• 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.

when i saw this thread begin earlier i thought there's gonna be a lot of anger coming out but i just got to say wow.
 
mutley said:
He wasn't a public employee. Think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Think we can all agree that the club needs to put the whole sorry affair behind them.
Click to expand...
I know. I'm a public employee. And even worse, Johnson was a public figure in sport.
 
Flash Gordon said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Case and point. Shagged a 15 year old and didn't even go to prison. I'm not suggesting Johnson shouldn't go down, but the law seems pretty flexible if you can avoid prison for shagging a 15 year old, but get 10 years for a lesser offence.
Click to expand...
The mind boggles tbh :confused:
 
Locke's SAFC said:
It is certainly the same as concluding there was no case to answer.

Under English Law 'the balance of probability' is a reasonability test as to whether the defendant is guilty or otherwise. It is most certainly not a judgement as to how likely the defendant is guilty. Under English Law you are either innocent or guilty dependent upon the balance of probability; it does not mean that we can't say you're 70% guilty but we'll call it 50/50 - that's not the way English Law works.

In this instance the jury decided that the evidence and witness testimony suggested he was telling the truth on this particular matter and she wasn't. No 50/50 etc.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is flawed mind- by dint of the jury finding him not guilty, you are inferring that they believed she was lying and that is not a presumption that can be drawn from their conclusion legally or morally.
 
Flash Gordon said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Case and point. Shagged a 15 year old and didn't even go to prison. I'm not suggesting Johnson shouldn't go down, but the law seems pretty flexible if you can avoid prison for shagging a 15 year old, but get 10 years for a lesser offence.
Click to expand...

There are loads of examples, and I'm struggling to see why there are such big differences in sentences. I'd love to hear from actual lawyers as to why.
 
Flash Gordon said:
Don't teachers regularly get less time for having sex with pupils? I was shocked when I read it could be that long.
Click to expand...
The law does seem disproportionate & rightly or wrongly sentances dont just reflect the extent of the actual damages. Sometimes an example needs to be set to deter others. Missed opportunity to send Gerard down when he lamped that DJ.
 
Marcosplace said:
You agree with what the club did then? Now knowing the facts?
Click to expand...

100% like, I couldn't agree with them more.

And you don't know the facts do you, firstly you are believing a player who was doing everything to defend himself against criminal charges. He lied about one of the sexual offences, so why wouldn't he lie about this.

That isn't even the issue, I don't have to defend the club, the statement says it all
 
radjee gadjee said:
But, as others have stated, they have not denied the statement that was made against them in that they knew that he had confessed to some of the allegations, i.e kissing the lass. They have issued a statement only saying that they were not aware that he was going to plead guilty. They have not mentioned anything about knowing he had admitted that he had done it.
It stinks of a massive cover up to protect Byrne from yet another major fuck up.
Click to expand...
There's kissing, and then there's kissing. He may well have convinced them that it was only a peck on the cheek. He could still claim that he told them he kissed her.
 
CissesUnderpants19 said:
agreed, however it is only just beginning mate tomorrow we will see even more, this time from the broadsheets as well.
Click to expand...

Papers be horrendous tomorrow. I bet when Johnson was in hotel room and first sent the poor kid a message, he could never fast forward 18 months and see the brutal frontpages of every national news paper. Thick as fuck and he has paid for it with the ultimate price.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top