Danny Simpson to miss parade and trip to Thailand - **Overturned On Appeal**

[AKCJ]

Because of course all crimes are the same.

 

I've broken the law. Lost my first job because of it. That doesn't disqualify me from having an opinion on someone who tries to strangle a woman.

 

Like I said originally, though, I'm a hypocrite really because I support him when he's in the team.

This notion of being a hypocrite for supporting him in a City shirt is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read on this forum and that says a ****ing lot.

You're supporting him as a Footballer, not as a Woman beater.

Those on their high horses about that really can do one.

[danny.]

When has he ever joked about being caught throttling his girlfriend?

He's merely caught enjoying himself as he's been allowed to go. He's bot bought his way out of anything as he's been given what most would call a worse punishment.

Seems to me like people are so desperate to take a moral high ground that they're not looking at facts.

What he did was wrong and he's paying for it. There is nothing else he can do now.

 

He is hardly showing any respect or sorrow about the whole situation if he's stood there pointing to his ankle (highlighting the lack of tag) and grinning.

 

Come on, anyone with half a brain can see that is completely inappropriate, especially when the eyes of the world are on you.

[foxile5]

Whilst I wouldn't want to wish misfortune on anyone, I was a little miffed he was allowed to make the parade.

 

The judge, rightfully, refused his offer of a fine as it wasn't a punishment. He hasn't been punished going to prison, either. Community service proved impossible and, therefore, wasn't a punishment. And, largely, his curfew isn't a punishment either, as he is required by the club to rest and recuperate when not at the training ground. In short, Danny Simpson has avoided punishment for his crimes.

 

Here was an opportunity for him to actually have to serve a punishment. To have a reaction to his actions, and he seems to have gotten away with it.

 

To put this into perspective, I work with vulnerable people in my line of work. Should I beat a woman, I lose my job. Should I be suspected of beating a woman, I possibly lose my job, and certainly make my life hard. In short and in long, I would not be so fortunate as to keep plying my trade should I be convicted of assault. Danny Simpon was. As a role model, he failed. As a human, he erred. As a footballer, he was allowed to go on and win the biggest prize of them all without having anything compromised.

 

It is an absolute privilage to have been allowed on that parade, it is not part of the day to day duties of the footballer. It is not a right. To see him have his punishment revoked so he can have the thrill of a lifetime and a holiday....well, it paints the judicinal system in a very, very, very poor light. Roles reversed, I wouldn't have been there. Millions of us regular joes wouldn't.

 

I want to end this by echoing some of the sentiments people have made earlier in the thread. It is okay to support him as a footballer and condemn him as a criminal at the same time. Life isn't about absolutes.

[AKCJ]

He is hardly showing any respect or sorrow about the whole situation if he's stood there pointing to his ankle (highlighting the lack of tag) and grinning.

 

Come on, anyone with half a brain can see that is completely inappropriate, especially when the eyes of the world are on you.

He has been sentenced and is serving the punishment for his crimes.

He's perfectly entitled to celebrate his freedom. Get over yourself.

[foxile5]

He has been sentenced and is serving the punishment for his crimes.

He's perfectly entitled to celebrate his freedom. Get over yourself.

 

The point is that he isn't serving the punishment of his crimes. After ineffective sentencing and effective lawyering he has been released of his punishment and, in the act of celebrating this, is showing no humility or awareness of his good fortune.

 

I'm all for standing up for people, but this seems a really indefensible act.

[danny.]

He has been sentenced and is serving the punishment for his crimes.

He's perfectly entitled to celebrate his freedom. Get over yourself.

 

You don't seem to grasp this do you. I give up.

[SecretPro]

The point is that he isn't serving the punishment of his crimes. After ineffective sentencing and effective lawyering he has been released of his punishment and, in the act of celebrating this, is showing no humility or awareness of his good fortune.

 

I'm all for standing up for people, but this seems a really indefensible act.

 

If this upsets you you should come and work with me! You would be inconsolable!

[AKCJ]

The point is that he isn't serving the punishment of his crimes. After ineffective sentencing and effective lawyering he has been released of his punishment and, in the act of celebrating this, is showing no humility or awareness of his good fortune.

 

I'm all for standing up for people, but this seems a really indefensible act.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

He's on community service and will recommence when he's back from the goodwill tour of Thailand.

[AKCJ]

You don't seem to grasp this do you. I give up.

How rich.

[foxile5]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

He's on community service and will recommence when he's back from the goodwill tour of Thailand.

 

If it were you or I we wouldn't be allowed the good grace of a holiday. Why should he? It is a punishment, after all. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. He's done the crime and, in my eyes, he should do the time.

