s no reason to wait for a verdict from the courts before firing him _if the evidence is overwhelming_.’

    And when he’s found not guilty and sues your firm for millions, and wins? Won’t feel so smug then, eh?

  18. MBE

    had he been a teacher, he would have been fired ASAP

    Really? I would imagine a suspension on full pay. I can’t imagine the teaching unions standing for sacking people who are accused of a crime but not yet convicted.

  19. Dave: ‘Kiddy fiddlers are not what people want to see.’

    Whether she was a ‘kiddie’ is moot, but I seem to recall a lot of excuses being made for a certain widowed film director back in the day. I guess it’s just as well Polanski don’t have social media to deal with.

  20. Why wasn’t Caroline Lucas sacked after she was photographed committing a criminal offence? No question of guilt there.
    Adam Johnson exploited his position and is now serving an examplary sentence – i.e he is being made an example to warnm off other footballers who might be tempted a la Admiral Byng.
    Sunderland FC were told that one of its players was accused of some offences which he stenuously denied (and was later found “Not Guilty” of two out of four). Sacking him on accusation would have been illegal (breach of contract, inter alia) as well as morally wrong [and cost them tens of £m] and would have amounted to action to influence a trial (as it would have implied an assumption of guilt that might have swayed jurors).
    Maybe Edward Lud can advise us on incitement to commit contempt of court as it applied to police spokespersons?

  21. @JuliaM – you see, it’s different for Polanski because he’s an ARTIST, darling, and can’t be expected to be bound by conventional bourgeois morality (etc etc cont. p94)

  22. @ Dave
    If the evidence is overwhelming…
    What is overwhelming about “she said he did it, he says he didn’t”?

  23. Bloke in Germany in Hong Kong

    Five years for a grope with someone that close to the AOC. Bloody hell.

    Whether anything happened or not (and one must respect the pleas and the findings of the court), I wonder if, with 20/20 hindsight, he would have been better off denying that any physical, sexual, contact took place. After all there is only circumstantial evidence (text messasges) in addition to the witness statement – which amounts to her words against his.

    Or would the current standard of “her words mean he is convicted” have gotten him an even tougher sentence for yet another case that looks like post-consensual regret (if with some coercion)?

  24. From what has appeared in the papers (and they are hostile, remember), the only regret seems to have been a result of her being “slut shamed”. Which our feminist overladies are very happy with indeed when it gets a man into trouble.

    As to equating seduction with coercion- we now have this popular term “grooming”, inherited from the Satanic Abuse lexicon, that makes any and every attempt to pull into a form of abuse. Which of course is the intent.

  25. but equally there’s no reason to wait for a verdict from the courts before firing him _if the evidence is overwhelming_

    Correct.

    And no point the judge waiting for the jury’s verdict either. Hang on, what’s the point in having a jury – get rid of that too. And if the police think it’s overwhelming, why even bother with a judge. Unless he’s called Dredd.

    Or Judge Dave?

  26. @ SJW
    I am discussing whether Sunderland FC should have sacked Adam Johnson when he was accused but not convicted and claimed to be innocent.
    Are you unable to read? Or is it that you just do not want to do so?

  27. Ian B : “There is it seems to me a very powerful distress among the “right thinking people” of this country that working class oiks like footballists are sexually desirable to many women, because in Progressive thinking, such admiration should be directed (in a suitably chaste manner) towards morally upright SJW Progressives, who in reality most women find as sexually alluring as a lettuce leaf. Hence, this kind of hysteria.”

    Nailed it, thank you 🙂

  28. SJW, she was acquitted, I think because she claimed she didn’t know that a police notice had been issued to stop people protesting where she was doing.

    But the point above was that, before her trial, there was very strong evidence that she had committed an offence. So if Johnson should have been sacked before his trial, should Lucas have been as well?

    I would say neither of them should have been, some might say both should. But one and not the other seems difficult to justify.

