Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[Pallion exile]

The little spenk's gona cost us points at this rate.

 

[haway]

They shared the allegations at the time which were unproven, that's all.

Yes, but who knows the specifics of the allegations they shared.

'We have allegations AJ has kissed a child' would be very different to 'We have allegations AJ met a child through his work with you, kissed her and repeatedly messaged her over a period of weeks'... as far as how one would expect SAFC to respond.

 

[zebediah]

Good questions...

'1. Adam Johnson said in his trial that during a meeting with Margaret Byrne on May 4, 2015, he admitted grooming and kissing a 15-year-old girl. Do the club accept this happened?


2. If so, knowing the likely outcome of such serious admissions, why did they continue to play Johnson?


3. The statement says that the CEO was only present for part of the May 4 meeting. Given the seriousness of what was being discussed, why was this and who, if anyone, represented the club in her absence?


4. The club says it refuted in the "strongest possible terms" some of the evidence given by Johnson in court. Why did Margaret Byrne not attend the court to refute those claims when she was given the opportunity by the defence team?


5. Your statement talks about safeguarding measures that were put in place after Johnson’s suspension was lifted. What were those measures and which "relevant" agencies were involved?


6. What was the legal advice which prompted the club to lift Johnson’s suspension after a meeting with the PFA and was Ellis Short involved in the decision-making process?


7. If Sunderland were not fighting relegation, would the club have continued to play Johnson once his suspension was lifted?


8. Does the club acknowledge any duty of care and compensation to a life-long fan who was abused by one of their employees? And will the club be issuing a formal apology to the victim?


9. Have any further safeguarding or child-protection measures been implemented at the club as a result of the trial?


10. Do the club have any regrets over how it has acted in relation to these matters?'

Read more:

You must be logged on to see external links

I thought he said "I told the club everything and they were happy with me playing" something ambiguous anyway?
I certainly can't recall him being quoted saying anything really definitive, which is the biggest problem with this entire mess.
We needed a lawyer to have him tell the court exactly what happened with the club, but that was a very minor issue within the trial itself, it was just him trying to make himself look less of a wanker when asked why he kept playing knowing he was guilty and putting that lass through so much shit as a result.
Threw every one us us under the bus to try and make himself look slightly less vile.

 

[haway]

This is what happens when you appoint people into the very top position with absolutely no experience of the job whatsoever. Byrne has been an unmitigated disaster, from the Di Canio fiasco to the Ji non-registration and now to this. This clubs image has been tarnished forever due to monumental fuck ups by Byrne. I've been banging the drum for her to be sacked since the Di Canio fiasco and it's been pretty obvious for a long time that she is well out of depth in a CEO role. She will never work in such a high powered role ever again, her career is finished as well.

I think it's worth remembering that even if you think it was right to employ Di Canio, we managed to totally cock the PR side up. 3 or 4 statements in a week, including the second one; 'It is both ludicrous and insulting that anyone could suggest Di Canio is a fascist'

I thought he said "I told the club everything and they were happy with me playing" something ambiguous anyway?
I certainly can't recall him being quoted saying anything really definitive, which is the biggest problem with this entire mess.
We needed a lawyer to have him tell the court exactly what happened with the club, but that was a very minor issue within the trial itself, it was just him trying to make himself look less of a wanker when asked why he kept playing knowing he was guilty and putting that lass through so much shit as a result.
Threw every one us us under the bus to try and make himself look slightly less vile.

Aye but although I agree he was ambiguous there's no reason SAFC is being ambiguous. They can come out and lay this whole issue to bed in an hour.

 

[Rober33]

You ignoring everything that has been out in the last couple of days like. Come on man, if you are not accepting March 2nd, you must accept the meeting on May 4th. Its farcical to just ignore it. She has choose to follow the innocent till proven guilty line and fuck morals and ethics. Think everyone can not see that

I'm not ignoring anything.

