• 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.

andymcnish said:
Rolf's trial was very dodgy and no, his offences weren't actually that serious - the main one was a girl who said he seduced her at 15 but she kept coming back on and off and having sex with him til she was 29 (never with any coercion). Two were alleged gropes of 17-18 year olds and one was 'hugging' an 8 year old at a County Fair when she sat on his lap inappropriately.

Now Stuart Hall - there was a guy whose actions really were quite serious...

But I agree 5-10 years seems way over the usual tariff and he is being made an example of. Look at the various child sex gang sentences and you'll see a better comparison than doddering 1970's TV presenters.
Click to expand...

He is not being made an example of.
There are very clear guidelines on the levels of sexual misconduct and the sentencing guidelines associated with them.

It's actually very formulaic approach which (in theory) should help avoid whacky sentences (although there have been cases where strange sentences have been meted out, they've usually been corrected later)
 
The few that are saying the child should be held accountable, what exactly has she done that can be classed as illegal?
 
chunkylover53 said:
Are you suggesting the club have no responsibility to their fans? Are you really saying that?
Click to expand...

Of course they have.
But they also have a responsibility to respect employment law and criminal law.
As soon as they could within hours they gave their story.

Can't fault them.
 
I'd still like to know why his suspension was lifted. What changed after sixteen days that made the club rethink their initially correct decision?

Like in most lines of work, he should have been suspended with full pay until either acquitted or found guilty. The whole 'innocent till proven guilty' that many on here trotted out was always far too simplistic.

The fact we allowed a sex offender to play for us for so long is hideous and it was completely avoidable.
 
Don'tListenToTheHat said:
So to summarise why I'm outraged it's because of the interview our CEO had with Johnson when he said he was going to refute all charges against him including the text messages as evidence? Correct?
Click to expand...
If you have followed the court case, then you would know that the content of said messages was pretty irrefutable.
 
janey said:
The police officer said the police had not shared any information about the interviews with the club. He said they had gone to the club the day he was arrested and given them an indication of the, then alleged offences so they could implement any safeguarding requirements.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - there's a danger of the pieces being put together in the wrong order here, as info has come out in a piecemeal way.
 
Don'tListenToTheHat said:
So to summarise why I'm outraged it's because of the interview our CEO had with Johnson when he said he was going to refute all charges against him including the text messages as evidence? Correct?
Click to expand...
No it's because the player stated in court that they knew he had kissed her, and the club have not commented on this (as far as I can see)

bowers2 said:
Of course they have.
But they also have a responsibility to respect employment law and criminal law.
As soon as they could within hours they gave their story.

Can't fault them.
Click to expand...
They haven't commented on what they knew. They commented on their understanding of what he would plead

They are different
 
Sweeper said:
He should at the very least have been suspended immediately, pending the outcome. That suspension should not have been lifted. Heads will probably roll over this.
Click to expand...
Why? We took independent legal advice as well as advice from the PFA. It's not as though the club just thought 'fuck it... Let's see what we can get away with' is it?
 
Why are people creating new threads? Craving attention, likes and notifications for posts that would be bypassed in the larger thread?

Tragic
 
So, let me think ........ I can tell my employer I'm pleading guilty now or keep coining it 'til the last minute knowing I may never be employed again :rolleyes:
 
Just finished work so don't know what's happened, can't be arse do trawl through this thread as it's just people arguing.

To the point is he going to jail?
 
Redcar said:
Suspended with pay or put on leave pending the outcome.
Click to expand...
At that point I think they had already brought him back from suspension after discussions with the PFA. To then suspend him again would surely have had the same connotations as noted in the post you quoted (if they are valid) wouldn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top