Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[haway]

That's my point. They've given one statement already and still getting questions left right and centre. They can't continue making a new statement every day. They've said they're drawing a line under it. Good luck with your email though. Hopefully you get the response we all want.

But they didn't answer any of the salient questions from the trial in that statement. That's the issue. It's not like they answered what the questions were then people were turning round and saying 'oh, and what about this!' The stuff they didn't answer in that first statement was literally all they actually needed to answer.

 

[Reiver]

If I've missed being directly asked for proof that everyone agrees with me I apologise.

In fact I didn't say that the vast majority of anyone agrees with me.

I said that my comments are representative of the comments being made on this thread by those criticising the club which is a very different thing. There might only be three of us.

You haven't really answered my point because the thrust of your argument is quite clearly that you believe that the majority of those criticising the club are in the various ways you described, ridiculous, insincere and acting in bad faith against the club. My point is that the majority of posts on this thread are reasonable even if you disagree and almost everyone else on the thread apart from you is treating those they disagree with more respectfully.

Come on now, I've been honest despite knowing it would result in a few adverse comments.

That isn't what you said at at all and you know it ......... this is what you actually said in it's entirety,

"It might well be your honest opinion but it doesn't stack up in any way to what the vast majority of people are saying in their criticisms of the club."

You were saying the vast majority of people disagreed with me.

Even if it was just this board I'd doubt it's 'the vast majority'.

Plenty are agreeing with me but half a dozen are getting all 'shouty' and calling me things like moron.

You can't change what you say on here so if you can't stand by it you shouldn't say it ...... or at least own up when you're wrong.

 

[kick in the quinn]

A lot of people putting words in others mouths in this thread.

It could be worse, speak to AJ (allegedly)

 

[The Beautiful Game]

But they didn't answer any of the salient questions from the trial in that statement. That's the issue. It's not like they answered what the questions were then people were turning round and saying 'oh, and what about this!' The stuff they didn't answer in that first statement was literally all they actually needed to answer.

As I said in my first reply, I think it's badly worded. I don't see it as an admission of guilt or avoiding the issue.

 

[kick in the quinn]

So the same senior management who when Micky Gray said Short had lied banned him from the SoL until he retracted it haven't been able to say that Byrne didn't know AJ was saying he kissed the girl despite that very specific allegation being put to her.

Statements made in the media are actionable, those made in court are not. Simples

 

[haway]

Come on now, I've been honest despite knowing it would result in a few adverse comments.

That isn't what you said at at all and you know it ......... this is what you actually said in it's entirety,

"It might well be your honest opinion but it doesn't stack up in any way to what the vast majority of people are saying in their criticisms of the club."

You were saying the vast majority of people disagreed with me.

Even if it was just this board I'd doubt it isn't 'the vast majority'.

You can't change what you say on here so if you can't stand by it you shouldn't say it ...... or at least own up when you're wrong.

That isn't what he said man.

"it doesn't stack up in any way to what the vast majority of people are saying in their criticisms of the club."

It reads 'The vast majority of people who are criticising the club are saying...'

Not 'The vast majority of people ARE criticising the club'.

But of those who are criticising the club, the vast majority are saying...

Statements made in the media are actionable, those made in court are not. Simples

Erm defamation can occur in court you do realise...

 

[Reiver]

That isn't what he said man.

"it doesn't stack up in any way to what the vast majority of people are saying in their criticisms of the club."

It reads 'The vast majority of people who are criticising the club are saying...'

Not 'The vast majority of people ARE criticising the club'.

But of those who are criticising the club, the vast majority are saying...

Are you his PA now ........ I'll wait for his response thanks, I wasn't talking to you.

 

[haway]

Are you his PA now ........ I'll wait for his response thanks, I wasn't talking to you.

No but if you're going to fail to interpret a very basic English sentence adequately on a public message board then you are going to get pulled for it...

 

[Jardin]

Sooooooooooo, 140 pages in now...anyone solved anything yet or just 140 pages of speculation?

 

[kick in the quinn]

Erm defamation can occur in court you do realise...

Really?

