• 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.

The Master said:
Best post in the entire thread :lol:
Click to expand...

Nah my favourite is still
"Whether Margaret Byrne and the board knew some of the detail, the fact is they are not criminal lawyers, so are not qualified to adjudicate."

Step 1: Go to university, study law, then specialise in criminal law and do your training at your first firm in criminal law, and then go on to practise as a criminal defence solicitor for several years
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Not qualified to adjudicate
 
Peaknutt said:
You must be logged on to see external links


Partying in Dubai days before his court date, yawning in court and overheard saying "this is boring, hope we're done by Friday", and one of the papers today said he thought he was only going to get a suspended sentence! Johnson lived up to every 'thick footballer' stereotype in the book
Click to expand...
Or he's confident he was telling the truth ?
 
Some Random Guy said:
1) Yes. Sacking him couldn't have been used as evidence against him in court. Much in the same way Fletcher not acting as a character witness couldn't ramble him either.
Click to expand...
it would have been prejudicial as the club has found him guilty before the trial. It would be a disclosed fact. ex footballer and it would not be a secret as to why he was sacked
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Good for you. The fact remains the club has been accused of letting someone they know sexually abused a child carry on playing for the club, and hasn't denied that accusation. You can ignore that if you like but a lot of people are not.
Click to expand...

Why be dragged into another shitstorm with a nonce. It wouldn't end there and you know it.
 
@Reiver

You have said in this thread:

1) Post on the SMB that the club fucked up = attention seeking:

"No, clowns because if you felt as strongly as you claim you wouldn't just be attention seeking on here.

Or do you really believe Short is clicking on all your posts :lol:"

2) Then changes to 'demanding action' is attention seeking, while posting on here isn't:

"I've clearly stated that those criticising the club are quite right & proper ....... those who are demanding action from the club are attention seeking."

3) Do what Reiver originally suggests and send a letter to the club; that's arrogant:

'It's arrogant enough to believe people need the likes of you to tell them what to do and even worse to type it out for them as if they couldn't.'

4) And people who express their dissatisfaction down at WHU, are, you guessed it, 'attention seeking' too. (PS. 'DID YOU THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?')

'People, as at West Ham, have children there and don't want to have to cope with attention seeking 'activists' inside a football ground'

So just to be clear Reiver, if you say on here that the club should do something, then you're attention seeking because you are expressing a demand on a message-board. If you decide to send the club a letter or email, then you are being arrogant enough to presume that they would want to read what you have to say. And if you take a banner to a football match to express your dissatisfaction then you are also attention seeking.

So wise, old @Reiver, if I feel the club should behave differently, then can you please advise me how I can express this to them without either 1) being arrogant or 2) attention-seeking.


PS. let's not forgot in another thread where someone said it was 'embarrassing' that another poster had written a letter to the BBC and posted it on here you said:

'He wrote a letter man, probably an email in the time it took you to post ......... he didn't super-glue himself to the railings outside the building :lol: '

And then said: 'As the contents of the letter have only been disclosed on a small anonymous chat forum I fail to see how it can be embarrassing.'

Isn't it strange how when you agree with what the letter says your contribution to the thread is to say it 'is not embarrassing' and not mention attention-seeking or arrogance once, yet when you disagree with what the letter says it is, indeed, 'arrogant and attention seeking'.

One could almost come to the conclusion that what you have to say about writing letters actually comes down to whether or not you agree with what the letter says... hmmmmmmmmmm.

Cockney Mackem said:
It appears the mods are dishing out warnings now, so it looks like the thread will have to rest where it is in alternative reality.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:

What for?
 
The Sun newspapers headline today in massive font - "Huntley, Bellfield and Johnson."
What great journalism to put Johnson in the same category as those two pieces of shit. You then read the story and they are just saying he will be locked up in the same prison as those two. Talk about contriving a sensational headline, the Sun really is the scum of newspapers.
 
John Steed said:
The Sun newspapers headline today in massive font - "Huntley, Bellfield and Johnson."
What great journalism to put Johnson in the same category as those two pieces of shit. You then read the story and they are just saying he will be locked up in the same prison as those two. Talk about contriving a sensational headline, the Sun really is the scum of newspapers.
Click to expand...
Always hard to live up to expectations after delivering a belter like "paedo in his speedos"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top