| Adam Johnson on 19:18 - Feb 24 with 2548 views | exhmrc1 |
i agree totally but that doesn't mean she doesn't operate double standards. Cannot go on public transport for safety reasons. Shouldn't she have thought about that instead of speeding just like he should have thought about the fact the girl was under 16 when he kissed her. She could not go on public transport because she feared victimisation. Exactly what Johnson is likely to face. Why didn't he plead guilty a year ago. How many people plead guilty at that time. Extremely few. The one thing missing is factual evidence and none has yet been provided. Maybe she would do better producing some. That is what leads to convictions as it takes away any doubt of what actually went on. |  | |  |
| Adam Johnson on 19:23 - Feb 24 with 2544 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Adam Johnson on 19:18 - Feb 24 by exhmrc1 |
i agree totally but that doesn't mean she doesn't operate double standards. Cannot go on public transport for safety reasons. Shouldn't she have thought about that instead of speeding just like he should have thought about the fact the girl was under 16 when he kissed her. She could not go on public transport because she feared victimisation. Exactly what Johnson is likely to face. Why didn't he plead guilty a year ago. How many people plead guilty at that time. Extremely few. The one thing missing is factual evidence and none has yet been provided. Maybe she would do better producing some. That is what leads to convictions as it takes away any doubt of what actually went on. |
They've presented plenty of evidence - you choose not to believe it.
And the fact that you equate speeding with grooming and sexual activity with a child says everything. | | | |
| Adam Johnson on 19:40 - Feb 24 with 2527 views | morningstar |
| Adam Johnson on 19:17 - Feb 24 by londonlisa2001 |
When they announced last week that they wouldn't pursue Johnson for damages it's now pretty clear why - it's because they knew all along and therefore wouldn't win. So they have said that £1m or whatever it is is less important to them than reputation. And yet money is more important to them than the fact that one of their players had groomed an underage girl?
So their priorities are reputation > money > sex offences against an underage fan of theirs?
Apologies if I'm being overly moralistic by saying that's wrong. |
Lisa, you should know my stance on all of this, but what could they possibly achieve by pursuing Johnson for damages? He has played for them during this time and they have paid him. Or are you suggesting they should sue him for damaging the reputation of the club? I'm sorry, but their immediate reaction to his guilty plea, and the fact that they've said they wouldn't pursue him for damages, is quite enough for me. |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 19:42 - Feb 24 with 2524 views | raynor94 |
| Adam Johnson on 19:18 - Feb 24 by exhmrc1 |
i agree totally but that doesn't mean she doesn't operate double standards. Cannot go on public transport for safety reasons. Shouldn't she have thought about that instead of speeding just like he should have thought about the fact the girl was under 16 when he kissed her. She could not go on public transport because she feared victimisation. Exactly what Johnson is likely to face. Why didn't he plead guilty a year ago. How many people plead guilty at that time. Extremely few. The one thing missing is factual evidence and none has yet been provided. Maybe she would do better producing some. That is what leads to convictions as it takes away any doubt of what actually went on. |
You really are unbelievable, he didn't plead guilty because he would have been sacked, I honestly find your defence of him nauseating, and to compare grooming with speeding shows what type of person you are |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 19:43 - Feb 24 with 2517 views | monmouth |
| Adam Johnson on 19:23 - Feb 24 by londonlisa2001 |
They've presented plenty of evidence - you choose not to believe it.
And the fact that you equate speeding with grooming and sexual activity with a child says everything. |
I did a double take at that as I couldn't process it. She shouldn't have been speeding in the same way as he shouldn't have been feeling up a girl he knew to be 15. That is really what the troll posted wasn't it? |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 19:50 - Feb 24 with 2497 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Adam Johnson on 19:40 - Feb 24 by morningstar |
Lisa, you should know my stance on all of this, but what could they possibly achieve by pursuing Johnson for damages? He has played for them during this time and they have paid him. Or are you suggesting they should sue him for damaging the reputation of the club? I'm sorry, but their immediate reaction to his guilty plea, and the fact that they've said they wouldn't pursue him for damages, is quite enough for me. |
I explained myself badly.
Last week they said that the reason for not pursuing him was to avoid damaging the club's reputation further - they wanted to put it behind them, and their reputation was more important than money. They were being all moralistic about it.
