• 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.

theinediblebulk said:
Wrong.

You must be logged on to see external links



Det Insp Sampson told jurors that on the day of Johnson's arrest she met with SAFC chief exec Margaret Byrne to inform her of the allegations facing the player.

"I disclosed the offences which Mr Johnson had been arrested for, and considered safeguarding for any other young people who may come into contact with him in his role as a professional footballer."

The senior officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed, as Johnson had not been interviewed. What he said in interview was still not disclosed to the club.
Click to expand...
It's incredible how many times this has needed to be posted
 
janey said:
It's incredible how many times this has needed to be posted
Click to expand...

Weird thing is I've posted it twice now in response to what a couple of posters have said and neither one has bothered to respond to it. Almost makes me think that them shouting for the truth is not the real reason why they keep posting the same shit, rather it's some type of agenda they've got.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Weird thing is I've posted it twice now in response to what a couple of posters have said and neither one has bothered to respond to it. Almost makes me think that them shouting for the truth is not the real reason why they keep posting the same shit, rather it's some type of agenda they've got.
Click to expand...
I posted it loads yesterday as well it was ignored too, funny that isn't it? ;)
 
Can everyone not just agree that the club should answer the question whether they knew he'd admitted grooming and kissing a 15 year old? It really is a simple question. And no the present statement doesn't cover it.
 
Friendly Fire said:
Can everyone not just agree that the club should answer the question whether they knew he'd admitted grooming and kissing a 15 year old? It really is a simple question. And no the present statement doesn't cover it.
Click to expand...
Well they have covered it as every communication has said they thought he was pleading not guilty

Just nobody seems to believe it
 
haway said:
They'll have to say something untrue, first.
Click to expand...

They are stating regularly on the radio that new facts have come out from the police that they had told the club full details of the allegations back in May last year.

This is completely untrue, the police "disclosed the offences which Mr Johnson had been arrested for, and considered safeguarding for any other young people who may come into contact with him in his role as a professional footballer." at a point when he hadn't even been interviewed and this is not new information we've all known the club was aware of the allegations since they were made.
 
Dilligaf60 said:
MPs generally don't give a rats arse what anyone other than their colleagues think. I suspect she's doing this because she thinks she's obliged to, and not because she particularly wants to.
Click to expand...
Her constituents can ask her to do it. If enough of them have bent her ear she has little choice.
 
janey said:
I posted earlier today, I was in the gym this morning, 3 screens, BBC breakfast, ITV breakfast, Sky news, other than the local BBC bulletin it wasn't even mentioned.
The gutter press will carry on carrying on, the national news programmes were already bored with it at 6.30am this morning
Click to expand...


Similarly the story doesn't appear to have made the BBC's top ten news items any time today.

Sadly I suspect it's just the calm before the storm and it'll all come back with a vengeance when Johnson is sentenced.
 
Wayne The Punk said:
I didnt think that the police could discuss evidence before a court case, maybe they have scored an own goal here
Click to expand...
The police have to act under child protection law, and the allegation is enough to demand appropriate procedures are enacted. It doesn't imply guilt, but the protection of a minor takes precedence. Under the law, AJ was still innocent, so the club ultimately had to act accordingly. However, if it is proved that the club knew that he had admitted to the acts (from him), then their stance is morally untenable. A police statement isn't enough, as anyone is entitled to change their statement up to the trial. I have witnessed the police and other authorities go way overboard on child protection matters based on very flakey input and this too can wreck a child's life creating another victim. Luckily for me, it wasn't me or mine.
 
Pancho said:
Similarly the story doesn't appear to have made the BBC's top ten news items any time today.

Sadly I suspect it's just the calm before the storm and it'll all come back with a vengeance when Johnson is sentenced.
Click to expand...

I think the conduct of the police may be mentioned by the judge in his closing address ....... just a hunch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top