• 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.
Mag vermin on Radio 2 debate about AJ case trying their best to blame the club to bring us down, the atmosphere come the derby is going to be absolute poison, can see the law having it's work cut out this time.
 

Reiver said:
I certainly would and I'd be lapping it up ....... but in reality that's just the kind of inane banter you find on football forums.

At least I have the honesty to admit it and not dress it up as the principled stance some of the attention seekers on here claim it to be.
Click to expand...


My days.

:lol::lol::lol:

but we are not allowed to do it as its our club and it comes across negative? Haway man, you must see how absurd that is?
 
There's definitely a valid reason for suing Johnson. Not sure why the club wouldn't pursue it, unless there's something they don't want coming out upon an external investigation.
 
Fetch Fletch said:
Obviously now, aye. But not sure why the club were even mentioned in court, especially as they weren't involved in the trial.
Click to expand...

I assume it's as of a consequence of AJ saying that he told his employers what he claims to have done, that will have come up in relation to the fact that he was still playing, a danger to children, drawing a salary, not a register etc while maintaining his innocence. Which, as someone with former legal experience, is something I would have thought SAFC would have been worked very hard on locking the fuck down rather than leave those sort of loose ends that can lead to this kind of complicity clusterfuck.
 
haway said:
Here's one 'You have no idea and saying that if your a witness and straight in and straight out shows that.' - You're wrong to suggest I'm wrong. Crown court... Magistrates court... The witness will sit outside the trial, will be called in by a member of the court staff, will give their evidence, and will then leave the trial. The reason why they don't have witnesses sat in trials is because if all your witnesses hear what one another have to say then it could bias the trial.

Courts do deal with a lot more than criminal cases, the issue is you are talking here about a criminal case. I have knowledge on criminal trials, you wouldn't ever hear me talking authoritatively about other court proceedings, e.g. family courts, because I have no experience of them. If you have experience of other lines of court work, then that's fine, and I agree it makes you more informed about things than most on here, but equally a lot of what you said earlier was untrue. For example, you spoke about barristers intentionally misleading in meetings you'd been in iirc. Now that might be true in whatever you do, but to surmise from that that in a criminal court case a barrister is going to intentionally mislead the court about information discussed at meetings in which they were present is simply incorrect, it doesn't really happen and it's stretching things to think a QC would do it in such a high profile case.

From what you're saying your line of court work isn't criminal, but in which case saying 'in effect I have been the prosecution' doesn't make sense - in what context do you have a prosecution outside of a criminal trial?

I worked part time in a law firm for three years. In crown court cases my job was basically to sit behind the barrister for the duration of the trial, make sure they had papers when they needed them, make notes of what was said, sit in on meetings with clients and note who said what etc. It wasn't high responsibility by any stretch of the imagination because as you can guess it was primarily just making notes but it meant I was present throughout proceedings and during all the meetings. So although I wouldn't pretend to have anywhere near the knowledge of a lawyer, or the like, I do have a more than adequate understanding of criminal trails and what goes on in them.

The issue I have with the posts you made in this thread is that you were speaking quite authoritatively about how you understood court process and the like. You then used your experience in what seem clearly not to be criminal cases, and certainly not crown court criminal cases, to try and construct arguments which you so happened to be wrong on. I've intentionally avoided bringing up my experience in work because to a large extent it is meaningless, either I am right about something or I am wrong, so saying 'and what I say is definitely true because XYZ I know the court system so well etc.' adds nothing. You tried to beef your posts up by saying what experience you had when it doesn't really seem like it would be relevant to a case like this. That's what I took exception to, it wasn't meant to be personal.
Click to expand...
I know what I know and I am confident that I know what I know. The type of case is irrelevant the judiciary and court process is exactly the same, I have never said that my experience is relevant to this specific case, I have said that my experience of Courts and barristers is relevant to the way a Court works.
If you feel the need to question me that's fine, carry on. I actually don't even know why I have even bothered to try and justify myself to you.
Have a good day.
 
prehab26 said:
My days.

:lol::lol::lol:

but we are not allowed to do it as its our club and it comes across negative? Haway man, you must see how absurd that is?
Click to expand...

You're allowed to do whatever you like, when did I say any different?

I didn't say that the club are blameless, do you actually read what I say before responding?

What I'm saying is that it's attention seeking posting demands on here and not addressing the club directly.

When did people start saying 'my days' btw, sounds really daft.
 
"Redcar, post: 22453510, member: 37639"]Byrne should go for the good of the game.[/QUOTE]
????
 
Rober33 said:
The main point is what she said is absolutely true and you've already agreed with it earlier in this thread, I'm sure.

A barrister may not lie for a defendant but they can represent the truth in a way that suits their argument and may not clearly represent what really happened at all. That's their job.
Click to expand...

Yes but the issue is Janie raised that matter in the context of the barrister saying he was in a meeting with AJ. That's the exact type of thing I was saying a barrister wouldn't make up. " I ow I keep saying it but I also keep saying I know how Courts and courtrooms work, I've given evidence for hours on end under cross examination, the barrister manipulating the evidence, the people I've been opposing lying their heads off in the dock. It happens, believe me. "

The objection was that isn't relevant to the 3 or 4 q's the QC asked AJ about what was disclosed to the club...
 
Reiver said:
You're allowed to do whatever you like, when did I say any different?

I didn't say it wasn't negative or that the club are blameless, do you actually read what I say before responding?

What I'm saying is that it's attention seeking posting demands on here and not addressing the club directly.

When did people start saying 'my days' btw, sounds really daft.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the 'my days' comment was sheer surprise that you have admitted that you would 'lap it up' and post all the time if it was another club. Double standards???
 
Cack Stottie said:
There's definitely a valid reason for suing Johnson.
Not sure why the club wouldn't pursue it, unless there's something they don't want coming out upon an external investigation.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it involves the Twin Towers :lol:
 
You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links

Sunderland AFC holding press conf 2pm. Won't let us attend. Won't answer Qs on Adam Johnson.
 
Reiver said:
You're allowed to do whatever you like, when did I say any different?

I didn't say that the club are blameless, do you actually read what I say before responding?

What I'm saying is that it's attention seeking posting demands on here and not addressing the club directly.

When did people start saying 'my days' btw, sounds really daft.
Click to expand...
I really don't get your 3rd sentence like. It's a message board where people discuss, it's hardly attention seeking.
 
You must be logged on to see external links
You must be logged on to see external links

Sunderland statement on decision to play Adam Johnson despite his charge, doesn't admit that they saw his admission
You must be logged on to see external links


Not letting go like.
 
Man About Town said:
Mag vermin on Radio 2 debate about AJ case trying their best to blame the club to bring us down, the atmosphere come the derby is going to be absolute poison, can see the law having it's work cut out this time.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot we wouldn't make anything of it of course

Come off it man. The club employed a sex offender under what can be described as, at best, murky circumstances. No club should be given a free pass for that and where it any other club we'd have no hesitation in condemning them for it.
 
Reiver said:
You're allowed to do whatever you like, when did I say any different?

I didn't say that the club are blameless, do you actually read what I say before responding?

What I'm saying is that it's attention seeking posting demands on here and not addressing the club directly.

When did people start saying 'my days' btw, sounds really daft.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight if the club decide one day to up season ticket prices by 50% it shouldn't be up for discussion on this board but everyone should just write to the club and leave it at that. Anyone who discusses it on a message board is attention seeking?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top