• 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.
Surely if the club knew even the basic facts when he was charged, that she was 15, season ticket holder and first met at the match they should have made the responsible decision not to play him and keep him away from the sol on match days.

The fact we now hear Byrne had transcripts of police interviews admitting kissing etc makes the whole thing more disgusting. She must surely go.
 

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.
 
Behind Enemy Lines said:
I never said anybody knowingly supported a nonce. My position is (and has been from the start as I've posted on here, I'm not after-eventing) that it was utterly f***ing stupid to sing his name when he was up on charges of child sex offences. You don't have to be a f***ing genius to see how that could come back to bite us.
Click to expand...
And you can't knock fans for supporting one of our players who was pleading innocence
 
FanchesterCity said:
Defending the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty is something people should be PROUD of.
At that time, Johnson was an innocent man in the eyes of the law, and there is nothing wrong with people offering their support at that time. There are actually innocent people accused of some bad things sometimes.

Knowing what people now know, nobody would offer that same support. He's a guilty man, and even had be been found not guilty, the evidence we all heard was damning enough for people to want nothing more to do with him.

You can't retrospectively say 'you were all wrong to offer support'. They were RIGHT to support a principle, and it's a bloody proud and valued principle at that.
Click to expand...

They could have just kept quiet like. That was always the sensible thing to do.
 
Dilligaf60 said:
He's being made an example of mate. Hopefully this will serve as a lesson and a warning to all professional footballers that in spite of all the money and privilege they are not above the law, as somany of them seem to believe themselves to be.
Click to expand...

The sentencing guidelines for sexual activity with a child over 13 are split into categories depending on their seriousness. In this case Johnson has been found guilty of a Category A offence where the minimum sentence is 5 years. The judge has to consider various aggravating factors in terms of what Johnson did to cover up the offence, persuade the girl to do it etc. to decide whether the sentence should be increased above that.
 
I could not believe it when Allardyce said Johnson would be available for the first game after the trial started, it was utterly astonishing.

Whether or not Byrne had seen text messages, when the charges were made public they stated that he had been charged with:

"one offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming, contrary to Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and three offences of sexual activity with a child, contrary to Section 9 of the Sexual Offence Act 2003. The alleged offences date from 30 December 2014 to 26 February 2015."

Evidence of grooming is highly likely to include text messages or internet messages, and it now turns out that Byrne probably saw this evidence for herself (in what sounds to be a highly irregular meeting).

In any event, a trial has to start with the prosecution setting out their case, which means that in the days before it the club knew that the Friday before the match would see pretty persuasive evidence that Johnson had groomed a child. Even if Johnson had a highly convincing explanation for the whole thing, that would have had to wait until later in proceedings. Given Byrne's career history she must have been acutely aware of this.

With that in mind, how the fuck did the board ever think that it would be appropriate for him to be whizzed up the motorway to be at the Man United match on the following day? Can you imagine what it would have been like if he had been on the pitch the day after that evidence had been read out? Well that was the plan, according to Allardyce.

Are they completely immoral incompetent shitheads? Or did they have some inkling that he may not be available all along?

Bit disappointed that the club statement hasn't addressed this, seeing as they've had plenty of time to prepare it. Not entirely surprised though.
 
Jack Torrance said:
Don't get how he can be found guilty of one charge and not guilty of the other
Click to expand...
I agree both defendant and the accused were a bit liberal with the truth imho. The Prosecution had to prove the cases beyond all reasonable doubt, so how they can prove one and not the other when both offences happened more or less at the same time, involving the same two people. I think it is a case of the jury hedging its bets or worse, capitulating so they wouldn't be recalled tomorrow
 
genericus said:
The most galling issue is the abuse being levelled at our fans or indeed anyone who presumed his innocence the fans for the presumption of innocence and the basic display of human sentiment.
Most people seem to forget human nature, what we did with him wasn't anything special, its something that court cases, the justice system and arseholes seems to have pushed for years in that having the issue raised by police or being charged means guilt, i'm a firm believer in equal rights, were it AJ or my next door neighbour, in the absence of evidence or knowledge i would always presume innocence, having a pre-conceived assumption of guilt is far more dangerous than giving the benefit of the doubt.
That makes being called a 'nonce sympathiser' quite hard to take, when all you re guilty of is wanting to see the good in people and giving the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Why should it be hard to take though. No one sympathises or condones what he's done, so he deserves all he gets. Why should I find it hard to take or be embarrassed by it. If someone called me that, I wouldn't even acknowledge it. Not having a go at you here mind, but letting that bother you is a bit daft like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top