• 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.
I'm Spartacus said:
Why??? In that scenario we played a someone who we knew to be a sex offender. Now if you're not happy with that. You shouldn't be happy with the points he won us. It would be a kick in the face of all victims of sexual abuse.
Click to expand...
How would that even work? The club have done nothing to breach any rules or laws so punishing them with points deduction would be ridiculous.

That's not to say they have acted in the correct way.
 

geordiedean said:
His initial is an A really?

That is his actual name a username on a forum is created and can be changed at any point

Your comparisons there are daft really
Click to expand...
They aren't daft, why should he change something he's had for years because of the actions of one man.
I'm no supporter of @johnson and we've had our run ins but to call him what you did because of a user name on a message board is a disgrace
 
mutley said:
Me neither, but I'm pretty sure legally the club have dealt with this correctly because despite what you may think of Byrne that's exactly what she is,a legal expert.
Click to expand...
I agree mate, legally we'll be fine.
I just don't see how Byrne's job is tenable if she has seen evidence that Johnson could be guilty and still allowed him to play.
If she didn't see any evidence, then for her sake as much as anyone's she should come out and say so.
 
Morny said:
:lol: it was at least heavily implied if not stated (and it was, considering everyone has been left with that impression). It was also implied that the club had copies of all the messages pertaining to the case.

If the implication was incorrect, I'm confident the club (who in its current form isn't backwards in coming forwards) would have strongly denied it, not glossed over it.




Some things are more important than football mate.
Click to expand...

Given that it was raised in court by the defence QC in his questioning of the defendant, do you not agree that it would have been in their mutual interest to not just imply something but to make to very clear that the club knew of his guilt, if indeed they did?

I agree the club statement is ambiguous but most of what I've seen quoted from the defence testimony falls short of the saying that SAFC either knew he was guilty or knew he would plead guilty. If the defence were able to make this claim then the QC's questioning and AJ responses would have done so, in my opinion. The QC doesn't just wake up that morning and think up a few questions for his lead defence witness on the spot, they're carefully crafted to push the agenda they want without knowingly asking the defendant to lie.
 
Morse said:
Not at all. AJ is responsible for this and will spend the rest of his life in torment one way or another.

Essentially, I'm objecting to the use of emotive language like nonce etc. This is purely a case of sex with a girl who was a few weeks from being legally able to make an informed choice, it's not molestation in my book. Denmark - legal. UK - he's labelled a 'child molester'.

The EU should look into raising the age to 18 IMO. At the very least, the whole thing needs a review.
Click to expand...
In Denmark they take into account the age of the man and his position and influence. It's not simply a case of any man can have sex with a 15 yrs old.
 
geordiedean said:
Vast vast difference between an immature 16 or 17 year old having sex with a 15 yr old compared to a 28 yr old bloke with a high profile and a community responsibility who has a stunning wife who's just had his child

It's as if you're making excuses for this fuckers behaviour...he set out to lure groom and use this girl for his own perverted gratification over a period of time using who he was in her eyes to accomplish it

I still maintain that the thick **** has probably tried this before on many occasions and I wouldn't be surprised as is like many sex cases that other supposed victims now hit the press
Click to expand...

What does it matter if his wife is stunning? Would you consider my wife is a minger extenuating circumstances for this crime?
 
Gaz said:
Sorry but how can you class drink driving and killing someone as "a moment of stupidity"?
Click to expand...

I was referring to that it was 1 moment not pre meditated over nearly 3 months. That in no means is condoning Hughes grossly horrific crime to which he was punished and served his time

The difference is Hughes didn't set out to crash his car and kill someone. Johnson set out to groom lure and violate this girl
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaz
geordiedean said:
You actually think Johnsons behaviour was equally on par with Bartons or unsure if it's not even as bad

And yes she was a child she was 1 month over being 14

And you say I'm mental
Click to expand...
Top trumps mate. Whose worse? Jimmy Saville or Harold Shipman.

When you were 15 and I had Natalie Umbruglia ready to sit on your lap or Vinnie Jones ready to make you half blind. What would you choose?
 
johnson said:
The only time he was ever gulity of sexual abuse was when he walked into court and pled guilty, that was the first time in whole of the 12 months or whatever it was, not a day before that.

And as soon as he did that, he was sacked

Simple.
Click to expand...

That's a shite argument, because if she had seen the raft of evidence, he should have been nowhere near the club until it was resolved. Far too serious as we can see now. A sex offender prancing around the field with kids cheering him on. Sorry, not for me.
 
prehab26 said:
The independent absolutely rinsing Byrne here

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

Really, I've had bigger rinses in the shower.

Di Canio man :rolleyes:

They're claiming she 'knew of' the messages not that she'd seen them.

I could be wrong tbh, I can't be arsed to plough through all these copycat articles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top