  29. Ian>

    ” if “people” really didn’t “want to see” him playing football, that would be a straight commercial decision by the club”

    Yes, that’s the point. It is a simple commercial decision.

    Julia>

    “And when he’s found not guilty and sues your firm for millions, and wins? ”

    He’s confessed and plead guilty. What on earth are you on about? Even in the event that he later withdrew the guilty plea, you can’t trick your employer into firing you for misconduct and then sue for wrongful dismissal.

    John>

    “What is overwhelming about “she said he did it, he says he didn’t”?”

    There’s no element of that _when someone pleads guilty_.

    And you seem to be under the mistaken impression that he was found not guilty on two of the charges. He wasn’t.

    “Sacking him on accusation would have been illegal (breach of contract, inter alia) ”

    Don’t be absurd. He confessed to fondling an underage fan of the club. That’s gross misconduct in anyone’s book. In case you haven’t noticed, they sacked him before any guilty verdicts came in anyway; the only question here is whether they could and should have done so sooner, or whether Johnson’s lies sufficiently muddied the waters that it’s unfair to expect that of them.

    ENLB>

    What the fuck are you babbling about? The judge did not have to wait for any jury _because Johnson plead guilty_. Johnson confessed to facts that are sackable offences when interviewed by the police, and the only question is whether the club had enough knowledge of that to fire him.

  30. It always slightly irritates me that the past tense of “plead” isn’t “pled”, like “lead” and “led”.

  31. The point, Dave, is that the club only sacked him “after” he had pleaded guilty. Until either he pleaded guilty or a jury found him guilty, his guilt had not been proven in any way.

  32. “Dave
    it’s important that what you’re selling is what people want to see. Kiddy fiddlers are not what people want to see.”

    Indeed not.

    But if by ‘kiddy fiddlers’ you’re implying paedophiles, that isn’t Johnson’s crime. If the girl was post puberty (as seems to be the case) then he’s guilty of under-age sex but he isn’t a paedophile.

    I suspect that in the stands whilst opinion about footballers shagging 8 year olds is pretty united, their view of shagging a 15 year old who looked 18 wouldn’t be anywhere near as certain as you claim.

  33. Dave

    “…there’s no reason to wait for a verdict from the courts before firing him _if the evidence is overwhelming_”

    This is an interesting concept. I’m sure there have been cases before now where ‘overwhelming evidence’ has turned out to be nothing of the sort once investigated by the defence.

    If shown ‘overwhelming evidence’ by the police or prosecution, would it be wise to just accept it, or perhaps to first question it?

    If only there were a way of testing ‘overwhelming evidence’.

    Of, wait, there is. It’s called a ‘trial’.

  34. @ Dave
    You say that when he told Sunderland that he was going to plead “Not Guilty” to all charges, he had pleaded Guilty.
    There is a word for that “Lie”
    The BBC stated that he had been found “Not Guilty”

  35. @John Square

    “In his rucksack they found several cans of Lynx deodorant, a length of white electrical cable, a handheld water sprayer, a cloth, a metal dog chain and two bottles of Lucozade”

    I thought that was what you had to take with you when chatting up girls from Newcastle.

  36. The bit that gets me about that is that evidently all of those things have a use in a horse-rape scanario: why mention them otherwise? The electrical flex and dog chain I get, but the lynx? Lucozade? The water sprayer? There’s clearly more involved in equine coitus than I suspected.

  37. Also pleading guilty doesn’t mean you are guilty.

    The whole Yank-caper of plea bargaining shows that. Unless the fucking Feds are such good coppers that 95% of those they roust actually are guilty.

    The plea-caper rests on massive threats–200 years in Super-Max hell unless you cop. Most fold as life ruined and 5 years in a lesser Hell beats the rest of your life in the worst one they can stuff you in.

    Who knows what the bluebottles say to someone in Johnson’s position? Plead NG and lose and they promise you’ll get 10 years in the worst jail they can fix for you. You’ll be taking it up the arsehole nightly they tell you . Now– you cough to it and we’ll see what we can do.

