• 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.

Sima said:
What? How can anyone get any enjoyment out of this situation, man? It's proper weird you'd even suggest that
Click to expand...

You're not one of those singing that shit song at every one of your matches this season then?

I'm pleased to hear that.
 
haway said:
QC would have confidentiality agreements I would have thought. Can only release exactly what AJ says to I would have thought.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, but again it's speculation, not fact. If a confidentiality agreement was in place though, they could have said that. But they didn't.

And if Johnson was happy enough for all the information to be given to the club, why would he object to the same information being passed on to someone else? Again, speculation.

I suppose my stance is innocent until proven guilty and the club haven't been proven to be guilty of anything up to yet. If that changes I think there will be more than just me who would change their stance but I'm not prepared to think any person or organisation is guilty of anything based purely on speculation.
 
CissesUnderpants19 said:
i can just picture it when he gets sentenced, this will blow up sky high, when it happens, and then he may appeal, it could drag on for months yet, possibility longer
Click to expand...
Don't be daft man, European championships coming up the only thing that will matter will be ENGERLAND

Cockney Mackem said:
This is mind-boggling.

People can cut and slice it all they like. It's really obvious what's happened to everyone other than than those who are going to great lengths to convince themselves otherwise.
Click to expand...
Or those that want to convince themselves otherwise in the other direction
 
haway said:
If that is the truth of what happened I would be completely happy for that. I would also be happy for the PFA to get the blame if it turns out they misled the club.

I would like to see the truth to come out of this and those who acted inappropriately to be punished, whether it's coppers, senior management at SAFC or the PFA.

The issue is at the moment it looks like, at the very least, the club is at a minimum partially responsible in all this. And with SAFC being MY club, I am more upset about that than the PFA or police, as I have no allegiance to either of the latter. I feel let down by the club on this.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't have misled the club, they will just have implied a threat to them.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Maybe, maybe not, but again it's speculation, not fact. If a confidentiality agreement was in place though, they could have said that. But they didn't.

And if Johnson was happy enough for all the information to be given to the club, why would he object to the same information being passed on to someone else? Again, speculation.

I suppose my stance is innocent until proven guilty and the club haven't been proven to be guilty of anything up to yet. If that changes I think there will be more than just me who would change their stance but I'm not prepared to think any person or organisation is guilty of anything based purely on speculation.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you right now it is a fact that what a client discusses / happens with their legal representative is completely confidential.

When I have been in legal meetings with clients if I even told my mates about what was discussed later in the pub I would have lost my job. You can't disclose shit unless your client tells you to. The guidelines around legal confidentiality are probably the strictest around, maybe medical confidentiality is stricter, I'm not sure.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
This is mind-boggling.

People can cut and slice it all they like. It's really obvious what's happened to everyone other than than those who are going to great lengths to convince themselves otherwise.
Click to expand...

I agree. I am not going to argue about it anymore. I have read enough from many different organizations and respectable people and have made my mind up. Massive shame. I have lost a lot of respect for the people who run this club. I don't care if people think that's pathetic. I feel I have decent morals and ethics and I thought my club did too.
 
haway said:
I'll tell you right now it is a fact that what a client discusses / happens with their legal representative is completely confidential.

When I have been in legal meetings with clients if I even told my mates about what was discussed later in the pub I would have lost my job. You can't disclose shit unless your client tells you to. The guidelines around legal confidentiality are probably the strictest around, maybe medical confidentiality is stricter, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
I thought you said you were a student?
 
AlpineExile said:
They wouldn't have misled the club, they will just have implied a threat to them.
Click to expand...

Well if they did that then they should be pillared too. But if that is the case then SAFC should tell us, because everyone would understand why they kept playing him if the PFA had warned it might be illegal if they didn't or whatever. The ball is somewhat in SAFC's court to tell us this if the PFA put them in a difficult position.
 
prehab26 said:
I agree. I am not going to argue about it anymore. I have read enough from many different organizations and respectable people and have made my mind up. Massive shame. I have lost a lot of respect for the people who run this club. I don't care if people think that's pathetic. I feel I have decent morals and ethics and I thought my club did too.
Click to expand...
OK. Bye. Don't let the door hit your ass ... etc.
 
prehab26 said:
Very good is Conn like. Has stuck up for Safc many times in the past too.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's unreasonable at all for the media to ask questions of the club about what they knew, in fact that's what they should be doing.

The way most have presented the story as fact that the club knew he was guilty and played him anyway, while totally sensationalising the whole affair is terrible in my opinion and I hope there are grounds for the club to take legal action.
 
Purrfect South said:
I thought you said you were a student?
Click to expand...

Aye, I am. As I said earlier in the thread I spent 3 years working for a law firm part time in my holidays writing up court proceedings and meetings and basically keeping notes on everything discussed. But obviously I was under the same confidentiality issues.
 
haway said:
Well if they did that then they should be pillared too. But if that is the case then SAFC should tell us, because everyone would understand why they kept playing him if the PFA had warned it might be illegal if they didn't or whatever.
The ball is somewhat in SAFC's court to tell us this if the PFA put them in a difficult position.
Click to expand...

The ball is also in SAFC's court to ignore those asking them to jump to their tune.
 
haway said:
QC would have confidentiality agreements I would have thought. Can only release exactly what AJ says to I would have thought.
Click to expand...

Sure I read somewhere that AJ had waived his right to confidentiality regarding that meeting in order for the transcripts to be used as evidence, with respect to the club being informed. This might only apply to during the trial and not give his QC free reign to discuss things more broadly but then if that is true surely the same applies to SAFC and they can't discuss details of this meeting either, which is exactly what we're all asking them to do?
 
haway said:
I'll tell you right now it is a fact that what a client discusses / happens with their legal representative is completely confidential.

When I have been in legal meetings with clients if I even told my mates about what was discussed later in the pub I would have lost my job. You can't disclose shit unless your client tells you to. The guidelines around legal confidentiality are probably the strictest around, maybe medical confidentiality is stricter, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

The QC wasn't asked to release any documents to the Guardian though. They've been asked if Sunderland knew about the full details of the offences, which is what is being claimed. How does answering yes or no to that break confidentiality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top