• 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.



IN a former life, Margaret Byrne’s work as a solicitor used to take her to the cells of north London on a Saturday night.

It was quite some introduction to the world of law, but the 32-year-old chuckles about it now. If the Premier League seems like a dog-eat-dog world to outsiders, it is nothing compared to the school of hard knocks she graduated from.

“I saw lots of things in north London police stations that keep things in perspective,” she said.

“I couldn’t have imagined all of this, but I’m a grafter and I work really, really hard. I’m a trained solicitor and have gone round in the middle of the night representing people in north London. You don’t get much tougher training as a younger person than that"
 

CEO but she trained and practiced as a criminal lawyer, of course she's qualified man.

If I do a PGCE and become a teacher, and then decide to work in a garage, and still a qualified teacher.
but it isn't your job to be a teacher. It's your job to work in a garage. Did the club not state that the information given to them was passed to Adam Johnson's legal team? Who's to say she even read it?
 
End of the day, there is 1 simple question people are asking and the club are not coming out and telling people the answer to what they are asking about. This strongly indicates that the club simply can't say they didn't know otherwise this 1 small matter which is dragging the clubs name through the dirt would be addressed by now.
 
Question I have that's been lost in this thread... What was the reason/context around AJ's QC bringing up the opinion that 'SAFC must have known everything'?

How would saying that help his defence?
 
but it isn't your job to be a teacher. It's your job to work in a garage. Did the club not state that the information given to them was passed to Adam Johnson's legal team? Who's to say she even read it?

1) She was legal secretary, part of her job as CEO will surely encompass some legal matters, otherwise why did we employ a lawyer.

2) I'm not disputing she didn't get independent advice, I'm sure she did, what I'm challenging is the idea she would somehow be baffled and confused by what she read.

Question I have that's been lost in this thread... What was the reason/context around AJ's QC bringing up the opinion that 'SAFC must have known everything'?

How would saying that help his defence?

I think the rough idea was to refute a suggestion he had mislead SAFC to extract as much money as he could.
 
Question I have that's been lost in this thread... What was the reason/context around AJ's QC bringing up the opinion that 'SAFC must have known everything'?

How would saying that help his defence?

The defence was built around Johnson being honest with everything he says, hence why he tried to claim he knew it was wrong but didn't care. So further proof which he could use to make him seem honest is to use the club, telling us that the club knew about it and he even told them he had done it. He couldn't use this in the case if it was a lie otherwise the club would quite simply sue the living shit out of him and it's not like it's just something he made up he's backed up by his defence who'd almost certainly not let someone use some utter bullshit in their defence like that.
 
'Thank you for your enquiry. Please note that we will endeavour to respond to you within 48 hours. If your enquiry is urgent please telephone 0871 9111200 where your call will be dealt with by a member of our team.'



Which bit do you disagree with?
Have you phoned them yet as this is obviously so urgent to you?
 
If it was a lie I'm sure we'd have released even just a mini-statement already to clarify this, the club is getting shit on by the media and the fans because they are refuse to do this. The question is; are they refusing to do this out of stubbornness or is it not possible for them to say it was a lie because they could then face action if they are lying themselves.

No idea. But it's not all one way traffic, a QC has already come out and said the club have acted as best they could in difficult circumsatnces, but that's been drowned in the shit storm that wants to point the finger of blame at the club. As has been repeatedly said, the only guilty party here is Johnson, who the court says was a lying twat. If people want to have a go at the club, that's up to them. For me, the statement they released was good enough.
 
No idea. But it's not all one way traffic, a QC has already come out and said the club have acted as best they could in difficult circumsatnces, but that's been drowned in the shit storm that wants to point the finger of blame at the club. As has been repeatedly said, the only guilty party here is Johnson, who the court says was a lying twat. If people want to have a go at the club, that's up to them. For me, the statement they released was good enough.

People are only having a go because they have 1 single question that the club just refuse to answer.
 
No idea. But it's not all one way traffic, a QC has already come out and said the club have acted as best they could in difficult circumsatnces, but that's been drowned in the shit storm that wants to point the finger of blame at the club. As has been repeatedly said, the only guilty party here is Johnson, who the court says was a lying twat. If people want to have a go at the club, that's up to them. For me, the statement they released was good enough.

That's fair enough but you've got to respect others who don't feel the same, yes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top