Defences to defamation
6. There are a number of defences to an action for defamation, including:

1. the words complained of are true in substance and in fact;
2. the statement is protected by absolute privilege (see below);
3. the statement is protected by qualified privilege (see below);
4. the statement constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest: that is, opinion which any person could honestly hold, based on facts known at the time;
5. the words were published innocently by a person who was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement, who took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and s/he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what s/he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement
   You must be logged on to see external links
   and an "offer of amends" has been made
   You must be logged on to see external links
   . Proceedings cannot be taken if the offer of amends is accepted
   You must be logged on to see external links
   . It will constitute a defence if the offer was made as soon as practicable after the publisher received notice that the words might be defamatory.

7. Absolute privilege attaches to:

• words spoken in the ordinary course of legal proceedings;
• a fair and accurate report of public legal proceedings published contemporaneously with such proceedings. Fairness requires that reports should be impartial and should convey the substance of what has taken place in court.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

Come on now, I've been honest despite knowing it would result in a few adverse comments.

That isn't what you said at at all and you know it ......... this is what you actually said in it's entirety,

"It might well be your honest opinion but it doesn't stack up in any way to what the vast majority of people are saying in their criticisms of the club."

You were saying the vast majority of people disagreed with me.

Even if it was just this board I'd doubt it isn't 'the vast majority'.

You can't change what you say on here so if you can't stand by it you shouldn't say it ...... or at least own up when you're wrong.

It's quite clear that I am only referring to those who are being critical of the club. They may or may not be a majority of people on the board or even on the thread. But the vast majority of THOSE PEOPLE BEING CRITICAL OF THE CLUB on this thread are doing so very reasonably. As are the vast majority of those who are disagreeing with that point of view on the thread.

If you actually thought I was trying to assess what the vast majority of Sunderland fans are saying about this, I hereby clarify that I only meant what people are saying on this exact thread. I thought that was what you were talking about and I'm not sure how you would have a view on anything other than that at the moment, unless you're walking around the town and into various places of employment asking them what they think.

You're still trying to put forward the argument that the preponderance of criticism about the club is insincere, hysterical, attention seeking wummery by people taking pleasure in the club being in hot water. I have simply said that on the available sample, this thread, criticism of the club is based on a reasonable view even if you disagree, as are those putting the opposite view.

 

[Deleted member 37458]

[QUOTE="dred
????

Her actions (or lack of) have brought the game into disrepute and her position is untenable.[/QUOTE]
So you know exactly what happened, and what was said behind closed doors.

 

[---Nemo---]

I have to admit that I have not seen every word of the evidence reported in the media during the trial but I did not see anywhere the allegation that the club knew Johnson was going to change his plea from not guilty to guilty. Even if that was alleged, it was at the absolute best a side issue to the main allegation (and it's baffling this bit is being ignored in the discussion) that a representative of the club was directly told by Johnson that he was guilty of at least one of the offences he was accused of and that a representative of the club saw transcripts and became aware having read those transcripts that there was evidence that Johnson was guilty of at least one of the offences he was accused of. It is not in the least unreasonable to be concerned and confused as to why the club issues a statement ignoring the main accusations that are giving them all the trouble in the press today, and focusing on an element of the facts that no one has brought up as an issue in the press today and which they may not have been accused of at all. It's like someone being accused of stealing someone's handbag and responding by refuting absolutely the allegation that they stole someone's coat.

In the presence of his QC Johnson tells someone he is guilty of at least one of the charges, although on legal advice from that same QC he intended to plead not guilty on all charges and maintained this position until trial day. Weasel words somewhere in there.

 

[Exapno Mapcase]

It's been a year of conflicting. emotions. I was relieved when we suspended him to begin with and would have felt more comforyable with that. I wassurprised when he was reinstated into the team but assumed that the club knew more about the case and were confident of a much more positive outcome for Adam Johnson. Like everyone elser I celebrated his goals and as a footballer he was a different class to many in our side.

His trial has revealed his inadequate emotional range and limited understandiong of the real world. He clearly has somebetyer qualities, his former girlfriend has shown tremendous strength of character in being by his side and I have great empathy for his dad who has cared for his son in tyhe worsty circumstances.

