• 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.
prehab26 said:
He was an alleged sex offender in which the club were told, by police without doubt on May 4th. That SHOULD have been enough for him to not appear again.

waste of time. It really is.
Click to expand...

I know you've said you keep missing posts so I thought I'd ask again as it's an important point. "So, on the eve of the derby, some girl alleges half the Sunderland team sexually abused her and you're stating you want them to be suspended indefinitely."
 

Reiver said:
The Echo is building itself up for a legal attack imo.

If I was responsible for the club's legal affairs I'd be looking very carefully at this latest outburst.

"SAFC is refusing to answer a list of questions posed by the Echo about the club's handling of the Adam Johnson child sex court case."

Has the club 'refused' to answer or simply not jumped to the Echo's demands?

Inferring that the club has replied to the paper and refused to answer questions is something quite different.

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

Infer is what the reader does.
Imply is what the writer does.

But legally, the Defamation Act was changed in 2013 and you can no longer sue for a lie if it's a genuinely held belief, or even it's a deliberate lie but you have suffered no serious financial damage it.
SAFC would struggle to prove a case for serious financial loss as a result of that headline.

Since the legal changes in 2013, it's actually become a lot easier for the media to print crazy headlines with impunity.

All that aside, the club only needs to call up the club and ask for comments. If the club says 'no comment' - it's a refusal to answer. If they club hangs up the phone, it's still a 'refusal' - as it's an indication of reluctance to answer.

As awful as the Echo are being, there's not a chance of SAFC taking them to court over that headline.
 
Reiver said:
The Echo is building itself up for a legal attack imo.

If I was responsible for the club's legal affairs I'd be looking very carefully at this latest outburst.

"SAFC is refusing to answer a list of questions posed by the Echo about the club's handling of the Adam Johnson child sex court case."

Has the club 'refused' to answer or simply not jumped to the Echo's demands?

Inferring that the club has replied to the paper and refused to answer questions is something quite different.

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

Breaking news - "Club acts in line with previous statement that it won't make further comment by not making further comment"

The club seem to have weathered the storm of the last 48 hours and no doubt they'll be hoping the weekend will get people talking about the club in football terms again. There's only so long the local press can ask the same questions without reply, the national press will lose interest even quicker.

I think it's reached the point now where a further club statement wouldn't satisfy people anyway, regardless of what it said, as people would ask why they didn't say it in the first place, what are they hiding, etc. etc.

I still wouldn't be surprised to see changes within the club in the summer though. Whether we're relegated or not, I'm sure our eternal relegation battle could provide explanation for changes this summer
 
ChrisAshley said:
Couldn't be proven, doesn't mean she was lying.

You seem to be angry at her and not Johnson, very strange.
Click to expand...

Hahaha

When the lass was texting Adam johnsons wife...congratulating her on the birth of her child...knowing she was kissing her husband

IS she 16 yet ?
 
prehab26 said:
He was an alleged sex offender in which the club were told, by police without doubt on May 4th. That SHOULD have been enough for him to not appear again.

waste of time. It really is.
Click to expand...
On May 4th we were roughly two weeks away from the end of the season, at that time the trial was scheduled for August, IF the club had known of his guilt, what a prime opportunity to get rid and save £60,000 a week.
 
TopCat said:
That's not even the issue.
The issue is that the club knew of his guilt and did nothing
Click to expand...

Ah, wires crossed - as I read the echo letter as the 'supporter' requesting Byrne to tell his daughter why aj had been arrested. Whether the club did something or nothing they were certainly not responsible for his arrest
Not sure why a parent would ask this?
 
Reiver said:
The Echo is building itself up for a legal attack imo.

If I was responsible for the club's legal affairs I'd be looking very carefully at this latest outburst.

"SAFC is refusing to answer a list of questions posed by the Echo about the club's handling of the Adam Johnson child sex court case."

Has the club 'refused' to answer or simply not jumped to the Echo's demands?

Inferring that the club has replied to the paper and refused to answer questions is something quite different.

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

I am not wasting my time reading all the questions, but based on Question 1 the questions seem very loaded:-
Question 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?

What was disclosed in court, is that he advised SAFC that he had kissed her (IIRC he might have even mentioned he had kissed her "passionately"). But I do not think during that meeting he would have categorically stated that he had intentionally "groomed her", it would have been more of a case of him telling the club that he had communication with her via social media.

Therefore based on the "loaded" nature of the first question, as a commercial enterprise, I would think that there questioning was not based on "facts", but more to do with "headlines" and "moral outrage", therefore as a business organisation I would not entertain their request???
 
The Master said:
Everyone should just wait and see what happens now, I've stated my opinion in this thread as have countless others.

