By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
What is interesting is why he didn't plead guilty at the first oppurtunity. He waited until the trial started, decimating any credit he might have received (had he gone guilty at the 1st opppurtunity he would have got one third off) and making him seem duplicitous. Maybe he just wanted to keep getting paid and save up as much cash as possible prior to conviction.
Given that he was found not guilty on one count, which seemed to be the most serious of the charges and that some of the victim's claims such as how he attends to his pubic area were blown out of the water suggests that he had no choice but to defend himself. Given this though, a multi-millionaire footballer with a very beautiful partner and a young child to even be tempted by such a situation shows that he is an absolute idiot and highlights in general that there are many footballers now that do not have a grasp on reality due to the excessive wealth that comes their way.
Personally, I still think there is some mileage to go with the Evans appeal. Call it a hunch and no more, but there is something that just doesn't sit right about the decision in that matter. Hopefully, a dispassionate and considered appeal process will iron things out and deal with any and all doubts one way or another.
As for Johnson what a prize git. I mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a consistent theme of footballers on nights out getting into stupid trouble. This however, was more pernicious, but football really does need to take more of a role 'developing' these blokes intelligence.
From young boys, they are feed a diet of how brilliant they are, living ridiculously fettered and wealthy lifestyles, with little or no moral development. Surrounded by sycophants and yes men and if you've ever seen a Prem player on a night out, surrounded by woman throwing themselves at them. Its not surprising so many either go off the rails or get into trouble.
Johnson's acts were of course, beyond moral/legal limits. He may very well have been such a bloke if he'd been someone working in a menial job, but its highly unlikely women/girls would be chasing him as well. He's well and truly f....d his life up, his wife will take him to the cleaners and to think, he has a kid as well, what guidance will that poor so-and-so get from him?
But now this trial is out the way, I'd be staggered if we didn't see the Sunday papers littered with other lurid stories and allegations. And I wouldn't be surprised if other 'issues' come to the fore as well.
Wretched business altogether.
'Always In Motion' by John Honney available on amazon.co.uk
Given that he was found not guilty on one count, which seemed to be the most serious of the charges and that some of the victim's claims such as how he attends to his pubic area were blown out of the water suggests that he had no choice but to defend himself. Given this though, a multi-millionaire footballer with a very beautiful partner and a young child to even be tempted by such a situation shows that he is an absolute idiot and highlights in general that there are many footballers now that do not have a grasp on reality due to the excessive wealth that comes their way.
Not Guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it, it means it could not be proved he did. Just like with John Terry, a Not Guilty verdict gives them the opportunity to say "see, I didn't do it".
I was on jury service some 8 years ago and we had to give a verdict of not guilty in a rape case as there was no proof of non-consent, after 6 days of trial it was effectively his word against hers. Rape is such a difficult thing to prove, which is awful for the potential victim, but you cannot send someone down for something they might not have done. After not being able to give a 12-0 majority (it was 11-1), the Judge said he'd take 10-2 after further deliberation. We didn't take long to deliberate as the outcome was still the same, 11-1. And that 1 was a 50 year old woman who decided early on he was guilty and wanted the case over quickly so she could get back to her lawn green bowles!
In Johnson's case I suspect it was the same, his word against hers. Unless there's proof, a Not Guilty verdict is the only option. Someone elsewhere mentioned that in cases where a child victim is involved, probability does come into play. Not sure if that was the case here though.
We need to adopt the Scottish system;
Guilty = proven beyond all doubt they did it Not Guilty = proven beyond all doubt they didn't do it Not Proven = High probability they did it but could not be proven. Same outcome as Not Guilty (i.e. they walk free) but casts doubt over their integrity etc. and it will hang over them for life.
By admitting guilt to grooming, kissing etc, he's got away with a much less sentence than had he be found guilty of intercourse.
Not Guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it, it means it could not be proved he did. Just like with John Terry, a Not Guilty verdict gives them the opportunity to say "see, I didn't do it".
I was on jury service some 8 years ago and we had to give a verdict of not guilty in a rape case as there was no proof of non-consent, after 6 days of trial it was effectively his word against hers. Rape is such a difficult thing to prove, which is awful for the potential victim, but you cannot send someone down for something they might not have done. After not being able to give a 12-0 majority (it was 11-1), the Judge said he'd take 10-2 after further deliberation. We didn't take long to deliberate as the outcome was still the same, 11-1. And that 1 was a 50 year old woman who decided early on he was guilty and wanted the case over quickly so she could get back to her lawn green bowles!
