• 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:
But you won't ever get a FULL transcript of a full court case...

Is it not enough that AJ and his QC have confirmed Byrne had copes of all the transcripts, messages etc at the meeting? Irrespective of whether she left early?

TBF I think you're clutching at straws a bit there, the evidence seems pretty damning unless she can come up with a damn good explanation for all the above.



Yes, in the same way it would be my opinion that someone who said 'blacks are inferior' shouldn't be CEO... it's not legal, its moral, fine.

Nobody is saying we should have treated him guilty, just you know, not kept playing him. Suspended with pay isn't treating someone guilty.
Click to expand...

No that is no similar in the slightest at all, she would be fired on the spot for that as its a crime

Byrne has not committed a crime, she is not on trial, and she is not a judge who can find someone guilty

Simple, you are clutching at straws here
 

johnson said:
No that is no similar in the slightest at all, she would be fired on the spot for that as its a crime

Byrne has not committed a crime, she is not on trial, and she is not a judge who can find someone guilty

Simple, you are clutching at straws here
Click to expand...
It's not a crime.
 
Rober33 said:
My answers in the post you quoted show exactly how the QC could be telling the truth while not proving the points you're trying to make.

I'm not going to keep arguing the case, you have your opinion and I have mine but please stop trying to present it as fact.

I've so far seen no evidence that the club should have made an earlier decision about Johnsons innocence or guilt which would mean they had to sack or suspend him.
Click to expand...

Exactly

To this day there isn't any
 
haway said:
Then that's illegal under discrimination law; race, sex, gender etc. Surprisingly enough discrimination law doesn't include people accused of touching up kids :lol:
Click to expand...

It's an example of when the PFA might get involved when a player is not being selected not a definitive list. If someone isn't being selected because they have been accused of a crime I'm sure the PFA would fight their corner, especially if it was one of the clubs most talented players.
 
RTRsBM said:
Fortunately it wasn't. I hope for the sake of child protection that your interest in the area is not from an employment perspective and if it is then your employers should consider your statement, that you would chose not to prosecute an offender admitting part of his actions.

You also seem to lessen his actions by saying it's acceptable in other countries. I'm not for a second suggestion you think this way, or indeed comparing the two cases, but there was a horrific case in the news from Yemen this week where the actions of the person (and I dislike accepting he is human) were legal. So the idea it's acceptable elsewhere holds no sway for me.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but its a bit of a stretch to go from comparing the case to our immediate neighbours, whom we have a lot of shared history and both operate under EU law and then to cherry pick a case from the other side of the world with a totally different culture, history and legal infrastructure.
 
RTRsBM said:
Fortunately it wasn't. I hope for the sake of child protection that your interest in the area is not from an employment perspective and if it is then your employers should consider your statement, that you would chose not to prosecute an offender admitting part of his actions.

You also seem to lessen his actions by saying it's acceptable in other countries. I'm not for a second suggestion you think this way, or indeed comparing the two cases, but there was a horrific case in the news from Yemen this week where the actions of the person (and I dislike accepting he is human) were legal. So the idea it's acceptable elsewhere holds no sway for me.
Click to expand...

Can you not see the difference between doing what is right for the justice system and doing what is best for the girl? The outcomes of the justice system are frequently not in the interests of those deemed victims. Did I not explain in perfect detail that I think it was unfair to put the girl through this circus? The benefit to her has been negligible if anything. It was within the power of the CPS to avoid this.

All too frequently they dodge tricky cases of terrible sexual abuse. The Johnson case was a relatively easy win from a prosecution point of view, and the CPS and the police had a chance to do a showboating case picking off an easy target of hate. Look at how reluctant they are to put cases together against serial sexual offenders operating in the spheres of child prostitution or organised paedophilia. I've mentioned on here before a case with a friend of mine which the police actually held video evidence of. The police and CPS decided to destroy the evidence, supposedly due to the explicit content, but in turn destroying my friends only chance of getting any justice against the perpetrator, who was a serial offender, a chairman of a school board of governers, who went on to offend again. It is not like these kind of things are in the past, they are still happening with the CPS today. I just think if you are going to put a girl through a massive court case like this it needs to be for a really serious offence of abuse. I do not think a case of a girl approaching the age of consent with so much contentious evidence being raked over meets the requirements, unless the girl can be shown to have suffered considerably beyond the normal scope of a teenage breakup. I do not think it makes sense to put her through a court case that could well be more traumatic than the actual wrongdoing itself.
 
johnson said:
No that is no similar in the slightest at all, she would be fired on the spot for that as its a crime

Byrne has not committed a crime, she is not on trial, and she is not a judge who can find someone guilty

Simple, you are clutching at straws here
Click to expand...

you say shes not on trial but, that's not the case, she certainly is in the media this morning and no doubt others as i stated earlier will also been thinking, what has been going on behind close doors, for me the ball is in the clubs court frankly i was go as far as to say mr short himself has got a few decisions to make
 
CissesUnderpants19 said:
you say shes not on trial but, that's not the case, she certainly is in the media this morning and no doubt others as i stated earlier will also been thinking, what has been going on behind close doors, for me the ball is in the clubs court frankly i was go as far as to say mr short himself has got a few decisions to make
Click to expand...

He hasn't though, as long as they did everything by the book and through their legal advice
 
ANonnyMoose said:
I'm sorry, but its a bit of a stretch to go from comparing the case to our immediate neighbours, whom we have a lot of shared history and both operate under EU law and then to cherry pick a case from the other side of the world with a totally different culture, history and legal infrastructure.
Click to expand...
I clearly said there is no comparison.
 
ANonnyMoose said:
It was outside of his place of work, was it not? His job NEVER puts him in the position to have children under his care - therefore not a position of trust in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Your job as a footballer is to sign footballs & shirts!!!! Plus thank the public for there support. You are 24 /7 on the job I do not buy your comments as much as I love Sunderland this is wrong wrong & wrong....no way to slice it....

The Master said:
Is anyone actually saying what the club has done is illegal?
It's more from a moral standpoint the club could look potentially bad.
Click to expand...
Simon Bird having a go at Sunderland in the mirror with his article...
 
How can it not be Gross Misconduct when you have clearly admitted kissing an underage fan with tongues, there really is no two ways about it, he should have been suspended at the very very least.
 
DrewC said:
Your job as a footballer is to sign footballs & shirts!!!! Plus thank the public for there support. You are 24 /7 on the job I do not buy your comments as much as I love Sunderland this is wrong wrong & wrong....no way to slice it....


Simon Bird having a go at Sunderland in the mirror with his article...
Click to expand...

Simon Bird is a cock-rocket, but it's not surprising really. It's just a shame we've got to wait weeks for sentencing to put it all to bed.

lordy said:
How can it not be Gross Misconduct when you have clearly admitted kissing an underage fan with tongues, there really is no two ways about it, he should have been suspended at the very very least.
Click to expand...

Didn't he tell his girlfriend he thought she was 16? If he did, is it not reasonable to assume he told the club the same thing?
 
UaeExile said:
Simon Bird is a cock-rocket, but it's not surprising really. It's just a shame we've got to wait weeks for sentencing to put it all to bed.



Didn't he tell his girlfriend he thought she was 16? If he did, is it not reasonable to assume he told the club the same thing?
Click to expand...
I am sure the sentencing will happen after the derby
 
UaeExile said:
I don't know.

I'm just not sure if an employee gave me a transcript of messages after telling me he copped off with someone of legal age I'd even bother with them. The club have said they handed the documents straight off to his legal team and I don't know why people are so desperate to disbelieve them.
Click to expand...

It's the same people time after time on here jump onto anything negative and beat the club.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top