Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[Butcher's Coat]

Don't the club ban supporters charged with football related crimes before a verdict is made? I think the lad found not guilty at the Central Station incident was an employee of the club who got sacked. Surely, Johnson could have been sacked for bringing the club into disrepute without them having to make a decision on his criminal guilt. We only have Johnson's word as to what the club knew and we don't know exactly what the PFA knew and did.

You have tried to turn it around there marra. What you said is a completely different subject.
I am simply stating that a person who is going to stand trial for a criminal offence is innocent until he goes to court, and up until that time, he is entitled to earn a living from his employers.
In this case, AJ did that.

 

[ftm1974]

How the fuck do you know that like, where you there

Those facts all came out at the trial and have NOT been refuted by the club.

 

[deleted user 785]

Through the day wasn't it? I find it distasteful that again you're putting any blame on either the girl or her parents in this case.

100% this. She's the victim in this

 

[ollie c]

This has been said so many times it should be made a sticky for everyone's benefit.

If the club didn't want to become embroiled in this case then it's all they had to do. As it stands and at worst, they still haven't done anything illegal but they have put themselves and the fans in an embarrassing situation.

There will be some chanting from opposition fans, the kind of 'banter' our lot have happily enjoyed giving out in the past but by next season nobody will give a fuck anymore and we'll all be complaining about mundane things once again.

It's been said many times but it's true - if this were about Newcastle there would be a united front of condemnation amongst our fans but as it stands we just have to bend over for a few months and take whatever embarrassment is hoyed our way with a smile on our faces. shit happens.

Decent points, but why should we be embarrassed? We've done nowt wrong, man!

 

[hexhamali]

"Mr Pownall told jurors that he first met Johnson on May 4 last year - and the player confirmed that SAFC chief executive Margaret Byrne was also at this meeting.

The barrister asked Johnson if Ms Byrne had copies of his police interview transcripts, WhatsApp messages and interviews with the girl and "others" at this meeting.

Johnson said: "Yes."

He also said that he admitted kissing the 15-year-old fan on this occasion."

There is so much ambiguity, if you can't see that then there's no point debating with you.

 

[walesie]

We needed him last March.

Regardless of what the club did / didn't know it is a fact that we needed him.

I think that if Johnson had confessed his guilt to the club (or his intention to plead guilty ) before the trial, it would have been impossible to stop this being leaked from within SAFC

It wasn't until late April that Johnson was charged & early May before they saw the evidence so that's when he should have been suspended again.

In truth, he's been fuck all use to the team since then anyway.

 

[Tadger]

Why would Margaret byrne have all the police evidence? Was she his brief ffs. She was his employer, nothing more.

The fact that she received transcripts of texts and messages isn't really up for debate is it?

 

[Jongi]

Lots of pages. Having skimmed a few it seems loads of people are focusing on the change of plea which is missing the point entirely

Did the club know he was going to change his plea? No

Did the club know he had admitted to kissing a 15 year old girl? Yes

 

[deleted user 785]

Don't think so, a lot of employers would suspend people in similar cases.

The club sought legal advice and that didn;t happen. I havent a f***ing clue about this tbf thats why I'm finding it hard to aim my anger at anyone other than Johnson.

 

[Black Cat Gypsy]

I read some online comments and most seen to thing the club did the best they could or Johnson was telling lies to everyone. There was an article in the Mail about Johnson behaviour during the the trial that he was arrogant and paid little attention. He was even told off by the judge and his legal team. He even turned around and told people outside that he hoped it was over on Friday because he was bored now. He showed very little regard for anyone.

There's two side to every story and the truth is in the middle. I think the club are trying to save face but I wouldn't trust a word Johnson says.

The only people I feel sorry for are the lass and her family. It just have been horrible for them.

 

[Butcher's Coat]

It wasn't until late April that Johnson was charged & early May before they saw the evidence so that's when he should have been suspended again.

In truth, he's been fuck all use to the team since then anyway.

Scored the equaliser away to Liverpool the other week.

 

[johnson]

I certainly wouldn't consider myself 'revelling' in what's going on.

I don't think the club suspending Johnson would be the equivalent of them indicting him before trial. It's a fairly common procedure, especially when alleged offences are against minors.

The initial suspension was correct. I said that at the time and I'll say it again now. Whatever evidence the club seen or didn't see, I still think they should have stuck by the suspension (with pay) pending the outcome of the investigation and subsequent trial. If Johnson was pleading his innocence, then the club could have supported him off the field in other ways.

It isn't a masterclass of hindsight to say this and it isn't 'revelling' in the situation to want to know why the club initially suspended him and then lifted the suspension (the statement, for me, didn't answer those questions).

