|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 4, 2016 12:13:40 GMT
I think it's important to clear up the black, white, and grey areas on this, because a lot of people are saying Sunderland should have sacked him immediately. There are only so many permutations, but really, when looked at, these are the situations and how Sunderland should have dealt with them. If Johnson told Sunderland he was innocent and was going to deny all charges, they were right not to sack him. HoweverIf Sunderland knew about the messages (which some people are claiming they did) then they should have sacked him immediately on the spot. If Sunderland knew about the kiss (which some people are claiming they did) then they should have sacked him immediately on the spot. If Sunderland knew about the meeting in the car (which some people are claiming they did) then they should have sacked him immediately on the spot. The reality is, someone is telling porkies here. The police are saying that the case was outlined to Sunderland FC, but the case against Johnson is not necessarily the evidence. Evidence is evidence, and if Sunderland were not provided any, you can understand them sticking with their man. The CPS are notorious for fucking up high profile cases, especially those involving crimes of a sexual nature. Now, if Sunderland were shown those text messages, which there's certainly a rumour going around that they were, then they've fucked this right up. Those messages were explicit and demonstrated Johnson's intent to groom and sexually assault this young girl. I think Sunderland are in for a very rough ride over the next few months and even years. If it eventually comes out that officials at the club were aware of the text messages etc, then you can see boycotts from fans and sponsors alike. Right now, I am clinging on to the hope that Sunderland did the right thing. The evidence was not presented, therefore they rightly believed their man. You cannot just suspend someone on the accusation alone. Innocent until proven guilty is paramount to our justice system (which is already falling apart from outside influence). Johnson was innocent until the day he pleaded guilty. The real issue is, how aware were Sunderland FC of Johnson's actions? There needs to be a full investigation into who was told or shown evidence, if it is proved that any club officials were aware of the facts they need to be bought to book as does the club.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 4, 2016 13:30:23 GMT
Judges always say it has to be unanimous at the start of the jury deliberations, but if the jury advises that there is no reasonable prospect of a unanimous decision, the judge can decide to accept a 10-2 decision either way. If they can't get that, it's a hung jury and the judge will then decide whether or not to order a re-trial, and if not, the case falls. Personally, I think it's a complete waste of time trying to predict a verdict on the basis of media reports. When I sat on a jury in a quite high profile case, one thing which struck me was that unless you had sat through all the evidence, heard the cross-examinations, seen the demeanour, body language etc of witnesses you were in no position to form a judgement. Even the most full and competent media reports can at best only give the reader/viewer a very limited part of the picture. the judge has already said he won't be accepting a majority verdict Malcolm...in fact he specifically stated that although many may have heard of majority verdicts, he will not be accepting one in this case: “When you retire you must reach verdicts upon which you are all agreed. I can only accept unanimous verdicts in this case - 12-0 is the only possible score,” he said. “You may have heard of majority verdicts. They do not apply in this case and they may never apply in this case. What you must strive to do is reach unanimous verdicts.” And in the end he did accept a majority verdict As I said previously I think they always do this - he did in our case - to try to make the jury reach a unanimous verdict and not rest on their laurels if they get to 10-2. Never trust the word of a judge
|
|
|
Post by ryan4england on Mar 4, 2016 13:34:15 GMT
There are probably a few footballers out there thinking 'shit' at the moment
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 4, 2016 14:05:55 GMT
I think it's important to clear up the black, white, and grey areas on this, because a lot of people are saying Sunderland should have sacked him immediately. There are only so many permutations, but really, when looked at, these are the situations and how Sunderland should have dealt with them. If Johnson told Sunderland he was innocent and was going to deny all charges, they were right not to sack him. HoweverIf Sunderland knew about the messages (which some people are claiming they did) then they should have sacked him immediately on the spot. If Sunderland knew about the kiss (which some people are claiming they did) then they should have sacked him immediately on the spot. If Sunderland knew about the meeting in the car (which some people are claiming they did) then they should have sacked him immediately on the spot. The reality is, someone is telling porkies here. The police are saying that the case was outlined to Sunderland FC, but the case against Johnson is not necessarily the evidence. Evidence is evidence, and if Sunderland were not provided any, you can understand them sticking with their man. The CPS are notorious for fucking up high profile cases, especially those involving crimes of a sexual nature. Now, if Sunderland were shown those text messages, which there's certainly a rumour going around that they were, then they've fucked