• 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.

Market Where? said:
Yes mate i think they have. We can argue all day and all night about the clubs position on this - my position is they have a case to answer. However I cant get beyond a multimillionairre has been proven and confessed in a court of law that he groomed and took advantage sexually of a child. Look at some of the posts - yes but she knew what she was doing! f***ing border line nonces themselves. This is a child who was only just 15!
Click to expand...

Well, you're calling Sunderland people 'borderline nonces' so you should really be sure don't you think?

You're making some specific accusations about people on here tbh.

"But Sunderland supporters defending sex offenders is something I cant get my head around. And we are talking a child here abused by a multi millionaire - not some pissed tart in a night club who wasnt sure what she was doing. Premeditated self confessed grooming of a child.
I thought the region I was born and brought up in was better than that."
 
Sweeper said:
"[The lead detective] told BBC News: "They were given detail that he had met the girl and sexual activity had taken place."

She said the club was also told he had exchanged messages with the girl.

She added: "At the centre of this we have a 15-year-old girl who was an avid Sunderland fan and a massive fan of Adam Johnson, she describes him as her idol, she'll want to know why he was allowed back on the pitch."
Click to expand...

Why don't you accept that these were only allegations at that po?
Pancho said:
You would think that would be obvious, but sadly not...

Is it just me or does anyone else think that the club's statement implies that they were completely blindsided by the tactics of Johnson and/or Orlando Bloom QC?
Click to expand...

I wonder if there was some malice behind trying to drop the club in it as well because of the way they sacked him on the day of the trial when he pleaded guilty.
 
janey said:
Or the statement of the detective in Court under oath

“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...

We get it - you're determined not to believe this, despite the evidence to the contrary.
 
Pancho said:
You would think that would be obvious, but sadly not...

Is it just me or does anyone else think that the club's statement implies that they were completely blindsided by the tactics of Johnson and/or Orlando Bloom QC?
Click to expand...
Of course they were , Orlando blooms responsibility was to his client and so he acted accordingly?
 
Rober33 said:
Why don't you accept that these were only allegations at that po?


I wonder if there was some malice behind trying to drop the club in it as well because of the way they sacked him on the day of the trial when he pleaded guilty.
Click to expand...

Are you really this daft or are you on some kind of warped windup?
 
Sweeper said:
I've seen them all, you are, like the club, skirting around the blatantly obvious.
Click to expand...

What is blatantly obvious to you may not be to other people.

I prefer to look at the facts and I'll give the club the benefit of the doubt until I have good reason not to. So far the only person I blame for all of this is Johnson.
 
Rober33 said:
The police have just said that the club were told the full extent of the allegations and people are reading too much into it.
Click to expand...

Exactly

The police are prosecuting Adam Johnson FFS, that is what they will say, tell the club there case

Remember the would have done the same thing to another player, even if he was innocent and found not guilty

You have to do the same procedure whether he is guilty or innocent, that is the point
 
shepherd88 said:
You believe him?
Click to expand...
I dont like. i think he blatantly fingered her (once) despite knowing she was 15 which makes him a bad person with awful judgement. i personally dont think she sucked him off. Remember she too was guilty of lieing about various parts of the case & wasn't an entirely reliable witness.
 
Dogbark said:
Nope, over 13 years old.
Click to expand...

Isn't the offence just if the child is under 16 anyway? There's not a separate offence for under 13? I thought all it said was if offender is over 16 and victim is 13- 15 then he has to not 'reasonably believe she is over 16' but if he's under 13 he's fucked whatever he believes? They're not separate offences are they?
 
haway said:
99% of people opposing my view haven't defended AJ. Reiver hasn't, Janey hasn't, Rober33 hasn't etc.

You are pretty much the only person in this thread who has persistently blamed the victim, apart from one or two others. So shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...
Where have i blamed the victim you f***ing moron ? I said she's a liar, and there's no evidence to suggest she was telling the truth, btw they're asking about you on the oatcake, wondering why you haven't been on to lick their arseholes out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top