• 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.
FanchesterCity said:
It's an interesting one that...
You could for instance envisage a club saying on it's website and other media 'Our players are strictly forbidden in engaging in any activity outside of officially sanctioned activities organised or approved by the club' - but how would that look? it would reek of 'because we can't trust the buggers' or at least 'because we're a domineering sort of club who wants to control everything'. And even then, it would massively reduce the number of activities the club could send representatives to.

You can add to that by then looking at the repercussions of such a policy... even if the club officially sanctions that a former player / club representative visits a s
Click to expand...

A club would never get any players signing for it with those stipulations.
 

KNGHTHOOD said:
Say they did know, and Johnson said he was going to deny everything, how could they not let him play. They weren't in a position to say, No, Johnson we think you are guilty. If he had been found not guilty, Sunderland would of been took to the cleaners. The club were in a no win situation.
Click to expand...
They could and should have suspended him.
 
There is no reason why the club would / should have been given the police interview transcipts / whats apps evidence. Can understand the club if given these would pass on straight away given a legal process was underway.

to suspend AJ on full pay would still deny him earnings around appearance / goal bonus and damage his commercial income so open the club up to claims
 
Thinks this best sums everything up
The official line from Sunderland Football Club remains: 'We thought Adam Johnson was going to plead not guilty.'

Ask yourself this, however. Armed with the information that your employee HAD committed child sex offences, would you then support them in their bid to cheat justice?


Read more:
You must be logged on to see external links

Follow us: Invalid/outdated Link Removed | Invalid/outdated Link Removed
 
redandwhiterob said:
I'm not the one whose telling people they shouldn't be posting a opinion on a public forum ffs:lol:
Click to expand...

What a snide little creep of a man you are.

You posted this shite at lunchtime yesterday and I challenged you to back it up knowing you couldn't. You follow me around saying things you never back up and then slink off like the weasel you are. You put yourself up as some kind of sensible voice of reason but you're just a hypocrite and a fake.

Don't bother responding with your usual sly drivel, smilies and cracks about Jimmy Hill.

If you had anything about you there'd be a dignified response, an admittance you're wrong or an apology but you're simply not capable.
At best there'll be more snide comments and smilies which is all you can usually manage. As long as you can run off to your sad little pals and get a pat on the head, and likes from the usual obvious knackers, you're happy.

I've apologised numerous times, on here, because I'm twice the man you are ...... so enjoy your day, I'm off to the match with other decent people :cool:
 
Total complete and utter *****. And that's not a word I like to use.
 
The Beautiful Game said:
The sun using paedo in their headline again :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"Several family members visited him on Thursday, the day after he had been found guilty of serious sexual activity with a 15-year-old schoolgirl."

I've not paid much attention so have no real idea ........ is this true, serious sexual activity?
 
The Beautiful Game said:
The sun using paedo in their headline again :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This.

What Johnson done was unacceptable, idiotic and immoral, he has brought this on himself aye, but when the media brandish the word "Paedophile" to people who have sexual relations with teenagers, its incorrect. A paedophile is someone who has a abnormal sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children.

Johnson is an idiot, he is a sex offender and he's done something disgraceful. But he's not a paedophile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dogbark said:
Who claimed he admitted grooming during the may 4 meeting?
Click to expand...

The Sunderland Echo.
Here is the first of 10 questions the Echo has put to the club.
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?
Read more:
You must be logged on to see external links


Based on my limited knowledge of the case, I am suggesting that this is a loaded question. During this meeting he might have admitted sending messages, which is different to admitting he had groomed her. Therefore, I do not think he admitted grooming during the May 4th meeting and I do not think the Sunderland Echo believe this either, they are just trying to create headlines.
 
MrOompapa said:
This.

What Johnson done was unacceptable, idiotic and immoral, he has brought this on himsefl aye, but when the media brandish the word "Paedophile" to people who have sexual relations with teenagers, its incorrect. A paedophile is someone who has a abnormal sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children.

Johnson is an idiot, he is a sex offender and he's done something disgraceful. But he's not a paedophile.
Click to expand...
It's ridiculous how far the media is taking this
 
Why did the sun not report on these crimes when they happened because I read it as November not last night. Oh yeah they couldn't of used incorrectly the term paedo then. But that doesn't matter it gets a few clicks and sells an extra 3 copies in the local shop

DufraisFTM said:
Sub human scum.
Click to expand...
The sun actually manages to get itself lower than a sex offender or murderer with every passing day.quite a remarkable trait
 
MrOompapa said:
This.

What Johnson done was unacceptable, idiotic and immoral, he has brought this on himself aye, but when the media brandish the word "Paedophile" to people who have sexual relations with teenagers, its incorrect. A paedophile is someone who has a abnormal sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children.

Johnson is an idiot, he is a sex offender and he's done something disgraceful. But he's not a paedophile.
Click to expand...

Disagree. She had just turned 15. That's a bairn to a 28 year old man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top