• 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.

jackpunch said:
Personally, i think he's right. Either they've been very badly advised or someone high up the food chain has made a very poor decision.

The change of plea is irrelevant, as soon as they were in possession of the transcripts and they knew he kissed her, they should have hung him out to dry.

Appreciate my views wont be popular.
Click to expand...

I think most people would agree with your view and I don't think you're wrong in thinking it. With a professional head on I think that since Johnson claimed he was going to fight all charges there might have been an indication that there was some inaccuracies within the evidence and that's why no further decision was made.

My opinions of the matter don't state what I think is right or wrong here, just an understanding from the point of view of the hierarchy.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Club would not have had police statements. The police and the CPS do not give statements made in a police station to employers. I have direct experience of this, so should know. Unlike a lot of wannabe Columbo's on here whose only experience of the whole getting arrested, being charged and going to court is probably down to watching a few episodes of the Bill. What the club would have been informed of is the allegations being made due to the nature of the offence and the nature of Johnson's employment. Hence the safeguarding and seeking independent legal advice by the club.

If there was a sniff that Johnson was guilty of the allegations, he'd have been sacked there and then, which is in fact exactly what happened when he put a guilty plea in. The issue seems to be just how much did the club know. From the statement they released it's obvious to me that they knew what the allegations were but were bound by that innocent until proven guilty malarky and couldn't actually act on them. Especially when Johnson had stated he was going to deny them all. So all the club had was one set of allegations and a denial, not one scrap of evidence.

The only thing I'm doubtful of is the whole suspension thing as I don't know what employment law has to say about this. Obviously you can't sack someone for allegations but not sure about if it would have been possible to suspend him indefinitely.

Johnson is the one who lied through his teeth all the way and it's him thta should be getting the boot put into him. Not sure how anyone else is to blame for him wanting to shag a 15 year old.
Click to expand...

What experience do you have, out of curiosity?

'If there was a sniff that Johnson was guilty of the allegations, he'd have been sacked there and then, which is in fact exactly what happened when he put a guilty plea in' - What do you base this on? It has been alleged in court that Johnson told SAFC he kissed her. It has been alleged in court SAFC were given all the whatsapp messages. This is all under oath. SAFC have issued a reply, they haven't responded to him kissing her at all, re. the whatsapps all they've said is they received 'some documents'.

You say 'they didn't have one scrap of evidence' but if this is true then all we're asking is for them to come out and say that! Say they didn't have the whatsapp messages, say he didn't admit to them he'd kissed her! They have had that put to them and have CHOSEN NOT TO RESPOND to those specific allegations. That's why people are frustrated by the club's response, because they have circumvented what the answers need to be about. If they denied ever having court papers (or the whatsapp messages) or whatever I think everyone here would believe them over AJ... The issue is they aren't denying what the crux of the problem is.
 
FN-2187 said:
So, in saying all this which I think is a very good explanation by the way. Johnson said that the club knew what he'd done in regards to the kissing and whatsApp. Does that mean he must be lying?
Click to expand...
FN-2187 said:
So, in saying all this which I think is a very good explanation by the way. Johnson said that the club knew what he'd done in regards to the kissing and whatsApp. Does that mean he must be lying?
Click to expand...
he is a self confessed and proven liar
 
Skellington said:
Yes, so boring and unreasonable to expect Short to be able to avoid immersing the club in something as sordid as this.

I mean Short is a great bloke and there's nothing in the FA rules that says you can't field eleven rapists and murderers in every match should you choose to so what the fuck is everyone's problem??
Click to expand...
Wow. Keep digging....
 
bowers2 said:
I have read their detailed statement and fully believe every word.
As an employer they acted with the professionalism I would expect.
I'd rather believe my club than the rubbish invented by the papers, groups of fans unfurling banners or a convicted proven liar.

Well done SAFC.

Sunderland til I die.
Click to expand...
Nob
 
Stevie Freestein II said:
You need to change the title to get the name of the club correct.
Click to expand...
A trivial, small minded, unimportant response to a trivial error that many of us make when we refer to our beloved club.

