• 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.

walesie said:
People aren't 'revelling' in it, some people are f***ing angry at how the club have acted.
Click to expand...

Bit of both, be angry at Johnson

SAFC is not the big story here, despite how hard you try do make it

A footballer made a stupid mistake, thick as fuck, pleaded guilty, was sacked, and then was sent to jail. Blame him, not the club.

It is fairly black and white
 
Dogbark said:
Aye, sure, that's what happened. Aye.

:lol:
Click to expand...

You do realise that Johnson simply saying "yeah; I knew how old she was but I just messaged her a couple of times then we had a kiss" = admitting sexual activity with a child and grooming?

haway said:
That came out in court. Johnson said it, his QC (one of the leading barristers in the UK) supported the claim, Byrne didn't reject the claim in the club statement.

Why would anyone not believe it?
Click to expand...
 
Cockney Mackem said:
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.
Click to expand...

spot on
 
johnson said:
The first 4 words mate.....



On the basis of the legal advise they were given.
Click to expand...

Mr Powall told jurors? The QC? If he lies in court about the meeting he would be struck off. If Johnson said something happened at the meeting which didn't he would have to stop the trial immediately and stop representing AJ. A barrister can't intentionally allow their client to give the court information the barrister knows to be false.
 
walesie said:
I'd have happily sacrificed that point to not have had a nonce playing for us for the last year.
Click to expand...

I couldn't give a shit, he wasn't a "nonce", actually stop using stupid language like that, he wasn't guilty, until he pleaded guilty at the trial and until the jury found him guilty

He was not guilty one day or 1 second before that, its our the legal system works.
 
hexhamali said:
To compare this situation to a student/teacher one is ridiculous. Like I said, thick as fuck.
Click to expand...

Why is it ridiculous?!

He's in a position of trust, he's met her at the training ground, through his work. He's exploited the position of trust to take advantage of the girl. He offers her signed shirts, says he'll get her to meet the players etc. The one thing that became clear in the case was that he used his position at SAFC to groom her.

Moron.
 
Rober33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jorno Jerry Lawton quoting the judge directly.

Judge: After his arrest
You must be logged on to see external links
told Sunderland AFC he had `passionately kissed' schoolgirl and had been `aroused'

Is the judge lying now?
 
Cockney Mackem said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the point, nail on head.
 
TAFKAHM said:
Sounds to me that he could play for SAFC,because he had not pleaded guilty?? ...also got advice from PFA, sounds as though SAFC got everything covered ?
Click to expand...
AJ could have played regardless what was admitted until the trial date.
 
walesie said:
I'd have happily sacrificed that point to not have had a nonce playing for us for the last year.
Click to expand...

In the last year ? Meaning we would of had a new signing, possibly Whadi 6 months earlier and more points on board !
 
haway said:
Why is it ridiculous?!

He's in a position of trust, he's met her at the training ground, through his work. He's exploited the position of trust to take advantage of the girl. He offers her signed shirts, says he'll get her to meet the players etc. The one thing that became clear in the case was that he used his position at SAFC to groom her.

Moron.
Click to expand...
It's the regular contact with children that would be an issue for a teacher. I'm not denying he used his job to groom the girl, it's just not the same after that. Not even a little bit similar.
 
Butcher's Coat said:
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.
Click to expand...

People in other professions are suspended on full pay when charged with these offences. Now I didn't have a massive issue with him playing as he was professing his innocence but now it transpires that at the very least people at the club had knowledge of the type of messages he had been exchanging with the girl it makes it far more complicated.

SAFC haven't done anything wrong legally, but they've dropped a massive bollock in terms of morality and PR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top