If any good comes out of this whatsoever, it is that the club will put in place rigorous safeguarding / disciplinary procedures to ensure that their reputation isn't called into question on a national scale again. A simple procedure would be that any players arrested and subsequently charged with any offence will be suspended with full pay pending the outcome of the investigation and any trial.

That is a sensible post to be fair. And I wasn't accusing you, some are.

This is a lot different for people wanting people held "accountable" and sacked.

 

[haway]

You have tried to turn it around there marra. What you said is a completely different subject.
I am simply stating that a person who is going to stand trial for a criminal offence is innocent until he goes to court, and up until that time, he is entitled to earn a living from his employers.
In this case, AJ did that.

Which is why for the billionth time we are saying suspended *with* pay.

But once again, it has been raised that whether or not he was guilty of the criminal offence the club would still, probably, have had grounds to sack him on the basis of the messages. They made it clear he had behaved inappropriately, whether legal or illegal.

If you were a teacher up at court for f***ing a pupil, and you had sent inappropriate messages, even if you were found not guilty in court you would still afce being sacked for behaving inappropriately. Whether AJ was found guilty or not, the clubs had grounds to distance themselves from him given he had admitted kissing her aged 15, and they had the whatsapps.

 

[deleted user 785]

I certainly wouldn't consider myself 'revelling' in what's going on.

I don't think the club suspending Johnson would be the equivalent of them indicting him before trial. It's a fairly common procedure, especially when alleged offences are against minors.

The initial suspension was correct. I said that at the time and I'll say it again now. Whatever evidence the club seen or didn't see, I still think they should have stuck by the suspension (with pay) pending the outcome of the investigation and subsequent trial. If Johnson was pleading his innocence, then the club could have supported him off the field in other ways.

It isn't a masterclass of hindsight to say this and it isn't 'revelling' in the situation to want to know why the club initially suspended him and then lifted the suspension (the statement, for me, didn't answer those questions).

If any good comes out of this whatsoever, it is that the club will put in place rigorous safeguarding / disciplinary procedures to ensure that their reputation isn't called into question on a national scale again. A simple procedure would be that any players arrested and subsequently charged with any offence will be suspended with full pay pending the outcome of the investigation and any trial.

Thats the bit that I can't understand, why was he allowed to return after the original suspension?

 

[walesie]

Think that is one of the best articulated responses have seen, perfect answer to some of those revelling in it on here IMO.

People aren't 'revelling' in it, some people are f***ing angry at how the club have acted.

 

[johnson]

"Mr Pownall told jurors that he first met Johnson on May 4 last year - and the player confirmed that SAFC chief executive Margaret Byrne was also at this meeting.

The barrister asked Johnson if Ms Byrne had copies of his police interview transcripts, WhatsApp messages and interviews with the girl and "others" at this meeting.

Johnson said: "Yes."

He also said that he admitted kissing the 15-year-old fan on this occasion."

The first 4 words mate.....

Thats the bit that I can't understand, why was he allowed to return after the original suspension?

On the basis of the legal advise they were given.

 

[hexhamali]

Which is why for the billionth time we are saying suspended *with* pay.

But once again, it has been raised that whether or not he was guilty of the criminal offence the club would still, probably, have had grounds to sack him on the basis of the messages. They made it clear he had behaved inappropriately, whether legal or illegal.

If you were a teacher up at court for f***ing a pupil, and you had sent inappropriate messages, even if you were found not guilty in court you would still afce being sacked for behaving inappropriately. Whether AJ was found guilty or not, the clubs had grounds to distance themselves from him given he had admitted kissing her aged 15, and they had the whatsapps.

Okay so you're obviously just thick as fuck. Glad that's cleared up.

 

[haway]

There is so much ambiguity, if you can't see that then there's no point debating with you.

Which is why the club should have used their response to resolve the ambiguity. They just made things even more ambiguous.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

What people ....... do you mean the club should answer to every internet gawker?

It has been alleged in a court of law and reported in the national press that Johnson admitted to the club that he was guilty of at least one of the child sex offences he'd been accused of. It was further alleged in court and reported in the national press that representatives of the club saw evidence that he was guilty. The club's statement does not deny either of those allegations, and in fact spends a lot of time refuting an allegation that no one has made. To suggest that this is solely nitpicking and has come only from some dusty corner of the internet is ludicrous.

 

[Rober33]

You must be logged on to see external links

THERE are no winners in the sordid fall from grace that sees Adam Johnson awaiting a lengthy custodial sentence following his conviction for serious sexual activity with a child, but amid the rush to apportion blame and guilt, it is worth remembering that there is a very real victim.

