Adam Johnson - The Results Show

I must admit I have not followed it closely.

I thought they initially did suspend him when the original case came out last year? What are the legal requirements when someone is charged?

Again, do the club really give a flying ****? I honestly don't think they do. They needed the points, he was one of their star players, I reckon they'd do the same again next time.
 
sigma said:
I must admit I have not followed it closely.

I thought they initially did suspend him when the original case came out last year? What are the legal requirements when someone is charged?

Again, do the club give a flying ****? I really don't think they do. They needed the points, he was one of their star players, I reckon they'd do the same again next time.
Click to expand...

He was, but then was allowed to play < which should never have happened in my opinion.

Also; I'm pretty sure that this could damage the Sunderland (as clubs have to sell themselves as a brand/business) club name. I'm not sure he has had an impact on their survival.

A cynic could probably argue that he, maybe, was not totally honest with the club about his plea due to wanting to continue to earn.
 
Tummy said:
A cynic could probably argue that he, maybe, was not totally honest with the club about his plea due to wanting to continue to earn.
Click to expand...

I heard that the club might consider suing him for his wages if this scenario is true. Might just have been pub talk though.
 
Tummy said:
The club (Sunderland), knew his charges.

There is a difference between standing by him (not sacking him, suspension pending the result of the investigation), and allowing him to continue playing (Showing support for the player, despite knowing the charges, which involved a young fan of the club and the message that sends out).
Click to expand...

You said it's become apparent that they knew he admitted it, it hasn't at all.
Unless you're going to start believing a convicted paedo over what the club have said -

In a statement issued after the case, Sunderland FC said it 'refuted' any suggestion the club knew all along that Johnson was intending to change his plea just before his trial so he could continue to play for them, and that the club may have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea.
The club said it was not advised in advance that Johnson would plead guilty to any offence.
'Had the club known that Mr Johnson intended to plead guilty to any of these charges, then his employment would have been terminated immediately,' the statement said.
Click to expand...
'During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr Johnson would be changing his plea.'
They added: 'The club did not give evidence either for the prosecution or the defence in this case.
'It was therefore not present in court when 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.
'Decisions in relation to the pleas and the conduct of the trial have been left entirely to Mr Johnson and his highly experienced and skilled legal team.
'The club was not advised in advance that Mr Johnson would plead guilty to any offence. Had the club known that Mr Johnson intended to plead guilty to any of these charges, then his employment would have been terminated immediately.
'Indeed, upon learning of the guilty plea on 11 February 2016, the club acted quickly and decisively in terminating Adam Johnson's contract without notice.'
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that if it had been a year later he wouldn't be put on the register?

Again, not saying that it's harsh or anything, just wondering how different things would be if she was 16. Would it have been grooming a minor? Is that such a thing? I don't really want to research it.

Edit: just looked on Wiki:

However, if person A is over the age of 18 and is in a position of trust to person B who is under the age of 18, it is illegal for A to engage in sexual activity with B.
Click to expand...

Would he be in a position of trust?
 
JohnnyG said:
You said it's become apparent that they knew he admitted it, it hasn't at all.
Unless you're going to start believing a convicted paedo over what the club have said -
Click to expand...

He clearly admitted the charges to the club :confused:, the club believed he was going to plead not guilty to the admitted charges?

He changed his plea - and was sacked :confused:, sorry if you've misunderstood what I've said, or I've not explained what I meant well enough.

I do not think that Johnson told the club he was guilty, more so that he told them what happened and that he intended to plead not guilty. The club knew the charges and had seen evidence - it says so in their statement. I think he (I'm totally not sure if I can say it) probably lied to the club, as he clearly did to the police and his family not just about his intention to plead guilty but over the 'truth' in regards to the charges?

If that makes sense?
 
I interpreted your statement as saying as though you thought Sunderland knew he was guilty all along.

Edit, wait, I just re-read it and it doesn't come across that way at all.
 
sigma said:
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that if it had been a year later he wouldn't be put on the register?

