• 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.

draper said:
So two policemen went to the club on their own and had a discussion about Johnson. Whether they discussed the evidence with the club is irrelevant. It was at another meeting where Johnson, his father, his QC and your CEO where evidence was provided.

In fact this second meeting, whether it came before or after the other one, compounds the seriousness of the whole sorry mess. Two meetings really should have had the alarm bells ringing.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that point, I'm highlighting that what the police have said tonight contradicts what the police officer said in the dock.
 
Rober33 said:
I'm missing a source which says that the club had access to and reviewed these documents, so far what has been said only agrees with what the club have stated which is that they passed the said documents straight to the QC.
Click to expand...

So you really think the CEO, a lawyer by the way, had access to documents that directly pertained to one of her employees regarding a sex offence and she didn't read them?
 
Cheesy Feet said:
The club took legal advice and involved the PFA that to me is doing the right thing,they stood by their player who lied to them by saying he was innocent and was going to fight the charges,as soon he admitted his guilt in a court of law they sacked him,what more could they do,everything before court was just allegations.
Click to expand...

I doubt the legal advice was 'Oh you know Johnson wants to fondle children? Yeah you should bring him back and play him'
 
haway said:
No I'm not. I'm not asking them to sack him, or decide he's guilty. What I'm saying is when you are aware an employee has been accused of touching up a kid you should suspend them, especially if the allegation is they used their job to exploit the child. As I've said two dozen times in this thread now, would you say a school was prejudging a trial if it suspended a teacher who was accused of touching up a kid (even one not at the school)? Or a policeman? or a doctor? You aren't prejudging a f***ing trial if you suspend someone until the outcome of the trial!
Click to expand...

I've been away from the board for 24 hours, so I'm just catching up with this thread.

I've lost count of exactly how many posts you've made on this thread, but it's so many that you've made Riv seem like a shy and retiring thing.

Then I remembered who you are and your remarkably persistent contributions to this thread started to make sense.

Aren't you the chappy who's had the knives out for Ms Byrne since day one?
 
Rober33 said:
Read back through this thread, this has been shown to be a completely ridiculous argument by myself and others and I can't be arsed to go through it again.
Click to expand...

Why on earth is a statement by a QC in court, who cannot knowingly give false evidence (or introduce false evidence from others), a ridiculous argument? This happened - the club had the interview transcript and the whatsapp messages. They knew what he'd done. Despite that they decided to play him. It stinks.
 
draper said:
So why would police be at a meeting with him and his QC? Come on FFS
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

We're referring to the latest breaking news from the police, nothing to do with the introductory meeting with his QC.

The police stated in court that the club were not told anything about what Johnson had admitted in his interview, only the allegations made against him. Now people are claiming they did tell them he'd admitted kissing the girl at that same meeting.
 
Pancho said:
I've been away from the board for 24 hours, so I'm just catching up with this thread.

I've lost count of exactly how many posts you've made on this thread, but it's so many that you've made Riv seem like a shy and retiring thing.

Then I remembered who you are and your remarkably persistent contributions to this thread started to make sense.

Aren't you the chappy who's had the knives out for Ms Byrne since day one?
Click to expand...
He's been on all day.
 
The FA’s safeguarding team spoke with the club in April 2015. Sunderland confirmed Adam Johnson did not have any roles with the club involving a position of trust with children and was not involved in their community schemes.
Read more at
You must be logged on to see external links


So anyone claiming the FA forced us to play him is talking nonsense too, otherwise they wouldn't force us to cut all his roles with other things.
 
Right I'm off to hoy my bets on for the weekend, put the kids to bed & sort my bait out for graft the morra.

I'll leave you lot to squabble about who is most outraged & offended. (wether it be at Adam Johnson, Margaret Bryne or Sunderland AFC).
 
Pancho said:
I've been away from the board for 24 hours, so I'm just catching up with this thread.

I've lost count of exactly how many posts you've made on this thread, but it's so many that you've made Riv seem like a shy and retiring thing.

Then I remembered who you are and your remarkably persistent contributions to this thread started to make sense.

Aren't you the chappy who's had the knives out for Ms Byrne since day one?
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that this is down to a personal grudge against her like.
 
soapster said:
you are not grasping it are you. You continually talk about admissions. I am talking about evidence and the client refusing to accept the advice of counsel

I know full well that a lot of guilty pleas are submitted on the day of the trial and your guidelines are with reference to admissions. It may be that a person thinks they have committed a crime and it is up to the barrister to consider in whether in the circumstances a crime has been committed and will await evidence that the prosecution will rely on to prove the defendant guilty

A barrister must not waste court time by submitting not guilty pleas when the advise should be to plead guilty
Click to expand...

I'm grasping it... A barrister can put in whatever plea his client says even if it 'wastes court time'.

The barrister has a duty to advise the client to plead appropriately but what the client decides to do is completely up to the client and has nothing to do with the barrister, whether the client takes the barristers advise or not.
 
He is showing incredible arrogance even now. No shame whatsoever on your club in my opinion. He just happened to play for you at this time and in this world you are innocent until proven guilty and he played you.

Good luck for the rest of the season and hope as a club you can move on from this quickly.

Quick question - when he gets out do you think he will still be able to live up there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top