Totally agree.
They probably did. And as I've said previously my guess is they have disregarded everyone and everything as they needed AJ to play but, and it's a big but ( a bit like Obi's) it's a guess as is just about everybody else's view.
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
-
Totally agree.
They probably did. And as I've said previously my guess is they have disregarded everyone and everything as they needed AJ to play but, and it's a big but ( a bit like Obi's) it's a guess as is just about everybody else's view.
But once they knew it was going to court what excuse did they have for not suspending him? There's a good chance a player is a *****phile. How can they play him? What evidence they knew is actually irrelevant to me tbh - they shouldn't have played him until it had been cleared up. He's not a bin man working for the council, he's a public figure playing for a family club being idolised by thousands of children. SAFC turned a blind eye to it for their own gain.
Disagree on this case and in general.
To follow your logic would mean any "celebrity" could have their career ruined by a malicious accusation.
And for the avoidance of doubt I'm not suggesting in any way that this was a malicious accusation but for me the evidence has to be carefully considered before any suspensions and by that I don't mean to a criminal standard but to establish whether a case to answer genuinely exists or not.
Not ruined. Put on hold. There are two ways to view this and you see it one way and I the other and I respect that because it's not an easy juedgement to make. I wouldn't necessarily make the same judgement about an accusation of sexual assault by an adult, although it would depend on the circumstances, but from a child I think the correct thing is to suspend the player until his name is cleared or otherwise.
Can see your point and as you say not an easy judgement to make. Sad thing in this case, as someone said earlier, the girl has been put through the wringer by a very callous, selfish scumbag who was only ever interested in himself.
Aggravating factor - The sheer callousness. Johnson strikes me as a narcissistic personality. All about himself with little thought about how his actions affect others. He is going to get 10 years. Just watch
Fooking hell. Just getting back up to speed. This adds a new dimension to things.
Gonna read up a bit more on it.
Gonna read up a bit more on it.
I've just read up on the mackem board. I see we have another leaving 
Honestly its like a ****ing kindergarden. These are supposedly grown men in their 30's, 40's and 50's. How the **** have they survived this long in life.
Honestly its like a ****ing kindergarden. These are supposedly grown men in their 30's, 40's and 50's. How the **** have they survived this long in life.
A mate of mine is very high up in the CID and said that as soon as the Police gave SAFC the details they should have suspended him and had a clear legal right to do so whilst the investigation and subsequent case was ongoing.
He's a Mackem and is angry as hell at the spin his club is trying to put out there right now.
He's a Mackem and is angry as hell at the spin his club is trying to put out there right now.
I've just read up on the mackem board. I see we have another leaving
Who now?
And again we come to the question. Why did SAFC let him keep playing? We all know the answer dont we? Because they thought he could help them avoid relegation. If he had just been a clogger he would have never have got near the first team once the police got involved!!!
I've just read up on the mackem board. I see we have another leaving
Dont mention kindergardens on our board.
On the upside, it seems that we are no longer the most hated team in the Premier League. Thanks for that SAFC.!!!.
I have actually been supportive of SAFC when commenting on the trial on their board, but the latest development just doesn't sit with what SAFC are trying to pass off. There is the principle of 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty' ingrained within the Rule of Law in the UK. Once a person admits a criminal offence whether that is within a Court of Law or a Police station and the alleged offences involve child sex offences then the principle changes in theory. Johnson at first denied the offences for which he was eventually charged. He did however admit to kissing the girl and was then made aware that the nature of the kiss amounted to 'sexual activity.' Furthermore, he admitted to messaging the girl and the Police had clear evidence of the nature of those offences which has never been contested by Johnson himself after his preliminary interviews with Police. He has come out in court and said that 'he panicked.' It was those details that were passed on by Durham Police to SAFC using the Common Law Police Disclosure powers as they believed that there were substantial Child Safety concerns. For those that say that the Police are not obliged or allowed to disclose evidence to an employer - When it concerns child safety concerns they must act to 'mitigate' any danger and the CLPD allows Police to act swiftly where children are concerned and they can provide any evidence they have at arrest or charge stages. Having been given this information, it was up to SAFC to act to mitigate any potential damage.
Sunderland therefore knew of the nature of the offences and you could argue that despite what Johnson told them, they had enough evidence to sack him on the spot [i.e. without notice and the need for disciplinary procedures to be followed] for 'Gross Misconduct' under s.1(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They certainly had enough justification for suspending him when this first came to light. He had effectively admitted at this stage that he had kissed an 'underage' girl and been sending her messages [which SAFC had access to. Let's not beat around the bush - They had full access to the content of Johnson's messages and knew of his admission to Police.] Whether he was convicted at this stage would be immaterial. There was clear evidence of criminal misconduct which for civil matters would satisfy the Emploment Rights Act and negate any possible claim further down the line for Unfair Dismissal as the evidence presented to them was clear under the lower civil standard - The Balance of Probabilities. Johnson would not have had a hope in hell of claiming unfair dismissal based on the evidence the Police had. Sunderland should have suspended Johnson. I am not saying this as a Newcastle fan. I am saying this as someone that knows how the legal system operates and how with the nature of allegations hanging over him and faced with irrefutable proof [despite Johnson's protestations] it was quite clear that he had abused his position. Johnson told the club that he was going to plead not guilty; the evidence however was considerable and clearly showed that he had acted inappropriately towards a young supporter. Did Sunderland act criminally? Of course not. Have they broken any rules? No - Unless they ignored Police advice relating to Child Safety. Apparently, Johnson was barred from having access to young fans so you can say that no they probably didn't. .
Legally, they haven't broken any laws. They were well within their rights to allow him to keep playing unless they failed to address the child safety concerns presented to them by the Police. Morally, their behaviour has been disgusting. I can only imagine what the victim and her family must have been thinking every time they saw him on TV being allowed to carry on playing football and pick up his ridiculous wages. From their point of view [the most important] they probably thought that he was getting away with what he had done. I don't think we have heard the end of this. They won't be docked points, or fined despite what some may hope for. Those that made the decision to continue to allow Johnson to play however will no doubt face a backlash and people will want answers. Their statement is too ambiguous to satisfy. They have allowed a person whom they knew was guilty of committing child abuse continue to play and that just isn't right.
As a postscript - The PFA should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They would have been privy to the same information and they would have been involved in the decision making process. I hope they and their legal advisors can sleep soundly at night knowing that they let a child abuser ply his trade knowing full well that this would cause further distress to the victim. She is what matters at the end of the day, not petty club rivalry squabbling.
I will also repeat something that I said the other day. This is not directed towards anyone on here, but to the minority of people that have 'defended' him or sang songs about his crimes. They are no better than Johnson and need to be watched by the authorities closely as they are a danger.
Sunderland therefore knew of the nature of the offences and you could argue that despite what Johnson told them, they had enough evidence to sack him on the spot [i.e. without notice and the need for disciplinary procedures to be followed] for 'Gross Misconduct' under s.1(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They certainly had enough justification for suspending him when this first came to light. He had effectively admitted at this stage that he had kissed an 'underage' girl and been sending her messages [which SAFC had access to. Let's not beat around the bush - They had full access to the content of Johnson's messages and knew of his admission to Police.] Whether he was convicted at this stage would be immaterial. There was clear evidence of criminal misconduct which for civil matters would satisfy the Emploment Rights Act and negate any possible claim further down the line for Unfair Dismissal as the evidence presented to them was clear under the lower civil standard - The Balance of Probabilities. Johnson would not have had a hope in hell of claiming unfair dismissal based on the evidence the Police had. Sunderland should have suspended Johnson. I am not saying this as a Newcastle fan. I am saying this as someone that knows how the legal system operates and how with the nature of allegations hanging over him and faced with irrefutable proof [despite Johnson's protestations] it was quite clear that he had abused his position. Johnson told the club that he was going to plead not guilty; the evidence however was considerable and clearly showed that he had acted inappropriately towards a young supporter. Did Sunderland act criminally? Of course not. Have they broken any rules? No - Unless they ignored Police advice relating to Child Safety. Apparently, Johnson was barred from having access to young fans so you can say that no they probably didn't. .
Legally, they haven't broken any laws. They were well within their rights to allow him to keep playing unless they failed to address the child safety concerns presented to them by the Police. Morally, their behaviour has been disgusting. I can only imagine what the victim and her family must have been thinking every time they saw him on TV being allowed to carry on playing football and pick up his ridiculous wages. From their point of view [the most important] they probably thought that he was getting away with what he had done. I don't think we have heard the end of this. They won't be docked points, or fined despite what some may hope for. Those that made the decision to continue to allow Johnson to play however will no doubt face a backlash and people will want answers. Their statement is too ambiguous to satisfy. They have allowed a person whom they knew was guilty of committing child abuse continue to play and that just isn't right.
As a postscript - The PFA should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They would have been privy to the same information and they would have been involved in the decision making process. I hope they and their legal advisors can sleep soundly at night knowing that they let a child abuser ply his trade knowing full well that this would cause further distress to the victim. She is what matters at the end of the day, not petty club rivalry squabbling.
I will also repeat something that I said the other day. This is not directed towards anyone on here, but to the minority of people that have 'defended' him or sang songs about his crimes. They are no better than Johnson and need to be watched by the authorities closely as they are a danger.
Last edited:
I think that this Byrne wifey will walk (with the help of a few quid)
and save Scumberland any futher embarrassment
and save Scumberland any futher embarrassment
Anyone have any idea of how long he will get? He was cleared of the oral penetration but guilty of sexual touching so guilty on 3/4 charges. Ched Evans got 4/5 years for rape but was released after half I believe. I'm think Johnson will be looking at 6-8 years as it was a minor so probably 3/4 behind bars with good behavior if he can stay out of trouble but there will be a lot of people in prison who have it in for him being a peado.
Great post. Well said. Very good point about the PFA. They are a disgrace of an organisation. They ALWAYS side with the player, no matter what. As I said earlier, they would defend a murderer if they paid their dues to the union.
On a slightly different note, I know someone who worked for the Child Protection Service and she said even though SAFC mention safeguarding issues in their statement, quite clearly, not enough was done. Ie How could they prevent Johnson from interacting with young supporters after matches? Basically, they've put other youngsters at risk! She said if she had been involved she would have insisted on much stronger measures.
Sentencing guidelines mean that for the offence of sexual activity with a child involving penetration [his fingers] he is looking at a minimum of 5 years for that offence alone. Add the others and you're talking 6-8 years possible. He would never serve that though so expect half of that.
SAFC83 - not happy with his ban for spamming, so said he hoped Nev's missus got raped, and he was leaving because his mods hadn't banned Nev/JPF for commenting on the Johnson case. League of Gentleman time I think - i.e. your not local or kissing our arse so **** off. only a select few are allowed to override this golden rule