• 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.

haway said:
But my question was, say Im alleged to have raped X, in the SAFC changing room, and my defence is 'I didn't rape her, it was consensual!'... but it's still a summary dismissal to have sex in the changing room, so they can sack me without biasing the trial. In the same way, I think the club could sack him for inappropriate behaviour without making any inclination either way as to whether or not he was guilty of the offence ... they could soundly say, guilty or not, he's been inappropriate.

That said, I wouldn't have sacked him, I'd have suspended with pay.
Click to expand...

You must have a big wallet ;)
 
haway said:
If this was her, she'll be pushed. If it was Short, she'll stay. Be amazed if she didn't talk to him about it
Click to expand...

See this is what I don't get, as incompetent as the hierarchy of SAFC have been, could they really be that short sighted? They must have known this would all come out in the wash?
 
Been on this thread for 8 hours now. Put about 100 posts in. Still furious, still want explanations, and will still be explaining the problems of the club response to knackers who haven't read any of the proceedings tomorrow.

Off to kip now, dreading seeing how bad the morning papers are. Hopefully something good will come from all this carnage.

lordy said:
just read that, absolutely horrendous.
Click to expand...
Puts the boot in on the issues well imo.
 
haway said:
Johnson's QC said in court he was there when AJ said he kissed her to Byrne and the 834 messages passed. This wasn't disputed by the prosecution or SAFC in their statement. You keep saying you presume it didn't happen, but why presume the QC is lying in court, and why haven't the club said it's untrue?
Click to expand...


I'm presuming a few things about what's been said in court based on my own and previous acquaintance's experience of standing in the dock as an accused person. A QC is there to do the best for his or her client. Truth and justice are a lot of the time miles away from what actually goes in in a court. Now this may come as a surprise to people but all the court process is a game. A game that's played by the prosecution to get a conviction and the defence to get an acquittal. A lot of the time, it's more how you play the game rather than what the evidence is that will depend on what verdict you get. So while I wouldn't go full out and say a QC is lying, I would be inclined to think that there is a bit of a difference in what actually happened with information sharing and what's been said about that information sharing. Just have to be clever in how you say what you're saying.

As for the kiss, was it told to the club what kind of kiss it was?
As for the messages, was the full content of every message seen by the club or was it just the amount of messages they were told about?

The club aren't a court, and they had an employee who was maintaining his innocence. I really can't see his own defence team handing over everything to the club that they had as all they have to do is what is best for their client, not his employers or his victim.

Like I said earlier, the guilty party here is Johnson. He's been called a liar by the courts, he's lied to his family so him lying to the club isn't beyond the bounds of probability to my mind.

At the end of the day, I get the impression that you think the club are lying, and nothing that gets said on this thread will change your mind. That's your prerogative, but if you're so concerned about it, write to the club, stop giving them money and don't go to games anymore. Because I really don't think you'll get anymore out of the club than the statement they've released earlier.
 
Laidback Jack said:
You must be logged on to see external links



Anyone seen this?

Shocking journalism for me.
Click to expand...
Do you expect the press to ignore shit like that because you're not comfortable with it.

My mind goes back when the story first broke. Some on here expressed no surprise that he had been lifted. It's that reaction that day made me think this wasn't a misunderstanding. The fact that the CPS decided to prosecute should have been a clue to the more moronic elements that the chant was iladvised. It's going to get shown as much as Wraith's mock funeral in the coming years.
 
Tadger said:
See this is what I don't get, as incompetent as the hierarchy of SAFC have been, could they really be that short sighted? They must have known this would all come out in the wash?
Click to expand...

unless they've taken a chance the trial might have collapsed for whatever reason. Equally as reprehensible nontheless.
 
haway said:
Been on this thread for 8 hours now. Put about 100 posts in. Still furious, still want explanations, and will still be explaining the problems of the club response to knackers who haven't read any of the proceedings tomorrow.

Off to kip now, dreading seeing how bad the morning papers are. Hopefully something good will come from all this carnage.


Puts the boot in on the issues well imo.
Click to expand...

Before you go have you got a link to quotes of what was actually said about Byrne having the Whatsapp messages?

All I can find is tabloid stories without direct quotes.
 
Tadger said:
See this is what I don't get, as incompetent as the hierarchy of SAFC have been, could they really be that short sighted? They must have known this would all come out in the wash?
Click to expand...

Why? they could have well hoped that he would get found not guilty (she might not have turned up)? or it would go to trial (and he wouldn't plead) and it would never come up about what he said to the club? Or the risk of going down last season and losing £50m might have been worth more than the fallout now (probably true to be fair)?

There's lots of reasons one can think why this might have been ok for the club (or would have been thought as ok for the club).
 
haway said:
But my question was, say Im alleged to have raped X, in the SAFC changing room, and my defence is 'I didn't rape her, it was consensual!'... but it's still a summary dismissal to have sex in the changing room, so they can sack me without biasing the trial. In the same way, I think the club could sack him for inappropriate behaviour without making any inclination either way as to whether or not he was guilty of the offence ... they could soundly say, guilty or not, he's been inappropriate.

That said, I wouldn't have sacked him, I'd have suspended with pay.
Click to expand...

Nor would I. I wouldn't have sacked him for inappropriate behaviour prior to a trial either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top