The trial of Adam Johnson (part 2)

[Q
UOTE="red&white wanderer, post: 8984840, member: 1034543"]I hope the club does'nt receive any fall out for unsuspending and playing him while a police investigation was taking place - think they are in a very dodgy place as by their action were saying he was innocent before police had finished - any legal views out in the Not606 family ?[/QUOTE]
His QC,like all of them out there,dragged this up in court simply to muddy the waters. If the club had suspended/sacked him following the initial arrest,this would have given the defense the "was'nt given a fair trial/presumed guilty line,which they would then use to claim he could never have had a fair trial. If Johnson has told them all along that he was going not guilty (and thats Definitely what his barrister would have advised),then following the intervention of the PFA,the club had no other option than to lift the initial suspension. Now bearing in mind there were hardened journalists claiming to be in shock following his Guilty plea,its easy too see how the club have been made to look stupid by Johnson. They did the right thing by waiting until the next day to then ,quite rightly, sack him. Now following his barrister repeatedly bringing up the clubs so called "prior knowledge",everyone is up in arms about it.
The story of the policewoman providing "all" the evidence to the club just doe'snt ring true either. She may have mentioned Johnson saying he had met the girl and been in touch with her, (johnson said this himself initially) but if she had provided more than that she would then have committed an offence called Malfeasance in public office,as she would possibly be interfering in the investigation,bearing in mind this was a whole year prior to the trial. The police officer would them leave herself wide open to discipline proceedings. What it really boils down to is that Johnson is the one who has texted her,Johnson is the one who groomed her,Johnson is the one who had sexual contact with her.Not Sunderland football club,not the fans of the club. We are just the ones made too look like mugs by this slimy individual and his equally slimy QC

 

His QC,like all of them out there,dragged this up in court simply to muddy the waters. If the club had suspended/sacked him following the initial arrest,this would have given the defense the "was'nt given a fair trial/presumed guilty line,which they would then use to claim he could never have had a fair trial. If Johnson has told them all along that he was going not guilty (and thats Definitely what his barrister would have advised),then following the intervention of the PFA,the club had no other option than to lift the initial suspension. Now bearing in mind there were hardened journalists claiming to be in shock following his Guilty plea,its easy too see how the club have been made to look stupid by Johnson. They did the right thing by waiting until the next day to then ,quite rightly, sack him. Now following his barrister repeatedly bringing up the clubs so called "prior knowledge",everyone is up in arms about it.
The story of the policewoman providing "all" the evidence to the club just doe'snt ring true either. She may have mentioned Johnson saying he had met the girl and been in touch with her, (johnson said this himself initially) but if she had provided more than that she would then have committed an offence called Malfeasance in public office,as she would possibly be interfering in the investigation,bearing in mind this was a whole year prior to the trial. The police officer would them leave herself wide open to discipline proceedings. What it really boils down to is that Johnson is the one who has texted her,Johnson is the one who groomed her,Johnson is the one who had sexual contact with her.Not Sunderland football club,not the fans of the club. We are just the ones made too look like mugs by this slimy individual and his equally slimy QC[/QUOTE]

That`s probably as good a summary as I`ve seen.

 

That doesn't apply to crimes where safeguarding children is a concern. The police don't just have the right to pass on information and evidence related to the accusation, they now have a duty to pass it on to the employer, where there are safeguarding issues.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...chment_data/file/452650/CLPD_Guidance_0_4.pdf

This still leaves the question of which information the police passed on. They are saying they passed on information that sexual activity had taken place. They may just be covering their arses though. There are lots of unanswered questions about this case from all the parties concerned, and not just Sunderland.

 

Det Insp Aelfwynn Sampson from Durham Police, the lead investigator of the case, said she met Sunderland chief executive Margaret Byrne on 2 March 2015.
She told BBC News: "They were given detail that he had met the girl and sexual activity had taken place."

So going by that, Sunderland knowingly played someone they knew had sexual activity with a 15 year old.

 

Hoo's the gannin Jonny ****wit?

 

Lol. Maybe the idiots making comments like this feel stupid now having actually read the statement and Less Hope's post. I mentioned it seemed dodgy, Sunderland knew, end of.

 

Nurse Nurse ....that loony in my head is back......and he said "end of" so he must me right

 

Here we go again.

No, Sunderland played someone knowing the police/prosecution ALLEDGED that sexual activity with a 15-year-old had taken place.

There are two cases during court action. There is the defence case too. And Johnson denied the allegations.

Some years back, another of our players, Titus Bramble, was on sex charges. Charges of sexual assault. One charge was of sneaking up on women and groping them. Seems pretty bad, doesn't it?

