• 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.
It appears most of the media are using the term paedo - Times, Sun, Mirror - when he isn't (a f***ing idiot/sex offender) as a way of enhancing the stick they want to beat the club with.
 

Cockney Mackem said:
Edited your post above as I think you missed a not there. Their statement says only about whether they knew he intended to plead guilty.

It doesn't need to be any list of offences that they aren't guilty of, just the ones that they were accused of. Neither of which they addressed in their statement yesterday.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the correction, that was an unfortunate slip :)
The club were accused of 'knowing everything' - I've yet to see a definition of what constitutes 'everything'. As I stated, Johnson has proclaimed several different versions of everything to different people, at different times.
 
Reiver said:
Not when it suits me, I don't make the rules ...... it's the basis of English law, not my whim.
Click to expand...


It is also extremely common practice when serious charges are brought for people to be suspended on pay while the investigations / trial goes on.
 
BS1000 said:
It is also extremely common practice when serious charges are brought for people to be suspended on pay while the investigations / trial goes on.
Click to expand...

Well you certainly know your facts.

How common and what kind of percentage are we talking ...... I might have to change my opinion here.
 
I'm just hoping that if it turns out the club had seen enough to expect him to be found guilty there's some kind of email or paper trail detailing the plan thereafter.

Shite situation to be put in for them.
 
haway said:
Why do the PFA deserve the most criticism? Do we know one thing the PFA actually did, apart from be present at a meeting?
Click to expand...
The PFA are there as are all unions, to protect their representative, it's ludicrous to suggest they deserve blame for what he has done, that's basically like saying if you meet with the GMB about getting suspended from your job and it turns out that you committed the offence you were suspended for, then were subsequently sacked then the GMB is complicit in your wrongdoing.

anyone suggesting that needs to have a serious think about what a union actually does, the way some are going on, its as if the PFA organised f***ing hotel rooms and told them to delete messages.
 
hexhamali said:
You're the only one here clutching at any straw you can get to make the club look bad.
Click to expand...
This thread could disappear right now and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to how the club looks man.

Just be pleased that Have I Got News For You isn't running a series at the moment. :lol:
 
genericus said:
The PFA are there as are all unions, to protect their representative, it's ludicrous to suggest they deserve blame for what he has done, that's basically like saying if you meet with the GMB about getting suspended from your job and it turns out that you committed the offence you were suspended for, then were subsequently sacked then the GMB is complicit in your wrongdoing.

anyone suggesting that needs to have a serious think about what a union actually does, the way some are going on, its as if the PFA organised f***ing hotel rooms and told them to delete messages.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the club and the PFA are innocent parties in this.
 
hexhamali said:
You're the only one here clutching at any straw you can get to make the club look bad.
Click to expand...

The club look bad, it'll soon be yesterday's news.

Will any of this internet hysteria help the girl, make the convicted any less guilty or force the club into answering the keyboard bashers?

The answer is either no or no .........
 
Ilios said:
Thank you for the correction, that was an unfortunate slip :)
The club were accused of 'knowing everything' - I've yet to see a definition of what constitutes 'everything'.
Click to expand...

The two statements that come out of the trial that needed to be addressed in the statement are that in about May last year:

  • Johnson admitted to a senior official of the club that he had committed an offence by kissing an underage girl in a sexual manner
  • Senior official(s) of the club saw a transcript of WhatsApp messages that indicated Johnson was guilty of a sex offence against an underage girl

Neither of those statements are denied in the statement.
 
Reiver said:
:lol:

Now you're getting silly.

If his client told him that was the case then he can hardly contradict him or would want to.

I have a Sunderland supporting 'mate' who's a barrister and he'll do and say anything he can get away with to win the case.

That's what they do and, unless you're incredibly naive, you'll accept that.
Click to expand...

You're conflating two things...

There are two different issues - one is what I say to my barrister - another is what they corroborate.

If I say to my barrister 'I didn't murder that 5 year old girl, even though 100 people saw it!' Then the barrister would have to put to the court that I had said this.

But he can't say anything that he knows to be untrue. So if I say to my QC, 'look, I murdered this woman but let's just say I wasn't here' then immediately the barrister can't represent the client, because he has a conflict between his duty to represent his client, and his duty not to mislead the court. So another barrister would be found.

In this case the QC said he was present at the meeting. If this isn't true, then he's lied to the court. That's him in the shit. But furthermore, he's asked Johnson, 'did she have the paperwork at this meeting?' 'did you make admissions you kissed her at this meeting'. Now the QC has already said that he was present at the meeting, so the issue is that if either of those two statements from Johnson is untrue, or the barrister believes they are untrue, he would have to stop the trial and stop representing AJ, because he knows that false evidence is being submitted in court.

It's the exact same reason if you ever say to your lawyer 'I did this but can you say I didn't' they will send your file straight off to another law firm. They can't do it.

So while I agree, that a barrister will suggest and imply whatever the fuck they feel like (when they're representing their client), they won't do so when they're in effect validating what they say. I'm 99% sure your mate would agree with this - if a client asked him to say he was present at a meeting which he wasn't then no way in f***ing hell would he do it.
 
Fetch Fletch said:
Christ, this and the Simon Bird thread are full of insults and arguements aimed at other posters.

Blame AJ. Blame the club if you so wish. But stop f***ing having a go at one another and aim the vitriol in the right direction at least.
Click to expand...

That's a good point but there's obviously strong feeling on both sides.

As far as I'm concerned the sooner we put this behind us the better, he's been found guilty and sacked by the club.

Lets let the courts deal with his punishment and move on.
 
mag in peace said:
Why to tell people something Johnson has already admitted? Byrne may have had copies of the files so what. Its not like she was sat in the f***ing car geeing him on and giving him high fives.

It was a tricky position for any senior club member to be in. He was found guilty and sacked. Surely thats enough?
Click to expand...

Terrified I'm agreeing with a mag
 
haway said:
You're conflating two things...

There are two different issues - one is what I say to my barrister - another is what they corroborate.
If I say to my barrister 'I didn't murder that 5 year old girl, even though 100 people saw it!' Then the barrister would have to put to the court that I had said this.

But he can't say anything that he knows to be untrue. So if I say to my QC, 'look, I murdered this woman but let's just say I wasn't here' then immediately the barrister can't represent the client, because he has a conflict between his duty to represent his client, and his duty not to mislead the court. So another barrister would be found.

In this case the QC said he was present at the meeting. If this isn't true, then he's lied to the court. That's him in the shit. But furthermore, he's asked Johnson, 'did she have the paperwork at this meeting?' 'did you make admissions you kissed her at this meeting'. Now the QC has already said that he was present at the meeting, so the issue is that if either of those two statements from Johnson is untrue, or the barrister believes they are untrue, he would have to stop the trial and stop representing AJ, because he knows that false evidence is being submitted in court.

It's the exact same reason if you ever say to your lawyer 'I did this but can you say I didn't' they will send your file straight off to another law firm. They can't do it.

So while I agree, that a barrister will suggest and imply whatever the fuck they feel like (when they're representing their client), they won't do so when they're in effect validating what they say. I'm 99% sure your mate would agree with this - if a client asked him to say he was present at a meeting which he wasn't then no way in f***ing hell would he do it.
Click to expand...

He can't say anything that he suspects to be untrue if his client has insisted it's true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top