The trial of Adam Johnson (part 2)

****ing rat

 

little prick

 

Bad enough you have to put up with this people's front guy on the Johnson thread with his bullsh:t but I've seen him on your Matchday thread spouting the same sh;:t on there.

 

He's a trouble making bastard that needs banned

Sly and underhanded

 

It still ifs ands and buts , and trying to tiptoe through all the lawyers , police and officials for a football club and its officials is a trying event at best .
Innocent till proven guilty pal , and that's the way I'd want my club to face it till truth be told .no disputing info , no she said , no seems like .... Just the facts ... Till then , innocent .
What the Sunderland fans have been through by ""Probably what happened " posters like yourself is criminal of sorts

 

If you were to read back through the various threads that have been posted on this subject since he was first arrested then you would see that my position has always been that he should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. I argued that the club had every right to play him. Along with others, including some Sunderland fans, I am now discussing the possibility, that has been raised publicly, that someone within the club may have known more and that the fans were misled. If that was the case, then I have also said that, just like Johnsons offences should reflect on him and him only, so any wrongdoing by any one person should reflect on that person and that person only. I am not condemning the club for anything. The club is far more than any one, or two, people. However, just because I try and take as balanced a view as I can about Sunderland, doesn't mean that I am not allowed to ask awkward questions, just as Sunderland fans also have every right to ask those same questions about the way their club is run without being accused of being disloyal or not true fans.

I ask far more questions about the way my own club is run, and have been provided with plenty of ammunition to do so over the years. This is a big story locally though ad will always attract discussion from every side. yes, some people have taken the opportunity to wum. But not every critical or negative question is an attempt to wum. Some critical questions are asked out of a desire to see the right outcome for Sunderland and the right outcome for football.

 

**** off you prick

 

And just for reference, so I can correct myself if I have done so, where have I ever said "probably what happened"?

 

Little coward arsehole

 

****ing little coward

 

Arsehole

 

****er

 

Yeah but you don't know they were shown evidence which included interview transcripts. I don't believe they they ever would. The police said they shared details not evidence. You've just been guessing the whole time at what the police showed the club. But you don't know what that was was any more then I do. The devil is in the detail and you're lacking all of it.

When service users arrived with pending sex charges over their heads we got details(charges, details of the allegations) but never ever evidence relating directly to an ongoing investigation.

 

They are duty bound to disclose anything that has been admitted to regardless of what they intend to plea. Nobody except the people involved know the exact nature of what those details were. We do know at least some of what was admitted to in the first police interview from the court case. You're right though. At the moment all of the accounts conflict with each other, including the polices. It is even possible that the police failed to disclose some of what they should have and that they ae attempting toc over their own arse's. We don't know. None of the statements give definitive answers except Johnson's - which should be treated as being as trustworthy as anything else he said.

The police do pass on evidence if they feel it is relevant to safeguarding. We don't know what they felt was relevant to safeguarding in this situation. They say they told the club that sexual activity had taken place and not that sexual activity was alleged. Sadly, one of the questions people have to ask is whether they can trust the police account. Sunderland have said they were not made aware at any time that AJ intended to plead guilty. They never said they were not shown evidence that sexual activity took place. The PFA have said virtually nothing but appear to have been central to changing Sunderland's minds over their original decision to suspend him. They are the murkiest group of anyone (apart from AJ) in all of this. None of this takes away from the fact that all parties involved have left unanswered questions with the statements they have released. This isn't an attack on Sunderland, and definitely not an attack on it's fans. The vast majority of fans are entirely blameless in all of this (and the minority who aren't would have been replicated at any club in the land).

 

Stopped reading there.

 

Your choice, but from my experience they usually clarify whether they are saying it is alleged or factual.From the court case they already knew it was factual in the very first interview because AJ admitted to kissing her with tongues, which is classed as sexual activity. What we don't know (or at least I don't know because I can't remember) is whether he admitted in that first interview to knowing she was under 16. It may well be that they knew sexual activity had taken place but didn't know that he knew it was with a minor. It's not a dig Bri, it's pointing out one of the unknowns in this.

 

That's what I'm saying, nobody knows **** all, it's the unknown where the answers lie. Where has it said the club saw the transcripts of the first interview?

 

It doesn't say they saw transcripts anywhere. However, it's the law that they have to be told anything of significance that is known about the case that affects safeguarding, including details of what has been admitted and what has been alleged and what has been established. Either the police didn't fulfil their duty of care under the Common Law Police Disclosure or Margaret Byrne would have been told that they were already aware that sexual activity had taken place (passionate kissing) and had been confirmed by AJ in interview. They would also have been told of the other allegations that he was denying took place. I don't remember at what stage he admitted he knew her real age though, so this may not have been passed on.

It's possible that the police felt that the SAFC statement implied that they hadn't done there job (possibly correctly implied) by passing on this information, which may be why they felt they needed to release their own statement. We don't know. But they are genuine questions. Not questions about your club, but questions about one individual at your club, along with questions about others such as the PFA, the FA, the police and Johnson's QC. Nobody is suggesting that it is definitely Byrne in the wrong. It could well be that she was not told the information and that others were in the wrong, or that she was told sexual activity took place but that Johnson had not admitted knowing her age by then. However, at the police's discretion they can pass on further information that comes to light if they believe this has an impact on safeguarding. I think it would be good for the club and the game in general if more of these points were clarified and communicated. Apart from anything else, it may show up the true role of the PFA and their role in resurrecting his playing career during this process.

 

There's plenty of people surgesting it. Are you not reading posts

You don't know what the police have deemed shareable, the details that is. You just don't know. You haven't got the slightest idea. You can sit there till the cows come home saying they had to share everything but it's not necessarily true. They'll take each case on it's merits. So you just don't know. Frankly the police statement was pathetic and cleared up nothing and the PFA statement was more interested in using the case to tell world about schemes they've got in place. In fact, the only people who are suggesting foul play are the people who know **** all. Tells me it's either a great big conspiracy or just big bunch of conspiracy theorists demanding 'answers'.

 

I haven't read many posts saying it is definitely her in the wrong, though to be fair I was talking more about the media (from what I have seen). They are just pointing out potential contradictions between what she is saying (through the SAFC statement) and what the police are saying. The police have given details of some of the specifics they passed on but not all.

This isn't about attacking or defending Sunderland or its fans. That is a non-issue. Sunderland are victims in this too, though we shouldn't forget the biggest victim is a young Sunderland fan. It's about learning lessons.

This could have happened at any club. It's not Sunderland's fault that AJ abused a child. However, if mistakes have been made by any of the football bodies involved then the game needs to learn from them. Those similar mistakes (if made) could have, and probably would have, been made at other clubs. There has long been a suggestion (and some proof) of football in general seeing itself as above the law at the highest level. If some of this has trickled down to the PFA or the clubs then the game as a whole needs to learn from it. We already know there has been a problem with players thinking they can get away with anything. Sunderland probably didn't behave any differently than most other clubs would have done - whether good or bad. I think fans in general deserve to know, and Sunderland fans in particular, what has gone on and what could or should have been done differently.

Anyway, my shift finished 18 minutes ago. Time to get some shut eye