In Johnson's case I suspect it was the same, his word against hers. Unless there's proof, a Not Guilty verdict is the only option. Someone elsewhere mentioned that in cases where a child victim is involved, probability does come into play. Not sure if that was the case here though.
We need to adopt the Scottish system;
Guilty = proven beyond all doubt they did it Not Guilty = proven beyond all doubt they didn't do it Not Proven = High probability they did it but could not be proven. Same outcome as Not Guilty (i.e. they walk free) but casts doubt over their integrity etc. and it will hang over them for life.
By admitting guilt to grooming, kissing etc, he's got away with a much less sentence than had he be found guilty of intercourse.
[Post edited 3 Mar 2016 13:52]
Good post but I stronglly disagree in respect of the Scottish system. The stigma attached to a crime can often indirectly prove as onerous and damaging as the sentence passed by the Court. What would have happened had Johnson been found 'not-proven'. Without steadfastly confirming the allegations the man's life would have been ruined. A high probability is a difficult thing to quantify also. What is the threshold? Who makes that decision? Jury or Judge? It seems so impractical that it couldn't possibly be workable, even if it was just.
Good post but I stronglly disagree in respect of the Scottish system. The stigma attached to a crime can often indirectly prove as onerous and damaging as the sentence passed by the Court. What would have happened had Johnson been found 'not-proven'. Without steadfastly confirming the allegations the man's life would have been ruined. A high probability is a difficult thing to quantify also. What is the threshold? Who makes that decision? Jury or Judge? It seems so impractical that it couldn't possibly be workable, even if it was just.
Yeah, it's a good point and one I had thought of.
With John Terry, Not Proven would be completely correct, especially as he was found guilty via the probability notion later on.
With the case I was on it was such a fine line. Both accounts (completely different!) were equally plausible and none of the evidence suggested no consent. They had sex, he admitted it & she admitted it. How do you decide with no evidence whatsoever??? He did seem a wrong 'un (went looking for sex with a prostitute while his girlfriend was 7-8 months pregnant) but that doesn't mean he was guilty in this instance. It's why Courts don't tell the jury of any previous convictions as they are irrelevant to the case in question.
But yes, could also lead t many verdicts being given as Not Proven as an easy option for the Jury.
I do think we need to change it from Guilty / Not Guilty in England though, there must be another option that ensure Not Guilty doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it?
Personally, i think Johnson did have sex with her but opinions have no place in a Court of law.
With John Terry, Not Proven would be completely correct, especially as he was found guilty via the probability notion later on.
With the case I was on it was such a fine line. Both accounts (completely different!) were equally plausible and none of the evidence suggested no consent. They had sex, he admitted it & she admitted it. How do you decide with no evidence whatsoever??? He did seem a wrong 'un (went looking for sex with a prostitute while his girlfriend was 7-8 months pregnant) but that doesn't mean he was guilty in this instance. It's why Courts don't tell the jury of any previous convictions as they are irrelevant to the case in question.
But yes, could also lead t many verdicts being given as Not Proven as an easy option for the Jury.
I do think we need to change it from Guilty / Not Guilty in England though, there must be another option that ensure Not Guilty doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it?
Personally, i think Johnson did have sex with her but opinions have no place in a Court of law.
Well that isn't technically true. A jury can be informed of a defendant's previous convictions, should the offences be of a similar character. Violent offences where the charge is Assault ect. There are other ways previous convictions can be bought in to play also. The Crown have to make what is called a 'bad character application', defence respond and the Judge decides.
Also it was never alleged that Johnson had sex with her.
The thing is the deprivation of someone's freedom, to the extent of caging them up and stigmatising them for the rest of their lives is the most onerous punishment available to the state. Therefore the test should be so high to ensure the recipients are equally deserving. If you aren't certain someone is guilty you can't convict him. Unfortunately the burden of proof seems to take a bit of a hit these days, and someone being a bit of a wrong'un is enough to get you convicted in the magistrates' court.
