Off Topic Adam Johnson

[fredor]

Sunderland have a history of being bereft of morality anyway don't they. I'm sure Fredor can tell us all about the time when the were caught making illegal payments to sponsors and players in 56/57. Only reason they weren't kicked out of the league altogether was because it was going to mess with the fixture list. Sunderland were just lucky that the FA also had no moral compass and basically didn't want an admin problem Wronguns - case closed your honour. I think they should be automatically relegated for these current offences and to make up for their bullet dodging past.

We'll probably still go down though

In Australia the sponsors make the illegal payments not the clubs , and even here it is the clubs more experienced in this sort of thing that avoid detection whereas the novices do tend to be caught out

 

[daztoc]

How do people think this verdict is going to go? Johnson has been proven to have lied to Police, to his girlfriend, and has admitted he is not 'an honourable man'. I guess there is no concrete evidence that he carried out the two charges he is contesting (I assume they relate to penetrative sex?), but it comes down to whether the jury believe the victim or him, a liar and a *****phile. Considering the jury can only see his character as being seriously questionable I think he could go down for all of these charges. He is surely going to serve time either way?

As I understand it he is accused of fingering her and her sucking or ****ing him off. I think she has said that when he had arranged to meet for a third time to shag her, he never turned up. She told her Dad what had gone on later that night apparently.

 

[Albert's Chip Shop]

I'd **** AJ's missus.

 

[Sammy's Silky Skills]

Looks like the Mackem hierarchy were fully aware of the gravity of the situation. Bad thing is that Jonhnson seemed to have told them himself so has effectively admitted gross misconduct.
Shocking that they then went on to do nothing about it.

 

[Brian Storm]

Looks like the Mackem hierarchy were fully aware of the gravity of the situation. Bad thing is that Jonhnson seemed to have told them himself so has effectively admitted gross misconduct.
Shocking that they then went on to do nothing about it.

Take the word of a lying nonce then. I'll wait for the facts myself. If the accusations have any substance the police will open a case against the club for withholding evidence and the FA will of course open it's own investigation into what happened at that meeting between the Club, AJ's brief and the PFA where the reinstatement was agreed.

Serious allegations they are indeed.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

So is the defence now saying Sunderland knew more than the police did? I thought it was just alleged that Sunderland had the interview transcript and whatsapp messages disclosed to them. I can't believe Sunderland would have been sitting on more evidence the police didn't have? If they did that is a very serious allegation. One that would reflect very badly on SAFC and the PFA. I just can't see it myself and it sounds a bit like defence bluster. Not sure why they would be twisting it though? What would they gain, how would it help his defence?

I could see them being aware of the content of police interviews and whatsapp evidence, then hiding behind the "innocent until convicted" line. They will have asked him to disclose this stuff to them. I'm sure they will say there is some legal reason why they couldn't suspend him on full pay. Not convinced it stacks up mind, but the club will go into reputation damage limitation mode now.

I think it will be interesting to see the SAFC statement on this when its all said and done.

 

[Brian Storm]

So is the defence now saying Sunderland knew more than the police did? I thought it was just alleged that Sunderland had the interview transcript and whatsapp messages disclosed to them. I can't believe Sunderland would have been sitting on more evidence the police didn't have? If they did that is a very serious allegation. One that would reflect very badly on SAFC and the PFA. I just can't see it myself and it sounds a bit like defence bluster. Not sure why they would be twisting it though? What would they gain, how would it help his defence?

I could see them being aware of the content of police interviews and whatsapp evidence, then hiding behind the "innocent until convicted" line. They will have asked him to disclose this stuff to them. I'm sure they will say there is some legal reason why they couldn't suspend him on full pay. Not convinced it stacks up mind, but the club will go into reputation damage limitation mode now.

I think it will be interesting to see the SAFC statement on this when its all said and done.

I don't get how he apparently confessed to kissing her and grooming her in police interviews but pleaded not guilty to it up till the day of the trial. Am I missing something? Bit confused here.

 

[Magnet]

I don't get how he apparently confessed to kissing her and grooming her in police interviews but pleaded not guilty to it up till the day of the trial. Am I missing something? Bit confused here.

Probably not you missing it rather Sunderland missing about £3M in wages. But call me cynical.

 

[Joelinton's Right Foot]

I don't get how he apparently confessed to kissing her and grooming her in police interviews but pleaded not guilty to it up till the day of the trial. Am I missing something? Bit confused here.

He confessed to kissing her in the first police interview according to what both the defence and prosecution have said. He also confessed to sending all of the snapchat (or whatever app it was) messages. He didn't admit that it was grooming or that the kiss counted as sexual activity.

It's a bit like you can confess to killing someone in a police interview but you can still plead not guilty to murder.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

He confessed to kissing her in the first police interview according to what both the defence and prosecution have said. He also confessed to sending all of the snapchat (or whatever app it was) messages. He didn't admit that it was grooming or that the kiss counted as sexual activity.

It's a bit like you can confess to killing someone in a police interview but you can still plead not guilty to murder.

Yeah that was how I read it. For me Sunderland have acted poorly. But I just can't see them acting criminally. That would be crazy. The focus should be on what a despicable human being Johnson is but admirers I can understand the interest in the other angles at play.

The stuff about pubes and fletcher was just pure comedy

 

[Magnet]

Not directly relevant to this thread but thought it was as good a page as any to post this link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-35669695

Not a brain cell between the two of them.

 

[Joelinton's Right Foot]

Not directly relevant to this thread but thought it was as good a page as any to post this link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-35669695

Not a brain cell between the two of them.