I have followed S(A)FC for over 60 years and I have often spoken of Sunderland Football Club.

Congratulations to the OP for starting an excellent topic. I salute you. Oh, and I agree.
 
TAFKAHM said:
Think we just to clarify that that the "shags who he wants" chant was before he pleaded guilty and we all thought he was innocent, have not heard one chant from SAFC fans since his guilty plea......

He is not a Sunderland player now, so let's just forget about him and move on....
Click to expand...
He was accused of fiddling a young lass and stupid little scrotes chant that? What he was pleading, what people thought about his guilt, or the outcome of the case is irrelevant when it comes to that chant.
 
NeilP said:
You're wasting your time Janey, the hindsight brigade are all over this. The fact the the professional footballers association were behind his reinstatement has nothing to do with this. the club should have handed him over to the wolves.

In case of doubt, nobody is defending Johnson here, but our club had their hands tied.
Click to expand...

I'll stop ya there marra. There were quite a few on here and elsewhere fairly baffled by the clubs decisiom to suspend and then withdraw the suspension, and, due to the ongoing case, it hasn't been open for discussion for quite some time.

There are two sides to the argument. Some agree and accept the clubs stance which is fair enough, and there are others who think maybe a bit more needs to be clarified, which I think is equally fair enough given the circumstances.
 
Sweeper said:
I believe the patter was that Johnson and his QC handed over the interview transcripts (not the police). If that's false, why have the club not addressed it? The allegation made against the club - in court - was that they knew last year that he had kissed the girl and they were given copies of the transcript and the whatsapp messages. The club statement says "Some documents were received relating to the case". If those documents were not the transcript and whatsapp messages, as alleged, why haven't the club said so?
Click to expand...

Aye, I'll accept the handing over of transcripts being instigated by his own lawyer like. However, what do the transcripts contain? I f it was a full and frank admission of the allegations, he's getting a P45 straight away. So my money is on him denying that any criminal activity took place when he was interviewed by the police and this was then used by him as evidence that he was innocent.

'Look, here's a copy of my interview, I'm denying it and pleading not guilty."

So we end up back at the club knowing about the allegations but having the accused making a full denial.

This is just my take on it, based on a bit of personal experience of being inside the whole justice game. Other points of view are available.
 
haway said:
Why would his legal team object to him being suspended with pay? That's normal procedure ffs.
Click to expand...

In your world maybe. In case you missed it.....the PFA were present and probably instrumental in the club reversing their decision to suspend an as-yet not convicted person. The club were in a damned if they do and damned if they don't position. Well done for seeing the facts after the event. Did you shout and scream for him to be suspended last year? if so then I admire your principles even though I don't agree with them. If you didn't then stop being such a drama queen.
 
NeilP said:
You're wasting your time Janey, the hindsight brigade are all over this. The fact the the professional footballers association were behind his reinstatement has nothing to do with this. the club should have handed him over to the wolves.

In case of doubt, nobody is defending Johnson here, but our club had their hands tied.
Click to expand...
Aye very true, I'm off to the Mag thread to laugh at the fact Gouffran is playing and keep me fingers crossed they lose.
And your right that nobody is defending Johnson either.
 
soapster said:
that is what we need to do as you can guarantee the press as scouring this board to try and fill in some comments
Click to expand...

I've got one more comment, that we discussed at work today, Johnson high profile status got him arrested, I know a couple that are happily married with kids, when they first got together, she was 15 and he was 25, its a very fine line.....
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
I'll stop ya there marra. There were quite a few on here and elsewhere fairly baffled by the clubs decisiom to suspend and then withdraw the suspension, and, due to the ongoing case, it hasn't been open for discussion for quite some time.

There are two sides to the argument. Some agree and accept the clubs stance which is fair enough, and there are others who think maybe a bit more needs to be clarified, which I think is equally fair enough given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

You wont be stopping me anytime soon marra. I think the fact that the club took guidance from the PFA and their legal team puts them in the clear morally, and legally. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top