It's now emerged (from his own testimony) that they knew all along. So their 'money isn't important to us in this case' stance was utter crap. They put money (and Pl status) above the fact that they KNEW that one of their players had groomed an underage girl and had (some degree of) sexual activity with her. They should have sacked him instantly, not waited until the case.
By the way - it appears their supporters are demanding that their CEO is sacked. That would be them getting off lightly really. The FA should (they won't) take action. | | | |
| Adam Johnson on 20:01 - Feb 24 with 2472 views | SwansNZ |
| Adam Johnson on 19:50 - Feb 24 by londonlisa2001 |
I explained myself badly.
Last week they said that the reason for not pursuing him was to avoid damaging the club's reputation further - they wanted to put it behind them, and their reputation was more important than money. They were being all moralistic about it.
It's now emerged (from his own testimony) that they knew all along. So their 'money isn't important to us in this case' stance was utter crap. They put money (and Pl status) above the fact that they KNEW that one of their players had groomed an underage girl and had (some degree of) sexual activity with her. They should have sacked him instantly, not waited until the case.
By the way - it appears their supporters are demanding that their CEO is sacked. That would be them getting off lightly really. The FA should (they won't) take action. |
As I said earlier, there are probably legal issues regarding his contract, but Sunderland should have at least suspended him from last May. |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 20:06 - Feb 24 with 2464 views | morningstar |
| Adam Johnson on 19:50 - Feb 24 by londonlisa2001 |
I explained myself badly.
Last week they said that the reason for not pursuing him was to avoid damaging the club's reputation further - they wanted to put it behind them, and their reputation was more important than money. They were being all moralistic about it.
It's now emerged (from his own testimony) that they knew all along. So their 'money isn't important to us in this case' stance was utter crap. They put money (and Pl status) above the fact that they KNEW that one of their players had groomed an underage girl and had (some degree of) sexual activity with her. They should have sacked him instantly, not waited until the case.
By the way - it appears their supporters are demanding that their CEO is sacked. That would be them getting off lightly really. The FA should (they won't) take action. |
Then you haven't explained yourself badly. My fault for not following the recent proceedings. After his admission last week, I kind off washed my hands with the ins and outs of it all, so ye, if Sunderland knew all along then yes, they should have sacked him immediately and it would be up to him too pursue them for 'loss of earnings' should he feel the need to do so. He surely would have lost his case though and Sunderland would have known this. [Post edited 24 Feb 2016 20:10]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Adam Johnson on 21:36 - Feb 24 with 2381 views | exiledclaseboy |
Despite knowing that he'd done what he was accused of (by his own admission to them) Sunderland couldn't sack him until he'd formally pleaded guilty. Guilty people plead not guilty all the time. An informal conversation with Sunderland's CEO couldn't lead to a sacking, as much as they probably wanted the dirty f*cker off their books, while a contested court case was still pending. Once he'd formally admitted the charges they binned him straight away. They didn't have to keep picking him for the first team mind.
And ex-HMRC chappie who's getting hung up on the "beyond reasonable doubt" stipulation in his keenness to blame this crime on the child involved. Beyond reasonable doubt is subjective and fairly meaningless in cases like this (and many other sexual crimes) where there's no physical evidence. The key word is "reasonable" doubt, which will mean different things to different jurors. Essentially what the jury will be asked to decide is whether they believe Johnson's story or that of his victim. |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 21:52 - Feb 24 with 2350 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Adam Johnson on 21:36 - Feb 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Despite knowing that he'd done what he was accused of (by his own admission to them) Sunderland couldn't sack him until he'd formally pleaded guilty. Guilty people plead not guilty all the time. An informal conversation with Sunderland's CEO couldn't lead to a sacking, as much as they probably wanted the dirty f*cker off their books, while a contested court case was still pending. Once he'd formally admitted the charges they binned him straight away. They didn't have to keep picking him for the first team mind.
