• 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:
She did he training in criminal law and worked as a criminal lawyer for several years before she joined SAFC.
Click to expand...
I am certain you are right, but we need a sense of perspective in terms of her experience and knowledge of criminal law - she must have been with us pretty well since the Drumaville take over, which was about ten years ago now? She is now 35, so was about 25 when she joined us (don't shoot me if I'm a year or two out!); I guess her law degree would have taken four years, so, at best, she had maybe three years criminal law experience at a very junior level, but reading her background, it looks like she was involved in family law and something else (?) at the same time, so her experience of, and involvement in criminal law would have been extremely limited. And she joined us as Company Secretary I think, involved in players' contracts, which implies that was her real speciality I imagine.

As I've said earlier, I am not an apologist for Margaret Byrne, but I don't like the thought that both she and the football club can be hauled over the coals when they were dealing with delicate situation, a player who continued to profess his innocence right up to the court room steps and trying to tread a fine line between the two, with - at best - limited detailed knowledge.

Sunderland AFC are an easy target at the moment, but I think when the club comes out with such a robust rebuttal of what was said in court, I for one am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
 
janey said:
Police evidence at trial, and I quote

“Myself and a colleague went to meet Margaret Byrne to discuss the offences and consider safeguarding for any other young people he may come in contact with through his work as a professional football player.”

DI Sampson went on to say that what Johnson had told police in interview was not disclosed to the club.
Click to expand...
This. They can't have it both ways ffs.
 
janey said:
That's my assumption as to what was said in the interview, there is a clear contradiction in the officers statements. Why did the officer giving evidence not say what the officer today has said.
Click to expand...
You can't seriously think that the police only met with Johnson once?
It also doesn't say what info exactly was withheld
 
monty in command said:
I am certain you are right, but we need a sense of perspective in terms of her experience and knowledge of criminal law - she must have been with us pretty well since the Drumaville take over, which was about ten years ago now? She is now 35, so was about 25 when she joined us (don't shoot me if I'm a year or two out!); I guess her law degree would have taken four years, so, at best, she had maybe three years criminal law experience at a very junior level, but reading her background, it looks like she was involved in family law and something else (?) at the same time, so her experience of, and involvement in criminal law would have been extremely limited. And she joined us as Company Secretary I think, involved in players' contracts, which implies that was her real speciality I imagine.

As I've said earlier, I am not an apologist for Margaret Byrne, but I don't like the thought that both she and the football club can be hauled over the coals when they were dealing with delicate situation, a player who continued to profess his innocence right up to the court room steps and trying to tread a fine line between the two, with - at best - limited detailed knowledge.

Sunderland AFC are an easy target at the moment, but I think when the club comes out with such a robust rebuttal of what was said in court, I for one am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying she would be an expert in all this. All I was saying is she should know enough to smell something was amiss, and to know things like, you know, if a police officer tells you that your player has inappropriately messaged a 15 year old, and you're given a copy of the messages, you should probably check them.
 
Reiver said:
What a truly pathetic comment from someone who seems to think he's intelligent ....... that's really the best you have isn't it :lol:


BTW, I've put the apostrophe in someone's for you ......
Click to expand...

Liking the correct punctuation.
 
Crammy Mackem said:
Not sure if this has been posted or not but it's a pretty damning indication of Johnson and his whole attitude.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
The comments on there... well they are typical of what you would find from Daily Mail readers. They have found someone who they can feel is even lower than them and the feeding at the trough has well and truly commenced.
 
If it comes out that SAFC knew of the kissing and grooming that's me done after 40 years of support. I've got 2 lasses of similar age to the victim and the thought that SAFC could have harboured a paedophile would be the finish for me. I couldn't stomach supporting a football club who chose to cover this up.
 
Sweeper said:
She is the CEO of a major football club and a pivotal community institution. It has been suggested that she was shown the interview transcript and the whatsapp messages, and that she knew he had messaged and kissed a 15 year old, and that despite this, the club allowed him to play on. Those issues need answers and if she/the Club is not going to explain what happened, then the media are going to go looking for answers. Rightly so.
Click to expand...
By chasing her to her home and invading her privacy, like I say mob mentality at its worst.
She isn't a criminal.
I can see both sides of the argument and I respect other people's opinions but I think condoning that is a disgrace.
 
Sweeper said:
She is the CEO of a major football club and a pivotal community institution. It has been suggested that she was shown the interview transcript and the whatsapp messages, and that she knew he had messaged and kissed a 15 year old, and that despite this, the club allowed him to play on. Those issues need answers and if she/the Club is not going to explain what happened, then the media are going to go looking for answers. Rightly so.
Click to expand...

The club have to address this ASAP.

If the reports are true that the CEO had that knowledge and still sanctioned the suspension reversal then the CEO's position should be seriously considered. For me, it becomes untenable.

If not, then the club have to deny this was the case and clarify what the nature of the consultations were (prior to withdrawing the suspension).
 
clockstandpaddock said:
If it comes out that SAFC knew of the kissing and grooming that's me done after 40 years of support. I've got 2 lasses of similar age to the victim and the thought that SAFC could have harboured a paedophile would be the finish for me. I couldn't stomach supporting a football club who chose to cover this up.
Click to expand...
I'm on the same page, tbh.
 
Scottish_Mackem said:
Fair enough, probably used the wrong turn of phrase. Found an article regarding what I was referring to:

You must be logged on to see external links


While, as you say, it obviously was the final decision of the club, I would think the PFA have more to answer for than the wishy-washy statement they just released.
Click to expand...

The PFA's job is to advocate AJ's case? The club could hardly take them at their word. If I was employer and was suspending an employee for alleged sex offending, I would listen to what a union said, but I wouldn't take them at fact value because I would know their ultimate aim is to advocate their member's position...
 
janey said:
By chasing her to her home and invading her privacy, like I say mob mentality at its worst.
She isn't a criminal.
I can see both sides of the argument and I respect other people's opinions but I think condoning that is a disgrace.
Click to expand...
This can all go away by simply coming out and saying 3 sentences denying that they know.

They haven't and continue to ignore it. Why? It's themselves to blame here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top