A naïve, impressionable 15-year-old has had her life turned upside down because of Johnson’s willingness to use his fame and status to further his predatory sexual ends. She has been abused and unmasked on social media, even though the law is supposed to grant her anonymity, and her victim statement clearly spells out the negative way in which she has been impacted by the events of the last year. Having had the courage to stand in court and help convict the paedophile who preyed on her, it is to be hoped she can move on and put the traumas of the past behind her.

Johnson will never be able to escape his past. An arrogant, selfish figure, who appeared to use sexual activity as a means of bolstering his fragile self-esteem, his life is in tatters. He had it all – fame, fortune, a young family to dote on – but he threw it away.


Even during his case at Bradford Crown Court, as he laughed and joked with those around him in the courtroom, he appeared to be completely unaware of the seriousness of the charges he was facing. “I hope this is finished by Friday – it’s getting a bit boring now,” he was overheard saying to a friend. Filling in time is something he will have to start getting used to now.

It is impossible to have any sympathy at all for Johnson, and it is dangerous to draw too many wider conclusions from his personal crimes. But it is hard not to feel that at least part of his downfall is due to the culture that pervades in the cash-rich world of professional football.

Young lads, closeted away in state-of-the-art academies from their earliest teenage years, with no concept of how wider society operates. Rich beyond their wildest dreams, with sycophants hanging on their every word, they become accustomed to getting whatever they desire.

Johnson wanted a relationship with a child, and in his warped mindset, there was nothing wrong with him having it. Clearly, there are thousands of footballers who would never have dreamed of taking such a course, but would he have felt so emboldened on that fateful night in his Range Rover if he hadn’t been put on a pedestal for so much of his life?

We will never know the answer to that question, but having backed Johnson throughout the judicial process, perhaps the PFA should now be questioning why one of its members felt able to commit such unpalatable crimes. With money, profile and power comes responsibility.

And what of Sunderland’s responsibility in all of this? As Johnson’s employer during the time of his offences, did one of the North-East’s biggest sporting institutions do enough to ensure they were not being represented by a paedophile?

It is a thorny issue, and opinions are already polarised. On the one hand, some have claimed that Sunderland continued to play Johnson even though they were aware of the nature of his offences, solely because they hoped his performances might help them gain the points they needed to avoid relegation to the Championship. Johnson has played in 20 matches this season, and scored crucial goals against Newcastle and Liverpool.

The counter-argument is that Sunderland were duty bound to stand by someone who was protesting his innocence, and who entered a not guilty plea to all four counts he was charged with at a pre-trial hearing in June. Aware that they could not prejudice the forthcoming legal proceedings, Sunderland decided not to re-impose the initial two-week suspension that was lifted following a discussion with the PFA and receipt of independent legal advice.

Legally, Sunderland have done everything by the book. As their detailed statement, released within minutes of Wednesday’s guilty verdict, explains, they would have sacked Johnson immediately had he not continued to insist he was going to contest the charges, a stance he maintained right up to the start of his Crown Court trial.

Yet there is still an ethical question for Sunderland to answer about their decision to continue playing Johnson, even though their chief executive, Margaret Byrne, had been present at a meeting with the player and his barrister, Orlando Pownall QC, where Johnson admitted kissing his teenage victim. Byrne was also presented with the 832 What’s App messages that proved such a crucial part of the prosecution case.

Sunderland’s statement skirts over this meeting, merely stating that: “Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgement on the outcome of the case nor on Mr Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations.”

Given Byrne’s background as a trained lawyer, is that good enough? And given that Johnson was still a multi-million pound asset while the legal process was taking its course, why didn’t Sunderland send a representative to the pre-trial hearing, where more evidence of Johnson’s alleged crimes was revealed?

Sunderland were unquestionably placed in a difficult position because of Johnson’s crimes, and their desire to respect the judicial process is commendable. As things stand though, they have not adequately addressed the accusation, voiced in open court, that they were willing to be represented by a high-profile paedophile who they knew to have sent a series of explicit messages to a 15-year-old fan.

Share article

That has damaged Sunderland’s reputation immensely, but the club can claim to have been badly let down by someone they went out of their way to promote and protect.

All of which brings us back to Johnson, and the core of the case. For all the peripheral debates, the brutal reality is that Johnson alone took the decision to prey on a star-struck supporter in order to satisfy his sexual urges. He decided to make contact on social media, he decided to initiate the seedy meeting behind a Chinese takeaway, and he decided to engage in sexual acts that were illegal. Now, he must face the consequences of his crimes.

Another story based on the same exchange in court, it adds nothing to the debate. If you want to add something interesting then the quotes of what was actually said in court would be great.