• 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.
Scottish_Mackem said:
Forgive me if this has already been covered, but at the bottom of this article it says "John Cameron from the NSPCC said it "beggars belief" that Sunderland did not maintain the suspension of Johnson until the case was resolved at court."

You must be logged on to see external links


Did we not suspend him pending outcome of the trial and it was the PFA and Johnsons representatives that made us overturn it? Or a meringue?
Click to expand...
I feel like the poor fella in your avatar, often ! :confused::lol:
 

The Sheepfolds End said:
They knew the details (as several sources have claimed), rightly suspended him initially and then inexplicably reversed their decision under pressure (either pressure from the PFA or from the threat of relegation).
Click to expand...

Threat of relegation? If he was our answer then BSA has been asleep at the wheel, because he's barely played much...
 
haway said:
Aren't you the mod who gave me two warnings for 'libel' because I said she was out her depth?

You've had an agenda from day one that she is above criticism, and now it's turned out she seems to have misjudged things severely, can you not bring yourself to admit it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am that mod and notwithstanding the current situation I stand by my actions. I don't have an agenda to protect Ms Byrne, but one of the roles of a moderator is to protect this board from unnecessary friction. At the time I considered that your views were above and beyond fair comment, potentially inflammatory and that it was impossible for the board to substantiate those views. If I remember correctly, following similar complaints from you, I referred your observations upstairs and the decision was that the warnings were appropriate.

The reason I referred to your past history of criticism of Ms Byrne on this thread was simply to provide the newer or more casual member with a little context in which to read your comments.

Finally, I have to say that for someone with a supposedly legal background you don't half spout some unlawyerly rash bollocks.
 
Sweeper said:
QCs never lie in court. Never. To do so would be career suicide.
Click to expand...

Well I have witnessed it in court. Some may call it twisting the truth, manipulating evidence, etc.

If both prosecution and defence say they are telling the truth in many cases someone has to be lying as the verdict usually suggests.
 
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...
The BBC have confirmed that Durham police told SAFC this IIRC.
 
haway said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem is by the time she was informed it had then become a criminal investigation, so I'm not sure what checking she could do which wouldn't prejudice the case one way or the other.
 
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...

Don't blame the club, blame the individuals involved. SAFC is bigger than anyone on the board.
 
The Master said:
You can't seriously think that the police only met with Johnson once?
It also doesn't say what info exactly was withheld
Click to expand...
Johnson wasnt there on either of these occasions, these were meetings the police say they had with the club.
Of course they would have met with him on more than one occasion.
 
LineTrash said:
And get into a he said/she said deal? I personally think the club were professional from start to finish.
Click to expand...

:eek::eek: Holy shit, really?

Can you not see the flaw in arguing that it's not worth denying an allegation because you're going to get into a he said/she said deal? It's one thing to suggest that the club should make no comment about being accused of doing something wrong, but they didn't do that, did they? They issued a statement specifically to respond to allegations made during the trial (so it's worth responding to allegations made during the trial). They went to a lot of effort to refute "in the strongest terms" an allegation which they took exception to (so if someone has accused you of something which isn't true and could put you in a bad light, it's appropriate to refute it). They then decline the opportunity to even discuss the two main allegations which are getting them kicked all over the park. That's not just ignoring the elephant in the room, that's ignoring the elephant, and the massive f***ing brachiosaurus that's also crammed into the room, roaring loudly and teabagging the elephant.

Almost 200 pages and no one has a remotely adequate answer as to why the club has got itself into this position and is being smashed all over the shop in the world's press and the CEO being doorstepped by an army of journalists.
 
I very much doubt the polis disclosed what was said in first interview!
It's wasn't allowed when I was in ,,
 
haway said:
Don't blame the club, blame the individuals involved. SAFC is bigger than anyone on the board.
Click to expand...
As I've said before, it's SAFC's name collectively that will remain clogged with the sick detritus, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top