Given that he was found not guilty on one count, which seemed to be the most serious of the charges and that some of the victim's claims such as how he attends to his pubic area were blown out of the water suggests that he had no choice but to defend himself. Given this though, a multi-millionaire footballer with a very beautiful partner and a young child to even be tempted by such a situation shows that he is an absolute idiot and highlights in general that there are many footballers now that do not have a grasp on reality due to the excessive wealth that comes their way.
Don't really get this post. He should have pleaded guilty at the outset to the less serious charges. Even if he wasnot guilty, as he claims, of the most serious charge, he could have pleaded not guilty to that. It may have saved hours of police time and legal time, which we all have to pay for in taxes. I think, as someone else posted, he wanted to squeeze the maximum out of Sunderland in wages, knowing there was a very strong chance he'd be found guilty and may never play football again. The evidence 'blown out of the water' was given by by his ex-partner, I believe, who had strong reasons to support him (father of her child, etc). He's not an idiot, he's a scumbag. An idiot is someone who has an affair with a woman and gets caught, not someone who targets underage girls. The fact that his ex-partner is beautiful and he has a child is irrelevant, would it be ok if she was ugly and they didn't have a child? I don't care if he was flattered; she was old for her age; he's had women throwing themselves at him. All irrelevant . He knew she was 15, and should not have gone anywhere near her.
Don't really get this post. He should have pleaded guilty at the outset to the less serious charges. Even if he wasnot guilty, as he claims, of the most serious charge, he could have pleaded not guilty to that. It may have saved hours of police time and legal time, which we all have to pay for in taxes. I think, as someone else posted, he wanted to squeeze the maximum out of Sunderland in wages, knowing there was a very strong chance he'd be found guilty and may never play football again. The evidence 'blown out of the water' was given by by his ex-partner, I believe, who had strong reasons to support him (father of her child, etc). He's not an idiot, he's a scumbag. An idiot is someone who has an affair with a woman and gets caught, not someone who targets underage girls. The fact that his ex-partner is beautiful and he has a child is irrelevant, would it be ok if she was ugly and they didn't have a child? I don't care if he was flattered; she was old for her age; he's had women throwing themselves at him. All irrelevant . He knew she was 15, and should not have gone anywhere near her.
I think I bit of recognition for the British justice system is due here.
I'm sure some won't be happy till his head is on a pike at the Tower of London, but in all fairness there was no American style media circus this time.
Maybe Britain isn't going to the dogs Daily Mail style ....
I think I bit of recognition for the British justice system is due here.
I'm sure some won't be happy till his head is on a pike at the Tower of London, but in all fairness there was no American style media circus this time.
Maybe Britain isn't going to the dogs Daily Mail style ....
[Post edited 4 Mar 2016 10:24]
Or maybe it's the lack of circus that is more worrying. Implies a lack of shock, that we are desensitised to such occurrences to the extent that they are not unexpected or are in fact commonplace. I did still get a pervading sense that his head on a pike was somewhat expected/required, which might be more about the inverted British class snobbery - he had a life of privilege, how dare he, we only expect that behaviour from depraved thin-wallet no-hopers etc. As for whether he is something worse than an idiot - I suspect this is about him being a total idiot. It's a well-worn saying that men's brains are located below the trouser-line. So he discovers she's 15, but he sees her as something different, something a bit special. He's idiotic enough to think, perhaps because of his closeted football lifestyle, that it won't matter, that it just won't be a problem, he'll just get away with it. Perhaps he doesn't even think that far ahead. It's rank stupidity, hormonally-led thinking, but for a victim only months in age away from this case not being a case, I'm not sure it displays the pattern of someone that 'targets' under-age girls. Unless I'm missing something. I'm not exactly well-read on the case and have no desire to be.
The Man isn't an idiot he is a paedophile, the bloke was after a 15 year old even when she told him his age he still wanted to get his end away , and who knows he probably did, the fcuker should be maimed and his head put on a spike just like the Asian gangs that raped those girls in the care system feed the lot of them to the pigs
And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
Or maybe it's the lack of circus that is more worrying. Implies a lack of shock, that we are desensitised to such occurrences to the extent that they are not unexpected or are in fact commonplace. I did still get a pervading sense that his head on a pike was somewhat expected/required, which might be more about the inverted British class snobbery - he had a life of privilege, how dare he, we only expect that behaviour from depraved thin-wallet no-hopers etc. As for whether he is something worse than an idiot - I suspect this is about him being a total idiot. It's a well-worn saying that men's brains are located below the trouser-line. So he discovers she's 15, but he sees her as something different, something a bit special. He's idiotic enough to think, perhaps because of his closeted football lifestyle, that it won't matter, that it just won't be a problem, he'll just get away with it. Perhaps he doesn't even think that far ahead. It's rank stupidity, hormonally-led thinking, but for a victim only months in age away from this case not being a case, I'm not sure it displays the pattern of someone that 'targets' under-age girls. Unless I'm missing something. I'm not exactly well-read on the case and have no desire to be.
First and foremost, this is an Adam Johnson problem, not a societal one, so let's not get too profound about it. He had legitimate girls throwing themselves at him (which is pathetic in itself because he's not a good looking lad, not a particularly intelligent or charismatic lad, and he has the body of an emaciated 11 year old) desperate to sleep with him. He went for the 15 year old, he'd seen her at games, he knew how old she was, he had plenty of other options, but he was turned on by it. Paedophile.
But it does also speak to how we create our footballers these days. Johnson showed some promise early in his career, I remember him having a good game at LR for Watford, but he was never all that - one great game followed by nine fair to crap ones. And yet he was taken straight out of school, promised the world, told he was absolutely fcking brilliant, everybody says he's the next big thing, handed stupid amounts of money which escalated still further when he went to City and all he had to do for that wedge was train for an hour and a half Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, do a few set piece routines Friday possibly followed by a plane/first class train ride somewhere and then play a game of football on Saturday - and at City he didn't even really play.
This is a thick boy, left school with four GCSEs, with no life experience. He says himself he can't really display emotion, he doesn't know how. His defence tried to get him to show some contrition when giving evidence, to express how sorry he was for what he'd done and how sorry he was to the girl, and he basically shrugged and said "yeh s'pose". He's a borderline fcking remedial who's earned £3m in the last 12 months alone, treated like some sort of untouchable demi-God by his employers, supporters and media, left to his own devices. Now whether your vice is coke, fast cars, booze, 15 year old girls or whatever, this situation football is creating is asking for trouble. Here's loads of fcking money, and loads of fcking spare time, and no education at all, and no responsibility at all and we think you're amazing so we'll do everything for you... and then we're surprised that some of them don't go out for a round of golf, watch Netflix for a couple of hours and tuck themselves up in bed by 10?
I always remember that Sheff Utd player who killed a guy on the M1 doing some ridiculous speed while texting his mate and changing the radio station or something. He was driving some high powered Mclaren/Mercedes sports car. I'd never heard of him. He'd played like half a dozen games for Sheff Utd in League One and he was racing about in a car like that.
Certainly not trying to make excuses for Johnson here, because like I say at the start he's clearly a wrong 'un, but this practice of taking - often stupid under educated - boys out of school and immediately making them millionaires and treating them like royalty without requiring them to work for it is going to continue to cause problems. Some of them, at clubs like Chelsea and City, don't actually have to play any real football for it any more either. They just kick around against the other stupid rich boys on pristine academy pitches and talk about how shocked they were when on a loan spell at Morecambe there were players there who drove around in a second hand car and worried about mortgage payments and they had to sweep the dressing room after the game. Ruben Loftus Cheek on £60k a week at Chelsea now, and that club wonders why it is routinely instructing legal counsel on motoring and sexual offences committed by its young players.
First and foremost, this is an Adam Johnson problem, not a societal one, so let's not get too profound about it. He had legitimate girls throwing themselves at him (which is pathetic in itself because he's not a good looking lad, not a particularly intelligent or charismatic lad, and he has the body of an emaciated 11 year old) desperate to sleep with him. He went for the 15 year old, he'd seen her at games, he knew how old she was, he had plenty of other options, but he was turned on by it. Paedophile.
But it does also speak to how we create our footballers these days. Johnson showed some promise early in his career, I remember him having a good game at LR for Watford, but he was never all that - one great game followed by nine fair to crap ones. And yet he was taken straight out of school, promised the world, told he was absolutely fcking brilliant, everybody says he's the next big thing, handed stupid amounts of money which escalated still further when he went to City and all he had to do for that wedge was train for an hour and a half Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, do a few set piece routines Friday possibly followed by a plane/first class train ride somewhere and then play a game of football on Saturday - and at City he didn't even really play.
This is a thick boy, left school with four GCSEs, with no life experience. He says himself he can't really display emotion, he doesn't know how. His defence tried to get him to show some contrition when giving evidence, to express how sorry he was for what he'd done and how sorry he was to the girl, and he basically shrugged and said "yeh s'pose". He's a borderline fcking remedial who's earned £3m in the last 12 months alone, treated like some sort of untouchable demi-God by his employers, supporters and media, left to his own devices. Now whether your vice is coke, fast cars, booze, 15 year old girls or whatever, this situation football is creating is asking for trouble. Here's loads of fcking money, and loads of fcking spare time, and no education at all, and no responsibility at all and we think you're amazing so we'll do everything for you... and then we're surprised that some of them don't go out for a round of golf, watch Netflix for a couple of hours and tuck themselves up in bed by 10?
I always remember that Sheff Utd player who killed a guy on the M1 doing some ridiculous speed while texting his mate and changing the radio station or something. He was driving some high powered Mclaren/Mercedes sports car. I'd never heard of him. He'd played like half a dozen games for Sheff Utd in League One and he was racing about in a car like that.
Certainly not trying to make excuses for Johnson here, because like I say at the start he's clearly a wrong 'un, but this practice of taking - often stupid under educated - boys out of school and immediately making them millionaires and treating them like royalty without requiring them to work for it is going to continue to cause problems. Some of them, at clubs like Chelsea and City, don't actually have to play any real football for it any more either. They just kick around against the other stupid rich boys on pristine academy pitches and talk about how shocked they were when on a loan spell at Morecambe there were players there who drove around in a second hand car and worried about mortgage payments and they had to sweep the dressing room after the game. Ruben Loftus Cheek on £60k a week at Chelsea now, and that club wonders why it is routinely instructing legal counsel on motoring and sexual offences committed by its young players.
This post has been edited by an administrator
So so true. But we have a model for society where money = success, and in such a guise, success = privilege. In such a model, morals, ethics, values, intelligence, creativity....i could go on, but they all go out the window. It's not going to be fixed by a few football clubs, or even the premier league, getting their heads around it. Our concern here is football, this is football forum. Well, mostly :) But the issues extend to the music industry, and every other industry. Should we start with banking? There's a high percentage of numpties in there too, don't be fooled. The pre-meditated hunt for wealth-based glory. It's a recipe for societal disaster.
So so true. But we have a model for society where money = success, and in such a guise, success = privilege. In such a model, morals, ethics, values, intelligence, creativity....i could go on, but they all go out the window. It's not going to be fixed by a few football clubs, or even the premier league, getting their heads around it. Our concern here is football, this is football forum. Well, mostly :) But the issues extend to the music industry, and every other industry. Should we start with banking? There's a high percentage of numpties in there too, don't be fooled. The pre-meditated hunt for wealth-based glory. It's a recipe for societal disaster.
Agree, football though has a particularly acute problem, as opposed to banking for instance, because of the age and intellect of the people it's handing all this stuff to. Not many 15 year olds from Middlesbrough with 4 GCSEs handed a big earning bank job.
The PFA are obviously doing something in trying to educate these young impressionable millionaire footballers. It's undoubtedly a difficult task and one which gets more difficult on a yearly basis due to the ever increasing numbers of young impressionable footballing millionaires but I'd guess they need improve and extend their program.
So so true. But we have a model for society where money = success, and in such a guise, success = privilege. In such a model, morals, ethics, values, intelligence, creativity....i could go on, but they all go out the window. It's not going to be fixed by a few football clubs, or even the premier league, getting their heads around it. Our concern here is football, this is football forum. Well, mostly :) But the issues extend to the music industry, and every other industry. Should we start with banking? There's a high percentage of numpties in there too, don't be fooled. The pre-meditated hunt for wealth-based glory. It's a recipe for societal disaster.
Rock music indeed.
It seems to be that a now superannuated super-guitarist is allegedly well known for exactly the proclivity under discussion here. Whenever this is mentioned on a documentary about his band it is with a nudge and a wink.
The PFA are obviously doing something in trying to educate these young impressionable millionaire footballers. It's undoubtedly a difficult task and one which gets more difficult on a yearly basis due to the ever increasing numbers of young impressionable footballing millionaires but I'd guess they need improve and extend their program.
Not sure they are doing anywhere near enough tbh. Are these "training courses" compulsory or voluntary? Are they targetted at those who are obviously in need of guidance having been denied it at home? Is Gordon Taylor willing to divert some of the enormous funds his organisation generates towards preventing these type of situations rather than buying more expensive artworks or coming out with platitudes after the event?
The PFA are obviously doing something in trying to educate these young impressionable millionaire footballers. It's undoubtedly a difficult task and one which gets more difficult on a yearly basis due to the ever increasing numbers of young impressionable footballing millionaires but I'd guess they need improve and extend their program.
The PFA are doing fck all, and their response to this Johnson situation has been disgraceful - lobbying for him to be allowed to continue to play and then putting out that mealy mouthed load of sht in response to his conviction.
Their main reason for being is to make sure their millionaire members, and their vile CEO, continue to earn their millions regardless of their behaviour or anything else.
Well I'm so glad the authorities are keeping us safe from those gangs of overpaid rock stars/footballers who roam our thoroughfares looking for wandering innocents they can hurl into their huge black limousines. I for one never venture forth after dusk just in case.
The PFA are doing fck all, and their response to this Johnson situation has been disgraceful - lobbying for him to be allowed to continue to play and then putting out that mealy mouthed load of sht in response to his conviction.
Their main reason for being is to make sure their millionaire members, and their vile CEO, continue to earn their millions regardless of their behaviour or anything else.
So if the PFA are doing fcuk all does the responsibility then fall on the clubs to educate these youngsters. It should do seeing as they're the reason these kids earn such a ridiculous amount of money from such a young age.
Somebody has to take responsibility for the situation as cases like Johnsons and other examples of fame and fortune taking their toll on these kids will become far more regular.
So if the PFA are doing fcuk all does the responsibility then fall on the clubs to educate these youngsters. It should do seeing as they're the reason these kids earn such a ridiculous amount of money from such a young age.
Somebody has to take responsibility for the situation as cases like Johnsons and other examples of fame and fortune taking their toll on these kids will become far more regular.
That. The far more regular thing. We'll go for that I think.
The PFA are doing fck all, and their response to this Johnson situation has been disgraceful - lobbying for him to be allowed to continue to play and then putting out that mealy mouthed load of sht in response to his conviction.
Their main reason for being is to make sure their millionaire members, and their vile CEO, continue to earn their millions regardless of their behaviour or anything else.
Perhaps some bright spark at the PFA could entice 'A packet of crisps and a cheeky smile' former Chelsea paedophile Graham 'Novotel' Rix to tour the Premier grounds speaking as a cautionary warning of his horrendous crime.
From The Independent: In 1999, the Chelsea coach, Graham Rix, was jailed for having sex with a minor — a 15-year-old girl. On his release from Wandsworth Prison, Rix was employed again by Chelsea and went on to manage at Portsmouth and Oxford.
It was before the age of the internet, before the ability to mobilise the mass petitions that so unnerved Sheffield United when they contemplated taking Evans back.
When in 2005 he was employed by Hearts as manager there were protests outside Tynecastle by fans dismissed as “hypocrites” by the former chairman, Wallace Mercer. Rix lasted a year before the club’s ruling Romanov family, who were later to try in vain to keep Thomson at Tynecastle, sacked him.
Rix has not worked in football’s mainstream since. It took him six years to find another job — and that was in Trinidad. He now manages Portchester and told The Independent that his past had now become a reason for his non-employment. “Nobody seems to want to give me a job,” he said.
And what is more BTW Mr Whittingham,you cheeky young feck, I happened to leave Burlington Danes school Wood Lane W12 with 4 GCSE's. Is that QED likely to make me a borderline remedial thick boy with no morals,sense or empathy,without any semblance of prudence or self-control? You don't mention any possible smidgeon of parental influence in your simple reductive judgemental equation either. From what I heard on the radio his Dad was a real good fella an excellent role model and attended all his games at all levels.
Flat and far from scintilating maybe but borderline remedial..really?
Mirroring his Dad Dave
[Post edited 5 Mar 2016 7:10]
'I'm 18 with a bullet.Got my finger on the trigger,I'm gonna pull it.."
Love,Peace and Fook Chelski!
More like 20StoneOfHoop now.
Let's face it I'm not getting any thinner.
Pass the cake and pies please.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
