• 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.
redandwhiterob said:
He's already stated if it was our cousins up the road his opinion would be totally different

I'm not sure how he expects his opinion to be taken seriously given this admission
Click to expand...

So, having failed to win your argument directly, you're now calling in support like the other poster who jumped in on Cockney Mackem.

That happens a lot on here.

I've already answered your point, here, which you've chosen to totally ignore.

Pitiful from someone who seems to believe they're better than most.

Cockney Mackem said:
I was just curious to see if he would actually defend his position if anyone pulled him up on calling everyone criticising the club every name under the sun.

He wouldn't
Click to expand...

Is this some kind of office dwelling double talk when the argument has failed?

I haven't lumped everyone in the same boat but you now seem desperate to crawl in :lol:
 

Reiver said:
So, having failed to win your argument directly, you're now calling in support like the other poster who jumped in on Cockney Mackem.

That happens a lot on here.

I've already answered your point, here, which you've chosen to totally ignore.

Pitiful from someone who seems to believe they're better than most.



Is this some kind of office dwelling double talk when the argument has failed?
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. You haven't got a argument ffs:lol:

You are doing you usual trick and shouting very loudly contridicting yourself until everyone gets sick of replying then you will claim 'victory'
 
Reiver said:
It does, only I can't see the straw you're clutching.

Lose the big argument and pick up on a grammatical anomaly in time honoured SMB fashion :lol:
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm losing the big argument. I mean, the widespread condemnation of how SAFC handled it from pretty much the whole national media, the NSPCC, child and sex abuse campaigners, child protection agencies etc. suggests the big argument is pretty firmly lodged against yourself. I think you'd be hard pushed to find a mainstream article or opinion piece that isn't critical of what SAFC have done. But of course, I'm losing the big argument.

Do you dispute any of this, from the Guardian:

"In
You must be logged on to see external links
, Sunderland AFC said they would have sacked Johnson immediately had club officials known he intended to plead guilty to two child sex offences.

However, the club failed to address evidence heard at Bradford crown court that
You must be logged on to see external links
as long ago as 4 May 2015 that he kissed the teenage fan and sent her sexually-explicit messages.

In evidence to his trial, Johnson said he told “everything” to Margaret Byrne, Sunderland AFC’s chief executive, at the meeting and there was no suggestion he would be sacked.

It also emerged at the trial that Byrne had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages Johnson exchanged with the girl, as well as transcripts of their police interviews. In Johnson’s first police interview, he admitted kissing the girl on the lips and knowing she was underage.

Yet he was allowed to continue playing for the club until 6 February – the weekend before his trial – and earned nearly £3m after his suspension was lifted just 16 days after his arrest."

That is the issue. It's as clear as f***ing day to everyone except a section of SAFC fans who are digging their heels in to defend the club.
 
Reiver said:
Don't talk shite man, the hysterical keyboard bashers wouldn't believe a statement if it was written in Charlie Hurley's blood.

It'll only run and run on pathetic forum threads like the twin towers or alien autopsy's.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to separate those criticising the club and those calling for action by the club (which is a strange distinction to make anyway. Thinking the club has done something wrong - reasonable. Wanting the club to do something to remedy this - hysterical wum pontificating insincere keyboard warrier)
 
10 Gary Rowells said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you plead guilty you will get tougher (or possibly no) bail conditions, would lose privileges if remanded and anyway you can always decide to delay a guilty plea until the last minute in the hope that the witness backs out/falls under a bus etc. There would be a lesser tariff reduction if you delayed a guilty plea until the day of the trial but here that doesn't matter so much as he was going to plead not guilty to the more serious charges all the way through anyway and so force her into the witness box.

But the real point here is that this is all just tactics (which Byrne would know full well having done criminal trials).
Pleading not guilty just means you are putting the prosecution to proof, not necessarily that you think you didn't do it.

As an employer in a field (basically a branch of the entertainment industry) where reputation matters far more than usual and given the serious consequences for that reputation if we let him play, not getting a categorical denial from him that he didn't do what was alleged (at the very least) before keeping playing him was unbelievably stupid, especially if we did have the evidence actually showing he was guilty of some of the charges to hand.
 
redandwhiterob said:
Blah blah blah. You haven't got a argument ffs:lol:

You are doing you usual trick and shouting very loudly until everyone gets sick of replying then you will claim 'victory'
Click to expand...

You're coming across as a bit rattled here tbh.

You ignored my very clear answer to your question because you have no argument.

I'm not shouting but 3 people have now joined up to have a go at me.

What do you mean by everyone, are you lot all in the same office and speak on each other's behalf?

I'm not after a victory, I've already clearly stated I'm only here for my amusement which is being totally honest ...... why not try it for once?
 