this right up. Those messages were explicit and demonstrated Johnson's intent to groom and sexually assault this young girl. I think Sunderland are in for a very rough ride over the next few months and even years. If it eventually comes out that officials at the club were aware of the text messages etc, then you can see boycotts from fans and sponsors alike. Right now, I am clinging on to the hope that Sunderland did the right thing. The evidence was not presented, therefore they rightly believed their man. You cannot just suspend someone on the accusation alone. Innocent until proven guilty is paramount to our justice system (which is already falling apart from outside influence). Johnson was innocent until the day he pleaded guilty. The real issue is, how aware were Sunderland FC of Johnson's actions? There needs to be a full investigation into who was told or shown evidence, if it is proved that any club officials were aware of the facts they need to be bought to book as does the club. completely agree. it's a his word against theirs at the moment and the FA need to take the reins, come to the bottom of the whole situation and discipline those where necessary. Personally i have no idea if Sunderland (if they did know all along as per what Johnson said in court) have actually broken any rules laid out by the FA but if not then the FA need to make damn sure some are put in place and quick!!! the fans of Sunderland will suffer because of this as everyone will be looking down their noses at the whole club and if it's the actions of a minority that needs to be sorted asap so the rest of the club and their fans can move on instead of the current sorry state being played out in the media until the answers are found.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 4, 2016 14:07:03 GMT
There are probably a few footballers out there thinking 'shit' at the moment i doubt it mate...yes, footballers are thick and quite often get caught out playing away from home with glamour models etc. but i don't think for a second that there are many others (if any) that prey upon underage fans!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 4, 2016 14:17:23 GMT
There are probably a few footballers out there thinking 'shit' at the moment i doubt it mate...yes, footballers are thick and quite often get caught out playing away from home with glamour models etc. but i don't think for a second that there are many others (if any) that prey upon underage fans! Deep down I don't think Adam Johnson set out to prey on underage fans. Yes like other players he "played away" when he could get away with it but in this case I believe he got caught in a situation and took advantage of it. As well as punishing him for his obviously wrong, disgusting and illegal behaviour it should hopefully send out a message to those in the same profession that they are not above the law and they should be aware of their own behaviour In reality only a small % of that profession are cunts. Same as any other group of people
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 4, 2016 14:45:21 GMT
i doubt it mate...yes, footballers are thick and quite often get caught out playing away from home with glamour models etc. but i don't think for a second that there are many others (if any) that prey upon underage fans! Deep down I don't think Adam Johnson set out to prey on underage fans. Yes like other players he "played away" when he could get away with it but in this case I believe he got caught in a situation and took advantage of it. As well as punishing him for his obviously wrong, disgusting and illegal behaviour it should hopefully send out a message to those in the same profession that they are not above the law and they should be aware of their own behaviour In reality only a small % of that profession are cunts. Same as any other group of people i don't think he just got caught up in any situation Al. it's not as if she was pestering him and it just spiralled put of control..it was him that , messaged her first! in court he said himself he was sexually attracted to her just from seeing her outside of the ground (before he'd even spoken to her) and that's why he first chatted to her after she added him on social media. As she said, at the time she had no idea if it was even a real account she was following or just someone else pretending to be him. she was just one of hundreds of fans that "followed" him but he recognised her when she followed him on social media and made the first move as it were by messaging her (apparently the facility to message him was disabled on his account). he didn't need to..he wasn't replying to messages from her, he wasn't being pestered by her....he initiated that first direct contact because of what he wanted from her, he also opened up a snapchat account specifically so he could message her...that, in a nutshell, is precisely what the grooming charge was that he admitted in court, never denied since the case started and plead guilty to. he didn't get caught up in anything, it was him that sought her out.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 4, 2016 15:53:01 GMT
I thought it all happened after she added him on FB.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 4, 2016 16:06:18 GMT
