Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[SafcForeverFTM]

BBC Look Toon are still going on about wanting answers from the club ffs. Go to f***ing hell.

 

[bahtat]

A big chunk of the delay was caused by Adam Johnson requesting the trial be moved away from the north east, though, as one of his delaying tactics, to keep trousering the £60k per week.

Not true both prosecution and defence argued that a fair trial could not take place in NE

 

[Cockney Mackem]

FFS, he's hardly going to fess up to the club. He and his representatives would have done there utmost to portray this as 'trivial' and not likely to end up where we are now to ensure there client is not being prejudged.

All the more reason to wonder why the club, in their statement addressing allegations made in court, did not deny it.

 

[McMackem]

A big chunk of the delay was caused by Adam Johnson requesting the trial be moved away from the north east, though, as one of his delaying tactics, to keep trousering the £60k per week.

damn shame that that is now reflecting badly on the club rather than just him.

 

[Lord Alfred]

FFS, he's hardly going to fess up to the club. He and his representatives would have done there utmost to portray this as 'trivial' and not likely to end up where we are now to ensure there client is not being prejudged.

The suggestion (made by his barrister in court) was that Johnson told the club in that May 4th meeting that he had engaged in grooming and sexual activity. It may have been dressed up to look more innocuous than it really was but a trained lawyer would have known the potential implications of what he'd admitted to.

 

[John J Rambo]

Maybe so but i dont think that information will be forthcoming.
The police will not and will never inform an employer of guilt, that is for legal system to decide, they just form a case based on the evidence and hope for the verdict to match their findings, they will advise of arrest and the charges against the person but never go 'oh aye he done it'.
It is down to Johnson to inform the club and given his record throughout this of lying and squirming and changing his story then i wouldn't use his word as gospel for any grounds of accusation against the club, he's proven himself to be self absorbed and covering himself, why should he protect the club.

See, what you're saying here puts a different spin on it. The police told the club of the charges against him, but he's denied it until he pleaded guilty?

 

[Manny F]

Is no-one on here concerned that, for reasons that aren't clear, there seems to be something of a media campaign underway to establish that there was some kind of wrongdoing on the part of the club?

What is clear is that legally there is no real case for the club to answer, though they may well have been put in an impossible moral quandary through no fault of their own, regardless of what they may or may not have been told in the wake of the arrest.

If an employee tells an employer he is accused of a crime but also tells the employer that on the basis of legal advice he will be pleading not guilty, the employer could respond by saying 'well from what you have told me and/or what I otherwise have managed to find out about the case you do seem pretty guilty to me, so I am going to sack or suspend you anyway'. To do so, however, the employer must consciously at that stage take on the role of judge and jury, based on what they have managed to find out about the case. They must choose to disregard the position taken by an experienced legal team. In this case, it means deciding for themselves, without all the evidence and without hearing any witness testimony, that the accused/victim contact amounted to grooming under the law, which the legal team apparently intended to contest, and that the kiss they were told of amounted to sexual activity in law. If anyone could make such a decision on that basis there would be no need for courts or juries anyway. In any case it seems the accused still had team mates and others at the club broadly accepting, or not objecting to, his 'not guilty' position until he changed it, so it's doubtful he said anything that amounted to a direct admission.

Hindsight is 20:20, and we have since learned that that the full evidence would have justified a suspension at least. But if we go down that road we may as well form mobs and burn down the houses of every person accused of this type of crime if we think their pre-trial denials don't ring true.

More importantly, if an employer did this, the first thing prosecuting counsel would say at trial would be 'you may have denied this but even your own employers wouldn't believe you or the legal team supporting your position. They chose instead to believe you were guilty and acted accordingly by sacking/suspending you'. In other words, it would have been hugely prejudicial to the case to have continued the original suspension.

It makes little difference what evidence is or is not available (unless the employer is a direct witness or has relevant information received, which is not
the case here) or whether the employer's representative is the most venerable criminal lawyer in the country, it is still an almost impossible position, without a guilty plea, until the verdict is in. If they had sacked him and he had subsequently been acquitted, many would have been up in arms about 'due process' and 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'who are they to convict him before a jury does?'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It would be surprising if the media (the BBC and the Daily Mail seem in particular to be pushing this) have not been told by their legal advisers of the difficulties faced by the club in this position but nonetheless they are applying pressure. As we have seen (for example, the offensive and cretinous nonsense written by Luke Edwards in the Telegraph about the derby goal celebration - did any sane lawyer or even sub-editor really read that beforehand?) they do not need any real rhyme or reason to justify anything they write. They probably think, and they seem to be right, that merely posing the questions will be enough to stir up public anger at the club - as it has on this message board.

The club should just have the courage wait this out, they have done nothing that they cannot justify and the whole thing should die a natural death - the media know they only have a short window to stir up mud on the basis of mischief alone and they seem to be going all out to do so.

The Times this morning, for example, says the club have been 'criticised by supporters, [children's] charities and politicians'. Supporters? Only by Sunderland supporters in any numbers as far as is readily visible on the net, apart from the usual mindless football-based abuse. On the forums of other big clubs, if the case is mentioned at all, there seems to be as much sympathy for the club as there is criticism. Charities? well the BBC yesterday wheeled out an NSPCC spokesman whose contribution was laughable, he seemed to know nothing of the specifics of the case, and made light of his own ignorance of who the accused was - 'apparently he's a competent footballer'. Not everyone likes or knows football but a contributor who doesn't watch the news? Unbelievable, but perhaps it deflects attention from Yew Tree. Politicians? MPs will of course queue up to condemn anything they can present as a lapse of duty of care, especially with the safety of hindsight. So where are they? Well OK, a local MP has been quoted as saying there are questions for the club to answer. Fair enough, and if she was paying attention she'd know they have done so. But where was she before the trial? She might not have known the accused told the club he kissed the victim but she did know there was enough evidence for the CPS to go to trial. Did she ask the club precisely what they did know and whether he should he still be playing? Apparently not, like everyone else she kept her head down until the verdict was in - unfortunately for the club last year they weren't able to, they actually had a decision to make.

 

[shepherd88]

damn shame that that is now reflecting badly on the club rather than just him.

How is the case being delayed reflecting badly on the club?

 

[bahtat]

BBC Look Toon are still going on about wanting answers from the club ffs. Go to f***ing hell.

BBC national channels appear to of dropped the story and it's been taken down on their news web sight

 

[Cockney Mackem]

Seems people don't want to hear that though mate. They'd rather think the worst.

Your suggestion that people are looking for a problem where there isn't one doesn't really stack up to the fact that the club was accused of knowing he was guilty and playing him anyway, and has not denied that.

 

[Reiver]

See, what you're saying here puts a different spin on it. The police told the club of the charges against him, but he's denied it until he pleaded guilty?

Were they charges or allegations .......... I thought it was the latter.

 

[DrewC]

Why are a minority still maintaining that club have done nothing wrong? Is it just wilful blindness?

The did nothing wrong legally but morally they might have please read into my comments.....

 

[Reiver]

Your suggestion that people are looking for a problem where there isn't one doesn't really stack up to the fact that the club was accused of knowing he was guilty and playing him anyway, and has not denied that.

Didn't that only become ''a fact' when he changed his plea and was subsequently found guilty?

 

[The Hunt]

I'm just waiting now for all the outrage about an England friendly being played at the Stadium of Light "after what happened with Adam Johnson".

 

[Themig]

Is no-one on here concerned that, for reasons that aren't clear, there seems to be something of a media campaign underway to establish that there was some kind of wrongdoing on the part of the club?

What is clear is that legally there is no real case for the club to answer, though they may well have been put in an impossible moral quandary through no fault of their own, regardless of what they may or may not have been told in the wake of the arrest.

If an employee tells an employer he is accused of a crime but also tells the employer that on the basis of legal advice he will be pleading not guilty, the employer could respond by saying 'well from what you have told me and/or what I otherwise have managed to find out about the case you do seem pretty guilty to me, so I am going to sack or suspend you anyway'. To do so, however, the employer must consciously at that stage take on the role of judge and jury, based on what they have managed to find out about the case. They must choose to disregard the position taken by an experienced legal team. In this case, it means deciding for themselves, without all the evidence and without hearing any witness testimony, that the accused/victim contact amounted to grooming under the law, which the legal team apparently intended to contest, and that the kiss they were told of amounted to sexual activity in law. If anyone could make such a decision on that basis there would be no need for courts or juries anyway. In any case it seems the accused still had team mates and others at the club broadly accepting, or not objecting to, his 'not guilty' position until he changed it, so it's doubtful he said anything that amounted to a direct admission.

Hindsight is 20:20, and we have since learned that that the full evidence would have justified a suspension at least. But if we go down that road we may as well form mobs and burn down the houses of every person accused of this type of crime if we think their pre-trial denials don't ring true.

More importantly, if an employer did this, the first thing prosecuting counsel would say at trial would be 'you may have denied this but even your own employers wouldn't believe you or the legal team supporting your position. They chose instead to believe you were guilty and acted accordingly by sacking/suspending you'. In other words, it would have been hugely prejudicial to the case to have continued the original suspension.

It makes little difference what evidence is or is not available (unless the employer is a direct witness or has relevant information received, which is not
the case here) or whether the employer's representative is the most venerable criminal lawyer in the country, it is still an almost impossible position, without a guilty plea, until the verdict is in. If they had sacked him and he had subsequently been acquitted, many would have been up in arms about 'due process' and 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'who are they to convict him before a jury does?'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It would be surprising if the media (the BBC and the Daily Mail seem in particular to be pushing this) have not been told by their legal advisers of the difficulties faced by the club in this position but nonetheless they are applying pressure. As we have seen (for example, the offensive and cretinous nonsense written by Luke Edwards in the Telegraph about the derby goal celebration - did any sane lawyer or even sub-editor really read that beforehand?) they do not need any real rhyme or reason to justify anything they write. They probably think, and they seem to be right, that merely posing the questions will be enough to stir up public anger at the club - as it has on this message board.

The club should just have the courage wait this out, they have done nothing that they cannot justify and the whole thing should die a natural death - the media know they only have a short window to stir up mud on the basis of mischief alone and they seem to be going all out to do so.

The Times this morning, for example, says the club have been 'criticised by supporters, [children's] charities and politicians'. Supporters? Only by Sunderland supporters in any numbers as far as is readily visible on the net, apart from the usual mindless football-based abuse. On the forums of other big clubs, if the case is mentioned at all, there seems to be as much sympathy for the club as there is criticism. Charities? well the BBC yesterday wheeled out an NSPCC spokesman whose contribution was laughable, he seemed to know nothing of the specifics of the case, and made light of his own ignorance of who the accused was - 'apparently he's a competent footballer'. Not everyone likes or knows football but a contributor who doesn't watch the news? Unbelievable, but perhaps it deflects attention from Yew Tree. Politicians? MPs will of course queue up to condemn anything they can present as a lapse of duty of care, especially with the safety of hindsight. So where are they? Well OK, a local MP has been quoted as saying there are questions for the club to answer. Fair enough, and if she was paying attention she'd know they have done so. But where was she before the trial? She might not have known the accused told the club he kissed the victim but she did know there was enough evidence for the CPS to go to trial. Did she ask the club precisely what they did know and whether he should he still be playing? Apparently not, like everyone else she kept her head down until the verdict was in - unfortunately for the club last year they weren't able to, they actually had a decision to make.

The trial was quicker than reading that ^

 

[genericus]

See, what you're saying here puts a different spin on it. The police told the club of the charges against him, but he's denied it until he pleaded guilty?

He has acted in his own self interest, the police won't apportion guilt until the person admits guilt or the court case decides he is guilty.
The mere fact he has admitted guilt at the start of the case rather than during the interviews with the police is telling, the onus was on him to inform the club of his guilt or not, he has either done that and the club have turned a blind eye to it which given the severity of the offences i am dismissive of that version
Or he has said he hasn't done a thing, he and his QC have shown transcripts of the interviews which contained some of the messages and he has lied about the intentions of the messages and denied anything occurred.
The second version is much more plausible given his repeated lies and arrogance through the entire case.

 

[John J Rambo]

Were they charges or allegations .......... I thought it was the latter.

Aye sorry, I'm no expert on this mate so might have that wrong. It's far from clear cut this like. My opinion has shifted back and fourth on what the club must or must not know about a dozen times.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

I tweeted at him for being a bell end posting holier than thou crap and he replied back saying he wouldn't have to post it if "nobody had done anything wrong" ....

Comes across as a right attention seeker, always courting controversy with his comments to get more hits on his article links

Sort of person who would rob his granny for a story to make him look popular.

 

[The Master]

Is no-one on here concerned that, for reasons that aren't clear, there seems to be something of a media campaign underway to establish that there was some kind of wrongdoing on the part of the club?

