Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[Mackem DJ]

He's obsessed with virgins. It's quite alarming imo

Aye okay Billy Casper. Run along and play with your pet Hawk theres a good lad before I get Jud to give you a shoeing.

 

[Rober33]

How f***ing dare you man.

When people get angry and make a scene because James McClean doesn't wear a poppy, you have a point, it's a trivial gesture, faux outrage. When SAFC allow someone to keep playing who has sexually abused an underage SAFC supporter who he met on club premises and used his position at the club to exploit, there is nothing 'faux' about the outrage. The 4 year sentence he is about to get should be a measure of how serious this matter is. The victim has explicitly said the decision to keep playing him caused her trauma.

Log off because you're embarrassing all decent SAFC fans who actually appreciate that this was seriously bad craic all round.

You're embarrassing yourself, expecting SAFC to prejudge an impending trial.

Any pain caused to the victim in this case was caused by Adam Johnson, through his initial actions and his continued lying and not guilty plea.

 

[haway]

That is not what I said.

I said that if the evidence tended to prove he was guilty. Nothing to do with admissions. Even a guilty person has the right to defence counsel, it is when the client does not accept the advice of counsel

Wrong again, counsel is just there to advise. Your counsel can advise you that the evidence against you means you're in deep trouble, likely to get found guilty etc. but it is totally your call to plead in whatever way you see fit.

 

[Sima]

He's obsessed with virgins. It's quite alarming imo

At least him and Johnson could have something in common.

 

[janey]

and the chief investigator has basically confirmed what some suspected.

Yet the officer in Court said this

“Myself and a colleague went to meet Margaret Byrne to discuss the offences and consider safeguarding for any other young people he may come in contact with through his work as a professional football player.

DI Sampson went on to say that what Johnson had told police in interview was not disclosed to the club.

 

[North of the Smoke]

When the twats in the press slag the club, or sit in judgement, they should be explicit about what they mean, and consistent with events in the game.

They are by association slandering thousands of fans who are decent people, who have done fuck all to bring this shit storm down, and who should be treated with respect.

This level of generalistion appears to be reserved for football (depending on the club), and the c*nts should also take the same level of care over tarring masses with the same brush as they would with other stories.

No one in their right mind would defend johnson, but park the shit at his f***ing door, and if anyone else if culpable then go for them, but the 'Club' is a broad Church.

And we are decent.


C*nts

 

[Thomas Hearns]

It's called completely failing to grasp the seriousness of the issue.

Yawn

 

[Rober33]

In my humble opinion it's a ham-fisted attempt to spin by focusing on the bit they can refute not the bit that they are shaky on. Which is piss weak because one assumes they've been following the trial and should have seen what the most damaging part of the court testimony. If they honestly, actually thought that the pleading guilty part was the most important part then they are bigger clownshoes than anyone has given them credit for.

At least you accept this is only your opinion, which you're entitled to btw.

 

[Sweeper]

No they weren't. You are getting confused with 'safeguarding' it's not the same thing.

Here man - it's now common knowledge that the club were informed early on that he had messaged, met and kissed a 15 year old girl. It's common knowledge that the club were provided, early on, with the interview transcript (in which he admits to kissing her) and the 836 whatsapp messages between the two - some of which we know were hugely inappropriate as they were quoted in court. Why are you in denial about this when it is in every paper in the country, on every news channel, and the club have consciously and entirely skirted over it?!

 

[Mackem DJ]

At least him and Johnson could have something in common.

& Cisse wah faymus numba neyn

 

[10 Gary Rowells]

The more I think about it the more I feel Johnson's barrister has played this one to a tee. Weighing up the evidence he obviously realised that Johnson was looking at jail time. The best scenario was for Johnson to minimise the jail time but maximise his earnings - 18 months or so of £60K a week. If he had pleaded guilty or let the club know he wasn't going to contest the charges Johnson would not have made the money. Everyone - the players, the club, the manager believed he was going to plead not guilty. He then changed the plea at the last minute - something he was always going to do. However, the club could sue to get the wages back - to avoid this the barrister has suggested that the club knew his guilt all along and so won't sue.