No ones opinion is going to change till the facts are released, if they aren't released then we have to come to terms with the fact that we'll never know.
Click to expand...

The thing is there are people forming their opinions based on what amounts to complete sensationalist garbage in the press, they won't come here and read through all of these posts to see the different issues raised about these articles so the debate will go on.

People may not have completely changed their opinion during the course of the thread but most people now know that all the police disclosed to the club in May were the allegations made which is widely different to the impression the widespread reports give in the press.
 
FanchesterCity said:
Infer is what the reader does.
Imply is what the writer does.

But legally, the Defamation Act was changed in 2013 and you can no longer sue for a lie if it's a genuinely held belief, or even it's a deliberate lie but you have suffered no serious financial damage it.
SAFC would struggle to prove a case for serious financial loss as a result of that headline.

Since the legal changes in 2013, it's actually become a lot easier for the media to print crazy headlines with impunity.

All that aside, the club only needs to call up the club and ask for comments. If the club says 'no comment' - it's a refusal to answer. If they club hangs up the phone, it's still a 'refusal' - as it's an indication of reluctance to answer.

As awful as the Echo are being, there's not a chance of SAFC taking them to court over that headline.
Click to expand...

The paper know if the club has refused to answer these 10 questions or not, it can't be simply a genuinely held belief.

They either have or have not refused to reply.

It the paper is lying then it's libel isn't it?

Why would loss of income come into it?
 
Daks said:
Hahaha

When the lass was texting Adam johnsons wife...congratulating her on the birth of her child...knowing she was kissing her husband

IS she 16 yet ?
Click to expand...
So not angry at the 28 year old man who was texting, flirting, kissing, fingering a 15 year old while he had a lass and kid then, like I said, very strange.

What's her being 16 got to do with it?
 
box2box said:
Ah, wires crossed - as I read the echo letter as the 'supporter' requesting Byrne to tell his daughter why aj had been arrested. Whether the club did something or nothing they were certainly not responsible for his arrest
Not sure why a parent would ask this?
Click to expand...
That's the problem with papers paraphrasing.
 
janey said:
That's the point he was arrested on March 2nd, the date the officer under oath said he'd gone to the club and told them of the arrest. He hadn't even been interviewed then so there's no way they could have given any detail of the interview.
Click to expand...

He's claimed that the meeting took place between the police and the club on May 4th when the cops gave details to the club, yet the only mention I can find of a May 4th meeting is between Johnson, his dad, his QC and some of the time, Byrne. Not one mention of the police. He hasn't bothered to respond, and doubt he will, but it's f***ing annoying that you've him banging on about wanting the truth to be known while at the same time talking complete shit. If he was that bothered about the truth being known, and I think everyone is in that camp, there's no problem for him to post a link to where he got his information from. The fact he hasn't leads me to believe he's more bothered about using this as a stick to beat Byrne with, which I think is proper petty-minded behavior.

Ghost in the Machine said:
Prefab and his familiar. You never noticed how the other frothing vagina C3PO follows him around like a lost puppy?
Click to expand...

Can't say I have but I'll probably be paying a bit more attention to it now. Hate it when people just talk complete shit, get pulled on it, and don't respond. f***ing cowardly behavior imo.
 
theinediblebulk said:
Yes, that what was said referring to that meeting on March 2nd. You said that

"I absolutely believe the Durham Police force when they say they met with Byrne on May 4th and allegations were discussed in detail. That's forgetting everything else that links to his being absolutely true."

Yet the meeting on May 4th was between Johnson, his dad, his Qc, and part of the time Byrne. I have found nothing anywhere on line that points to a meeting between Sunderland and the police on May 4th, yet somehow the police were able to discuss allegations in detail at a meeting that they weren't even at. Clever fuckers them cops like.

Like I said, I think you got yourself a bit confused with all the speculation that's going about. By all means have a pop if you think the club are in the wrong but at least get the basic f***ing facts correct first.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between 'The details of the allegation were discussed' (meaning the nitty gritty) and 'the allegations were discussed in detail' - meaning the allegations were made known and discussed about in detail'.

For instance, if I say 'The details of my illness were discussed' - that means you know the ins and outs of the illness. But 'My illness was discussed in detail' means there was a lot of talk about my illness (even if they don't know WHICH illness I have).

So if the police inform the club that there's been an allegation of a sexual offence with a minor, the discussions of what that means for safeguarding, any suspicions in the past, and times and dates etc can be detailed all without knowing the intimate nature of the allegation.
 
Reiver said:
Thankfully the police can't pronounce people guilty .......... what you claimed was a fact, isn't.
Click to expand...
The fact is that the club knew of his guilt. It has been raised in court and confirmed by the police. Add to that , the fact that the club have deliberately ignored this allegation in their statement tells you all you need to know
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top