 

And I think I could 'be more wrong if I tried'. Had I said 'Danny Simpson is actually Homer Simpson' I would be 'more wrong'. I could've said a lot of foolish things that would have been 'more wrong'. It damages your argument to make suggestions like this.

 

I've dealt with your quotations with the upmost respect, as I would any poster on here, don't debase yourself by making ridiculous statements.

If this upsets you you should come and work with me! You would be inconsolable!

 

 

I think I'm being confused here. It doesn't upset me at all, I just think it's wrong and sets the wrong precedent. The world is an unjust place, unfortunately.

[AKCJ]

If it were you or I we wouldn't be allowed the good grace of a holiday. Why should he? It is a punishment, after all. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. He's done the crime and, in my eyes, he should do the time.

 

And I think I could 'be more wrong if I tried'. Had I said 'Danny Simpson is actually Homer Simpson' I would be 'more wrong'. I could've said a lot of foolish things that would have been 'more wrong'. It damages your argument to make suggestions like this.

 

I've dealt with your quotations with the upmost respect, as I would any poster on here, don't debase yourself by making ridiculous statements.

 

 

I think I'm being confused here. It doesn't upset me at all, I just think it's wrong and sets the wrong precedent. The world is an unjust place, unfortunately.

It's not my fault that you think he's been given special treatment for getting off a punishment by being given the one he originally had.

Look at the facts before you have an argument on something.

I for one certainly don't think he's been given any special treatment t at all and it says a lot about your lack of knowledge on the judicial system if you thinking has.

He was offered a very, very good offer of a curfew but instead he's chosen to appeal it and has been given the much worse punishment of community service. If you think that that is special treatment then you're not thinking rationally.

[AKCJ]

He is "doing the time".

Although the Sun or Mirror or whatever it is you've been reading is probably telling you otherwise...

[foxile5]

It's not my fault that you think he's been given special treatment for getting off a punishment by being given the one he originally had.

Look at the facts before you have an argument on something.

I for one certainly don't think he's been given any special treatment t at all and it says a lot about your lack of knowledge on the judicial system if you thinking has.

He was offered a very, very good offer of a curfew but instead he's chosen to appeal it and has been given the much worse punishment of community service. If you think that that is special treatment then you're not thinking rationally.

 

The special treatment is being allowed to postpone his community service to go on holiday.

 

I know that is not the case for 'regular' offenders. They are not allowed time off of community service to go on holiday. Danny Simpson has been allowed time off of community service to go on holiday.

 

'Special Treatment' would imply that he is being given treatment that, either positive or negative, is essentailly different from the norm. Danny Simpson, in being allowed to defer his community service, is being given positive treatment in difference to the norm. He is being given special treatment.

 

In being allowed to go on holiday, Danny Simpson has recieved special treatment.

 

In addition to this, he also has had his punishment reduced and changed, again something that isn't offered to your general members of the public.

 

You say 'it's not my fault'. Again, I have treated your posts with the respect I afford the other posters on here, and never suggested anything is your fault. This is confusing.

 

Your last post is a bizarre personal attack, however. I am not informed by neither the Sun nor the Mirror, and I certainly don't go to any newspaper for my news about Leicester. You seem really eager to insult instead of discuss.

[danny.]

The constant hyperbole and ad hominem comments from AKCJ speak loudly.

[AKCJ]

The special treatment is being allowed to postpone his community service to go on holiday.

 

I know that is not the case for 'regular' offenders. They are not allowed time off of community service to go on holiday. Danny Simpson has been allowed time off of community service to go on holiday.

 

'Special Treatment' would imply that he is being given treatment that, either positive or negative, is essentailly different from the norm. Danny Simpson, in being allowed to defer his community service, is being given positive treatment in difference to the norm. He is being given special treatment.

 

In being allowed to go on holiday, Danny Simpson has recieved special treatment.

 

In addition to this, he also has had his punishment reduced and changed, again something that isn't offered to your general members of the public.

 

You say 'it's not my fault'. Again, I have treated your posts with the respect I afford the other posters on here, and never suggested anything is your fault. This is confusing.

 

Your last post is a bizarre personal attack, however. I am not informed by neither the Sun nor the Mirror, and I certainly don't go to any newspaper for my news about Leicester. You seem really eager to insult instead of discuss.

