Off Topic **** off then Ian Cooper...

Typical modern day media reaction about everything they think matters: let's go on and on about certain subjects, whipping up a frenzy in the process.

What the media don't do, is focus on the issues that matter, such as no pay rises, benefits & and pensions being slashed.

Yes Johnson 's done wrong but let's move on.

And to think we've got another 2 to 3 weeks of this!!!!

 

I reckon give it a week it`ll die down.

When the sentence is dished out they`ll all be jumping up and down again.

Tell you what mind, if he gets off lightly I`ll be bloody joining them.

 

When all this kicked off didn't the club consult with the PFA and then come to the decision to do nothing until the court case. I think the club's hands were tied until he either pleaded guilty or was found guilty. I'm sure if they could they would have jumped at the chance to get his 60 grand a week off the wage bill

 

Absolutely.

First chance they could, they did.

 

Just watched Look North and they're saying the Police told the club about the texts etc.

To me, this doesn't change anything;it's for the courts to find someone guilty. The club may have a view, the same as anyone, but it's not their place to pass judgement on someone's guilt.
Just ask yourself the question: what would have happened if he was found not guilty of all charges?

 

Does no one find it hilarious (i know its a serious subject) that the BBC are trying to take the moral high ground on this?

If I didn't know that they were the guardians of Britain's moral standards I may well have suspected that they were trying to deflect attention away from something that has happened in their organisation

 

Good point

 

****ing hell - it's basically what they do for a living mate! I worked for Ward Hadaway in Newcastle and the lawyers there would literally push blame away from their client at any given opportunity regardless of any truth - they would always ensure that what they said could not be disproven but the truth was always far from their lips!

 

Which is why Johnson's barrister would not say in court something that he could be called out on if it didn't actually happen.

There is a huge difference between putting forward an alternative scenario to place reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury and claiming to have personally been present at a meeting when facts were revealed to a third party. The club have not disputed anything that Johnson's barrister has said. They have not denied that they knew that Johnson had admitted kissing a schoolgirl nor that they had seen the hundreds of messages sent by Johnson.

Given the damage that those claims are doing to the reputation of the club then I'm sure that they would have been issuing writs if the claims were untrue. All they have said in their statement is that they didn't know in advance of the trial that he was going to plead guilty and disputed a claim by the prosecution that they may have colluded in a strategy for him to only plead guilty at the last moment.

 

Not meaning mods pops.
You do a fine job best we had for ages.

 

Sorry smiffy but you're wrong - he would say something he couldn;t be called out on - i.e. neither side could prove or disprove whether it did or didn't happen - but this doesn;t mean it ACTUALLY happened. As I said previously, it isn;t what did or didn;t happen, it's what can be proven one way or the other. The club were told that he kissed her - kissing someone is not a crime (i.e. I kissed my niece, who is 14, goodbye at the weekend) Johnson's barrister is doing what he is paid to do - take the heat away from Johnson and place it firmly on us - they can lie all they want as long as they can't be done for perjury (i.e. nothing can be proven) and all solicitors do that

 

Ok then, look at it this way: Johnson is arrested, SAFC are informed, SAFC, based on police transcript and available evidence, decide to terminate contract immediately.
Would this not, prior to any court case taking place, prejudice the hearing by implying that he was guilty? Not only that but if there was a chance that he would be exonerated the club would be out of pocket if they took action too early.

Let's face it, for us as fans of a team or the club itself as a business, it's not an enviable position to be in and any decision to be made would have been stressful and difficult. I've no doubt they took advice from the PFA and the clubs solicitors on the matter.

As for fans singing distasteful songs OH MY GOD. this kind of thing has never ever happened before in the history of the world! where's my soap-box? I must express my utter disgust and drag this whole scenario out by speaking to the newspapers.

Also, love how the Biggest Bullshit Corporation can't help themselves by referring to AJ as a Sunderland player or former Sunderland player, failing to mention Man City or 'brough. Double standards from these paedo-harbouring liars.

 

I tend to agree - the club has to abide by its responsibilities and duty of care to its employees & the community - as an ex union rep I found Employment Law is strongly weighted in the favour of the employee and legislation has put many statutory responsibilities on Employer - the sooner MB talks the better -really hope its not going to be dodgy