• 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.

Purrfect South said:
It's life. Its devious, and a nasty way to play the game, but that's what the law is like.
Click to expand...

What? Firstly we're not talking about the law, we're talking about the public statements and what we believe. Secondly that's not how the law works, as proven by the fact that the trial went ahead in the first place instead of them just automatically believing Johnson was telling the truth about the other two charges when he pleaded guilty to the first two.
 
Daks said:
They have released a statement
Click to expand...

Worded by their own set of slippery buggers to protect our club but hey, the wags on here want more. As with all things associated with criminal proceedings the less said the better is almost always the way to go. I wouldn't trust Johnson or his QC as far as I could spit. God knows what he was looking to achieve by offering his client's documentation, assuming he did so of course, but I'd bet my gaff it wasn't in the interests of SAFC. Trials collapse every day and appeals built on the back of too much information appearing in the public domain. Best say nowt as far as I'm concerned. Leave Johnson and his brief to fight their own battles and stick with what we should be doing, attempting to keep us in the Prem.
 
Bagpuss said:
And by doing so would leave himself wide open to allegations even if he had done nothing....Who on earth would think that was appropriate in this day and age? If he had wanted to answer her the only thing he needed to say was that if she waited outside the players entrance on matchday he would give her the shirt, problem solved.
Click to expand...
Fair play, but as I said, who thinks it's appropriate for 13 -15 year olds putting provocative pictures on social media? It was you who said that this is just part of life these days. Double standards.
 
Daks said:
Im glad in the real world most people dont go on like you
Click to expand...

Im glad in the real world most people see this for exactly what it is, a child who had a childish crush which was preyed upon by a child abuser. Most normal people do not attempt to blame the victim and know full well that his behaviour was utterly dispicable.....

My worry is the handful of people who are saying "she is 15", "she is a young adult" and seemingly dont seem to think it is less of an offence as she contacted him and led him on.......I have teenage daughters and the idea that people like you would think it is ok that if my 15 year old was to contact you and make suggestive comments which you then acted upon is terrifying. I think this attitude towards a child is seriously concerning. I wonder if it was your 15 year old daughter who had been in this situation you would feel the same?
 
Littlerobbieh said:
Yes I can imagine that's exactly how it went.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing you don't seem to understand, though;

-People claiming club knew about what he had done; but they let him play anyway:
Johnson, his QC, the Judge in his summary, the police, every single media outlet in the country, everyone else with any passing knowledge of the case.

-People claiming the club didn't know what he'd done:
No-one; NOT EVEN THE CLUB ITSELF
 
sad-eyed prophet said:
I'm not saying it is,but,if the club is in the shit here and,say,sponsors withdraw support or something like that,the buck stops with her, marra.The outside advisors won't be under fire...it'll be her and rightly so.
Click to expand...

Who says the Club is in the shit with sponsors ?

Corporate clients will know the crack and how difficult this has been to deal with. Short will know how this has been handled and however unpopular she may be with some on here she has been the continuity in his ownership. We know when things go wrong he isn't afraid to get rid of people so I kind of assume that Byrne has had his support and more importantly to get that she must be delivering what he has asked her to. Anway the match has kicked off ...
 
Ghost in the Machine said:
Does anyone know what documents they wereor is that more speculation?

If a brief, or his client under his instruction, offered me private dcumentation under similar circumstances I'd hand them straight back anarl. My first thought would be what's the sneaky bugger attempting to set up here.
Click to expand...
When Johnson pleaded guilty at the last minute that was my thought and nothing I have heard since has convinced me otherwise.
Sunderland had been more than fair to Johnson and got made to look stupid by his late change of plea.
They delayed the trial to last year at the last minute and see no good legal defence in his barrister damaging the Club's reputation by casting doubt on their integrity.
 
Purrfect South said:
Fair play, but as I said, who thinks it's appropriate for 13 -15 year olds putting provocative pictures on social media? It was you who said that this is just part of life these days. Double standards.
Click to expand...

Again, its what teenage girls do, I work with hundreds of kids that age every day, are you suggesting that if they start messaging me making provocative suggestions or sending me pics it is ok to act on it because they were being provocative and leading me on? Seriously? Not been funny but if a 15 year old were to strip naked infront of a grown man he should turn round and walk away, its the difference between being a normal adult and a paedophile. And where do you draw the line, she had only just had her 15th birthday, so if it had been a couple of weeks earlier and she was 14 would that have been ok? What about 13? The idea she led him on is as twisted as those rapists who try to argue that it was the victims fault cause she was wearing a short skirt. :oops:

He is an adult, not someone who has just turned 18 but a 27 year old bloke. Sorry, there is absolutely zero defence for this no matter what
 
I
Uncle D said:
I love SAFC as much as anyone but it's different from the real world.
Try losing 6 close relatives (includes 3 sisters, 1 brother) in 6 years then you might understand emotional attachment.
Click to expand...
I understand it well and sorry for your loss. My original post was pointing out that some on here cannot accept what has happened and it's like some bereavement to them.
 
Purrfect South said:
If you can't see that this is an issue, then you're part of the problem. Bury your head in the sand as long as you like, but letting children have snap chat, and smart phones is leading us down a very sorry road. 13 year old lasses posing daily for selfies, covered in make up, and then posting them for all to see, is horrible.
Click to expand...

It might be horrible and I hate it, sadly as I am finding out with my own teenagers even if I control them at home they will go out to their mates and log into accounts there.......Again, it only becomes an issue when you get child molesting scum bags preying on them.......

And again, why are we blaming victims? Its the same bull shit argument that says women wearing revealing clothing is provocative and they are "asking for it".....They are not, they are wearing what they want and should be able to do so without being abused by sex offenders......

If I was taking a midnight walk through the park and a naked lass was walking through that park I wouldnt jump on her and force myself on her. I might think she is a bit weird, might check she is ok and maybe offer her my coat assuming somet was wrong but at no point would I contemplate forcing her into sex. The idea that some people think this is the case is the problem, not the behaviour of young immature women posting pics of themselves on social media.
 
ftm1974 said:
Here's the thing you don't seem to understand, though;

-People claiming club knew about what he had done; but they let him play anyway:
Johnson, his QC, the Judge in his summary, the police, every single media outlet in the country, everyone else with any passing knowledge of the case.

-People claiming the club didn't know what he'd done:
No-one; NOT EVEN THE CLUB ITSELF
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
Bagpuss said:
Again, its what teenage girls do, I work with hundreds of kids that age every day, are you suggesting that if they start messaging me making provocative suggestions or sending me pics it is ok to act on it because they were being provocative and leading me on? Seriously? Not been funny but if a 15 year old were to strip naked infront of a grown man he should turn round and walk away, its the difference between being a normal adult and a paedophile. And where do you draw the line, she had only just had her 15th birthday, so if it had been a couple of weeks earlier and she was 14 would that have been ok? What about 13? The idea she led him on is as twisted as those rapists who try to argue that it was the victims fault cause she was wearing a short skirt. :oops:

He is an adult, not someone who has just turned 18 but a 27 year old bloke. Sorry, there is absolutely zero defence for this no matter what
Click to expand...
I have pretty strong views on this, and they're not about protecting men. Men, I agree have a moral duty to behave around children. I do think we've gone morally askew as a society though. We think we've got it sussed, by having stronger laws to protect children, but at the same time we're not monitoring their behaviour after they reach a certain age. Its an issue that won't go away, and has got harder to police. Those pics, and messages the youngsters are sending to each other, are out there in the ether. They can be used, and watched by unscrupulous people with a knowledge of how to obtain them. I'm just touching on a subject that too many are afraid to address, for fear of being non PC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top