• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhilSAFC said:
Where did I say that like you f***ing arsehole?

My point is rolf Harris and the likes got done for very serious offences not just kissing and their sentences weren't that harsh.
Click to expand...
He didn't just kiss her

He put his hand down her knickers man
 

FN-2187 said:
You do know he had been convicted of sexual activity with a child.

I very much doubt that means a feel of a tit
Click to expand...
do you know something we dont then? cos that what hes got found guilty of - sexual activity - they then said - on R5 - they convicted him for inappropriate touching of a minor in his care! look dont misunderstand me im not condoning it but the possiblilty of 5-10 year sentence for that seems harsh - sorry but it does
 
Redcar said:
The CEO was present in the interview and saw the documents relating to the case ie the WhatsApp messages (according to what was revealed in court, which the club haven't denied in the statement) .

From what was revealed in those messages it was pretty clear he'd be guilty. If I was a SAFC fan I'd be sickened if she didn't sack him after seeing those.
Click to expand...
Just go away, we are talking.
 
FN-2187 said:
You do know he had been convicted of sexual activity with a child.

I very much doubt that means a feel of a tit
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it means, thats what he's been convicted of.

There is no secret knowledge that determines the sentence, it's all been out in open court.
 
Littlerobbieh said:
I don't know why some people are getting so worked up about it. He got arrested, got suspended, categorically denied all charges until the day of the trial, got sacked. 'It makes us look bad...... No it doesn't. What could we have done except support one of our players ? If it makes Margaret Byrne or whoever look bad then that's their conscience and their problem. I honestly couldn't give a shit. He's gone and we've got 10 games to stay up.
Click to expand...
If the club knew the following 3 things last May it's a big deal:

- he had been texting the lass
- he had kissed her
- he knew she was 15 when he was doing the above

It comes down to what was in that transcript, if it had him admitting those 3 things the club knew enough in my opinion.

If they had that information in that transcript the club knowingly let us cheer on a man who was going down for grooming.n
 
John J Rambo said:
Why should it be hard to take though. No one sympathises or condones what he's done, so he deserves all he gets. Why should I find it hard to take or be embarrassed by it. If someone called me that, I wouldn't even acknowledge it. Not having a go at you here mind, but letting that bother you is a bit daft like.
Click to expand...
probably the line of work i've spent the best part of two years getting prepared for and have another 3 years coming up in, accusations like that are thrown by thick fucks if i'm being honest, ''banter'' isn't calling someone a nonce, i've witnessed a bloke first hand have his life destroyed by someone making a daft joke about him that someone who disliked him overheard an manipulated into a rumour about him downloading child porn, the bloke was innocent, his lass and kid left him, ended up living with his parents, was found not guilty but went through 18 months of hell based on a spiteful arsehole.
Been over three years since he killed himself now and i still think its one of the biggest wastes i've ever seen, smartest and funniest bloke i've worked with reduced to a wreck over chinese whispers.
 
Ricci's Special Kebabs said:
No, he was fucked and has been proven correct.

How did this "mate" know but the club didn't, that statement is a load of bollocks.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol::lol:

Well, that's conclusive then. The Secret Footballer's fictional mate knew (and knew he was in such a dark place he would never play football again) so the club must have known. As it happens the club statement doesn't refute that they knew anyway.
 
Some Random Guy said:
If the club knew the following 3 things last May it's a big deal:

- he had been texting the lass
- he had kissed her
- he knew she was 15 when he was doing the above

It comes down to what was in that transcript, if it had him admitting those 3 things the club knew enough in my opinion.

If they had that information in that transcript the club knowingly let us cheer on a man who was going down for grooming.n
Click to expand...
It's a big deal to them and the people involved. It means jack shit to us.
 
Tristan S Mackem said:
Probably because the PFA CEO isn't female and the target of a long held agenda where anything will be used against her? But we knew that anyway...

Johnson and his QC used a line of defence in court that has been refuted by the club. Suddenly, the line of attack from certain journalists, presuming that they cannot call SAFC liars, is that "they should have made more of the evidence they had in their possession'. Hold on, that's totally different from they were 'complicit in AJs guilty plea'? Now it's "well, you should have checked more."

Take what Johnson and his QC said in court. IF, as they allege, the club "knew he was going to plead guilty" they would have also known this would have all come out at the trial. Which, obviously, makes it laughable if it wasn't so serious. Secondly, the idea that it's just the CEO that made the decision for Johnson to play again is equally uninformed; as mentioned, the PFA and clearly the board and others would also have been involved. Finally, the so called 'smoking gun' of the evidence presented at the infamous meeting. The club, at my last time of checking, are a football organisation not a detective agency. If on presentation of evidence they are told by the player and his legal counsel that they were going to plead not guilty, therefore there was nothing in the claims, they have a duty to presume innocent until proven guilty. Being presented by some evidence is not enough, all defences are entitled to present the full facts of the case of which this was only ever going to be one part.

The hypocrisy on here by some is amazing. The club made a call, he then went on to play a part in our survival and subsequent contributions to points this season. If the club had suspended him or fired him last year despite the fact that the player and QC said he would plead innocent and with evidence that every defence has the entitlement to challenge and contest the outcry on here would have been incredible. "Sacked without a fair trial", "victimised" etc. all, no doubt, the fault of our CEO again...
Click to expand...

Garbage. The fact is that the PFA exist to protect footballers. SAFC does not.

They are accountable to different people - I for one do not give a shit what the PFA do or stand for.
 
Redcar said:
The CEO was present in the interview and saw the documents relating to the case ie the WhatsApp messages (according to what was revealed in court, which the club haven't denied in the statement) .

From what was revealed in those messages it was pretty clear he'd be guilty. If I was a SAFC fan I'd be sickened if she didn't sack him after seeing those.
Click to expand...


Stupider than I thought
 
darius said:
Haven't they said in the statement that they had no indication that he wouldn't refute the allegatiins
Click to expand...
Yes. But that's not what I'm on about. I'm on about the CEO having seen the WhatsApps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top