• 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.
Dilligaf60 said:
A Newcastle employment lawyer says the club could be corporately liable for his crimes.
Where there's blame there's a claim. I wonder if they have offered their services. Purely in the interests of justice of course.
Click to expand...
He probably saw the BA story on the BBC website

Ale taster said:
She has a degree in law or a law conversion. Worked as a solicitor in North London with a qualification which enabled her to visit and represent those in police custody. She'e no legal heavy weight and barely scratched the surface professionally speaking.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
Click to expand...
:lol: And she is now our CEO
 

FanchesterCity said:
The human side is the side where the adult says to a teen ' I know you THINK you know it all, but you don't' and walks away from the situation.
The human side is where a 15 year old asks you for alcohol because she genuinely does want it, and you say 'I know you DO want it, but you'll regret it' , and walks away from the situation.

I don't think there's any difference between the legal side and the human side here. The legal side is merely enforcing what most decent humans would do anyway (hence most decent humans don't engage in sexual activity with a minor). The law is simply making sure that those relatively few adults who don't act / think the right way are punished for it.
Click to expand...
In the eyes of the law the 15 year old is 100% blameless until the clock strikes 12 for her 16th birthday. There's clearly an anomaly there.

As far as your 'alcohol' example goes. How old should she be?
 
The Master said:
You haven't done a good job of showing it tbf.

I don't really know why you would be warned or reported though tbh, some posters should rightly be warned but can't say I've noticed you being one of them.
Click to expand...

Well I've asked two of them for proof and they've come back with nothing.

Are you including yourself in the clique ......... I wouldn't surprised if you all work in the same office tbh.

You're always jumping to each other's defence as if you can't handle things yourself ......... why is that?
 
Reiver said:
On the BBC interview the police officer said, "On that day we gave the club a little more information."

Which means little or nothing ....... although I've still no idea why they had to give an exclusive to the BBC tbh.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Although there seems to be some on this thread that think the police told the club everything in detail which just isn't true. It would be canny impressive if they did seeing as Johnson hadn't even been interviewed at that point. It even says, quite clearly that 'What he said in interview was still not disclosed to the club.'
 
Cockney Mackem said:
While it's fair to say that there's a difference between Johnson and a child molester (and you have my empathy for what happened to you) it's problematic to try and say how much responsibility the girl should take for her actions.

Yes the age of consent is somewhat arbitrary and you're absolutely right that a girl doesn't suddenly become ready for things on her 16th birthday that were despicable crimes the day before. But teenagers have limited life experience, a bunch of hormones and poor impulse control. Below a certain age (and the law has to draw a line somewhere to have any chance of regulating this) it's determined that a young person is not equipped to decide to have sex. The flip side I'd they're not equipped to decide not to have sex. There is an onus on the older person not to exploit this. In Denmark for example you're right that the age of consent is 15, but it's also a criminal offence to induce anyone under 18 to have sex by exploiting an age difference and greater experience. The law states a difference between a fifteen year old girl sleeping with her 17 year old boyfriend, which may be problematic in other ways but is not for them a criminal matter, and a much older person exploiting an impressionable young person.

This latter is exactly what Johnson did. The girl was starry eyed at meeting her hero and getting a signed shirt and was bowled over by him showing an interest in her. At which point you've got a man not far off thirty, who might be a f***ing cretin but he's also aware that he's a millionaire and has over a decade more life experience than her, calling the shots and lining her up for sex.

It is clearly not as serious a crime as the grooming and rape of a younger child, but it is still sinister and exploitative. Frankly if the girl had been 16 it would still be creepy as fuck in my eyes, and the sort of thing that should in my view still be illegal because of the age difference and something approaching a position of trust and privilege.

So while paedophile and nonce might not be exactly the right words, he still deserves a description of what a despicable little fuckwit he is.
Click to expand...
Spot on apart from the fuck wit comment. He wanted sex with a 15 year old, he's a pervert.
 
