sidneyeric
Striker
Ive already answered that, the 12 people in the jury, 2 of them wern't convinced either.
-
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
- Thread starter Geronimo
- Start date
- Status
Purrfect South
Heaven Branch
So why, now that he's finally been convicted is he allowed out in society? The courts obviously don't see him as a danger, so why should the club at a time he was claiming he wasn't guilty?
What are you on about? It's not just a question of whether or not he was a danger, its a question of who should be allowed to represent the club, and the community it represents. It's about the kind of people at the top in the club and what they consider to be important. If the club received the messages and/or police transcript, then he should never have played for the club again. Any decision from the top brass to the contrary would be inexcusable. Surely it has to be that simple.
Where have you got the verdict being 10-2 haven't seen it being reported.
10 were though don't forgot and that's the only thing that counts
Our of interest did you belive Johnson about his reasons for Googling the age of consent? What about his other lies the judge presented in his summing up. How do you feel about them?
It been widely reported tbf
Wearside Wanderer II
Striker
Why are you screaming around in this thread like a frustrated loony, yes we get your opinion but everyone else is entitled to one too.
You need to log off for a bit and get your stress ball out.
Still at it I see
.sidneyeric
Striker
I have never said he didn't lie, I pointed out that she lied aswel. imo he's been convicted on 1 message he sent and for me that isn't enough. 2 liars both questionable characters.
You haven't been reading about the case yet have plenty to say on it ?
Fair enough honestly hadnt seen it and someone on here said differently. I did see the judge say he would accept 10-2, but not that being the final verdict.
Where did that comment say he wasn't entitled to his opinion? If anything, I agreed with most what he said.
I've been screaming around this thread because our club are failing to give simple answers about how much they knew about a sex offender playing for us, we're getting f***ing destroyed, and the insight of a third of the SMB is 'well I support the lads ye knar so erm who cares what happened can't we just move on'.
The fact is most posters would happily argue until 2am about whether or not Fletcher's problem was poor effort or poor ability, yet don't want to talk about a child sex scandal at our club, which is fine by me, but the reason I keep posting is that I care a lot more about what is currently being suggested than trivial footballing matters.
Do you appreciate how serious it is that our club has potentially failed to take adequate action against a player who groomed and sexually abused an underage supporter?
Deleted User 18963
New Member
Good peice by David Conn - The Guardian
In the focus which has rightly turned on Sunderland, the nasty effects of Johnson’s legal case could be lost: Pownall’s argument that Byrne knew Johnson admitted it applies to his client too. Yet presumably with legal advice including from Pownall, Johnson decided to put his schoolgirl victim through a nightmare, by playing on for his £60,000 a week and not pleading guilty until the doors of court. how “horrendous” Johnson’s public denials had been for her, because “I’ve had to face so much abuse after he claimed his innocence”.
The impression is that Johnson’s lawyers calculated the victim might crack and withdraw her allegations as the ordeal of giving public evidence grew closer and Johnson pleaded guilty only when she stayed strong enough. Neither Pownall nor Paul Morris of Burton Copeland, Johnson’s solicitor, responded to the Guardian’s questions about their conduct of Johnson’s case.
Having been exposed for the 4 May meeting, Sunderland have relied for justification on that same calculating strategy, that Johnson was not pleading guilty. On what Byrne knew, there is some unattractively evasive wording: the meeting with Pownall, Johnson and Johnson’s father was “introductory”; Byrne was present “during part” of it; “some documents were received which were immediately sent to Mr Pownall for his attention” – even though Pownall was there.
Sunderland’s statement avoids the question of what Margaret Byrne, the club’s chief executive, knew. Photograph: Mike Egerton/PA
The statement avoids the question of what Byrne knew, and she has failed to answer it herself. Instead, the manager Sam Allardyce was sent out to do a standard pre-match press conference in which the unfortunate Louise Wanless, the club’s media and communications manager, had to .
Last season, with Johnson playing, they finished three points above relegation. Now, at serious risk of going down this time, the goal Johnson scored in the 6 February 2-2 draw with Liverpool, most likely the last game he will play as a professional footballer, could preserve Sunderland their guaranteed £100m from next season’s Premier League TV rights. Survival will presumably justify Byrne’s own salary, which was £663,196 in 2013-14, and by then, Sunderland are surely figuring, they will have outlasted all these inconvenient questions.
You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links
football club and the once-distinguished Professional Footballers Association were not called as witnesses in the trial of Adam Johnson’s sordid crimes, but it would have been instructive to see their officials engage with the legal duty to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So far they are falling short in the middle part of that responsibility, with their weaselly, pathetic responses to glaring questions about why Johnson was allowed to turn out, wearing Sunderland’s famous red and white striped shirt, in the globally broadcast Premier League, for 11 months after he was charged.
You must be logged on to see external links
weaves a claimed justification while avoiding the assertion landed on the club’s chief executive, Margaret Byrne, by Johnson’s barrister, Orlando Pownall QC. He said in court, apparently seeking to portray Johnson in some kind of better light, that on 4 May last year, Byrne saw the police interviews which showed Johnson admitted he had exchanged hundreds of messages with (ie groomed) and kissed the 15-year-old supporter and customer of Byrne’s club.In the focus which has rightly turned on Sunderland, the nasty effects of Johnson’s legal case could be lost: Pownall’s argument that Byrne knew Johnson admitted it applies to his client too. Yet presumably with legal advice including from Pownall, Johnson decided to put his schoolgirl victim through a nightmare, by playing on for his £60,000 a week and not pleading guilty until the doors of court. how “horrendous” Johnson’s public denials had been for her, because “I’ve had to face so much abuse after he claimed his innocence”.
The impression is that Johnson’s lawyers calculated the victim might crack and withdraw her allegations as the ordeal of giving public evidence grew closer and Johnson pleaded guilty only when she stayed strong enough. Neither Pownall nor Paul Morris of Burton Copeland, Johnson’s solicitor, responded to the Guardian’s questions about their conduct of Johnson’s case.
Having been exposed for the 4 May meeting, Sunderland have relied for justification on that same calculating strategy, that Johnson was not pleading guilty. On what Byrne knew, there is some unattractively evasive wording: the meeting with Pownall, Johnson and Johnson’s father was “introductory”; Byrne was present “during part” of it; “some documents were received which were immediately sent to Mr Pownall for his attention” – even though Pownall was there.
Sunderland’s statement avoids the question of what Margaret Byrne, the club’s chief executive, knew. Photograph: Mike Egerton/PA
The statement avoids the question of what Byrne knew, and she has failed to answer it herself. Instead, the manager Sam Allardyce was sent out to do a standard pre-match press conference in which the unfortunate Louise Wanless, the club’s media and communications manager, had to .
Last season, with Johnson playing, they finished three points above relegation. Now, at serious risk of going down this time, the goal Johnson scored in the 6 February 2-2 draw with Liverpool, most likely the last game he will play as a professional footballer, could preserve Sunderland their guaranteed £100m from next season’s Premier League TV rights. Survival will presumably justify Byrne’s own salary, which was £663,196 in 2013-14, and by then, Sunderland are surely figuring, they will have outlasted all these inconvenient questions.
sidneyeric
Striker
The judge said he would only accept a 12-0 score, yet accepted 10-2
peil
Striker
Just because a charge hasn't been provn beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean she's a liar. Only two people can honestly say they know exactly what happened in that LandRover, one of them was an adult who groomed a girl just turned 15, he should never have put her in that position in the first place.
C
Cosmos Rocks
Guest
Exactly and the BBC are lecturing our Club? The BBC led by the biased scum at the pink palace should not be chucking pelters at our Club. Its low as they can get using this very sad situation. However, whats sad is supposed Sunderland fans (I use the word supposed because I think a lot on here are mags and WUM) are condoning it. The Club has behaved admirably in this situation. The BBC and its saville cronies and narrow minded Sunderland hating shits at the pink palace can sod off.
peil
Striker
He could have, and should have, been removed from being able to play. This entire circus could have been avoided by the club.
Unfortunately I've read plenty. Crack on calling the victim a liar though.
sidneyeric
Striker
I agree and as I have said, I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me he's guilty, the second she said she was 15 he should have chased her, he didn't.
Surely when you read the judges summing up you must realise Johnson's lies are a lot more significant than hers??
sidneyeric
Striker
Her friends called her a liar, which you would know if you'd read enough about the trial, you crack on posting about something you know fuck all about.
- Status