And ex-HMRC chappie who's getting hung up on the "beyond reasonable doubt" stipulation in his keenness to blame this crime on the child involved. Beyond reasonable doubt is subjective and fairly meaningless in cases like this (and many other sexual crimes) where there's no physical evidence. The key word is "reasonable" doubt, which will mean different things to different jurors. Essentially what the jury will be asked to decide is whether they believe Johnson's story or that of his victim. |
I'm unsure why the first bit is the case? There is no privileged position between an employee and employer is there? I mean, if they knew what he'd done by his own admission, why couldn't they sack him? If you (one rather than you personally clasie), as an example, stole from work and admitted it, you could be sacked for gross misconduct even if a criminal case had not been brought surely? I'm surprised if that's the case. Or is it different because there were already formal charges?
I can by the way understand the bit about informal conversation not being enough, but they actually had copies of the whatsapp, texts and so on according to him? | | | |
| Adam Johnson on 21:54 - Feb 24 with 2341 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Adam Johnson on 21:36 - Feb 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Despite knowing that he'd done what he was accused of (by his own admission to them) Sunderland couldn't sack him until he'd formally pleaded guilty. Guilty people plead not guilty all the time. An informal conversation with Sunderland's CEO couldn't lead to a sacking, as much as they probably wanted the dirty f*cker off their books, while a contested court case was still pending. Once he'd formally admitted the charges they binned him straight away. They didn't have to keep picking him for the first team mind.
And ex-HMRC chappie who's getting hung up on the "beyond reasonable doubt" stipulation in his keenness to blame this crime on the child involved. Beyond reasonable doubt is subjective and fairly meaningless in cases like this (and many other sexual crimes) where there's no physical evidence. The key word is "reasonable" doubt, which will mean different things to different jurors. Essentially what the jury will be asked to decide is whether they believe Johnson's story or that of his victim. |
By the way - if they'd really wanted him off their books, they could have suspended him or even just not picked him and sued him after the plea? | | | |
| Adam Johnson on 21:57 - Feb 24 with 2335 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Adam Johnson on 21:52 - Feb 24 by londonlisa2001 |
I'm unsure why the first bit is the case? There is no privileged position between an employee and employer is there? I mean, if they knew what he'd done by his own admission, why couldn't they sack him? If you (one rather than you personally clasie), as an example, stole from work and admitted it, you could be sacked for gross misconduct even if a criminal case had not been brought surely? I'm surprised if that's the case. Or is it different because there were already formal charges?
I can by the way understand the bit about informal conversation not being enough, but they actually had copies of the whatsapp, texts and so on according to him? |
I'm not stating it as a fact, just saying that it could have been why they kept him on for so long. The situation with someone stealing from work is slightly different I think. | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 21:59 - Feb 24 with 2326 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Adam Johnson on 21:57 - Feb 24 by exiledclaseboy |
I'm not stating it as a fact, just saying that it could have been why they kept him on for so long. The situation with someone stealing from work is slightly different I think. |
Oh sorry - I thought perhaps there was a legal reason. Their CEO by the way is a solicitor! | | | |
| Adam Johnson on 22:01 - Feb 24 with 2315 views | headcleaner |
| Adam Johnson on 21:36 - Feb 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Despite knowing that he'd done what he was accused of (by his own admission to them) Sunderland couldn't sack him until he'd formally pleaded guilty. Guilty people plead not guilty all the time. An informal conversation with Sunderland's CEO couldn't lead to a sacking, as much as they probably wanted the dirty f*cker off their books, while a contested court case was still pending. Once he'd formally admitted the charges they binned him straight away. They didn't have to keep picking him for the first team mind.
