• 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.
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...

Maybes he could visit him in prison, take his son along, obviously teach him a few more swear words apart from shit and bugger and get him to shout obscenities at him.
 

prehab26 said:
I don't know why. The only single organization who don't suggest it is the club who have to answer the questions. What a surprise. :lol:
Click to expand...

The only ones making these claims are the press and that's based on an exchange made during Johnson's trial designed to lead the jury to believe that he had no fear of losing his job if he pleaded guilty. Without having any evidence to back this up.
 
TopCat said:
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
Click to expand...
How could they know he was guilty. He's only been found guilty this week, and didn't announce his plea on the other charges until day one of the trial. It's not rocket science.
 
Reiver said:
The paper know if the club has refused to answer these 10 questions or not, it can't be simply a genuinely held belief.

They either have or have not refused to reply.

It the paper is lying then it's libel isn't it?

Why would loss of income come into it?
Click to expand...

Yes it's a genuinely held belief because the paper believe that (even if the club don't / didn't). It's their point of view.
If the paper lies, it's libel yes, but you can no longer sue for just a lie (due to changes in The Defamation Act)
The reason why financial loss comes into it, it because in order to sue for defamation (libel) you have to prove you have suffered (or are likely to suffer) considerable financial loss.

From the defamation act:
1Serious harm
(1)A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.

(2)For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
 
Purrfect South said:
How could they know he was guilty. He's only been found guilty this week, and didn't announce his plea on the other charges until day one of the trial. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...
Oh my God, how naive are you?

He pleaded guilty to 2 charges. These charges were backed up by huge evidence - 1. Message Transcripts and 2. Johnson's own admissions
Those charges were enough for the club to sack him, even though they knew about it in May last year.
 
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...

The. Police. Didn't. Meet. With. The. Club. On. May 4th. Not from any reports that I've seen anyway.

That meeting was between Johnson, his dad, his QC and Bryne for part of the meeting.

It was an introductory meeting with Johnson's QC in which Johnson and his legal team.
 
Dogbark said:
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).
Click to expand...

I am disputing the wording of the question posed to SAFC?
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?

I do not think during this meeting he admitted grooming? But he might have admitted exchanging correspondence - which is significantly different?
 
prehab26 said:
I agree mate. That's why I think the club should have been accurate and clear with their statement. No doubt about it in anyway. They weren't.
Click to expand...

I understand your's and others position on it and where you're coming from in regards to clarity in the club's statement.

My position is I'm going to presume the club is innocent of knowing the full extent of the offences and genuinely thought Johnson was telling the truth to them. If anything turns up that proves them to be guilty, I'll have a completely different position at that point and so will everyone else. Hope you can understand where myself and others are coming from.
 
Rober33 said:
The. Police. Didn't. Meet. With. The. Club. On. May 4th. Not from any reports that I've seen anyway.

That meeting was between Johnson, his dad, his QC and Bryne for part of the meeting.

It was an introductory meeting with Johnson's QC in which Johnson and his legal team.
Click to expand...

I have accepted that if you read my other replies.
 
Purrfect South said:
How could they know he was guilty. He's only been found guilty this week, and didn't announce his plea on the other charges until day one of the trial. It's not rocket science.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, and that's why an employer is between a rock and a hard place when this happens.
If they sack him - and he turns out to be innocent, they're in the wrong.
If they give him the benefit of the doubt and he turns out to be guilty, they're in the wrong.

Strangely they can still sack someone if he's bringing the business into disrepute, or strangely, if there is enough 3rd party pressure (sponsors / clients etc) to sack him. Legally that's considered a valid reason for dismissal.
For SAFC though, never of those would have been grounds (they might have had a weak case for disrepute at best).
 
theinediblebulk said:
I understand your's and others position on it and where you're coming from in regards to clarity in the club's statement.

My position is I'm going to presume the club is innocent of knowing the full extent of the offences and genuinely thought Johnson was telling the truth to them. If anything turns up that proves them to be guilty, I'll have a completely different position at that point and so will everyone else. Hope you can understand where myself and others are coming from.
Click to expand...

Fair enough mate. Have a nice evening. Good debate.

Rober33 said:
Good stuff, playing catch up because I thought I'd pretend to have a life for an hour ;)
Click to expand...

I am fucked to be honest. Just waiting for my little 12 week year old lad to go to kip before hitting the hay!
 
bucksoutcast said:
I am disputing the wording of the question posed to SAFC?
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?

I do not think during this meeting he admitted grooming? But he might have admitted exchanging correspondence - which is significantly different?
Click to expand...
Who claimed he admitted grooming during the may 4 meeting?
 
TopCat said:
Oh my God, how naive are you?

He pleaded guilty to 2 charges. These charges were backed up by huge evidence - 1. Message Transcripts and 2. Johnson's own admissions
Those charges were enough for the club to sack him, even though they knew about it in May last year.
Click to expand...
It's not me who's naive. He told the club that he would fight the charges as he was innocent of them all. He claimed he'd only texted her, and kissed her in an innocent manner, and that she was lying about the rest. He didn't plead guilty until the trial started, which came out of the blue, and the club sacked him straight away.
Just because he faced charges, it doesn't mean he was guilty. There's been a few similar cases where the defendant has been acquitted. You can't just make assumptions about these things. The club agreed with the police to put safety measures in place, but that legally was all they had to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top