• 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.
Reznor said:
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.
Click to expand...

The fact that the grooming was over a sustained period of time should rightly go against him as well. This wasn't a one-off, it was a calculated lengthy abuse of his position and power to take advantage and sexually abuse a girl who had just turned 15.
 

Reznor said:
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.
Click to expand...
2 years, people walk away with suspended sentences for far worse.
 
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...
Judge said he's starting at 5 years, so he's getting no less than that.
 
haway said:
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.
Click to expand...

'HOW TO DEAL WITH PEEDOS IN SPEEDOS'
 
Dogbark said:
So no obligation then.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying there's an obligation man :lol::lol:

If a hundred people came out and alleged the whole SAFC board were corrupt and all the worst allegations you can imagine etc etc. then there would be no 'obligation' to respond, but it would be best advised they did.

The only time you can be 'obligated' to talk in the UK is when you're told to by a court, but it doesn't mean it's not f***ing stupid not to in other situations.

Not one person has said in 72 pages of this thread SAFC have a legal obligation to reply, just that it would be in their best interests to, if they have nothing to hide.
 
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...

It says the complete opposite...
 
Brett said:
We had an option too claim back around a million but think we have chosen not to take it further
Click to expand...

If he has been lying to the club the whole time, dragging us through the mud then furthermore trying to use the club as part of his defence under oath in court, making things even worse PR wise for the club, I honestly can't think of any reason why we wouldn't. Surely there would be no better way to put to bed all these accusations about the club knowing/not knowing about everything than by successfully suing him for wages/damages

Unless of course the club have known about it all and know by doing this the truth would come out
 
Sima said:
You got examples of this 'far worse'? I'm not sure how you'd rank crimes of this nature, but it seems you've cracked it.
Click to expand...
Tbf there was an example posted earlier of a teacher bucking a 15 year old pupil, suspended sentence. Worse sexual activity/ abuse of a position of trust.

Though I do agree 'ranking' offences is an idiots game in general.
 
haway said:
Nobody is saying there's an obligation man :lol::lol:

If a hundred people came out and alleged the whole SAFC board were corrupt and all the worst allegations you can imagine etc etc. then there would be no 'obligation' to respond, but it would be best advised they did.

The only time you can be 'obligated' to talk in the UK is when you're told to by a court, but it doesn't mean it's not f***ing stupid not to in other situations.

Not one person has said in 72 pages of this thread SAFC have a legal obligation to reply, just that it would be in their best interests to, if they have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...

They've got plenty to hide IMO.

Like why he wasn't suspended if they had the message transcripts and the conversation between his QC and the club regarding what he actually admitted to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top