And ex-HMRC chappie who's getting hung up on the "beyond reasonable doubt" stipulation in his keenness to blame this crime on the child involved. Beyond reasonable doubt is subjective and fairly meaningless in cases like this (and many other sexual crimes) where there's no physical evidence. The key word is "reasonable" doubt, which will mean different things to different jurors. Essentially what the jury will be asked to decide is whether they believe Johnson's story or that of his victim. |
I'm pretty sure they could have sacked him at the outset and it would have been up to him to fight it as an unfair dismissal case. but if they thought he had done anything that would be worthy of gross misconduct of which bringing the good name of SAFC surely would be, then they should have done the decent thing. |  | | |
| Adam Johnson on 22:01 - Feb 24 with 2315 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Adam Johnson on 21:59 - Feb 24 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh sorry - I thought perhaps there was a legal reason. Their CEO by the way is a solicitor! |
My point is that there may (probably) we'll have been a legal reason. But I'm not a lawyer. But as I said, even if they only kept him under contract for legal reasons despite knowing that he was guilty, they didn't have to keep picking him to play. | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 00:51 - Feb 25 with 2233 views | Highjack |
| Adam Johnson on 22:01 - Feb 24 by headcleaner |
I'm pretty sure they could have sacked him at the outset and it would have been up to him to fight it as an unfair dismissal case. but if they thought he had done anything that would be worthy of gross misconduct of which bringing the good name of SAFC surely would be, then they should have done the decent thing. |
The problem from their point of view is he was one of their top players, they were in a relegation battle and if they'd sacked him he'd just waltz off to a rival and sign a free transfer with a hefty sign on fee going into his pocket. They were in a lose lose situation |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 08:21 - Feb 25 with 2162 views | shandyjack |
| Adam Johnson on 00:51 - Feb 25 by Highjack |
The problem from their point of view is he was one of their top players, they were in a relegation battle and if they'd sacked him he'd just waltz off to a rival and sign a free transfer with a hefty sign on fee going into his pocket. They were in a lose lose situation |
do you think it would have been so easy for him to get another club,look at the challenge Ched Evans has gone through to get a new club (rightfully so i might add) |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 13:27 - Feb 25 with 2055 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Adam Johnson on 00:51 - Feb 25 by Highjack |
The problem from their point of view is he was one of their top players, they were in a relegation battle and if they'd sacked him he'd just waltz off to a rival and sign a free transfer with a hefty sign on fee going into his pocket. They were in a lose lose situation |
Interesting that four Leicester City players were shown to be racist last summer. The three youth team players were sacked but the fourth player wasn't.
Now he's a media darling and the toast of the league but Jamie Vardy is still a racist. |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 13:33 - Feb 25 with 2040 views | monmouth |
| Adam Johnson on 13:27 - Feb 25 by Joe_bradshaw |
Interesting that four Leicester City players were shown to be racist last summer. The three youth team players were sacked but the fourth player wasn't.
Now he's a media darling and the toast of the league but Jamie Vardy is still a racist. |
That's principles for you. | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 13:36 - Feb 25 with 2029 views | raynor94 |
So, did he tell Sunderland that he was going to plead guilty last September the same time he told his girlfriend? | |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 14:06 - Feb 25 with 1996 views | sully49 |
| Adam Johnson on 13:36 - Feb 25 by raynor94 |
So, did he tell Sunderland that he was going to plead guilty last September the same time he told his girlfriend? |
Sunderland painted themselves into this corner, but in reality they were damned if they did and damned because they didn't. They were better off suspending Johnson against the eventual ruling. Sunderland have access to some top legal advise I shouldn't wonder, pity they didn't just ask.
This trial hangs on sexual contact being proven, his admissions are kissing and grooming her for the possibility of more later which is far less serious, for Johnson, than sexual contact or abuse as it should be described. He will most certainly do time for what he's admitted but if found guilty it will be much, much more. [Post edited 3 Mar 2016 22:01]
|  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 14:41 - Feb 25 with 1965 views | ItchySphincter |
About time she chucked him. |  |
| |
| Adam Johnson on 14:56 - Feb 25 with 1940 views | exhmrc1 |
| Adam Johnson on 14:06 - Feb 25 by sully49 |
Sunderland painted themselves into this corner, but in reality they were damned if they did and damned because they didn't. They were better off suspending Johnson against the eventual ruling. Sunderland have access to some top legal advise I shouldn't wonder, pity they didn't just ask.
This trial hangs on sexual contact being proven, his admissions are kissing and grooming her for the possibility of more later which is far less serious, for Johnson, than sexual contact or abuse as it should be described. He will most certainly do time for what he's admitted but if found guilty it will be much, much more. [Post edited 3 Mar 2016 22:01]
|
excellent post my feelings entirely except I do not believe there is enough evidence to prove these 2 charges | | | |
| Adam Johnson on 15:49 - Feb 25 with 1909 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Adam Johnson on 14:56 - Feb 25 by exhmrc1 |
excellent post my feelings entirely except I do not believe there is enough evidence to prove these 2 charges |
You didn't believe there was enough evidence before any evidence was presented. Hardly an open mind on proceedings. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