I thought it all happened after she added him on FB. yep...the message facility had been taken off (as happens with a lot of celebrity fb pages) and she said she didn't even know if it was an official account and was therefore even really him. he recognised her when she sent the friend request so he messaged her (and even then she didn't believe it was really him which is why he set up the snapchat account so he could message her and prove it to her) and he also admits he was sexually attracted to her before that just from seeing her at the ground after games when groups of teenagers would wait around for autographs and photos. i don't see how a 15 year old girl sending a friend request to her favourite footballer's fb account amounts to being caught up in a situation though, he'd get dozens of requests a day from sunderland fans. he didn't go around messaging them.....he specifically messaged her because he recognised her and fancied her. make no mistake, he sought her out Al specifically because he wanted sex with her...he freely admitted that (that he messaged her because he ultimately wanted sex) in the case but said no sexual contact (apart from kissing) actually did take place as he eventually realised how wrong it was.....and after realising how wrong it was asked her to meet up again and suggested they go in his backseat next time. during the case he at no time denied the fact that it was him that initiated contact, did all the running and intentionally turned what was originally innocent texting between a player and a fan into flirtatious texting with sexual overtones because of what he wanted from her. that isn't disputed, not even by Johnson himself.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 4, 2016 16:11:09 GMT
I'm very surprised he got found not guilty on the other one charge then
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 4, 2016 17:42:43 GMT
I'm very surprised he got found not guilty on the other one charge then not following you there mate? the charge he was found not guilty of was receiving a sexual act from her. i don't see how any of that would lend anything evidence wise to that? all of that info was put forward to give the scenario and history as to how they met up etc. none of it would be any kind of evidence though that she gave him a bj...it was evidence for the grooming part more than anything (which he obviously plead guilty to) and to paint him as a predator basically. him admitting he wanted sex with her isn't any kind of evidence that he actually did do anything though. there was a fair bit when it comes to text messages, whatsapp mesaages etc. that implied he had touched her (which he was found guilty of) and it was those messages that were used as evidence for that charge. the fact he admitted he wanted her doesn't wouldn't and didn't prove anything. i freely admit i want to have sex with Kylie Minogue but you'd be hard pressed to use that in a court as evidence that i have
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 23:35:09 GMT
I'm very surprised he got found not guilty on the other one charge then not following you there mate? the charge he was found not guilty of was receiving a sexual act from her. i don't see how any of that would lend anything evidence wise to that? all of that info was put forward to give the scenario and history as to how they met up etc. none of it would be any kind of evidence though that she gave him a bj...it was evidence for the grooming part more than anything (which he obviously plead guilty to) and to paint him as a predator basically. him admitting he wanted sex with her isn't any kind of evidence that he actually did do anything though. there was a fair bit when it comes to text messages, whatsapp mesaages etc. that implied he had touched her (which he was found guilty of) and it was those messages that were used as evidence for that charge. the fact he admitted he wanted her doesn't wouldn't and didn't prove anything. i freely admit i want to have sex with Kylie Minogue but you'd be hard pressed to use that in a court as evidence that i have Just so you know Mick. You are behind me in the queue for boning Kylie Minogue. I've been waiting in this frigging queue since she first popped up in Neighbours and gave Scott Robinson a punch in the kisser. I'm still number 7,000,002 in the queue and I've been on hold for the best part of 30 fucking years
|
|
|
Post by haway on Mar 8, 2016 12:59:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 8, 2016 13:15:53 GMT
She's got more make up than a Boots No7 counter I bet @billybigbollox would
|
|
|
Post by dhes2113 on Mar 8, 2016 15:39:32 GMT
Margaret Byrne resigned as CEO at Sunderland, admitted decision to allow Johnson to continue playing 'was a serious mistake'.
|
|
|
Post by steve66 on Mar 8, 2016 15:43:41 GMT
Margaret Byrne resigned as CEO at Sunderland, admitted decision to allow Johnson to continue playing 'was a serious mistake'. Hardly here remit surely, footballing decision by owners and management I would of assumed?
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Mar 8, 2016 15:44:03 GMT
Whoever the PFA sent shall be next in line then.
|
|
|
Post by dhes2113 on Mar 8, 2016 15:48:40 GMT
statement from club indicates that she had final say on all decisions. They have also called Johnson's actions as 'despicable'. Strong words indeed, I feel that they have come a little too late.
|
|
|
Post by dhes2113 on Mar 8, 2016 15:59:47 GMT
Appears she withheld information from all others at the club, and is taking full responsibility for the outcome. Once she admitted that her position was untenable, and so she jumped before she was pushed.
|
|
|
Post by haway on Mar 8, 2016 16:23:46 GMT
No morals from every board member apparently according to some on here though.
Was confident she was the sole reason behind this, my source was good on this. She's been responsible for a lot of mistakes and shouldn't get a job in football ever again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 16:59:37 GMT
Would you smash and Byrne it?
|
|
|
Post by blurtonboy on Mar 8, 2016 17:04:48 GMT
Would you smash and Byrne it? I'd Byrne then smash it
|
|