    So a guilty plea no longer means guilty as far as justice goes.

  38. AndrewC.

    Indeed, and you also end up smelling like horse although she is the one sweating profusely

  39. Ian B said:
    “It always slightly irritates me that the past tense of “plead” isn’t “pled”, like “lead” and “led”.”

    “plaid” would be good.

  40. Adam Johnson’s victim

    Not convinced she was much of a victim. She was, in quite a real sense, the initiator of contact, and there wasn’t a great deal of coercion. She was stupid at the very least.

    We have an age bar and we rightly convict anyone who crosses it. But not every crime has a victim.

  41. Bloke in North Dorset

    The police who showed the evidence to the club should be fired. Evidence needs to be tested in court by a defence lawyer and then a jury deciding on its relevance. Furthermore, are we sure that the police never, ever, make up evidence? I for one would never trust them.

    And what if the club had sacked him based on that evidence then lost a few games and got relegated and the case collapsed when it went to court? Who’s compensating the club for the lost revenue and the fans for having to watch inferior teams?

    The guy is a shit for not owning up straight away but if guys being a shit when it came to concerns for women was a crime we’d need a lot more jails.

  42. @Richard,

    I see senor Goatshagger had a conviction for sexual assault against a child, and was handed a banning order preventing him from having contact with kids.

    I’ll get me coat.

  43. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “Kiddy fiddlers are not what people want to see.”

    He is not a kiddy fiddler by any sensible definition of the term. But if the people don’t want to see him, they won’t buy the tickets. Why not leave it up to the public to decide?

  44. So Much For Subtlety

    John square – “The bit that gets me about that is that evidently all of those things have a use in a horse-rape scanario: why mention them otherwise? The electrical flex and dog chain I get, but the lynx? Lucozade? The water sprayer? There’s clearly more involved in equine coitus than I suspected.”

    Lynx and Lucozade? Dave is here. I am sure he will be along in a minute to explain why these are secret signs of an anti-semitic pogrom in the making.

  45. Ian B, re tenses, also: Conjugations (if that’s the word I want; dearieme will correct me)

    Thus, if Larry is short for Lawrence and harry is short for Harold or Henry, why isn’t Barry short for Bawrence, Barold or Benry?

    Ditto Gary.

  46. Quite, jgh, I instinctively replaced good with cromulent when reading the comment by Ted S. It is such a self-evident crime we should be able to proceed straight to sentencing with full approval from Dave.

  47. Are there any cases of 16/17 year old girls being prosecuted for having sex with 15 year old lads? That must happen fairly often (a few (couple of decades). I’ve never heard a similar case reported, only the 30ish teachers (who actually mostly seem to be quite fit and provoke the reaction ‘well of course they would’ on the part of the boys involved.

  48. “The police who showed the evidence to the club should be fired. “

    They aren’t the only ones. From a story that Tim covered earlier:

    Six weeks later, after apparently returning to the same police officer who gave her the caution, the woman said she was intending to make an application to have the caution quashed, claiming she was unwell at the time of the incident.
    The source said: ‘Instead of asking her what on earth she was playing at, and why she didn’t say that before accepting the caution, the officer took it up and phoned Graeme – leaving a message with a member of staff at his work. It’s all maximising embarrassment to him. He was told he would be arrested if he didn’t go for a “voluntary” interview about it.’

    The process is the punishment, remember?

  49. I’d be very angry if the police came to my office to show me evidence of a crime by a member of my staff, unless it affected their ability to do the job or they needed answers. That’s some police state shit, that is. “Here’s evidence of a crime. You might want to think about that. It’d be a shame if we revealed that you did nothing about it and made your customers angry”.

  50. “Are there any cases of 16/17 year old girls being prosecuted for having sex with 15 year old lads”

    I’ve been abused! I’m a survivor of matriarchy-instigated sexual violence!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *