Off Topic Adam Johnson
- Thread starter Warmir Pouchov
- Start date
-
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
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35721975
Adam Johnson: Durham Police say officers told Sunderland of sex act
The chief executive of Sunderland Football Club was told about Adam Johnson's sexual activity with a 15-year-old fan more than a year ago, the BBC has learned.
Durham Police said Margaret Byrne was told on the day of Johnson's arrest that he had messaged and kissed the schoolgirl.
Sunderland initially suspended him before reinstating him.
He was convicted on Wednesday of sexual activity with the girl.
His victim has asked why he was allowed to keep on playing.
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."
She said the club was also told he had exchanged messages with the girl.
She added: "At the centre of this we have a 15-year-old girl who was an avid Sunderland fan and a massive fan of Adam Johnson, she describes him as her idol, she'll want to know why he was allowed back on the pitch."
Sunderland are yet to respond to the specific claim about the meeting with Durham Police.
Johnson was suspended for a few weeks but then allowed to play again, with the club saying they understood he planned to deny all the charges against him.
The club sacked him on the first day of his trial after he admitted grooming and kissing the girl.
During his trial Johnson said Sunderland knew he had kissed the girl, but in a statement released after the verdicts the club "strongly refuted" any claim that they knew he planned to admit any of the charges.
'Massive shock'
The statement said: "It is understood that a suggestion was made that the club knew all along that Mr Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club and that the club may also have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea.
"This is utterly without foundation and is refuted in the strongest possible terms.
"The club never placed any pressure or demands on Mr Johnson to play football during this process."
In a press conference earlier, Sunderland manager Sam Allardyce said Johnson played on the basis that he planned to plead not guilty to all the charges.
He said it was a "massive shock" and the club took "swift and direct action to dismiss him immediately" after Johnson admitted two charges.
Adam Johnson: Durham Police say officers told Sunderland of sex act
The chief executive of Sunderland Football Club was told about Adam Johnson's sexual activity with a 15-year-old fan more than a year ago, the BBC has learned.
Durham Police said Margaret Byrne was told on the day of Johnson's arrest that he had messaged and kissed the schoolgirl.
Sunderland initially suspended him before reinstating him.
He was convicted on Wednesday of sexual activity with the girl.
His victim has asked why he was allowed to keep on playing.
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."
She said the club was also told he had exchanged messages with the girl.
She added: "At the centre of this we have a 15-year-old girl who was an avid Sunderland fan and a massive fan of Adam Johnson, she describes him as her idol, she'll want to know why he was allowed back on the pitch."
Sunderland are yet to respond to the specific claim about the meeting with Durham Police.
Johnson was suspended for a few weeks but then allowed to play again, with the club saying they understood he planned to deny all the charges against him.
The club sacked him on the first day of his trial after he admitted grooming and kissing the girl.
During his trial Johnson said Sunderland knew he had kissed the girl, but in a statement released after the verdicts the club "strongly refuted" any claim that they knew he planned to admit any of the charges.
'Massive shock'
The statement said: "It is understood that a suggestion was made that the club knew all along that Mr Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club and that the club may also have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea.
"This is utterly without foundation and is refuted in the strongest possible terms.
"The club never placed any pressure or demands on Mr Johnson to play football during this process."
In a press conference earlier, Sunderland manager Sam Allardyce said Johnson played on the basis that he planned to plead not guilty to all the charges.
He said it was a "massive shock" and the club took "swift and direct action to dismiss him immediately" after Johnson admitted two charges.
Looks like Margaret Byrne has a lot more explaining to do. From what Durham Police are saying she has let the club's fans down badly, and especially the 15 year old fan involved.
Wasted tag - he's banned after bumping 8 pages of 5 year old threads to disrupt the board
Sunderland needed him to be playing at the time.
Chances are, they'd have been relegated without him.
Money and not Morals being the main driver for the club, it would probably make sense in there eyes to take a gamble on the matter, even making it too court.
The statement says bugger all really, and doesn't answer any questions, if anything all its done, is prompt more.
The victim, as far as i can see, seems to have been be totally forgotten by SAFC, and she more than anyone else, deserves honest answers, not the waffle they've come out with to date. They should really be making an apology to her, but they wont and will hide behind a wall of silence.
Chances are, they'd have been relegated without him.
Money and not Morals being the main driver for the club, it would probably make sense in there eyes to take a gamble on the matter, even making it too court.
The statement says bugger all really, and doesn't answer any questions, if anything all its done, is prompt more.
The victim, as far as i can see, seems to have been be totally forgotten by SAFC, and she more than anyone else, deserves honest answers, not the waffle they've come out with to date. They should really be making an apology to her, but they wont and will hide behind a wall of silence.
Ouch...
I had a feeling if Sunderland were being economical, others involved would defend themselves. I think we're now seeing why Sunderland won't be taking any legal action to defend their name. They have acted improperly and let their supporters down if true. Now the police feeling compelled to make a statement suggests this is about to get very ugly for Byrne. Position untenable? Possibly but she won't have made these decisions alone. Someone is going to carry the can. The right minded fans will be very unhappy and rightly so. I think those sticking to "the club did everything right" line need to get the blinkers off looking at this (if this is correct).
Wasted tag - he's banned after bumping 8 pages of 5 year old threads to disrupt the board
Thought it was quiet like. Suspected he was banned for the way he was acting on their board to be fair...
Why do I have to be so charming?
So if I've got this right, we've now got to decide whether we believe the police, Adam Johnson or Sunderland AFC.
It's a bit like choosing your favourite X Factor Christmas Number 1
It's a bit like choosing your favourite X Factor Christmas Number 1
Wasted tag - he's banned after bumping 8 pages of 5 year old threads to disrupt the board
Was he not just pissed or something? Ok if it was a hissy fit because his club is being dragged through the mud but surely we can let it go if just a night of one too many.
The problem is, anyone coming onto our board to see what it was like would see pages and pages of 5 year old threads and decide the place was ****. It's one thing to engage in banter or wumming, but another to try and totally disrupt the board.
You'd think people would have better things to do in the middle of the night, or any time of the day for that matter. Must have taken a couple of hours as I assume there are flood controls on posting too many messages in quick succession. Utter ****ing no-life plank.Wasted tag - he's banned after bumping 8 pages of 5 year old threads to disrupt the board
I don't think there are flood controls, but from the timestamps of the posts it took a lot longer to post them than it did to delete them
Think the Police statement could have been more specific. My cynical nature suggests the Police are simply stirring up problems to get their own back as why make this statement at all? Also the phrase "Durham Police said Margaret Byrne was told on the day of Johnson's arrest that he had messaged and kissed the schoolgirl." really means and says nothing. SAFC could have got that off the Charge sheets and the transcripts. More relevant to me is what was AJ saying to SAFC and on the transcripts and the messages. If AJ had been totally denying any wrong doing and that stance was supported by his interview and not contradicted by the messages then why should SAFC suspend him?
For me it goes back to what offences did AJ admit directly in interview or indirectly by his answers in the interview and the messages and it was that information that SAFC's actions should be judged against.
For me it goes back to what offences did AJ admit directly in interview or indirectly by his answers in the interview and the messages and it was that information that SAFC's actions should be judged against.
They are all scurrying for cover releasing statements but leaving out what they can. That to me says they all have various interests at heart here, and are more interested in covering their own arses than they are showing genuine compassion to the individual really wronged in this case.
You're reading too much into it Trev.
SAFC knew what was going on, but they needed him, took a gamble on the case not going to court.
Unfortunately, for them, its backfired and they need to account for their actions - to the victim, if no one else.