geordiesteve710 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Away from football, and following the dreadful events of today, here's one positive bit of news in 'The War on Terror'.....sunderland man stabs a guy for looking like ISIS. In Tescos. With Scissors. Take that, twisted ideological take on Islam! http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/sunderland-thug-claimed-stabbing-asian-11075958 Life in sunderland. How the fuck do you not end up in prison for that?!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Daily Mail saying they should have points deducted for playing Johnson http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3503745/Adam-Johnson-not-played-Sunderland-club-deducted-point-draw-Liverpool.html Adrian Durham writing in the Daily Mail As much as I despise Johnson, and to a lesser extent Byrne for what they did, Sunderland AFC haven't actually broke any FA rules. If they did I'm sure a top 'reporter' like Durham would have been able to find it. He's almost as bad in print as he is on his radio show. I wouldn't be so certain. The FA have child safeguarding policies, given what Byrne has said about her not disclosing the details she knew to anyone, Sunderland cannot have carried out a valid safeguarding assessment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Mackem Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I'm normally not one to disagree in this way, but Margaret Byrne (and therefore the club) knew that he had groomed and kissed a child. They rightly suspended him, but the reason I think that points should be deducted is because he was then unsuspected in order to gain a points advantage (in full knowledge of his guilt) - if the club has gained an advantage having known, then the club should be stripped of that advantage. That's my opinion on it, but that doesn't mean that I think it'll happen. If you, Durham, or anyone else can show me the rule Sunderland football club have broken then I'll quite happily take the points deduction. Acting immorally isn't a specific offence as far as I know. Don't get me wrong, I think the club have came out of this terribly, but no rules have been broken in respect of getting points deducted. The Daily Mail is a repugnant, contemptible mess of a 'newspaper', and is in no position to moralise on any subject, to anyone........ever. It would be the most abhorrent rag this country still has in print if it weren't for The Sun. I'd rather read Mein Kampf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I'm normally not one to disagree in this way, but Margaret Byrne (and therefore the club) knew that he had groomed and kissed a child. They rightly suspended him, but the reason I think that points should be deducted is because he was then unsuspected in order to gain a points advantage (in full knowledge of his guilt) - if the club has gained an advantage having known, then the club should be stripped of that advantage. That's my opinion on it, but that doesn't mean that I think it'll happen. If you, Durham, or anyone else can show me the rule Sunderland football club have broken then I'll quite happily take the points deduction. Acting immorally isn't a specific offence as far as I know. Don't get me wrong, I think the club have came out of this terribly, but no rules have been broken in respect of getting points deducted. The Daily Mail is a repugnant, contemptible mess of a 'newspaper', and is in no position to moralise on any subject, to anyone........ever. It would be the most abhorrent rag this country still has in print if it weren't for The Sun. I'd rather read Mein Kampf. I don't have a specific rule that's been broken, and if I did I imagine it would be a broader law rather than an FA rule. It's more that I think the club should be rather than they will. I think it goes beyond morals and into criminality, personally. The club should be held accountable for playing someone who they knew was guilty of a serious crime and ignoring police advice, potentially putting more people in danger in doing so, for the sake of gaining a points advantage, which was gained by doing so. As a result, in light of that, the club should have those points deducted imo. Agree about the Daily Mail in general, but I do agree with them on this even if I don't necessarily agree that immigrant spongers cause radicalised cancer terrorism. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 In European leagues you can be deducted points for the actions of your crowd (for example, racist chanting), yet in this country a club from top to bottom can very publicly support a paedophile something incredibly wrong with that. Whilst I completely agree the mackems should face some sort of punishment, I'm not sure what I would personally suggest as fines etc are worthless at this level unless it is severely substantial. That being said, I have no idea why we are discussing it because it is clear that absolutely nothing will be done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I'm normally not one to disagree in this way, but Margaret Byrne (and therefore the club) knew that he had groomed and kissed a child. They rightly suspended him, but the reason I think that points should be deducted is because he was then unsuspected in order to gain a points advantage (in full knowledge of his guilt) - if the club has gained an advantage having known, then the club should be stripped of that advantage. That's my opinion on it, but that doesn't mean that I think it'll happen. If you, Durham, or anyone else can show me the rule Sunderland football club have broken then I'll quite happily take the points deduction. Acting immorally isn't a specific offence as far as I know. Don't get me wrong, I think the club have came out of this terribly, but no rules have been broken in respect of getting points deducted. The Daily Mail is a repugnant, contemptible mess of a 'newspaper', and is in no position to moralise on any subject, to anyone........ever. It would be the most abhorrent rag this country still has in print if it weren't for The Sun. I'd rather read Mein Kampf. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/safeguarding/introduction-to-safeguarding-children Margaret Byrne (and therefore the club) withheld information which it seems would have almost certainly changed the outcome of whatever safeguarding assessment/s were carried out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DonaldGrump Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Ashley will have is Lawyers on this one if we finish 3rd bottom a point behind them....well if he was still bothered about us he would.