• 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.
Crook Mackem said:
If it was me,the more people wanted to know the more likely I'd be to keep quiet. I'd maybe release a statement saying "it appears everyone has made their minds up about what the football club knows or doesnt know so there is no need for us to comment any further on the matter. Ps go fuck yourselves "
Click to expand...
Imagine that? *scenes* :lol::lol::lol:
 

KGC83 said:
Thought Johnson was your mate? You should tell him how much of a **** he is if so.
Click to expand...

Why do you think my reaction is so significant?

That and the fact I genuinely believe the club knew of the allegations with a little more substance but choose to let it play out till trial.

I think that is their error of judgement. A big one.
 
Reiver said:
Don't be so humble, you've made a huge contribution.

Anyway, if people want to debate a serious subject, in whatever way, I'm sure you wouldn't want to deny them that privilege.

It's been remarkably peaceful and reasonable since the shouty people wore themselves to a standstill.
Click to expand...
After 300 pages even I'm starting to get bored, which is surprising as usually I love debates like these.

Going to get it out of my head now so I can just enjoy the match tomorrow (if it actually goes our way ;))
 
sidneyeric said:
Good job he did, he was innocent of 1 of them...
Click to expand...

The prosecution were unable to prove guilt, that's not quite the same thing, and it doesn't alter the fact that maintaining his innocence on all charges for 11 months when he knew he was guilty of at least 2 resulted in unnecessary damage to the victim
 
prehab26 said:
Why do you think my reaction is so significant?

That and the fact I genuinely believe the club knew of the allegations with a little more substance but choose to let it play out till trial.

I think that is their error of judgement. A big one.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have a clue mate. The whole thing reeks and he's dragged the name of this club right through the mud.
 
Reiver said:
It's sad that you should feel you have to add that disclaimer.

There are too many who are ready to pounce on any alternative view and brand people 'AJ sympathisers'.
Click to expand...

I would not necessarily consider my thoughts the "alternative view" as I would consider myself a reasonable and balanced individual, who is able to look at things objectively.

Regarding my "disclaimer", a lot of people on this board (and in real life) get offended on behalf of other people on various matters, when no offence was originally intended. So in order qualify my viewpoint, I just sometimes have to reiterate the context of my comments / argument. I am not an AJ sympathiser (not that you are accusing me of this), but I am trying to look at the situation in context.
 
prehab26 said:
Mate, have you seen this thead and the amount of replies. I have a life, a son and a family. I am not positing on here for the majority of the day. I don't even recall your username FFS
Click to expand...

No worries. Seeing as you're here I'll remind you. It was when you claimed Sunderland had received info from the police and I posted this link from the Echo.

You must be logged on to see external links


Det Insp Sampson told jurors that on the day of Johnson's arrest she met with SAFC chief exec Margaret Byrne to inform her of the allegations facing the player.

"I disclosed the offences which Mr Johnson had been arrested for, and considered safeguarding for any other young people who may come into contact with him in his role as a professional footballer."

The senior officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed, as Johnson had not been interviewed. What he said in interview was still not disclosed to the club.

Feel free to respond, if you're not too busy that is.
 
theinediblebulk said:
No worries. Seeing as you're here I'll remind you. It was when you claimed Sunderland had received info from the police and I posted this link from the Echo.

You must be logged on to see external links


Det Insp Sampson told jurors that on the day of Johnson's arrest she met with SAFC chief exec Margaret Byrne to inform her of the allegations facing the player.

"I disclosed the offences which Mr Johnson had been arrested for, and considered safeguarding for any other young people who may come into contact with him in his role as a professional footballer."

The senior officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed, as Johnson had not been interviewed. What he said in interview was still not disclosed to the club.

Feel free to respond, if you're not too busy that is.
Click to expand...

