Adam johnson arrested

True but not this bad tho. I think she's hopeless just like the rest of the board.

 

I didn't realise she posted on here

 

Well, she's employed to run an efficient business, not play football. And our accounts are looking better by the year. It's those grossly overpaid tossers, the "football men" who have been letting us down, and have been doing it since 1957 with very few exceptions. The malaise in this club started before Margaret Byrne was born!

 

Of course the accounts are getting better pal. We spending less and we getting more tv money.

We need football men on the board. Just a opinion tho.

 

We tried that, and Mr. Quinn wanted us to stick with Steve Bruce after two home wins in ten months!

 

True but don't you think the club is worser since she took over.

 

please log in to view this image

I know I'm bad but ****ing hell

 

What pisses me off is that it's a story in the mainstream media, not a fan site and the club don't comment. Yet again our media management or lack of is appalling!

 

Sorry for the break-off, mate - I had to go out for some fags. No, I don't think Byrne's made things any worse. I look at the growing partnerships in Ghana, Tanzania, South Africa and the U.S.A. (with D.C. Utd.) and, if anything, I sympathize with them. I can just imagine the staff thinking 'What the hell am I doing swanning around the middle of Africa for? - Sunderland 0 - Q.P.R. 2?' It's easy to look everywhere (including the tea lady) when times are looking bad, but I don't think we should lose sight of who's really letting us down. It's them in red and white shirts, and the daft buggers who signed them that's the real problem. I didn't see Margaret Byrne quitting against Villa. Come to think of it, there might have been more fight in her than there was on the field - tossers. It's all about opinions, I know mate. But to me, it's the 'football men' who are letting this club down.

 

Interesting & relevant article this ......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31970034

This current tactic by the police to spotlight the 'accused' in order to 'flush out' other complainants is highly flawed imo.

I'm all for punishing the convicted, not so keen on punishing the suspected.

"The Home Affairs Select Committee said sexual offence suspects deserved the right to anonymity, unless they were charged or police needed to name them. There should be "zero tolerance" of their identities being leaked, unattributed, to the media, it added."

 

Bit late for aj but i totally agree

 

Are you suggesting the Britains finest would use underhand tactics to gain a conviction (guilty or not its irrelevant) - no don't believe that for one minute (now where's that sarcastic smilie)

 

It's difficult one to answer what's for the best to be 'named' or total 'anonymity' - it worked naming the likes of Saville and Clifford - albeit seldom used common-sense should be applied at the end of the day - the whole set of rules need to be looked at and with clarified guidelines.

 

Thing is mate if someone is found guilty, and named, other 'victims' can come forward then.

 

Not sure but with Savile and Clifford wasn`t there enough evidence to charge them and more came forward to add to the list? Might have been the same with Harris.

I don`t think with AJ there`s been a mention of rape or anything other than consentual. That suggests to me he`s been caught by a 15 dolled up to look 20. What`s he supposed to say? "Are you old enough to shag?" What sort of chat up line is that?

 

I agree totally with Smug here. There's no justification for naming a 'suspect'. Any corner end gossip can accuse anybody of anything, with or without there being a word of truth in it.

 

I agree there should be some sort of determining scale or guideline that can be applied to each individual case as to whether it's in the public interest or not -maybe an exception for use with 'politicians' as they're usually the slimy and guilty bastards and generally deserve all the public shaming and finger-pointing

 

So much speculation regarding this case with everyone and his pet dog seeming to have an opinion on it. However, it would surely have been best for all concerned to keep this out of the public domain until after a court has heard and judged on the evidence..