You're still not looking at the facts

Danny Simpson hasn't been given a holiday. He's been given a certain amount of hours to complete unpaid work within a certain length of time. This is the same for all offenders and it's up to him to work those hours. He can do a few weeks of 9-5 or he can do a few months of the odd afternoon. That is the same for everyone. He's not been given time off, he's just decided to travel with the squad knowing that he will have to spend more time completing the work he's been sentenced to do in bulk.

He's not been given less working hours or anything.

This case is entirely normal. The sooner you start looking at facts, the better.a

[foxile5]

You're still not looking at the facts

Danny Simpson hasn't been given a holiday. He's been given a certain amount of hours to complete unpaid work within a certain length of time. This is the same for all offenders and it's up to him to work those hours. He can do a few weeks of 9-5 or he can do a few months of the odd afternoon. That is the same for everyone. He's not been given time off, he's just decided to travel with the squad knowing that he will have to spend more time completing the work he's been sentenced to do in bulk.

He's not been given less working hours or anything.

This case is entirely normal. The sooner you start looking at facts, the better.a

 

He was removed from his community service due to the inability to be able to do it...press intrusion.

 

He was given a tag and told he was to serve a curfew, in leiu of community service.

 

He was then allowed leniency on this to go on a club-funded trip to Thailand.

 

Those are the facts. I wholeheartedly disagree with the decision to allow him leniency.

[bovril]

This notion of being a hypocrite for supporting him in a City shirt is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read on this forum and that says a ****ing lot.

You're supporting him as a Footballer, not as a Woman beater.

Those on their high horses about that really can do one.

I didn't say anybody supporting him was a hypocrite, which you would have understood if you'd read my post and not flown of the handle.

I admitted I was being a bit of a hypocrite because I thought he should have been sacked when he committed the crime but went on to support him when he was playing well.

It's ironic you complain people are on their high horse when you are so judgemental of people who have different opinions to you.

[stripeyfox]

He was removed from his community service due to the inability to be able to do it...press intrusion.

He was given a tag and told he was to serve a curfew, in leiu of community service.

He was then allowed leniency on this to go on a club-funded trip to Thailand.

Those are the facts. I wholeheartedly disagree with the decision to allow him leniency.

That's not quite factually correct.

He was given community service

It was proving difficult to complete the community service due to press intrusion

He appealed to the judge who agreed that it was difficult to complete the community sevice and offerred to pay a fine instead

Judge rejected that an imposed curfew

He appealed that decision and Judge agreed and restored Community Service order.

So whilst I would be in general agreement that Simpson is most definately a bit of a scumbag and a cock, he has not been shown "leniancy" in his curfew - the appeal judge simply felt that imposing the curfew was the wrong decision and ruled he should complete the community service instead

[AKCJ]

He was removed from his community service due to the inability to be able to do it...press intrusion.

 

He was given a tag and told he was to serve a curfew, in leiu of community service.

 

He was then allowed leniency on this to go on a club-funded trip to Thailand.

 

Those are the facts. I wholeheartedly disagree with the decision to allow him leniency.

 

They're not though, are they?

 

He's still on community service.

[sly1]

Disgusting if that was me or you would of been a totally different story disgusting 1 rule for 1 one rule for the other

[kingcarr21]

Simpson has X amount of time to complete his community service. He hasn't been shown leniency at all  He will just have to smash more hours in when he gets back. I don't see what the big debate is

[SpacedX]

This notion of being a hypocrite for supporting him in a City shirt is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read on this forum and that says a ****ing lot.

You're supporting him as a Footballer, not as a Woman beater.

Those on their high horses about that really can do one.

So that logic also applies to Adam Johnson? 

 

Despite his conviction, having served his sentence he should be welcomed to the Stadium of Light by the Sunderland fans who should support him as a footballer, not as a paedophile?

 

Genius.

[AKCJ]

So that logic also applies to Adam Johnson? 

 

Despite his conviction, having served his sentence he should be welcomed to the Stadium of Light by the Sunderland fans who should support him as a footballer, not as a paedophile?

 

Genius.

 

  

Because the cases are remotely similar, aren't they?

[AKCJ]

Disgusting if that was me or you would of been a totally different story disgusting 1 rule for 1 one rule for the other

 

You have to laugh at this unfounded paranoia.

 

You most certainly would not have been treated differently.

[stripeyfox]

Because the cases are remotely similar, aren't they?

But that's not the point it it. Adam Johnson and Danny Simpson have both committed pretty dispicable crimes. Where is the line then? Where is it ok to support him as a footballer and not for his personal life? Why is Johnson's situation different than Simpson's? I'm aware the crimes were different but the point was made about supporting a player "as a footballer" implying that what he gets up to (or convicted for) is irrelevant?