Overall I feel very sorry for the young lass and we should be concentrating on supporting her as 'one of us' who deserves encouragement to return to see her club and to know that she is respected by us all as she deals with an horrendous upset

 

[Reiver]

No but if you're going to fail to interpret a very basic English sentence adequately on a public message board then you are going to get pulled for it...

I haven't failed, I've interpreting it in the context of a discussion you weren't involved it which is why your answer is irrelevant.

 

[10 Gary Rowells]

There isn't any real doubt that the QC and Johnson handed over the transcripts to Byrne. The barrister is a QC and he isn't going to risk his career by lying to the court. The statement is incredibly weasel worded on this, talking about receiving some papers that they passed on...it tries to make it sound like they came into possession on info that was meant for someone else. But the full evidence was given to them by Johnson's team for them to look at. We come out of this very badly, man...

This is the same QC who advised Johnson to plead not guilty initially, hence the club's view that Johnson and his legal team that they would win the case. This is the same QC that, presumably, advised Johnson to plead not guilty on the day of the trial. It is quite clear that everyone including the players expected him to plead not guilty. His QC will have known for months that he was going to plead guilty and yet the club was not informed. The QC who handed over the transcripts will have advised the club that his client was going to plead not guilty i.e. he thought he would beat the case. The QC has manipulated everyone to enable his client to pocket another £3M.

 

[Exapno Mapcase]

I hate these stupid tablet keyboards andcan' t be arsed to correct my new spellings and puntuation

 

[Reiver]

It's quite clear that I am only referring to those who are being critical of the club. They may or may not be a majority of people on the board or even on the thread. But the vast majority of THOSE PEOPLE BEING CRITICAL OF THE CLUB on this thread are doing so very reasonably. As are the vast majority of those who are disagreeing with that point of view on the thread.

If you actually thought I was trying to assess what the vast majority of Sunderland fans are saying about this, I hereby clarify that I only meant what people are saying on this exact thread. I thought that was what you were talking about and I'm not sure how you would have a view on anything other than that at the moment, unless you're walking around the town and into various places of employment asking them what they think.

You're still trying to put forward the argument that the preponderance of criticism about the club is insincere, hysterical, attention seeking wummery by people taking pleasure in the club being in hot water. I have simply said that on the available sample, this thread, criticism of the club is based on a reasonable view even if you disagree, as are those putting the opposite view.

I disagree, some are going on like total bellends and discussing 'points of law' for which they have no actual facts.

I'd say its more like 50% who are being totally reasonable tbh.

"You're still trying to put forward the argument that the preponderance of criticism about the club is insincere, hysterical, attention seeking wummery by people taking pleasure in the club being in hot water. I have simply said that on the available sample, this thread, criticism of the club is based on a reasonable view even if you disagree, as are those putting the opposite view."

No I'm not ......... only the ones that are, as I've said three times now.

 

[10 Gary Rowells]

It's been a year of conflicting. emotions. I was relieved when we suspended him to begin with and would have felt more comforyable with that. I wassurprised when he was reinstated into the team but assumed that the club knew more about the case and were confident of a much more positive outcome for Adam Johnson. Like everyone elser I celebrated his goals and as a footballer he was a different class to many in our side.

His trial has revealed his inadequate emotional range and limited understandiong of the real world. He clearly has somebetyer qualities, his former girlfriend has shown tremendous strength of character in being by his side and I have great empathy for his dad who has cared for his son in tyhe worsty circumstances.

Overall I feel very sorry for the young lass and we should be concentrating on supporting her as 'one of us' who deserves encouragement to return to see her club and to know that she is respected by us all as she deals with an horrendous upset

I think its clear that both Johnson and his legal team gave the club the expectation of a more positive outcome, hence his initial not guilty plea on all four charges.

 

[haway]

I haven't failed, I've interpreting it in the context of a discussion you weren't involved it which is why your answer is irrelevant.

It's a discussion that has its entirety on here for everyone to see. And it was clear you misinterpreted what he said. That's fine, it's ok to get the wrong end of the stick sometimes, you don't need to get angry about it.

I which case that must be all of them and not just 'the vast majority' ........

I which case that must be all of them and not just 'the vast majority' ........

Would you like me to draw you Venn diagrams to explain what he means?