• 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.
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...

What are you blathering on about?

If you know nothing about court proceedings then that is absolutely fine, but don't pretend you do.

It is common place in proceedings such as this that someone would be suspended with pay. That in no way prejudices anything. All that would normally be said if it was high profile is 'Mr X has been suspended with pay in light of the allegations so he can focus on matters in his personal life blah blah blah'.

Do you think it prejudiced the case that he was suspended for 2 weeks without pay? Does it prejudice a case when a teacher is suspended with pay when up for similar allegations?

You can suspend someone with pay, it happens on a daily basis (including some high profile cases). Suspending with pay in no way assumes someone is guilty. Not at all.

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...
Suspended with pay. If I was up for offences like that in any of the jobs I've had I would be suspended with pay until proceedings were over and then reinstated or sacked depending on the verdict. It's the normal course of action in many jobs.
 

janey said:
I don't think it'll go away easily either, there is the sentencing for a start, but I'm great at ignoring shit, it's come from lots of years of practice reading Sunday newspapers and pretending the sports section doesn't exist when we've been beaten again :lol:
Click to expand...

we are all great at ignoring the papers after we have been beat i agree :lol: however this is a little different, this time i don't feel i can with this, it goes above and beyond what is expected, of even the most passionate fan this is down to what you personally see as right and wrong, and for me the club need to start coughing up more than just statement, because i don't feel in today's society its enough
 
Skellington said:
"Desperate to have a go at the club"!

You've no issue with them planning to put someone on the pitch immediately after the world's heard evidence he groomed a child?! Not even worthy of a mention?
Click to expand...

available means just that. It does not mean he will play or they planned to play him. You are reading into things to much
 
Sweeper said:
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.
Click to expand...
The PFA did raise a finger, the club originally suspended him, but reinstated him a couple of weeks later after the PFA became involved.
 
Sweeper said:
The PFA do not advise football clubs as far as I'm aware, they represent players. When the club say "we took legal advice", what was the advice sought?
Click to expand...
They represent players but they don't just say 'go tell your club xy and z' to the players they represent. There's a 2 way communication path in place so have direct contact with clubs and advise & work with them where needed. They aren't some militant club-hating union at all and work closely with clubs all the time.
As for the legal advice, who knows. Let's not forget Ms Byrne is a trained lawyer herself (don't know which area of law she specialised in though) so would know at least the basics of where the club stands and what we can do.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Said this on another thread but I'll stick it here as well. The only thing the club would have been aware of were allegations, and these allegations were being denied by Johnson.

Following that meeting, Mr. Johnson again confirmed to the club, presumably on advice from his own legal team, that his intention was to defend the charges in their entirety and he was confident of success once all evidence had been considered.

So that isn't Johnson admitting a thing to the club, that's Johnson saying all these things have been alleged and I'm denying it. Within 24 hours of Johnson changing his tune and admitting to the allegations, he was sacked. If the club knew he was guilty of these allegations any earlier, they would have sacked him earlier. That's my take on it anyways.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the reports (unrefuted in the club statement) are that the club was informed that he had met and kissed the girl, and that the club had been provided with copies of the police transcripts and the 800 whatsapp messages between him and the girl.
 
Sweeper said:
Whether or not it's to be believed isn't the question. I think we all accept that the statement - as it is - is true.

The issue is whether or not, following "that meeting", the club were (as reported) given the police transcripts and/or the 800 Whatsapp messages and/or Johnson's admission that he had kissed the girl. That issue is not addressed, which is the point the media will jump on.
Click to expand...

The media will be going over this for a long time. It's headline news.
It's massive for the modern game of football. There will be a load more shit to stir.

Look at our own fans. Turning on the club they adore.
Hardly suprising when you read some of the threads on here. Rodwell being an example. "rather play with ten men".

I am an advocate of freedom of speech.

There must be some factual evidence in opinions however.

The twisting of words is quite shameful.

Let's not forget Johnson is a complete liar. Why, he lied and admitted it in court.
Why would anyone believe a word he now says over their own beloved team?

Maybe it's just a way of venting steam for some fans.

Johnson has gone. Khazri is a better player who works harder.
 
Sweeper said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've said earlier I've been asked questions about meetings when I've thought wtf, that wasn't said and I've actually been in those meetings. They haven't lied they have just been very clever wording the question. Similarly I've heard witnesses lie outright in response to questions about meetings/discussions I've had with them.
I've far from stupid but at times I've had barristers twist things so much I've thought I was going mad.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Said this on another thread but I'll stick it here as well. The only thing the club would have been aware of were allegations, and these allegations were being denied by Johnson.

Following that meeting, Mr. Johnson again confirmed to the club, presumably on advice from his own legal team, that his intention was to defend the charges in their entirety and he was confident of success once all evidence had been considered.

So that isn't Johnson admitting a thing to the club, that's Johnson saying all these things have been alleged and I'm denying it. Within 24 hours of Johnson changing his tune and admitting to the allegations, he was sacked. If the club knew he was guilty of these allegations any earlier, they would have sacked him earlier. That's my take on it anyways.
Click to expand...
His intentions mean fuck all. I could murder you, in front of a crowd, with 27 HD video cameras recording me, while shouting "I'm SRG YA BASTARD!" and intend to plead not guilty.

Read my post again.

It is alleged the club had a transcript of a police interview. What that transcript showed is what the club should be judged on. The fact that they've written a massive statement that skirts around and avoids answering that question means they have probably been idiots and knowingly allowed us to cheer on a man who has been caught bang to rights grooming.
 
West Winger said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Page 45 covers it. The culpability section looks at the aggravating factors the judge will take into account.
Click to expand...
Another poster reckons 5 years is the benchmark and so it could be less. Lawyers must have to engage in some weird definitional challenges.
 
Howard the Duck said:
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
Click to expand...

Firstly he shouldn't have been unsuspended imo until they had seen the evidence. Secondly, they could have easily said something like 'Upon desuspending AJ it has become clear that given the amount of time he has to devote currently to matters in his personal life, and concerns it might be interfering with his ability to perform his job at SAFC, we have decided to give AJ some time away from the club so he can devote his full attention to sorting matters in his personal life' - no bias imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top