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 https://www.facebook.com/removeadamjohnsonappeal/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Mackem Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/safeguarding/introduction-to-safeguarding-children Margaret Byrne (and therefore the club) withheld information which it seems would have almost certainly changed the outcome of whatever safeguarding assessment/s were carried out. You don't know that. You're surmising. She may have still put in safeguarding procedures even with Johnson still there, but to be honest it's irrelevant. There would still have been no rules broken which could lead to a points deduction. I think it's wrong, and the rules should be changed, but as it stands that's the way it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Mackem Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Ashley will have is Lawyers on this one if we finish 3rd bottom a point behind them....well if he was still bothered about us he would.. Norwich and Fulham (I think) tried to get us points deducted when they got relegated because we fielded a player with incorrect paperwork. Even if we'd had points deducted that season we'd have still finished above the relegation places, so they went kind of quiet after that. I don't blame people for wanting points deducted, desperate times require desperate measures, but I can't see how it can happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Ashley will have is Lawyers on this one if we finish 3rd bottom a point behind them....well if he was still bothered about us he would.. Norwich and Fulham (I think) tried to get us points deducted when they got relegated because we fielded a player with incorrect paperwork. Even if we'd had points deducted that season we'd have still finished above the relegation places, so they went kind of quiet after that. I don't blame people for wanting points deducted, desperate times require desperate measures, but I can't see how it can happen. Agree. Just got to hope justice is served and the club who knowingly harboured a paedophile for their own gain is relegated anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 The mackems look a much better team under Big Sam to be honest but his in game tactics are harming them. Pre-game they seem fine, but during the game not so. They sat back against us and surrendered the inititive. A second goal would have killed us and lead to another no doubt. They were the better team against us mind, as we were at their place last year. We could well both be going down and to be honest, good riddance to bad shite. Its what both clubs deserve if not the fans. Although our lot... SP and AO gave them a perfect platform and they still turned up in their wonga tops clapping and cheering! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/safeguarding/introduction-to-safeguarding-children Margaret Byrne (and therefore the club) withheld information which it seems would have almost certainly changed the outcome of whatever safeguarding assessment/s were carried out. You don't know that. You're surmising. She may have still put in safeguarding procedures even with Johnson still there, but to be honest it's irrelevant. There would still have been no rules broken which could lead to a points deduction. I think it's wrong, and the rules should be changed, but as it stands that's the way it is. http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/rules-of-the-association/2015-16/fa-complete-handbook-proof---oct-15.ashx page 126 J. RULES, REGULATIONS AND LAWS OF THE GAME (g) Safeguarding Children A Participant shall abide by any regulations for safeguarding children as determined by The Association from time to time. Page 319: REGULATIONS FOR FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION DISCIPLINARY ACTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 These Regulations set out the way in which proceedings under Rules E and G of the Rules of The Association shall be conducted. Page 326: 8 PENALTIES 8.1 The Regulatory Commission shall have the power to impose any one or more of the following penalties on the Participant Charged: (a) a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct; (b) a fine; © suspension from all or any specified football activity from a date that the Regulatory Commission shall order, permanently or for a stated period or number of matches; (d) the closure of a ground permanently or for a stated period; (e) the playing of a match or matches without spectators being present, and/or at a specific ground; (f) any order which may be made under the rules and regulations of a Competition in which the Participant Charged participates or is associated, which shall be deemed to include the deduction of points and removal from a Competition at any stage of any Playing Season; (g) expulsion from a Competition; (h) expulsion from membership of The Association or an Affiliated Association; (i) such further or other penalty or order as it considers appropriate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Doubt they will impose anything to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhoywhonder Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Hmmmm.....what would Rapey To Groom do in this situation? Mass email to the FA you say? Nah, f*ck it. Not going to stoop to their infinite level of stupid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Doubt they will impose anything to be honest. Me too, although it depends how much the press decide to run with that angle after the story hits the headlines again tomorrow. But the mackems saying they haven't actually broken any rules and can't be punished might not actually be correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Johnson sentencing today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Johnson sentencing today. 10am? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I'd have thought knowingly playing a paedophile kind of brings the game into disrepute. Absolutely an offence worthy of points docking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Depends, Kevin Bacon knowingly played a paedophile in The Woodsman and I thought it was an outstanding performance which I wouldn't have punished him for or anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Open_C Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Johnson sentencing today. 10am? Judges won't even be robed up by then, they'll still be lashing in the coffee in their chambers I reckon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Johnson sentencing today. 10am? Judges won't even be robed up by then, they'll still be lashing in the coffee in their chambers I reckon Good make him wait. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Worked by the looks of the paparazzi scramble Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Bailey Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Predictions?? I think less than two years (18 months ish)........That's the sentence not his latest dalliances age btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Predictions?? I think less than two years (18 months ish)........That's the sentence not his latest dalliances age btw. ...iirc the minimum is set at 5 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts