• 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.
haway said:
We'll see what the morning press say tomorrow and commentators. I'm sure to some it will all be an anti-SAFC conspiracy and we've actually done nothing wrong, but IMO we'll get torn apart for some of the decisions made in this case, and quite rightly.

I'm all for defending SAFC when there's bullshit about, but as I said at the time he was arrested and have since, he should have been suspended with pay.
Click to expand...
I won't get " torn apart" at all. I've done nothing wrong.
 

theinediblebulk said:
Club would not have had police statements. The police and the CPS do not give statements made in a police station to employers. I have direct experience of this, so should know. Unlike a lot of wannabe Columbo's on here whose only experience of the whole getting arrested, being charged and going to court is probably down to watching a few episodes of the Bill. What the club would have been informed of is the allegations being made due to the nature of the offence and the nature of Johnson's employment. Hence the safeguarding and seeking independent legal advice by the club.

If there was a sniff that Johnson was guilty of the allegations, he'd have been sacked there and then, which is in fact exactly what happened when he put a guilty plea in. The issue seems to be just how much did the club know. From the statement they released it's obvious to me that they knew what the allegations were but were bound by that innocent until proven guilty malarky and couldn't actually act on them. Especially when Johnson had stated he was going to deny them all. So all the club had was one set of allegations and a denial, not one scrap of evidence.

The only thing I'm doubtful of is the whole suspension thing as I don't know what employment law has to say about this. Obviously you can't sack someone for allegations but not sure about if it would have been possible to suspend him indefinitely.

Johnson is the one who lied through his teeth all the way and it's him thta should be getting the boot put into him. Not sure how anyone else is to blame for him wanting to shag a 15 year old.
Click to expand...

So, in saying all this which I think is a very good explanation by the way. Johnson said that the club knew what he'd done in regards to the kissing and whatsApp. Does that mean he must be lying?
 
theinediblebulk said:
Club would not have had police statements. The police and the CPS do not give statements made in a police station to employers. I have direct experience of this, so should know. Unlike a lot of wannabe Columbo's on here whose only experience of the whole getting arrested, being charged and going to court is probably down to watching a few episodes of the Bill. What the club would have been informed of is the allegations being made due to the nature of the offence and the nature of Johnson's employment. Hence the safeguarding and seeking independent legal advice by the club.

If there was a sniff that Johnson was guilty of the allegations, he'd have been sacked there and then, which is in fact exactly what happened when he put a guilty plea in. The issue seems to be just how much did the club know. From the statement they released it's obvious to me that they knew what the allegations were but were bound by that innocent until proven guilty malarky and couldn't actually act on them. Especially when Johnson had stated he was going to deny them all. So all the club had was one set of allegations and a denial, not one scrap of evidence.

The only thing I'm doubtful of is the whole suspension thing as I don't know what employment law has to say about this. Obviously you can't sack someone for allegations but not sure about if it would have been possible to suspend him indefinitely.

Johnson is the one who lied through his teeth all the way and it's him thta should be getting the boot put into him. Not sure how anyone else is to blame for him wanting to shag a 15 year old.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Club would not have had police statements. The police and the CPS do not give statements made in a police station to employers. I have direct experience of this, so should know. Unlike a lot of wannabe Columbo's on here whose only experience of the whole getting arrested, being charged and going to court is probably down to watching a few episodes of the Bill. What the club would have been informed of is the allegations being made due to the nature of the offence and the nature of Johnson's employment. Hence the safeguarding and seeking independent legal advice by the club.

If there was a sniff that Johnson was guilty of the allegations, he'd have been sacked there and then, which is in fact exactly what happened when he put a guilty plea in. The issue seems to be just how much did the club know. From the statement they released it's obvious to me that they knew what the allegations were but were bound by that innocent until proven guilty malarky and couldn't actually act on them. Especially when Johnson had stated he was going to deny them all. So all the club had was one set of allegations and a denial, not one scrap of evidence.

The only thing I'm doubtful of is the whole suspension thing as I don't know what employment law has to say about this. Obviously you can't sack someone for allegations but not sure about if it would have been possible to suspend him indefinitely.

Johnson is the one who lied through his teeth all the way and it's him thta should be getting the boot put into him. Not sure how anyone else is to blame for him wanting to shag a 15 year old.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this, people forget that footballers are subject to the same employment laws and rights as us mere mortals.
 
janey said:
Me mam said tonight maybe it will be a lesson to others, then we both went nah it won't.
Click to expand...
You're most likely right, there have been posts about how the sentence seems disproportionate, it's just my take on why that might be.
 
bowers2 said:
I have read their detailed statement and fully believe every word.
As an employer they acted with the professionalism I would expect.
I'd rather believe my club than the rubbish invented by the papers, groups of fans unfurling banners or a convicted proven liar.

Well done SAFC.

Sunderland til I die.
Click to expand...

I totally agree but the only thing I'd point out is, nothing has been invented by fans or newspapers. Claims have been reported by newspapers and believed by fans but they have only been made by one man and his defence team, in a fruitless effort to convince people he is an honest person. Laughable really, in hindsight.
 
haway said:
I would never post that on here because I know what the admins are like and I know they've had unfair stick from the club, and wouldn't want to cause them any trouble, but to be honest I would happily say exactly what you highlighted and would have zero fear that I would be sued.
Click to expand...
It's a game I prefer not to play at all, because I don't have all of the facts. It's dangerous to take knives to gun fights.
 
East Riding Mackem said:
apparently he trims or shaves them, the girl had reported the lack of foliage downstairs, there was a photo involved, girl said he was shaved, his lass said trimmed not shaved, key point of dispute as to whether or not she was lying about a certain act,

f***ing beyond weird. Not quite sure what light Fletcher was supposed to shine on that like.
Click to expand...

He used to shave it for him.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Club would not have had police statements. The police and the CPS do not give statements made in a police station to employers. I have direct experience of this, so should know. Unlike a lot of wannabe Columbo's on here whose only experience of the whole getting arrested, being charged and going to court is probably down to watching a few episodes of the Bill. What the club would have been informed of is the allegations being made due to the nature of the offence and the nature of Johnson's employment. Hence the safeguarding and seeking independent legal advice by the club.

If there was a sniff that Johnson was guilty of the allegations, he'd have been sacked there and then, which is in fact exactly what happened when he put a guilty plea in. The issue seems to be just how much did the club know. From the statement they released it's obvious to me that they knew what the allegations were but were bound by that innocent until proven guilty malarky and couldn't actually act on them. Especially when Johnson had stated he was going to deny them all. So all the club had was one set of allegations and a denial, not one scrap of evidence.

The only thing I'm doubtful of is the whole suspension thing as I don't know what employment law has to say about this. Obviously you can't sack someone for allegations but not sure about if it would have been possible to suspend him indefinitely.

Johnson is the one who lied through his teeth all the way and it's him thta should be getting the boot put into him. Not sure how anyone else is to blame for him wanting to shag a 15 year old.
Click to expand...

I believe the patter was that Johnson and his QC handed over the interview transcripts (not the police). If that's false, why have the club not addressed it? The allegation made against the club - in court - was that they knew last year that he had kissed the girl and they were given copies of the transcript and the whatsapp messages. The club statement says "Some documents were received relating to the case". If those documents were not the transcript and whatsapp messages, as alleged, why haven't the club said so?
 
Rickybilly said:
I cant help but wonder if SAFC learned that they could not suspend him without pay and then decided to reinstate him after they realised they had to pay him until he pleaded guilty. Just a thought................
Click to expand...
In fairness to the club if he had acknowledged his guilt to them they could have sacked him saving some 3 million in wages for a player that would often sit on the bench.
 
Rickybilly said:
I cant help but wonder if SAFC learned that they could not suspend him without pay and then decided to reinstate him after they realised they had to pay him until he pleaded guilty. Just a thought................
Click to expand...

all hypothetically of course, but that would be interesting,
 
Redcar said:
Seriously doubt that a club taking a individual stance in not wanting potential paedos to play for them would cause all of those outcomes.
Click to expand...

I'm as sick to the stomach about this whole affair as anyone, but you still have to follow the rules. The club taking any action other than what they are allowed to in law (ie not prejudicing a trial) might have led to the release of a sexual predator. They initially suspended him, then reversed that under guidance. I'd hate to have to rely on a jury as people are too emotive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top