I saw that. Absolutely hilarious

 

[bishbosh]

Take the word of a lying nonce then. I'll wait for the facts myself. If the accusations have any substance the police will open a case against the club for withholding evidence and the FA will of course open it's own investigation into what happened at that meeting between the Club, AJ's brief and the PFA where the reinstatement was agreed.

Serious allegations they are indeed.

Still in denial I see!
Take the word of a lying nonce and 2 highly regarded barristers in a courtroom? I think they are telling the truth. Do you honestly think the QCs would risk their reputations if it was just hearsay?

Why would the police open a case? No-one has said the club withheld evidence, only that they knew about it. I don't believe Sunderland have acted illegally, just immorally.

 

[Brian Storm]

Still in denial I see!
Take the word of a lying nonce and 2 highly regarded barristers in a courtroom? I think they are telling the truth. Do you honestly think the QCs would risk their reputations if it was just hearsay?

Why would the police open a case? No-one has said the club withheld evidence, only that they knew about it. I don't believe Sunderland have acted illegally, just immorally.

I'm not in dynial. I'm on the fence till I see facts.

If you believe anything a nonce says just because he says it says more about you. I'll wait for facts. That's not denial. You need a dictionarry lad. Noticed you're avoided my Cisse comments on the other board. You're so set on morals how about your pet nonce? Remember we're talking morals not law here. Nonce sympathizer.

 

[Joelinton's Right Foot]

I'm not in dynial. I'm on the fence till I see facts.

If you believe anything a nonce says just because he says it says more about you. I'll wait for facts. That's not denial. You need a dictionarry lad. Noticed you're avoided my Cisse comments on the other board. You're so set on morals how about your pet nonce? Remember we're talking morals not law here. Nonce sympathizer.

You already know my thoughts on the Cisse case and that it is completely different for two teenagers than it is for an adult and a teenager. There has certainly never been any suggestion that rape was involved (either actual or statutory) as you have claimed a few times. The allegation was that he got a girl two years younger than himself, that he was married to, pregnant and that the birth certificate was changed to hide that fact, and that he later committed bigamy by re-marrying while still married. The statute of limitations has passed on the issue of the pregnancy but not on the bigamy allegations. No charges have ever been brought on bigamy, so for now we have to assume that those particular allegations did not hold water.

With regard to Sunderland and the AJ case, it would be completely normal for the police to share information, allegations and evidence with an employer where it related to safeguarding children. I strongly suspect Sunderland have done nothing illegal.

Whether they have done something immoral is another matter. However, even if they have we should be careful of throwing that at Sunderland fans. There is a tendency, particular between our two clubs, to take the actions of the owners or a minority of fans and generalise them about the club or fanbase as a whole. The fans had no say in what went on in this episode and in my view it would be wrong to tar them with this brush. People sometimes like to throw out accusations about clubs being classy or not. The sad fact is that there are no classy football clubs anymore. There are businesses who look after themselves - and **** what the fans think about it.

 

[bishbosh]

I'm not in dynial. I'm on the fence till I see facts.

If you believe anything a nonce says just because he says it says more about you. I'll wait for facts. That's not denial. You need a dictionarry lad. Noticed you're avoided my Cisse comments on the other board. You're so set on morals how about your pet nonce? Remember we're talking morals not law here. Nonce sympathizer.

dictionarry? dynial? What sort of dictionary do you use?
Also, I believe the 2 QCs who've quite categorically stood up in a court of law and said your club knew about it.

I think you'll find I replied to the Cisse comment. Although, there is a big difference between admitting your guilt in a court room and allegations in the tabloid press. Was he charged with it? Has any of the allegations been proven? If it is true, it is abhorrent, just like the nonce at your club.

Has that cleared things up for you or do you need to refer to your 'dictionarry'?

 

[Brian Storm]

dictionarry? dynial? What sort of dictionary do you use?
Also, I believe the 2 QCs who've quite categorically stood up in a court of law and said your club knew about it.

I think you'll find I replied to the Cisse comment. Although, there is a big difference between admitting your guilt in a court room and allegations in the tabloid press. Was he charged with it? Has any of the allegations been proven? If it is true, it is abhorrent, just like the nonce at your club.

Has that cleared things up for you or do you need to refer to your 'dictionarry'?

@Less Hope Than Neville we've been through this it's boring. I'm only here because Bish Bash Bosh who tends not to floss sent me a notification bringing me back and can't tell the difference between fence sitting and denial.

 

[bishbosh]

@Less Hope Than Neville we've been through this it's boring. I'm only here because Bish Bash Bosh who tends not to floss sent me a notification bringing me back and can't tell the difference between fence sitting and denial.

Ok mate. Whatever. You've gone from saying the 'club knew nothing' to 'we don't know what the club knew' You carry on lad! Make sure you come back to us when your club makes it's statement won't you?

PS Keep chucking the personal insults in there. You're showing yourself up. The best form of defense is attack. Right?

 

[TheJudeanPeoplesFront]

**** off Funky. You were the first to stomp on poor horse-puncher, before all the facts came out about the need to wear a scarf to protect his gammy tooth from windchill, and that he only lashed out like a homeless badger because he thought the horse called him a dick. Anyone would have done it in the same circumstances you heartless bastard.

 

[Freddd]

I think that what's getting lost is that kissing a 15 year old isn't necessarily a criminal offence. It is only a criminal offence if the kiss was sexual.

If Johnson said that he signed her shirt, she gave him a thank you kiss and they exchanged some flirty emails, it is suspicious as hell but not a confession of guilt (except to being a knobhead)