• 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.
Don'tListenToTheHat said:
So to summarise why I'm outraged it's because of the interview our CEO had with Johnson when he said he was going to refute all charges against him including the text messages as evidence? Correct?
Click to expand...
Pretty much spot on, I share your outrage ;)

The Sheepfolds End said:
I'd still like to know why his suspension was lifted. What changed after sixteen days that made the club rethink their initially correct decision?

Like in most lines of work, he should have been suspended with full pay until either acquitted or found guilty. The whole 'innocent till proven guilty' that many on here trotted out was always far too simplistic.

The fact we allowed a sex offender to play for us for so long is hideous and it was completely avoidable.
Click to expand...
It says in the statement that they lifted the ban because he refuted the charges and after consultation with the PFA
 

haway said:
Firstly he shouldn't have been unsuspended imo until they had seen the evidence. Secondly, they could have easily said something like 'Upon desuspending AJ it has become clear that given the amount of time he has to devote currently to matters in his personal life, and concerns it might be interfering with his ability to perform his job at SAFC, we have decided to give AJ some time away from the club so he can devote his full attention to sorting matters in his personal life' - no bias imo.
Click to expand...

That would seem fair enough but he Pfa might have still moaned on and held the club to account.
 
darius said:
They deny what he said in court.
Click to expand...

That's the issue, they don't at all.

He never once said that he suggested to SAFC he was going to plead guilty. In fact, he said the exact opposite in court (that he only decided to plead at the last minute).

He made two allegations 1) that the club knew months ago he admitted kissing her, 2) that he gave SAFC the whatsapp messages. The club never denied either.

Look at the statement again.
 
bowers2 said:
The media will be going over this for a long time. It's headline news.
It's massive for the modern game of football. There will be a load more shit to stir.

Look at our own fans. Turning on the club they adore.
Hardly suprising when you read some of the threads on here. Rodwell being an example. "rather play with ten men".

I am an advocate of freedom of speech.

There must be some factual evidence in opinions however.

The twisting of words is quite shameful.

Let's not forget Johnson is a complete liar. Why, he lied and admitted it in court.
Why would anyone believe a word he now says over their own beloved team?

Maybe it's just a way of venting steam for some fans.

Johnson has gone. Khazri is a better player who works harder.
Click to expand...

I put no stock in what Johnson says, I couldn't care less about him. However, I had expected that on the completion of the trial, the Club would surely refute the allegation that they were given the whatsapp messages, police interview transcripts and his confession to kissing her a year ago. I was looking forward to the club finally being able to put that (pretty damning) allegation to bed. I cannot for the life of me grasp why - unless what was said on court said was true - the Club would not take this opportunity to expressly deny those allegations. Unfortunately, the fact that the statement brushes over those issues (and refers to "some documents" being handed over) suggests that it may well be true.
 
Sweeper said:
In what way are you suggesting that he "manipulated information" here? It's the easiest thing in the world to say "oh yeah those barristers manipulate information", but this was I believe a straightforward account of a meeting - who was there and what was discussed. It's not exactly layered in shades of grey.
Click to expand...
How do you imagine it would be presented (with the information that the police had the same evidence and testimony) and then followed by 'but we're pleading not guilty'? That's what just doesn't add up for me.
 
Billy The Kid said:
only thing I wish was clarified was whether they knew he had kissed and texted the lass.

They have confirmed they knew nowt about his pleas but haven't confirmed whether they knew about the other (as was said in court they did)

(for the record I don't believe for 1 minute that they knew)
Click to expand...
This This This!
 
---Nemo--- said:
I have no idea, I'm not really interested. I just wanted to make it clear that it's highly unlikely the Police would show potential evidence to the club. If any evidence was disclosed by the defence, which appears to be the case, we have no way of knowing how full this disclosure may have been.
Click to expand...

The police would not be allowed to show others evidence. They would need to disclose certain facts about the case as Johnson was still employed and they the club would need to ensure that the club would safeguard any other young girls from Johnson and not leave Johnson in a position where he could potentially abuse again. This would be very matter of fact and would not be disclosing the details of the allegations.

Apart from anything else the disclosure of alleged facts has to be tightly controlled as once in the public domain there is no way of controlling it and this has issues with media and also jurors as the defendant has the right to a fair trial
 
Why would the club be provided with police transcripts.
Be like them leaking details to your work before youve been found guilty. Dont for one moment believe it happened
 
FN-2187 said:
That would seem fair enough but he Pfa might have still moaned on and held the club to account.
Click to expand...

Held the club to account for what? You can drop someone for months on end... why do you think you wouldn't be able to suspend with pay? The only obligation SAFC have surely is to pay his wages. If they pay his wages why does it matter if he's playing or not? Why would the PFA care? The times the PFA have kicked off in the past is for suspending WITHOUT pay.
 
soapster said:
The police would not be allowed to show others evidence. They would need to disclose certain facts about the case as Johnson was still employed and they the club would need to ensure that the club would safeguard any other young girls from Johnson and not leave Johnson in a position where he could potentially abuse again. This would be very matter of fact and would not be disclosing the details of the allegations.

Apart from anything else the disclosure of alleged facts has to be tightly controlled as once in the public domain there is no way of controlling it and this has issues with media and also jurors as the defendant has the right to a fair trial
Click to expand...

I know.
 
haway said:
Held the club to account for what? You can drop someone for months on end... why do you think you wouldn't be able to suspend with pay? The only obligation SAFC have surely is to pay his wages. If they pay his wages why does it matter if he's playing or not? Why would the PFA care? The times the PFA have kicked off in the past is for suspending WITHOUT pay.
Click to expand...
Fair enough
 
haway said:
Firstly he shouldn't have been unsuspended imo until they had seen the evidence. Secondly, they could have easily said something like 'Upon desuspending AJ it has become clear that given the amount of time he has to devote currently to matters in his personal life, and concerns it might be interfering with his ability to perform his job at SAFC, we have decided to give AJ some time away from the club so he can devote his full attention to sorting matters in his personal life' - no bias imo.
Click to expand...
Aye, that probably would have been the best treatment - though it would too have been a lie and a similar shit storm would be occurring now. I don't agree with you on the first point, the club couldn't have known they would be presented with such evidence and admission having presumably (based on his being brought back from suspension) previous denials to the club. I think they were right to reintroduce him at that point. Without the benefit of hindsight at least.
 
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...
of course his legal team would have argued they couldn't get a fair trail as he'd been publicly dumped by the club. The trail was moved to Bradford from Durham for that very reason as the judge believed they'd never find an impartial Jury in the north east
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top