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

[AKCJ]

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?

 

I would argue that Danny Simpson "snapped" whereas Johnson is deemed a threat to children. Hence why we see the massive difference in the sentences they've each been handed.

 

I think that i'd have put Simpson on an anger management course if it was down to me.

[stripeyfox]

I would not have been in the slightest bit bothered, or suprised if the club sacked Simpson following his conviction. I would have supported that decision 100% - as I would if say Vardy was convicted of a "serious" crime - so not limiting my bias to bit part players (as Simpson was at the time).

I would like to think that the club gave Simpson a very strong final warning as to his conduct and that he has heeded this warning and knuckled down and got on with it.

It is therefore only right that Simpson gets on with serving his sentance in the community with miniumum fuss and maximum dedication.

[SpacedX]

  

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

Illustrating precisely why your logic is so flawed. Both were convicted. So what you are saying is that this works on a sliding scale of severity and we can overlook domestic violence and support Danny Simpson as a footballer then?

[AKCJ]

I would not have been in the slightest bit bothered, or suprised if the club sacked Simpson following his conviction. I would have supported that decision 100% - as I would if say Vardy was convicted of a "serious" crime - so not limiting my bias to bit part players (as Simpson was at the time).

I would like to think that the club gave Simpson a very strong final warning as to his conduct and that he has heeded this warning and knuckled down and got on with it.

It is therefore only right that Simpson gets on with serving his sentance in the community with miniumum fuss and maximum dedication.

 

Absolutely, but you can't just sack people for the fun of it. Let this country's justice system work it out. Simpson has been/is being punished so we should all move on.

 

People make mistakes and it's up to Simpson to prove his worth in society. I'd say he's doing a good job of it.

[stripeyfox]

I would argue that Danny Simpson "snapped" whereas Johnson is deemed a threat to children. Hence why we see the massive difference in the sentences they've each been handed.

I think that i'd have put Simpson on an anger management course if it was down to me.

I can see that. I don't know who you work for but how do you think your employer would handle the situation if you were convicted of the crime that Simpson was?

[stripeyfox]

Absolutely, but you can't just sack people for the fun of it. Let this country's justice system work it out. Simpson has been/is being punished so we should all move on.

People make mistakes and it's up to Simpson to prove his worth in society. I'd say he's doing a good job of it.

No, but you can sack people if their personal conduct is of such a serious nature that it affects that person's ability to do their job or their suitablility as an employee, or how other employees may view the nature of their conviction. In Simpson's case, being a footballer for a high profile club, the owners may well have taken the view that his crime would draw excessive negative publicity to the club and could dismiss him for that reason.

[AKCJ]

I can see that. I don't know who you work for but how do you think your employer would handle the situation if you were convicted of the crime that Simpson was?

 

I'd like to think that my employer made an attempt to take a level headed look at the situation.

 

I would think that if I was a key role in a company that makes millions that i'd be given a fair amount of leeway.

But, as you know, it's a moot point because Football isn't like any "normal" job. 

[danny.]

I'd like to think that my employer made an attempt to take a level headed look at the situation.

 

I would think that if I was a key role in a company that makes millions that i'd be given a fair amount of leeway.

But, as you know, it's a moot point because Football isn't like any "normal" job. 

 

Why should your pay cheque determine how much leeway you get if you are a criminal? 

[AKCJ]

Illustrating precisely why your logic is so flawed. Both were convicted. So what you are saying is that this works on a sliding scale of severity and we can overlook domestic violence and support Danny Simpson as a footballer then?

 

I'm saying that you can support Danny Simpson the footballer without supporting Danny Simpson the wife beater.

 

Surely you can see where i'm coming from.

 

I could HAVE (before this all came to light) supported Adam Johnson the footballer but now that I know what he's done, I could no longer support him.

 

I'm personally willing to think that Simpson will learn from his mistakes. I'm not willing to share that leniency with Adam Johnson.

 

Other people will look at it in different lights.

Why should your pay cheque determine how much leeway you get if you are a criminal? 

 

It doesn't?

[SecretPro]

I'm with AKCJ on this. I work for the justice system at this very level dealing with these very offences. Simpson has in no way had any extra special treatment. What has happened to Simpson and the leniency of his case happens regularly every day.

 

The argument here should be with our Justice System, not Simpson and his so called 'special treatment'.

[danny.]

It doesn't?

 

You said "I would think that if I was a key role in a company that makes millions that i'd be given a fair amount of leeway.", what were you implying then, if not that?