When it got to court it turned out a lass had had her arse groped, she turned round, there were a number of blokes milling around, one of whom was Bramble, and she reckoned it was him. The jury quickly acquitted him.

People like you don't seem to get that T-R-I-A-L-S decide guilt or innocence.

BTW, there were some burglaries carried out last night near where you live, in the early hours of the morning. I reckon it was you nicking stuff. Tell your work tomorrow that you demand to be suspended until such time as you can prove your innocence.

 

His QC,like all of them out there,dragged this up in court simply to muddy the waters. If the club had suspended/sacked him following the initial arrest,this would have given the defense the "was'nt given a fair trial/presumed guilty line,which they would then use to claim he could never have had a fair trial. If Johnson has told them all along that he was going not guilty (and thats Definitely what his barrister would have advised),then following the intervention of the PFA,the club had no other option than to lift the initial suspension. Now bearing in mind there were hardened journalists claiming to be in shock following his Guilty plea,its easy too see how the club have been made to look stupid by Johnson. They did the right thing by waiting until the next day to then ,quite rightly, sack him. Now following his barrister repeatedly bringing up the clubs so called "prior knowledge",everyone is up in arms about it.
The story of the policewoman providing "all" the evidence to the club just doe'snt ring true either. She may have mentioned Johnson saying he had met the girl and been in touch with her, (johnson said this himself initially) but if she had provided more than that she would then have committed an offence called Malfeasance in public office,as she would possibly be interfering in the investigation,bearing in mind this was a whole year prior to the trial. The police officer would them leave herself wide open to discipline proceedings. What it really boils down to is that Johnson is the one who has texted her,Johnson is the one who groomed her,Johnson is the one who had sexual contact with her.Not Sunderland football club,not the fans of the club. We are just the ones made too look like mugs by this slimy individual and his equally slimy QC[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the explanation I just feel all the media traffic may pull a dark cloud over our club - lets hope not and that the club is not being liberal with the facts - I fear this is going to drag on for a while

 

Tomorows front page.

 

They would certainly have passed on the information that he had admitted kissing her with tongues in that first interview, as well as the allegations of the other sexual offences that he denied. Like I posted earlier, they actually had a legal obligation to pass that info and evidence on under the Common Law Police Disclosure scheme.

For me though, Sunderland should not be the main focus of people's concern in this whole sorry mess. For sure, it looks like Margaret Byrne has a lot of explaining to do, but she is one person and not the club. The same with the club's legal advisors. They are under no obligation to take moral considerations into account.

For me, the real villains in this piece (apart from Johnson obviously) are the PFA. They appear to have manipulated Sunderland into ignoring their initial good instincts to suspend Johnson. They are a vile organisation who will go to any lengths to protect any of their members no matter what they have done. They need to take a long look at themselves over this affair. Their poor advice and immoral stance has left Sunderland facing a lot of unfavourable attention and publicity.

 

All the eggs in one basket case.....I give up , anyone iffilated with Sunderland Fooball club should be horsewhipped by this pigmy of our imagination ....everyone is guilty , bar none ...
A professional perverted footballer takes advantage of a 15 year old girl .
From there everyone gets involved , from the club and it's lawyers , the player and his lawyers , the players association and its lawyers , various police forces and there lawyers Dodgy newspapers and dodgier journalists .A virtual mind field of officials of various sizes and shapes .
The chances of a club and its officials getting everything right to the satisfaction of all these lawyers , officials and police ....all giving probably different advise on what the club and its officials should do , is slim to nil .
Trying to keep peanut gallery fools like this peanutfront guy in the loop isn't really worth the time or effort ..
I really feel for you guys having to deal with idiots like this ...good luck

 

@Blunham Mackem @grandpops @marcusblackcat

Any chance we can have this poster banned? He brings nothing to the board but disruption and constant wumming.

 

Which Johnson said didn't happen, and he was not guilty. They was no direct evidence that sexual activity had took place.

 

Unlike it has to be said a load of decent Mags who have been absolutely fine about the Johnson case.

Same goes for the Ex Roofer. He may have gone on a bit ... or a lot ... or incessantly for weeks & weeks about the ref when we played Swansea ... but has shown himself to be a fair and sussed poster during the nonce's case. Credit where credit is due.

 

Johnson denied this and said he was not guilty. They was no direct evidence that sexual activity had took place, it came down to his word against hers.

 

Except his admission that he kissed with tongues that he made in his very first interview - which is sexual activity.

 

Roofer is fine, mate

 

Fair enough and was it you that requested my ban on your board?

 

I was part of the decision to request it, yes.