 

[Sweeper]

Yawn

Nothing boring about this. It's serious stuff.

 

[everstar]

Law and guilt are man made constructs. If someone kills someone in the UK. Its not necessarily a crime. People seem to forget this

 

[ajthemackem]

The Police seem to have got themselves in a twist over this like.

 

[haway]

You're embarrassing yourself, expecting SAFC to prejudge an impending trial.

Any pain caused to the victim in this case was caused by Adam Johnson, through his initial actions and his continued lying and not guilty plea.

No I'm not. I'm not asking them to sack him, or decide he's guilty. What I'm saying is when you are aware an employee has been accused of touching up a kid you should suspend them, especially if the allegation is they used their job to exploit the child. As I've said two dozen times in this thread now, would you say a school was prejudging a trial if it suspended a teacher who was accused of touching up a kid (even one not at the school)? Or a policeman? or a doctor? You aren't prejudging a f***ing trial if you suspend someone until the outcome of the trial!

 

[janey]

The chief investigator and AJ himself told the club. We have allowed him to continue playing whilst knowing he was grooming and kissing a 15 year old girl. I have no idea why people find that acceptable.

"There was a detailed meeting on March 2nd where the club were told he messaged and kissed the girl"

That is no hearsay. It's fact from a very respectable person on the case.

Why on earth shouldn't we be annoyed that the club seemingly allowed our great support to cheer a sex offender up until February this year. It's shameful.

Yet the officer in Court said this


“Myself and a colleague went to meet Margaret Byrne to discuss the offences and consider safeguarding for any other young people he may come in contact with through his work as a professional football player.”

DI Sampson went on to say that what Johnson had told police in interview was not disclosed to the club.

 

[samaistonsrightfoot]

You're absolutely right, however the club have stated they had no knowledge which would allow them to ascertain his guilt.

"Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case"

That just sounds like a swerve to me. Just on the basis that they had gone to the length of making a statement to deny knowledge of his guilty plead but they haven't bothered to mention the 2 main points that have been raised in court and the media. It's obviously open for debate but it's where I stand with it, although I do hope I'm wrong

I just don't see the point in using this police statement as confirmation that she was indeed aware of what she is being accused of as that would be unfair imo

 

[Rober33]

Yet the officer in Court said this

“Myself and a colleague went to meet Margaret Byrne to discuss the offences and consider safeguarding for any other young people he may come in contact with through his work as a professional football player.

DI Sampson went on to say that what Johnson had told police in interview was not disclosed to the club.

It's obvious the police only told the club he was alleged to have kissed the girl not that he'd admitted it. If that's not the case the police have serious questions to answer about why they gave false evidence in court.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

As far as I can see the allegation that the club knew he was guilty beyond any doubt is bollocks. The club made a statement saying they had been informed Johnson was pleading not guilty and had no reason to doubt him. I don't think the club had any evidence Johnson was guilty simply because the information was provided by his defence QC. And it isn't in the QC's interest to incriminate his client. Hopefully this satisfies you, if it doesn't, ah well, sure you won't lose any sleep over it.

The allegation may be bollocks. If it was bollocks, the question remains, and sorry to get all Paxman about it, why the club didn't deny it. They felt it worth going to a lot of effort to denying the "guilty plea" bit so they're obviously in the mode of refuting allegations, in "the strongest possible terms" apparently. so they can have no complaints about looking f***ing terrible as a result of this, and it's their fault. Either for not managing the situation last year or not managing the information yesterday.

 

[Deleted User 18963]

Yet the officer in Court said this


“Myself and a colleague went to meet Margaret Byrne to discuss the offences and consider safeguarding for any other young people he may come in contact with through his work as a professional football player.”

DI Sampson went on to say that what Johnson had told police in interview was not disclosed to the club.

Yes that's is completely different. That was the interview at the station.

The chief investigator is not talking about. A seperate meeting.