• 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.

Sunderland Echo pathetic. On Facebook they have printed the front page letter and have recieved mixed comments so they have decided oclnce again to delete the discussion. They've done that several times now in the last 48 hours
 
haway said:
Got a linky?

Because it was alleged they had read them. That was the allegation, that it was explicitly whatsapps and police station interviews that they knew about. So if they haven't read them ... they should deny it.

If by 'immediately' they actually read them, then will you accept SAFC fucked up on this? I think maybe part of our disagreement here is that you are taking immediately to be a cast iron defence they didn't read them. To me, you could say you passed something on 'immediately' while photocopying it first, or reading it first. Immediately might also be passing something on the next time you see a person which is a week later. Immediately to me is a weasel word to not actually explain how long they had it for/ if they read it.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. It was alleged that they were in possession of them.

Here's your linky.....
You must be logged on to see external links


:lol:
 
janiep said:
That a 15 year old girl can in any way or to any extent be responsible for a sexual crime committed against her. She cannot.

I'm sorry for your experience. I too told no-one for many years. I know all too well how it wrecks the psyche. I hope you have found peace and reconciliation with your past - again, I know from experience how hard this is. The thing that got me through it, many years after the event, was counselling. PM if you ever want to talk about it, or share thoughts on recovery and moving on. And go well.

FTM.
Click to expand...

I understand, and I agree. I can be a bit thoughtless in how I phrase things at times, I'm all too aware of that and I hope you believe that I would never intentionally blame a 15 year old for having a sexual crime committed against her/him, never.

Thanks for your kind words. I'm doing OK, I sort of found a place where I haven't forgotten what happened, but don't let it dominate my life. It has probably affected my sex life a bit if I'm honest, but that's probably too much information for a message board. :p

Sometimes I say and indeed post things where I really should consider my words a lot more tactfully and carefully, especially cases like this one. There are subjects that are deeply sensitive and comments can affect people very deeply. I'm so sorry for your experiences, and I regret any offence I caused you. I hope you won't hold it against me. Again - my deepest apologies. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong! I f@cked up.
 
Must be bored said:
The reason I say I'd give them the benefit of the doubt is that the club said the documents they received were passed immediately on, to me that suggests they weren't read. I accept that doesn't address your second point but without knowing the context of how they received the information it doesn't automatically mean they sat with their fingers in their ears and covering their eyes to avoid the evidence in front of them. Either way, as I said, the club don't come out of this well at all.

We're able to pick apart the club's statement because it's there in writing, I don't know if there's a full transcript of the allegations AJ and his QC made regarding the club, if there is I haven't seen it, but I imagine it could be picked apart and found to have as many holes/questions as the clubs statement. I prefer to give the benefit of doubt to the spin statement from SAFC ahead of that of a desperate, lying, child sex offender
Click to expand...

or what the documents were. Could it have been connor whickhams print outs. It could have been anything we don't know but ive always been told that assumption leads to disappointments. if there was 284 pages of from whats app or whatever and records of interview I very much doubt they would have been read by anybody during that meeting.
 
GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
Sunderland Echo pathetic. On Facebook they have printed the front page letter and have recieved mixed comments so they have decided oclnce again to delete the discussion. They've done that several times now in the last 48 hours
Click to expand...
I thought that was just my iPad or me Internet playing up, glad it's not just me. Your right though it's pathetic.
 
haway said:
Got a linky?

Because it was alleged they had read them. That was the allegation, that it was explicitly whatsapps and police station interviews that they knew about. So if they haven't read them ... they should deny it.

If by 'immediately' they actually read them, then will you accept SAFC fucked up on this? I think maybe part of our disagreement here is that you are taking immediately to be a cast iron defence they didn't read them. To me, you could say you passed something on 'immediately' while photocopying it first, or reading it first. Immediately might also be passing something on the next time you see a person which is a week later. Immediately to me is a weasel word to not actually explain how long they had it for/ if they read it.
Click to expand...
There is one meaning for the word "immediately".
 
johnson said:
Yes it does

what if he was innocent?

The police are the prosecution, they aren't right 100% of the time, are we just meant to take their word that he is guilty

You are only guilty once the jury and judge have convincted him

You HAVE to apply the same criteria IMO to both scenarios. If Johnson had been found not guilty, what we have as many questioning SAFC, probably not, says it all.
Click to expand...

By May it was inconceivable that he was innocent of the less serious charges - so much so that Jonson pleaded guilty to them based on the evidence that SAFC were aware of in May. SAFC didn't have to take the word of the police they could take the word of Johnson's own QC with regards to 650 whats app text messages between a 27 year old bloke and a year 10 girl. They knew at that stage that Johnson had been kissing her and been asking her for pictures without her bikini and for more next time etc. Sunderland should definitely not have had Johnson representing the club on the pitch from that stage. Fair enough initially when SAFC weren't aware of the content but from May they were.
 
Purrfect South said:
You're wrong. He's a sexual offender, not a paedophile, however much your brain wants to label him as such.
If we don't learn to differentiate between the 2, then we do a disservice to those really tiny bairns who suffer daily at the hands of clinically depraved paedophiles.
This is still a horrible crime, but let's put it in its proper context.
Click to expand...

Is he not classed legally as a paedophile? I'm not sure of the definition
 
Morse said:
You're right, but the idea of a 17 year old having sexual encounters seems more palatable than 15 IMO. I can't fathom how a youngster can be deemed incapable of voting or drinking, but can make a decision about their bodies that could stay with them for life and even create a child.

It's warped IMO.
Click to expand...

The fact is that girls mature sexually much younger than they used to and many at the age of 15 are involved in sexual relationships with people of a similar age and the law doesn't really do anything to prevent this and I'm not sure it could. I watched a documentary about the creator of the Segway recently and he's working on a device that purifies any water to medical grade water that can be injected. In the documentary he says that there are trace amounts of hormones left in the water supply that aren't removed by the water companies because of the amount of people taking the contraceptive pill and this leads to girls going through puberty much earlier than they used to.

Anyway I'm getting off the point, setting an arbitrary age at which girls can decide for themselves whether to engage in sexual activity is not a straightforward thing to do, the current laws were put in place to protect children from being prostituted when they were under 16 I believe. There are a lot of reasonable but difficult debate's that can be had.

Morally it could be argued that a 28 year old man should not be having sexual relationships with a 17 year old girl and you would have to take their level of maturity into account etc.

What is simple in this case is that the law has set a legal age of 16 and Johnson knew that but decided to proceed with the activity anyway. He knew he was breaking the law and deserves any punishment that he has coming to him, he can't really have any complaints and I certainly have no sympathy for him.
 
Must be bored said:
The reason I say I'd give them the benefit of the doubt is that the club said the documents they received were passed immediately on, to me that suggests they weren't read. I accept that doesn't address your second point but without knowing the context of how they received the information it doesn't automatically mean they sat with their fingers in their ears and covering their eyes to avoid the evidence in front of them. Either way, as I said, the club don't come out of this well at all.

We're able to pick apart the club's statement because it's there in writing, I don't know if there's a full transcript of the allegations AJ and his QC made regarding the club, if there is I haven't seen it, but I imagine it could be picked apart and found to have as many holes/questions as the clubs statement. I prefer to give the benefit of doubt to the spin statement from SAFC ahead of that of a desperate, lying, child sex offender
Click to expand...

Indeed, and I would have been prepared if they'd clarified things properly in their statement. However, at the moment I'm skeptical of MB's role with the way things have transpired.

Why didn't they clarify everything in their statement if they don't have something to hide/have ballsed up somewhere?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top