Reiver said:
Absolute bollocks.

The likes of you would stamp your little feet and claim the club were lying.

Don't even try to claim you'd say, "Ah well, in that case I think it's time to et this drop."

Just admit it man, you're f***ing loving it :lol:
Click to expand...

I see no distinction between the "good" and "bad" arguers and the statement you responded to seems pretty reasonable to me and nothing hysterical like you're suggesting.
 
Reiver said:
Various 'bad names, like what?

I've clearly stated that those criticising the club are quite right & proper ....... those who are demanding action from the club are attention seeking.

Probably the 6th or 7th time I've said that now.

I don't class everyone in the same category which is why I always take the time to answer you as politely as the subject allows.

People shouting and calling me a moron can go and fuck themselves.
Click to expand...

Nobody is demanding the club release all their papers, or whatever.

The only 'demand' at this stage is they actually respond to what has been alleged so we know what they knew.

It's not unreasonable...
 
redandwhiterob said:
Decision was taken to play now worry about consequences later imo
Click to expand...

You have said this a few times now so obviously feel very strongly about it and the type of poster you are I would imagine you can back up your opinion. If Johnson admitted to kissing the girl in his initial interview with the police then again to the club how could he have planned to plead not guilty to all charges? I don't understand that part so it leads me to think Johnson hasn't been honest about it

I'm not having a go at you or your opinion I just do not understand that part
 
Reiver said:
It won't though ........ even the most rabid 'legal experts' and conspiracy theorists are even starting to bore themselves.

If the club believe they've said all they need to then they won't be coming out every time a few internet warriors stamp their feet.

I'm sure there will be a handful who keep droning on but, at the Palace match, I didn't hear people mention it.
I'll be at Southampton and doubt whether it'll be a blazing topic of conversation there either.

If people are so concerned they'll write to the club directly ........ in reality they'll do nothing more than blather on here.
Click to expand...

Just seems like namecalling everyone who's being critical to me.
 
haway said:
I don't think I'm losing the big argument. I mean, the widespread condemnation of how SAFC handled it from pretty much the whole national media, the NSPCC, child and sex abuse campaigners, child protection agencies etc. suggests the big argument is pretty firmly lodged against yourself. I think you'd be hard pushed to find a mainstream article or opinion piece that isn't critical of what SAFC have done. But of course, I'm losing the big argument.

Do you dispute any of this, from the Guardian:

"In
You must be logged on to see external links
, Sunderland AFC said they would have sacked Johnson immediately had club officials known he intended to plead guilty to two child sex offences.

However, the club failed to address evidence heard at Bradford crown court that
You must be logged on to see external links
as long ago as 4 May 2015 that he kissed the teenage fan and sent her sexually-explicit messages.

In evidence to his trial, Johnson said he told “everything” to Margaret Byrne, Sunderland AFC’s chief executive, at the meeting and there was no suggestion he would be sacked.

It also emerged at the trial that Byrne had copies of the 834 WhatsApp messages Johnson exchanged with the girl, as well as transcripts of their police interviews. In Johnson’s first police interview, he admitted kissing the girl on the lips and knowing she was underage.

Yet he was allowed to continue playing for the club until 6 February – the weekend before his trial – and earned nearly £3m after his suspension was lifted just 16 days after his arrest."

That is the issue. It's as clear as f***ing day to everyone except a section of SAFC fans who are digging their heels in to defend the club.
Click to expand...

"That is the issue. It's as clear as f***ing day to everyone except a section of SAFC fans who are digging their heels in to defend the club."

I've said half a dozen times, I'm not defending the club ....... you could've saved all that cut & paste if you'd bothered to read it.

But you're obviously so engrossed in your agenda that you don't want to read what I've actually posted, which seems contagious tbh.
 
Wylie Coyote said:
You have said this a few times now so obviously feel very strongly about it and the type of poster you are I would imagine you can back up your opinion. If Johnson admitted to kissing the girl in his initial interview with the police then again to the club how could he have planned to plead not guilty to all charges? I don't understand that part so it leads me to think Johnson hasn't been honest about it

I'm not having a go at you or your opinion I just do not understand that part
Click to expand...

Because the CPS can present all the evidence in the world that shows you're guilty but you can delay a guilty plea for all sorts of reasons. People admit things in a police station then they get to court and change their story etc. it happens all the time.

What seems to have happened here is he has admitted he kissed her to the club, and said he is pleading not guilty but what isn't clear is what basis he was saying he was pleading not guilty on. The reasonable guess is not a lot and he did it to get more money but that should have been f***ing obvious to SAFC if they did indeed have his paperwork.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top