On March 2nd the Police met with Byrne and discussed the allegations made against Johnson and discussed how this effected the club from a safeguarding position. We have all been aware that the club knew about the allegations since Johnson was first arrested. The press are twisting this to make it seem like the club knew that Johnson was guilty at this time which is absolute rubbish as he hadn't even been interviewed. The police also confirmed that they never disclosed anything to the club about Johnson's interview when after it had taken place.

What happened at the March 4th meeting, which was an introductory meeting between Johnson and his QC at which his father was present as was Byrne for part of the meeting, is far from clear. There is a lot of speculation following a line of questioning from Johnson's QC to Johnson during the trial which was designed to suggest to the jury that he was not afraid of losing his £60,000 a week wages if he pleaded guilty.

We do know the club claim to have passed all documents immediately to the QC and "was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case".

 

[The Cabbage]

Good questions...

'1. Adam Johnson said in his trial that during a meeting with Margaret Byrne on May 4, 2015, he admitted grooming and kissing a 15-year-old girl. Do the club accept this happened?


2. If so, knowing the likely outcome of such serious admissions, why did they continue to play Johnson?


3. The statement says that the CEO was only present for part of the May 4 meeting. Given the seriousness of what was being discussed, why was this and who, if anyone, represented the club in her absence?


4. The club says it refuted in the "strongest possible terms" some of the evidence given by Johnson in court. Why did Margaret Byrne not attend the court to refute those claims when she was given the opportunity by the defence team?


5. Your statement talks about safeguarding measures that were put in place after Johnson’s suspension was lifted. What were those measures and which "relevant" agencies were involved?


6. What was the legal advice which prompted the club to lift Johnson’s suspension after a meeting with the PFA and was Ellis Short involved in the decision-making process?


7. If Sunderland were not fighting relegation, would the club have continued to play Johnson once his suspension was lifted?


8. Does the club acknowledge any duty of care and compensation to a life-long fan who was abused by one of their employees? And will the club be issuing a formal apology to the victim?


9. Have any further safeguarding or child-protection measures been implemented at the club as a result of the trial?


10. Do the club have any regrets over how it has acted in relation to these matters?'

Read more:

You must be logged on to see external links

Probably fair questions other than 7. It's a misrepresentation to say he was critical to our survival. He hardly featured.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

There's no grounds for punishment but in the role of CEO Byrne is the club tbf.

She might make important decisions for it but she isn't the club. The club is far bigger than any individual and has been around many years before her and will be here many years after as well. As I said, anyone who knew has failed the club itself on top of the supporters, players and anyone else associated with it.

 

[haway]

Probably fair questions other than 7. It's a misrepresentation to say he was critical to our survival. He hardly featured.

Aye but the Q isn't whether he was or wasn't crucial to survival but whether the threat of relegation influenced the decision... fair question imo but not exactly the most pressing one.

 

[ollie c]

She might make important decisions for it but she isn't the club. The club is far bigger than any individual and has been around many years before her and will be here many years after as well. As I said, anyone who knew has failed the club itself on top of the supporters, players and anyone else associated with it.

Who'll remember her name after she's gone? In the eyes of the wider public it is an SAFC issue. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

 

[haway]

Who'll remember her name after she's gone? In the eyes of the wider public it is an SAFC issue. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Probably true.

The brand that will get tarnished in the public eye isn't Byrne or Short as the public isn't really aware of them, it's SAFC.

That said, it is only the individuals involved who can be blamed, imo.

 

[sonson]

Why do you personally need answers?
You are not involved in the case, you are not directly affected by the verdict and thankfully the abuse and to put it bluntly you have no reason to know.

That's very narrow sighted.

Any organisation has legal, civic and moral obligations and commitments when it comes to the protection of children. The gaps in the current situation, including the club's seeming inability to refute accusations which, if it was innocent, would be very easy to deny and clear up, suggest that it has failed to follow these obligations and failed to take the protection of young people into account. At worse, it has actively tried to brush them under the carpet for a year rather than enact them. This concerns me both in respect to the wellbeing of the community of supporters as well as what it says about the current state of a a club which has been an emotional and financial fixture and commitment in my life for 30 years. I never supported Sunderland because it was a winning team, but because it was my team, my town, my people. I don't like the idea that the club now does not care for the welfare of the young people who support my team, my town, my people.

I know it might be an amazing/unbelievable to thing hear, but some people are as bothered about the wider community and other people as they are themselves. Not everything boils down to "If you're not at risk then it's not a problem, butt out".

 

[Rober33]

Yes, but who knows the specifics of the allegations they shared.

'We have allegations AJ has kissed a child' would be very different to 'We have allegations AJ met a child through his work with you, kissed her and repeatedly messaged her over a period of weeks'... as far as how one would expect SAFC to respond.

It makes no difference, they are just allegations.

Bear in mind anyone can make allegations against any of us at any time.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

I'm not ignoring anything.

On March 2nd the Police met with Byrne and discussed the allegations made against Johnson and discussed how this effected the club from a safeguarding position. We have all been aware that the club knew about the allegations since Johnson was first arrested. The press are twisting this to make it seem like the club knew that Johnson was guilty at this time which is absolute rubbish as he hadn't even been interviewed. The police also confirmed that they never disclosed anything to the club about Johnson's interview when after it had taken place.

What happened at the March 4th meeting, which was an introductory meeting between Johnson and his QC at which his father was present as was Byrne for part of the meeting, is far from clear. There is a lot of speculation following a line of questioning from Johnson's QC to Johnson during the trial which was designed to suggest to the jury that he was not afraid of losing his £60,000 a week wages if he pleaded guilty.

We do know the club claim to have passed all documents immediately to the QC and "was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case".

Why would you miss out the specific allegations made in court about the May 4th meeting?

 

[Stockton Mackem]

The little spenk's gona cost us points at this rate.

I very much doubt it

 

[ollie c]

Probably true.

The brand that will get tarnished in the public eye isn't Byrne or Short as the public isn't really aware of them, it's SAFC.

That said, it is only the individuals involved who can be blamed, imo.

Yes, unfortunately shit will stick to the club. Note all of the reports talk about
" What did Sunderland know"? not " " What did Margaret Byrne know"?

 

[TradingPlaces]

I think it's worth remembering that even if you think it was right to employ Di Canio, we managed to totally cock the PR side up. 3 or 4 statements in a week, including the second one; 'It is both ludicrous and insulting that anyone could suggest Di Canio is a fascist'



Aye but although I agree he was ambiguous there's no reason SAFC is being ambiguous. They can come out and lay this whole issue to bed in an hour.

Oh yes, I remember it well, she just goes from one fuck up straight into another. Makes me laugh at the end of her statements she always puts "no further comment will be made" and then she has to backtrack and issue further statements because she fucked up in the first one Short is as much to blame for appointing her in the first place, from Secretary to CEO in one swoop, and people wonder why the club is so badly run. Short and Byrne have turned us into the most hated club in world football amongst neutrals.

 

[haway]

It makes no difference, they are just allegations.

Bear in mind anyone can make allegations against any of us at any time.

Aye, and if I ever face allegations I groomed a child I met in my place of work I would fully and completely expect to be suspended on pay pending the outcome of police inquiries/ a trial. Even if the allegations were off the wall, which they weren't in this case.

 

[Sandboy]

250 pages of speculation and not a single soul who has commented has any idea what was said in those meetings

can we not get back to the twat at the centre of this?

 

[Rober33]

Why would you miss out the specific allegations made in court about the May 4th meeting?

Don't think I did:

"There is a lot of speculation following a line of questioning from Johnson's QC to Johnson during the trial which was designed to suggest to the jury that he was not afraid of losing his £60,000 a week wages if he pleaded guilty."

 

[Cockney Mackem]

Don't think I did:

"There is a lot of speculation following a line of questioning from Johnson's QC to Johnson during the trial which was designed to suggest to the jury that he was not afraid of losing his £60,000 a week wages if he pleaded guilty."

It's not speculation. How is it speculation to report on a specific allegation and ask if it's true? Speculation sounds like someone is guessing at something when in fact they are repeating the public record.