[ScouseFox]

this is a real great discussion but i think more needs to be done to find out what @@bovril did to get sacked that time 

[danny.]

And re: comparisons with Adam Johnson - I do not in any way support what he did, but he allegedly had relations with a 15 year old girl - hardly paedophilia in the true sense of the word, and UK law aside – morally & ethically, I think physical violence or abuse is just as bad, if not worse than having sex with a consenting 15 year old.

[SecretPro]

And re: comparisons with Adam Johnson - I do not in any way support what he did, but he allegedly had relations with a 15 year old girl - hardly paedophilia in the true sense of the word, and UK law aside – morally & ethically, I think physical violence or abuse is just as bad, if not worse than having sex with a consenting 15 year old.

 

Erm.

[danny.]

Erm.

 

Not surprised at this response.

 

So, before any one decides I am saying it's ok with an adult having sex with a 15 year old girl, I am not. I am also not OK with an adult trying to strangle another adult, or smashing another man in the head with an iron bar.

 

I do not agree with one of those being "OK" because someone has played a game well.

 

There are clearly levels of peadophilia as a 40 year old man having sex with a 5 year old I find far, far more disgusting and sick than a 17 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl.

[SecretPro]

Not surprised at this response.

 

So, before any one decides I am saying it's ok with an adult having sex with a 15 year old girl, I am not. I am also not OK with an adult trying to strangle another adult, or smashing another man in the head with an iron bar.

 

I do not agree with one of those being "OK" because someone has played a game well.

 

There are clearly levels of peadophilia as a 40 year old man having sex with a 5 year old I find far, far more disgusting and sick than a 17 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl.

 

yeah but Adam Johnson is 28.

[danny.]

yeah but Adam Johnson is 28.

 

Yes, it's ****ed up. I agree, as clearly stated I don't think it's OK.

[ARM1968]

Like juggling rocks in Kew Gardens. Genius.

[Countryfox]

yeah but Adam Johnson is 28.

Quite right SP Johnson is a pedo end of. But I know what you mean about the age thing danny as a friend of mines sons life was completely ruined when he had consensual sex with his girlfriend who was one year younger than him and one year under age.

Good debate though lads and kept me occupied whilst I had half an hour to kill in my hotel room.

[AKCJ]

You said "I would think that if I was a key role in a company that makes millions that i'd be given a fair amount of leeway.", what were you implying then, if not that?

 

I'm talking about what I make for the company rather than what I make for myself and it's beyond doubt that Simpson has helped make more for Leicester City than he has taken from Leicester City.

[AKCJ]

And re: comparisons with Adam Johnson - I do not in any way support what he did, but he allegedly had relations with a 15 year old girl - hardly paedophilia in the true sense of the word, and UK law aside – morally & ethically, I think physical violence or abuse is just as bad, if not worse than having sex with a consenting 15 year old.

 

You are quite good at this "wrong" thing.

 

Keep it going.

[Guest Col city fan]

I hate to disagree with you Col because you are a rounded man and I love you. I love everybody.

BUT...In my line of work I see on a daily basis (more than once everyday) little scrotes with criminal histories longer than my arm regularly getting curfews varied/lifted to do such menial things as 'go to a birthday party of an uncles second cousin removed'. The Magistrates/Judges rarely EVER refuse an application to vary a curfew. In this instance I don't think Simpson being a footballer or rich has made any difference. If most people on here knew what prolific offenders, sex offenders and paedophiles got away with on a daily basis they would be outraged and disgusted. Genuinely. I've seen people who have committed disgusting, horrific crimes literally walk away with 100hrs unpaid work. I regularly have one chap who varies his curfew religiously once a fortnight and it gets done every single time. Honestly, if people knew the true state of our justice system, or lack of one it would horrify them.

In that case mate, I bow your greater knowledge. The issue of why what you say happens is of course, a much bigger subject.

[bovril]

this is a real great discussion but i think more needs to be done to find out what @@bovril did to get sacked that time 

 

It's tough in the King's Lynn ghetto man. Glad I left that stage of my life behind me.

[danny.]

You are quite good at this "wrong" thing.

 

Keep it going.

 

Good job you're not an omniscience being with any kind of authority to define what is right or wrong, or I might care.

[AKCJ]

Good job you're not an omniscience being with any kind of authority to define what is right or wrong, or I might care.

 

I don't need to be.

 

The judicial system defines that throttling a woman isn't as bad as having sex with a minor.