• 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.
RTG said:
Sunderland football club has a responsibility to explain why it reversed its decision to suspend Adam Johnson, the city's MP says.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...


f***ing jokers, corrupt bastards the lot of them, tell the bitch to fuck off
 

Sweeper said:
He should have been suspended and told to stay at home. He shouldn't have been involved in any club related activity whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll take that as an opinion only because it certainly isn't a legal, or contractual, requirement and doesn't appear to concur with the PFA.
 
sidneyeric said:
Well if im accused of doing something I haven't I would deny it or expect others to assume it's true, now, Remy, did he play for you while on bail for gang rape ?
Click to expand...

So if I'd said to a mate that you, for example, were a murderer a month ago are you guilty?

I can't remember you denying it. By that logic, you're guilty.

Yes, Remy did play for us while under suspicion for gang rape but the charges were dropped so what's your point?
 
Last edited:
safc78 said:
The hypocrisy within this thread is staggering

I've been embarrassed taking my son home and away during the past year when the "super Adam Johnson" or "if Johnson scores i'm taking the blame" chants we're sang by idiots (some of whom will no doubt post on here), despite knowing absolutely nothing of the facts of the upcoming trial. These idiots convinced themselves he met a lass in a nightclub and who didn't have the social skills or manners to maintain a silence until the whole thing had been to court

If you're one of them that supported him publicly during the past year then learn in future to keep an open mind about things and keep your mouth shut.

You've embarrassed us just as much as the club have
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely in agreement with all that.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but you must remember, everybody and that means EVERYBODY should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Supporting Johnson at that time wasn't wrong per se. Knowing what people now know, they would not offer the same support.

You can't go back and say 'people were wrong to support him' without knowing the facts - because by the same measure, people would be wrong to stop supporting him without knowing the facts too - so really, people ought to have treated him as they always did until he was found guilty right?

I think the whole 'met a girl in a club' type scenario was simply one of the more realistic ways that people could end up embroiled in such a scenario, and was offered up as an example of how a man COULD end up with a 15 year old and not be a bad guy. Had that turned out to be the case, many people would have had a lot of sympathy - because it's a scenario that could happen to many. Now we know that wasn't the case, and it was much more coldly calculated, nobody's offering their support.
 
Sima said:
So if I'd said to a mate that you, for example, were a murderer a month ago are you guilty?

I can't remember you denying it. By that logic, you're guilty.

Yes, Remy did play for us while under suspicion for gang rape but the charges were dropped so what's your point?
Click to expand...
Have you asked me if Im guilty ?
So he played because he was innocent until proved guilty.
 
haway said:
@Reiver

You have said in this thread:

1) Post on the SMB that the club fucked up = attention seeking:

"No, clowns because if you felt as strongly as you claim you wouldn't just be attention seeking on here.

Or do you really believe Short is clicking on all your posts :lol:"

2) Then changes to 'demanding action' is attention seeking, while posting on here isn't:

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

3) Do what Reiver originally suggests and send a letter to the club; that's arrogant:

'It's arrogant enough to believe people need the likes of you to tell them what to do and even worse to type it out for them as if they couldn't.'

4) And people who express their dissatisfaction down at WHU, are, you guessed it, 'attention seeking' too. (PS. 'DID YOU THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?')

'People, as at West Ham, have children there and don't want to have to cope with attention seeking 'activists' inside a football ground'

So just to be clear Reiver, if you say on here that the club should do something, then you're attention seeking because you are expressing a demand on a message-board. If you decide to send the club a letter or email, then you are being arrogant enough to presume that they would want to read what you have to say. And if you take a banner to a football match to express your dissatisfaction then you are also attention seeking.

So wise, old @Reiver, if I feel the club should behave differently, then can you please advise me how I can express this to them without either 1) being arrogant or 2) attention-seeking.


PS. let's not forgot in another thread where someone said it was 'embarrassing' that another poster had written a letter to the BBC and posted it on here you said:

'He wrote a letter man, probably an email in the time it took you to post ......... he didn't super-glue himself to the railings outside the building :lol: '

And then said: 'As the contents of the letter have only been disclosed on a small anonymous chat forum I fail to see how it can be embarrassing.'

Isn't it strange how when you agree with what the letter says your contribution to the thread is to say it 'is not embarrassing' and not mention attention-seeking or arrogance once, yet when you disagree with what the letter says it is, indeed, 'arrogant and attention seeking'.

One could almost come to the conclusion that what you have to say about writing letters actually comes down to whether or not you agree with what the letter says... hmmmmmmmmmm.
Click to expand...

For someone who's opinion you have no time for you seem to be spending an awful lot of it on me.

I doubt anyone will read all that, I haven't, but at the first glance you're misquoting me :lol:
 
A Newcastle employment lawyer says the club could be corporately liable for his crimes.
Where there's blame there's a claim. I wonder if they have offered their services. Purely in the interests of justice of course.
 
The club and the fans have behaved spot on imho

Johnson has let himself and his family down and also us.

He Will pay a big price for that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top