• 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.
East Riding Mackem said:
apparently he trims or shaves them, the girl had reported the lack of foliage downstairs, there was a photo involved, girl said he was shaved, his lass said trimmed not shaved, key point of dispute as to whether or not she was lying about a certain act,

f***ing beyond weird. Not quite sure what light Fletcher was supposed to shine on that like.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate. Maybe him and Fletch trim together? School boy error by the lass. She should know nee lad shaves as it f***ing itches to fuck.
 

chunkylover53 said:
No idea if you are taking the piss or not

If they knew he had kissed her, he should never have had his suspension lifted. Whether they can fire him, well I'm not a lawyer

They should answer that point
Click to expand...
It's not been alleged that they did know before his suspension was lifted is it. The date of the meeting with Byrne and the Johnson's was after the point his suspension was lifted wasn't it?
 
Sweeper said:
On the contrary - based on what's been reported of the trial, then unless the line is that Johnson's QC lied in court (surely not), it is quite public.
Click to expand...
I'm not repeating my earlier posts again about being on the end many times of barristers not lying but manipulating information to suit their agenda under cross examination, and witnesses lying. I wouldn't trust a barrister as far as I could chuck one.
 
Skellington said:
No. Try and read it again.



This is what was reported:

Adam Johnson will be available to play for Sunderland during his trial on child sex charges.

The former England winger will appear at Bradford Crown Court next week after being charged in April with three counts of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.

But Black Cats boss Sam Allardyce says Johnson will be available for selection when his team travel to Liverpool on Saturday and again when they face Manchester United at the Stadium of Light next weekend.


Read more:
You must be logged on to see external links

Follow us: Invalid/outdated Link Removed | Invalid/outdated Link Removed

Of course anyone who believes that Short and Byrne have behaved less than impeccably can only be a Mag
Click to expand...


Even that only says he will be available for selection and not that he will be selected. FWIW I think the club have handled the whole thing very poorly indeed. However slagging them off for doing something that didn't even happen (he was never selected and there is nothing to say he would be selected) is pretty futile .
 
Republican Mackem said:
Just trying to play Devils advocate if we sacked or suspended him the PFA would have created merry hell, as would his legal team, as it would obviously have influenced the trial, I don't think Sunderland could have done anything else.
Click to expand...

If the Club had suspended him pending the outcome of the trial, then I fail to see how the PFA could have raised a finger in light of the seriousness of the charges.
 
What position would the club have been in they had sacked him and he was found not guilty at court?
Surely he would have grounds to sue the club.
 
NeilP said:
By doing that the club would be making a statement that they thought he was guilty, people take notice of things like that, the press would have been all over it. His lawyers would have argued that a fair trial could not happen. He might have walked. Next
Click to expand...
Seriously doubt that a club taking a individual stance in not wanting potential paedos to play for them would cause all of those outcomes.
 
haway said:
If we suspended him with pay? How on earth could anyone do anything about it? Suspending with pay = player still paid = contract fulfilled.
Click to expand...
"Got a special job for you Adam. Go home and play some FIFA, there's a good lad. Don't go past any schools. Give us 3 rings when you get in so we know you're safe"
 
Fetch Mr Advocaat said:
Kept him to try and save our season and keep us up, it's all about the money losing that huge TV deal. I think it was more of you help us and we'll help you with £60k a week
Click to expand...
Sorry but that's bollocks. The club would not have risked everything (if they did know the truth will out) because he could have saved our season. The club would have been advised the whole time and I can guarantee this would not have been an option discussed. Far too damaging for that to be the case.
 
haway said:
Should have suspended with pay imo. In no way prejudices the case.
Click to expand...
However I think it was after they'd brought him back from suspension that this evidence was presented to the club. To re-suspend him would have caused the same hoo-ha and had the same implications as sacking him in my opinion
 
janey said:
I'm not repeating my earlier posts again about being on the end many times of barristers not lying but manipulating information to suit their agenda under cross examination, and witnesses lying. I wouldn't trust a barrister as far as I could chuck one.
Click to expand...

In what way are you suggesting that he "manipulated information" here? It's the easiest thing in the world to say "oh yeah those barristers manipulate information", but this was I believe a straightforward account of a meeting - who was there and what was discussed. It's not exactly layered in shades of grey.
 
NeilP said:
This is the point. It doesn't matter what the club thought, or thought they knew. He was entitled to a fair trial free from prejudice like anyone else and any action by the club based on 'gut feeling' or morals might have jeopardised the whole trial. How could he stand a fair chance in court if his employers had acted as judge, jury and executioner? After all they were 'in the know'.

He apparently gave the impression he was fighting this, he had representation from the PFA and the club had to do and be seen to do everything above board and correctly. The club have said that they undertook risk assessments and safeguarding, what more could they do? What would you expect your employers to do if you were accused of something, take the law into their own hands? Johnson fucked the club over by misleading them into thinking he was pleading not guilty. By doing that their hand was forced and by changing his plea on day 1 of the trial the club have been left looking like mugs.
Click to expand...
this all day long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top