John J Rambo
Striker
Durham police saying SAFC knew of the allegations. Everyone knew them.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you've won.I haven't followed the thread because it's way over my head to be honest but I've had a rush-to-the-head £50 bet with a gob-shite Boro supporter that the club won't be sued for playing Johnson up to the Liverpool game, have I just lost £50?
That she sucked him off (not guilty)
That he offered to buy her a range rover (didnt happen, accepted as fact)
That his pubes were shaven (accepted by most that they arent)
That he gave her money, which she then used to buy her mate sexy lingere(didnt happen, something now accepted as fact)
+ others.
I think the whole witchhunt against the Club is being completely fueled by the BBC and those based at the pink palace.What about the Guardian?
Yes. Or she had retracted them in later interviews prior to the trial.We're all them debunked in court? Brought up as evidence as such
Had he been removed from being played should he have been paid? That's £60k a week for doing nothing for probably 18 months. I'm not saying he shouldn't be but it's not at all straight forward. It's so easy in hindsight but not at the time. Don't forget the PFA were keen on the suspension being lifted and Johnson and his legal team were saying not guilty.He could have, and should have, been removed from being able to play. This entire circus could have been avoided by the club.
He shouldn't say that he will only accept "12- nil" majority if he wont, making jokes in the case of this trial means he's a nob aswel.
Exactly and the BBC are lecturing our Club? The BBC led by the biased scum at the pink palace should not be chucking pelters at our Club. Its low as they can get using this very sad situation. However, whats sad is supposed Sunderland fans (I use the word supposed because I think a lot on here are mags and WUM) are condoning it. The Club has behaved admirably in this situation. The BBC and its saville cronies and narrow minded Sunderland hating shits at the pink palace can sod off.
Are the jury legal experts like ? they look at the evidence they have in front of them and give an opinion, that's what I have done but because it goes against the opinion on here Im getting shit, you think it's ok for a judge to make a joke about a verdict ?Are you some sort of legal expert now to. It's very common practice for a judge to follow thst procedure. If it wasn't do you not think the highest paid QC in the land may have picked up on it?
Easiest £50 you'll ever makeI haven't followed the thread because it's way over my head to be honest but I've had a rush-to-the-head £50 bet with a gob-shite Boro supporter that the club won't be sued for playing Johnson up to the Liverpool game, have I just lost £50?
Yes. Or she had retracted them in later interviews prior to the trial.
Had he been removed from being played should he have been paid? That's £60k a week for doing nothing for probably 18 months. I'm not saying he shouldn't be but it's not at all straight forward. It's so easy in hindsight but not at the time. Don't forget the PFA were keen on the suspension being lifted and Johnson and his legal team were saying not guilty.
The Guardian article this morning talking about Football cleaning up its act came across the same. I can get countless articles venerating John Peel or Jimmy Page from that paper to suggest that they are selective in their outrage. The whole tenor of that article reminded me of the disdain Thatcher felt for football.What about the Guardian?
You are a pretty sad bloke who spends his time on a rivals message board ffs and no doubt enjoying this very sad situation. I dont really care what you think.Yet you're unquestionably backing the club playing a sex offender for nearly a year after his arrest.
It's disgusting that you're calling others' level of support in question because they are dismayed with how the club they support have managed this situation.
Are the jury legal experts like ? they look at the evidence they have in front of them and give an opinion, that's what I have done but because it goes against the opinion on here Im getting shit, you think it's ok for a judge to make a joke about a verdict ?
I think the whole witchhunt against the Club is being completely fueled by the BBC and those based at the pink palace.
Sad as it is I can accept they may have an allegiance and bias towards Newcastle as they are based there but you can almost taste their hatred of our Club and using this sad situation is quite simply appalling.
Taking the moral high ground against Sunderland AFC given the current Saville situation is almost laughable if it wasnt such a sad situation.
He took the picture of his groin years ago. It didnt say his knob or penis it specifically said groin?So they wern't all offered in evidence?
In his summing up the judge mentioned 8 times Johnson has proved to be telling fibs about this case. That is proved in court. It's 100% clear as day Johnson's lies are a lot more damming than hers. Our of interest do you belive Johnson when he said his reasons for Googling the age of consent and reasons for taking the photos of his knob?
Like I said, that's just what I could think of off the top of my head. Anyone that thinks the likes of the sun, the mail, or other so called newspapers are on some kind of moral crusade here, or give even the very smallest of flying fucks about that young lass, seriously need their heads examined. They will say anything to shift copy. Simple as. And as for the BBC they have their own issues with child abuse, so anything they can do to deflect attention from that, they will.They also published pictures of girls only a few months older with their tits or "assets"out for men to perv and wank over.
You are a pretty sad bloke who spends his time on a rivals message board ffs and no doubt enjoying this very sad situation. I dont really care what you think.