Again, not saying that it's harsh or anything, just wondering how different things would be if she was 16. Would it have been grooming a minor? Is that such a thing? I don't really want to research it.

Edit: just looked on Wiki:



Would he be in a position of trust?
Click to expand...

He knew she was under age though. He met her when she was 14 or literally just turn 15.

While the emotional / physical development of people are different, in law you are either of age 16, or not. (as far as I'm aware).
 
sigma said:
I interpreted your statement as saying as though you thought Sunderland knew he was guilty all along.
Click to expand...

Ah, sorry then. I meant to say that the club knew what the charges were, they had legal advice and a meeting with a QC- however Johnson presented to them that he was not guilty of the charges, and intended to plead not guilty. In which case, I maintain that he should have been unavailable for selection (suspended) until the investigation was over.

Given how quickly the club dropped him when he changed his plea, I do not doubt that the club would have sacked him when he was arrested had he told the truth.

I think Sunderland made a mistake in allowing him to play.
 
sigma said:
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that if it had been a year later he wouldn't be put on the register?

Again, not saying that it's harsh or anything, just wondering how different things would be if she was 16. Would it have been grooming a minor? Is that such a thing? I don't really want to research it.

Edit: just looked on Wiki:



Would he be in a position of trust?
Click to expand...

I have a few acquaintances who are employed as Lawyers / solicitors but do not speak to them enough to just ask. I know a fair few Law students too, but again, cannot remember if it is ~this~ type of law that they study. I'll try and find out - problem with the internet is the validity of the information / sources.

I also live down the road from a Judge, but do not know him nearly well enough to wander up and ask about child abuse laws.
 
sigma said:
Does anyone else find it a bit odd that if it had been a year later he wouldn't be put on the register?

Again, not saying that it's harsh or anything, just wondering how different things would be if she was 16. Would it have been grooming a minor? Is that such a thing? I don't really want to research it.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a bit odd. You could sleep with someone a day before their 16th birthday and suddenly everyone thinks you're a dirty paedophile scumbag and wants you dead... But if you left it a day later you'd be all good.

Ah well, guess he should have waited.
 
Everybody knows the law regarding age of consent though, a normal man would run a mile if a girl told him she was 15 years old no matter how close to their 16th birthday. Johnson didn't.

The law in question may be flawed and amended in the future but it's the rules that we currently live by in our civilised society, the alternative would be anarchy.
 
The club should have without doubt suspended him until the result of the court case.

Adidas are thinking of pulling their contract with the club.

Got a close mate who's an avid Sunderland fan and he hates what this has done to the club. They've basically harboured a pedophile, with the evidence they were given, anyone would look at it and say yeah he's definitely going to be charged with at least grooming.
 
Yeah I have heard it was the chairwoman who'd supposedly knew - even if it's true, no chance there will be any proof.
 
How come the other thread was closed because the case was ongoing? Curious because none of the other in progress threads on court cases have been closed for years. 10 years ago it used to happen all the time, is this a new ruling?
 
Not a new ruling as such it was just pointed out that there may be legal implications with it so it was thought best to stop discussions until it's resolution, I think we weren't the only forum to take this course either.
 
My 'other' footballing forums kept their threads open, I cannot say I was totally bothered either way, I understand closing it and I understand keeping it open.
 
Tummy said:
He was, but then was allowed to play < which should never have happened in my opinion.

Also; I'm pretty sure that this could damage the Sunderland (as clubs have to sell themselves as a brand/business) club name. I'm not sure he has had an impact on their survival.

A cynic could probably argue that he, maybe, was not totally honest with the club about his plea due to wanting to continue to earn.
Click to expand...

yeah it might damage sunderland, but not as much as if they got relegated considering the almighty windfall every EPL club is set to get next season. So i;d say they threw the moral high ground in the bin because staying up means more than them getting a bit of a rap in the media in the short term.

At the end of the day they have got a business to run and whilst he may not have been the prize asset he no doubt helped them in more than a few games in that period. Poetic justice would be they get relegated anyway and then they basically sold their souls to the devil for nothing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom