• 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.
ChrisAshley said:
So not angry at the 28 year old man who was texting, flirting, kissing, fingering a 15 year old while he had a lass and kid then, like I said, very strange.

What's her being 16 got to do with it?
Click to expand...

You are angry..be angry with him tho...not the club.....even though she liked it
 

Maximus said:
Why? Is it going to say AJ's arrest did have something to do with her?

Is this what the echo does to sell papers? - hope the ***** end up like the Sun on Merseyside.
Click to expand...
It's going to say that if the club knew about Johnson's guilt and still let him play then they need to give us some answers
 
theinediblebulk said:
He's claimed that the meeting took place between the police and the club on May 4th when the cops gave details to the club, yet the only mention I can find of a May 4th meeting is between Johnson, his dad, his QC and some of the time, Byrne. Not one mention of the police. He hasn't bothered to respond, and doubt he will, but it's f***ing annoying that you've him banging on about wanting the truth to be known while at the same time talking complete shit. If he was that bothered about the truth being known, and I think everyone is in that camp, there's no problem for him to post a link to where he got his information from. The fact he hasn't leads me to believe he's more bothered about using this as a stick to beat Byrne with, which I think is proper petty-minded behavior.



Can't say I have but I'll probably be paying a bit more attention to it now. Hate it when people just talk complete shit, get pulled on it, and don't respond. f***ing cowardly behavior imo.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I made a mistake on this earlier and the @The Cabbage correctly pulled me up on it.

May 4th onwards, my point still stands. I am far from a coward mate. I have responded over 20 times on this thead. It is now past midnight so apologies for my constant reply..

I am done on this but just thought I would clear the air here.
 
Reiver said:
This absolute bellend of a parent has just made his child's next weeks at school an absolute nightmare.

What a totally irresponsible thing to do for the sake of attention seeking.

Logon or register to see this image
Click to expand...

poor by both the parent and the hack that took the story and the editor for allowing that bollocks to be published to readers.
 
TopCat said:
The fact is that the club knew of his guilt. It has been raised in court and confirmed by the police. Add to that , the fact that the club have deliberately ignored this allegation in their statement tells you all you need to know
Click to expand...

It isn't a fact whichever was you change the words around .... the police can't state that people are guilty until they're pronounced guilty by a court.

That's one of the basic precepts of English law which you can't just change to back up your argument.
 
FanchesterCity said:
There is a difference between 'The details of the allegation were discussed in detail' (meaning the nitty gritty) and 'the allegations were discussed in detail' - meaning the allegations were made known and discussed about in detail'.

For instance, if I say 'The details of my illness were discussed' - that means you know the ins and outs of the illness. But 'My illness was discussed in detail' means there was a lot of talk about my illness (even if they don't know WHICH illness I have).

So if the police inform the club that there's been an allegation of a sexual offence with a minor, the discussions of what that means for safeguarding, any suspicions in the past, and times and dates etc can be detailed all without knowing the intimate nature of the allegation.
Click to expand...

Your missing the point mate. He said the meeting took place on May 4th, when the meeting on May 4th was between Johnson, his dad, his Qc and for some of the time Byrne. The only meeting between the police and the club that I can find is the one on March 2nd when the club were told about Johnson's arrest. As for what details were passed from the police to the club, here it is once again from the lead f***ing detective.

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.

You must be logged on to see external links


If anyone can provide a link that contradicts this, and shows a later meeting took place between Sunderland and the police where the police gave details, like has been claimed, I'll hold my hands up and say sorry, you are right. But up to yet, no-one has.
 
Reiver said:
It isn't a fact whichever was you change the words around .... the police can't state that people are guilty until they're pronounced guilty by a court.

That's one of the basic precepts of English law which you can't just change to back up your argument.
Click to expand...

well said, running around in circles here
 
prehab26 said:
Sorry. I made a mistake on this earlier and the @The Cabbage correctly pulled me up on it.

