• 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.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.

Also seems like he was a bit of a knob during the trial -

It can be reported for the first time today that Johnson was scolded by the judge during his trial for 'discourteous behaviour' after he was seen joking with a security guard who sat next to him in the dock.

At the end of the second week of his trial, he was overheard saying to a friend: 'I hope this is finished by Friday. It's a bit boring now.'
 
the sleeping giant said:
That's the nub of it. What did she know, what more could she have known, whose advice did she take, and what was the main influence in her decision making??

But the clubs statement refutes that they knowingly had access to any document or opportunity to act earlier than they did. So while they refute the suggestion, the papers still drag it out. I'm afraid Ms Taylor has told me absolutely nothing new in this piece.
Click to expand...
No it f***ing doesn't :lol:
 
Dogbark said:
There's no obligation to do such a thing. Not quite sure why you think there is.
Click to expand...

Of course there's no such obligation.

In the same way, you know, I could accuse a celebrity of being a once in court, there would be no 'obligation' for them to respond. But equally, people will tend to be left wondering, if the person doesn't respond, quite why they haven't.

If SAFC have done nothing wrong then it is absolute madness imo not to put it to bed by responding with the facts.
 
the sleeping giant said:
That's the nub of it. What did she know, what more could she have known, whose advice did she take, and what was the main influence in her decision making??

But the clubs statement refutes that they knowingly had access to any document or opportunity to act earlier than they did. So while they refute the suggestion, the papers still drag it out. I'm afraid Ms Taylor has told me absolutely nothing new in this piece.
Click to expand...

Can you quote to me the bit that said that?
 
mag in peace said:
Hasnt he been told to expect a harsh punishment, with the minimum being 4 years?

In todays prison system he could get 10 years and be out in 1.
Click to expand...

No. He was told to expect a custodial sentence.

Not sure if the sentence guidelines on here were for the correct offence but even if they were that includes offences down to children aged 3 or 4. Even with the aggravating factors I'd be surprised if he gets more than 3 years (out in 1 1/2) but could be less. No more than 4, not even a consideration imo. Feel free to bookmark this.
 
look out piano said:
Bandying around 10 years is a f***ing joke, the man deserves a harsh punishment for his crimes but 10 years ? :confused: seriously ?
Click to expand...
What would you suggest? These are very serious crimes and by pleading not guilty (to two at first which he eventually owned up to, to one which fair enough he was found not guilty of and to another which he was finally found guilty of after a lengthy trial) to them he showed he had little or any remorse.
 
haway said:
No. He was told to expect a custodial sentence.

Not sure if the sentence guidelines on here were for the correct offence but even if they were that includes offences down to children aged 3 or 4. Even with the aggravating factors I'd be surprised if he gets more than 3 years (out in 1 1/2) but could be less. No more than 4, not even a consideration imo. Feel free to bookmark this.
Click to expand...

Sure that lad that tweeted the whole court case mentioned something that seemed to suggest it would be a greater punishment. Could be wrong like.
 
haway said:
Of course there's no such obligation.

In the same way, you know, I could accuse a celebrity of being a once in court, there would be no 'obligation' for them to respond. But equally, people will tend to be left wondering, if the person doesn't respond, quite why they haven't.

If SAFC have done nothing wrong then it is absolute madness imo not to put it to bed by responding with the facts.
Click to expand...
So no obligation then.
 
MarcoGoalo said:
Also seems like he was a bit of a knob during the trial -

It can be reported for the first time today that Johnson was scolded by the judge during his trial for 'discourteous behaviour' after he was seen joking with a security guard who sat next to him in the dock.

At the end of the second week of his trial, he was overheard saying to a friend: 'I hope this is finished by Friday. It's a bit boring now.'
Click to expand...
Sounds an utter wanker. Bye Adam you prick.
 
johnson said:
Sacked for what

They did everything by the book, and by the law, you don't just sack people because you disagree with them
Click to expand...

Sacked for continuing to employ someone without suspension after having messages of them grooming a 15 year old and kissing her (if the allegations are true)?

They didn't do 'everything by the book', what 'book' do you think there is? It's down to judgement, and if it's true they had a copy of his paperwork then he should have been suspended with pay, no question about that imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top