I am not too busy. I have literally replied to this same bullshit all f***ing thread! This is one incident. The interview! No one gives a fuck about it. No one is disputing the fact that the police didn't inform the club of the details from the INTERVIEW!

what about all other meetings, been well documented. Not going to go through it again. It's like your post is the stock reply to everything, when in reality it's nowt to do with the majority of allegations. It's pathetic, bordering on insane.
 
bucksoutcast said:
I would not necessarily consider my thoughts the "alternative view" as I would consider myself a reasonable and balanced individual, who is able to look at things objectively.

Regarding my "disclaimer", a lot of people on this board (and in real life) get offended on behalf of other people on various matters, when no offence was originally intended. So in order qualify my viewpoint, I just sometimes have to reiterate the context of my comments / argument. I am not an AJ sympathiser (not that you are accusing me of this), but I am trying to look at the situation in context.
Click to expand...

Nor would I mate ...... but they would appear that way to 'the pouncers' if you get my drift ;)

prehab26 said:
I am not too busy. I have literally replied to this same bullshit all f***ing thread! This is one incident. The interview! No one gives a fuck about it. No one is disputing the fact that the police didn't inform the club of the details from the INTERVIEW!

what about all other meetings, been well documented. Not going to go through it again. It's like your post is the stock reply to everything, when in reality it's nowt to do with the majority of allegations. It's pathetic, bordering on insane.
Click to expand...

Some people have though.
 
10 Gary Rowells said:
Had he been removed from being played should he have been paid? That's £60k a week for doing nothing for probably 18 months. I'm not saying he shouldn't be but it's not at all straight forward. It's so easy in hindsight but not at the time. Don't forget the PFA were keen on the suspension being lifted and Johnson and his legal team were saying not guilty.
Click to expand...
His wage isn't dependent on playing, merely his employment. If I was suspended from work pending a trial I'd get full pay under my contract, why wouldn't he?
 
Anyway, people have had their say. In the hands of media and pressure towards the club. Bollocks to it.

Still want my club to win tomorrow. Even though I want Byrne out.
 
theinediblebulk said:
No worries. Seeing as you're here I'll remind you. It was when you claimed Sunderland had received info from the police and I posted this link from the Echo.

You must be logged on to see external links


Det Insp Sampson told jurors that on the day of Johnson's arrest she met with SAFC chief exec Margaret Byrne to inform her of the allegations facing the player.

"I disclosed the offences which Mr Johnson had been arrested for, and considered safeguarding for any other young people who may come into contact with him in his role as a professional footballer."

The senior officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed, as Johnson had not been interviewed. What he said in interview was still not disclosed to the club.

Feel free to respond, if you're not too busy that is.
Click to expand...
I think the police have fucked this up, they've got the dates wrong.
 
Reiver said:
Nor would I mate ...... but they would appear that way to 'the pouncers' if you get my drift ;)



Some people have though.
Click to expand...

Well I havnt. And most havnt. So let's not carry this on. Just sick of this shit reply. All the time. It's like it's the only thing people are clinging onto. I don't care about that. Most don't. It's not relevant. It's not what the club have been asked to answer. People are using it as a simple get out of jail card.

Fuck, getting involved again. Right no more.
 
prehab26 said:
I am not too busy. I have literally replied to this same bullshit all f***ing thread! This is one incident. The interview! No one gives a fuck about it. No one is disputing the fact that the police didn't inform the club of the details from the INTERVIEW!

what about all other meetings, been well documented. Not going to go through it again. It's like your post is the stock reply to everything, when in reality it's nowt to do with the majority of allegations. It's pathetic, bordering on insane.
Click to expand...


Your exact words were "I absolutely believe the Durham Police force when they say they met with Byrne on May 4th and allegations were discussed in detail. That's forgetting everything else that links to his being absolutely true."

Yet the cops said "The senior officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed, as Johnson had not been interviewed. What he said in interview was still not disclosed to the club."

I suppose with all the speculation swirling around you just got a bit confused over what had actually been said. Fair enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top