The trial of Adam Johnson (part 2)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
[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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riever, red&white wanderer, FTM Dave and 1 other person
BlackAshCat said:
[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 ?
Click to expand...
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. <ok>
 
BlackAshCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Common Law Police Disclosure

Overview

Common Law Police Disclosure (CLPD) ensures that where there is a public protection risk, the police will pass information to the employer or regulatory body to allow them to act swiftly to put in measures to mitigate any danger. CLPD replaces the Notifiable Occupations Scheme (NOS) and focuses on providing timely and relevant information which might indicate a public protection risk. Information is passed on at charge or arrest rather than on conviction, which may be some time after. The new scheme provides robust safeguarding arrangements while ensuring only relevant information is passed on to employers. The scheme strikes the right balance between the interests of the individual and the importance of public protection.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jonny1243 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hoo's the gannin Jonny ****wit?
 
Safc83 said:
I've never seen so much beel in all my life <laugh>
Click to expand...
the ex roofer said:
See , that's the problem with fools like you , you read half a statement and direct your answer to the whole statement .
All I said was I hoped Newcastle got dragged into the relegation battle ( so our chances are better staying up )
Most of these Sunderland fans hate me stupid ...lol.
And try reading the ENTIRE Sunderland club statement about Johnson before saying anything that makes you look even stupider
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jonny1243 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nordic and Deletion Requested1
BlackAshCat said:
[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 ?
Click to expand...
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
 
FTM Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nacho and its been fun thanks :)
TheJudeanPeoplesFront said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crumble bungle and FTM Dave
Less Hope Than Neville said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which Johnson said didn't happen, and he was not guilty. They was no direct evidence that sexual activity had took place.
 
Safc83 said:
@Blunham Mackem @grandpops @marcusblackcatHe brings nothing to the board but disruption and constant wumming.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deletion Requested1 and Deleted
Jonny1243 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
FTM Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
Roofer is fine, mate <ok>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back