What is clear is that legally there is no real case for the club to answer, though they may well have been put in an impossible moral quandary through no fault of their own, regardless of what they may or may not have been told in the wake of the arrest.

If an employee tells an employer he is accused of a crime but also tells the employer that on the basis of legal advice he will be pleading not guilty, the employer could respond by saying 'well from what you have told me and/or what I otherwise have managed to find out about the case you do seem pretty guilty to me, so I am going to sack or suspend you anyway'. To do so, however, the employer must consciously at that stage take on the role of judge and jury, based on what they have managed to find out about the case. They must choose to disregard the position taken by an experienced legal team. In this case, it means deciding for themselves, without all the evidence and without hearing any witness testimony, that the accused/victim contact amounted to grooming under the law, which the legal team apparently intended to contest, and that the kiss they were told of amounted to sexual activity in law. If anyone could make such a decision on that basis there would be no need for courts or juries anyway. In any case it seems the accused still had team mates and others at the club broadly accepting, or not objecting to, his 'not guilty' position until he changed it, so it's doubtful he said anything that amounted to a direct admission.

Hindsight is 20:20, and we have since learned that that the full evidence would have justified a suspension at least. But if we go down that road we may as well form mobs and burn down the houses of every person accused of this type of crime if we think their pre-trial denials don't ring true.

More importantly, if an employer did this, the first thing prosecuting counsel would say at trial would be 'you may have denied this but even your own employers wouldn't believe you or the legal team supporting your position. They chose instead to believe you were guilty and acted accordingly by sacking/suspending you'. In other words, it would have been hugely prejudicial to the case to have continued the original suspension.

It makes little difference what evidence is or is not available (unless the employer is a direct witness or has relevant information received, which is not
the case here) or whether the employer's representative is the most venerable criminal lawyer in the country, it is still an almost impossible position, without a guilty plea, until the verdict is in. If they had sacked him and he had subsequently been acquitted, many would have been up in arms about 'due process' and 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'who are they to convict him before a jury does?'. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It would be surprising if the media (the BBC and the Daily Mail seem in particular to be pushing this) have not been told by their legal advisers of the difficulties faced by the club in this position but nonetheless they are applying pressure. As we have seen (for example, the offensive and cretinous nonsense written by Luke Edwards in the Telegraph about the derby goal celebration - did any sane lawyer or even sub-editor really read that beforehand?) they do not need any real rhyme or reason to justify anything they write. They probably think, and they seem to be right, that merely posing the questions will be enough to stir up public anger at the club - as it has on this message board.

The club should just have the courage wait this out, they have done nothing that they cannot justify and the whole thing should die a natural death - the media know they only have a short window to stir up mud on the basis of mischief alone and they seem to be going all out to do so.

The Times this morning, for example, says the club have been 'criticised by supporters, [children's] charities and politicians'. Supporters? Only by Sunderland supporters in any numbers as far as is readily visible on the net, apart from the usual mindless football-based abuse. On the forums of other big clubs, if the case is mentioned at all, there seems to be as much sympathy for the club as there is criticism. Charities? well the BBC yesterday wheeled out an NSPCC spokesman whose contribution was laughable, he seemed to know nothing of the specifics of the case, and made light of his own ignorance of who the accused was - 'apparently he's a competent footballer'. Not everyone likes or knows football but a contributor who doesn't watch the news? Unbelievable, but perhaps it deflects attention from Yew Tree. Politicians? MPs will of course queue up to condemn anything they can present as a lapse of duty of care, especially with the safety of hindsight. So where are they? Well OK, a local MP has been quoted as saying there are questions for the club to answer. Fair enough, and if she was paying attention she'd know they have done so. But where was she before the trial? She might not have known the accused told the club he kissed the victim but she did know there was enough evidence for the CPS to go to trial. Did she ask the club precisely what they did know and whether he should he still be playing? Apparently not, like everyone else she kept her head down until the verdict was in - unfortunately for the club last year they weren't able to, they actually had a decision to make.

Reasons that aren't clear?
Where the hell have you been the past 200 pages?

 

[shepherd88]

More importantly, if an employer did this, the first thing prosecuting counsel would say at trial would be 'you may have denied this but even your own employers wouldn't believe you or the legal team supporting your position. They chose instead to believe you were guilty and acted accordingly by sacking/suspending you'. In other words, it would have been hugely prejudicial to the case to have continued the original suspension.

.

Well that's a load of bollocks