May 4th onwards, my point still stands. I am far from a coward mate. I have responded over 20 times on this thead. It is now past midnight so apologies for my constant reply..

I am done on this but just thought I would clear the air here.
Click to expand...

"He was an alleged sex offender in which the club were told, by police without doubt on May 4th. That SHOULD have been enough for him to not appear again."

Third time I've asked you this,

I know you've said you keep missing posts so I thought I'd ask again as it's an important point. "So, on the eve of the derby, some girl alleges half the Sunderland team sexually abused her and you're stating you want them to be suspended indefinitely."
 
theinediblebulk said:
Your missing the point mate. He said the meeting took place on May 4th, when the meeting on May 4th was between Johnson, his dad, his Qc and for some of the time Byrne. The only meeting between the police and the club that I can find is the one on March 2nd when the club were told about Johnson's arrest. As for what details were passed from the police to the club, here it is once again from the lead f***ing detective.

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.

You must be logged on to see external links


If anyone can provide a link that contradicts this, and shows a later meeting took place between Sunderland and the police where the police gave details, like has been claimed, I'll hold my hands up and say sorry, you are right. But up to yet, no-one has.
Click to expand...

Refer to my earlier post. Mis communication on my part. The May 4th meeting did not include the police.
 
Reiver said:
It isn't a fact whichever was you change the words around .... the police can't state that people are guilty until they're pronounced guilty by a court.

That's one of the basic precepts of English law which you can't just change to back up your argument.
Click to expand...
Ok. So there are some facts about the case that are irrefutable. Firstly he groomed the girl. It has been confirmed by 3 different sources that the club received transcripts of the messages between Johnson and the girl. That is evidence and fact of grooming. He also pleaded guilty. Secondly, he told the police he kissed her (even disputing that this was sexual activity!) The Police have confirmed (along with the defence and the prosecution) that he told the club this.

This is surely enough for the club to take some action? Are you really defending them?
 
prehab26 said:
He was an alleged sex offender in which the club were told, by police without doubt on May 4th. That SHOULD have been enough for him to not appear again.

waste of time. It really is.
Click to expand...
How many games did you attend knowing an alleged sex offender would be playing?
 
Reiver said:
"He was an alleged sex offender in which the club were told, by police without doubt on May 4th. That SHOULD have been enough for him to not appear again."

Third time I've asked you this,

I know you've said you keep missing posts so I thought I'd ask again as it's an important point. "So, on the eve of the derby, some girl alleges half the Sunderland team sexually abused her and you're stating you want them to be suspended indefinitely."
Click to expand...

That's a realistic scenario like isn't it Rev.

If it was an actuall real life incident then yes I would want the players not to involved mate. Football is far behind alleged sex offences.
 
bucksoutcast said:
I am not wasting my time reading all the questions, but based on Question 1 the questions seem very loaded:-
Question 1 - Adam Johnson said in his trial that during a meeting with Margaret Byrne on May 4, 2015, he admitted grooming and kissing a 15-year-old girl. Do the club accept this happened?

What was disclosed in court, is that he advised SAFC that he had kissed her (IIRC he might have even mentioned he had kissed her "passionately"). But I do not think during that meeting he would have categorically stated that he had intentionally "groomed her", it would have been more of a case of him telling the club that he had communication with her via social media.

Therefore based on the "loaded" nature of the first question, as a commercial enterprise, I would think that there questioning was not based on "facts", but more to do with "headlines" and "moral outrage", therefore as a business organisation I would not entertain their request???
Click to expand...
He didn't admit grooming. The grooming claim comes from the whatsapp messages that Johnson supposedly gave to the club.

He just said that he kissed her (not passionately).
 
prehab26 said:
Refer to my earlier post. Mis communication on my part. The May 4th meeting did not include the police.
Click to expand...

No worries. Apologies myself if I offended you but everyone wants the truth, and it is a highly emotive matter, and it doesn't do any one any good when speculation starts getting bandied about as fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top