• 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.
peil said:
I would disagree, if anything it merely highlights that the sentences for taking a life need to be higher
Click to expand...
this, if i tweeted someone nasty words and they reported it, i would potentially face 18 months for Malicious communications, you could serve 3 years for murder, thats wrong in my opinion
 

mart said:
Hardly. He changed his plea to guilty on the day the trial began, if he had previously admitted them to the club he would have had to change the plea then.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the allegation. The allegation was that he admitted to the club about being involved and kissing a 15 year old. Where have they denied that ?
 
I'm still none the wiser here like.

I'm guessing we will still be kept in the dark and never no the full truth.
 
hexhamali said:
That's cleared up then, they knew nothing but as usual some people were all too quick to slate the club.
Click to expand...

That isn't what it says. The statement literally says 'During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case nor on Mr. Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations'

What it's saying is the club had 'some documents', which given they haven't suggested otherwise, are presumably the ones Johnson said (I would have thought if he said they had info they didn't the club would have refuted it). But because he was pleading not guilty, the club decided that what was contained in the documents didn't matter. So they presumably, based on that statement, did know, but decided that they didn't want to sack him 'because he was pleading not guilty'.

The club haven't refuting a thing Johnson said, all they're saying is 'that doesn't matter, what matters is he was pleading not guilty'.
 
FanchesterCity said:
We don't know that Johnson was telling the truth about the details that the club knew.
He's already proven himself to be of questionable character (to put it mildly) - so now SAFC are telling their half of the story.

We will probably never know the complete truth, but I'm far more inclined to believe SAFC than Johnson.
Click to expand...

The club aren't disputing that they knew what he had done. Why do you think that might be?
 
I wonder if SAFC could sue Johnson for the wages paid from the meeting when he stated he was going to contest on the grounds of not guilty to his sacking?
 
genericus said:
this, if i tweeted someone nasty words and they reported it, i would potentially face 18 months for Malicious communications, you could serve 3 years for murder, thats wrong in my opinion
Click to expand...
and no wonder the prisons are full if youd get 18 months for a few nasty words FFS! i think we as a nation have really lost the plot sometimes
 
Seems that the joirno's agree with the poor statement.

(SAFC avoid issue of whether Adam Johnson admitted to them in May 2015 that he had kissed a 15-year-old schoolgirl) safc.com/news/club-news… That's from Josh Halliday Twitter
 
Gaz said:
Safc or johnson, i know who i believe. Lets hope the sentence is nearer 10 and he rots
Click to expand...

The club aren't disputing that they knew what he had done. They are just saying that they were advised that he would plead not guilty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top