Reiver said:
Well I've asked two of them for proof and they've come back with nothing.

Are you including yourself in the clique ......... I wouldn't surprised if you all work in the same office tbh.

You're always jumping to each other's defence as if you can't handle things yourself ......... why is that?
Click to expand...
People who share the same opinion will inevitably find themselves on the same side of the argument.

You've came up with shit like this a few times now, that some "clique" is out to get you. Earlier you were saying you were an "easy target" as if you're being bullied ffs.

You just can't handle anyone having a different opinion to your own.
 
FanchesterCity said:
I'm not entirely in agreement with all that.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but you must remember, everybody and that means EVERYBODY should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying mate but there were plenty of people on here who were ITK as far as knowing what the case was based around (not what the outcome was going to be). They tried to explain without saying too much and getting a ban that he did not meet her in a nightclub, the case had gone as far as crown court because the police had evidence from social media on phones about meetings etc. People wouldn't listen.

I'm with you on the innocent until proven guilty thing, but there was always a chance of him being guilty due to the fact the police thought they had enough evidence of wrongdoing to refer it to the CPD. The cops don't take cases to court they don't think they can win, it's a waste of money and looks bad on them.
Again, people were just thick and couldn't fathom this when it was explained to them. There are posters on this thread who were explained all this by myself and others who were spouting that it's nonsense and it's just a lass trying to get money out of him etc and there's no way he'll be found guilty :oops:

These same people are now outraged and are blaming everyone but themselves.

I just think not making an opinion and not taking sides, not showing support or being prejudiced against someone when you don't know anything about the allegations is the best way forward in cases like this.
 
Dogbark said:
In the eyes of the law the 15 year old is 100% blameless until the clock strikes 12 for her 16th birthday. There's clearly an anomaly there.

As far as your 'alcohol' example goes. How old should she be?
Click to expand...

No, the age is an arbitrary line in the sand, but it's not saying 15 is blameless and 16 is ok... it's not a line measuring the minor, it's a line to measure the adult.
The law draws the line to test the adult's ability to adhere to it, not the minor. If the adult cannot stick to the age limit because they are so desperate for sexual activity, then it should rightly be a concern to the public.

So again, it's not above a minor flicking a switch at 16 and suddenly growing up - we all know that some 15 year olds are very mature, whilst some 16 are immature etc. This 'line' is a test for the adult to not cross is, and Johnson did.
 
Quite right Julie, and when the club have told you, will you kindly tell me what your Labour party are doing about pumping some life into run down Sunderland. When you get your own house in order, then stick your nose into a case where thousands of others are asking the same question.
 
Ale taster said:
How so ? Byrne is a two-bit solicitor in a former life. She's well out of her depth here.
Click to expand...

That out of her depth the Premier League have her as a rep.

I am not defending her but do you
really expect her to make decisions in a field she isnt experienced in when so much is at stake for the club. I would imagine the club would have every lawyer under the sun helping them on this one.

Whats really pissing me off though is how every mp, opinionated feminists (especially that Phillipson woman) and half whit mags are coming out from under their rocks to criticise our club when they know fuck all.

Hopefully their 15 mins is nearly up.
 
The Master said:
People who share the same opinion will inevitably find themselves on the same side of the argument.

You've came up with shit like this a few times now, that some "clique" is out to get you. Earlier you were saying you were an "easy target" as if you being bullied ffs.

You just can't handle anyone having a different opinion to your own.
Click to expand...

It's so funny how people who can't answer the questions you throw at them always come back with that nonsense.

I can handle them perfectly well .......... bullied :lol:
 
Reiver said:
It's so funny how people who can't answer the questions you throw at them always come back with that nonsense.

I can handle them perfectly well .......... bullied :lol:
Click to expand...
Explain the easy target shit then :lol:

As many have noted, you love arguing for the sake of arguing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top