Jackie Broon

That was probably very little to do with football though. They wanted a yes man who wouldn't resist selling our best players.

This There'll always be some clown happy to do it. I'm talking about someone in the same mould as Kinnear and Carver. Literally anyone is a candidate under Ashley. Someone like that isn't going to turn things around and keep us up, as dumb as they are, they'll know that. Ashley has only ever made that type of appointment when we've appeared relatively safe, to maintain our position on the cheap. This is a position of absolute desperation to turn things around with hundreds of millions of pounds at stake. Abandoning the 'head coach' policy and committing to the manager having full control could attract the likes of Moyes or Benitez. If Ashley doesn't do that, we're down.

I wouldn't be surprised to see civil case being brought against the club by the girl for the distress caused by him continuing to play.

Be careful what you wish for, he gets sacked he'll be back here within a week, nailed on

Manchester.

CPS guidance on evidence requirements for rape prosecutions: "The police will always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence, or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident) but it is not essential and a prosecution can still go ahead without it." Anyway, how would such a case be relevant to this? There is solid evidence of events before and after that strongly support her version of what happened and lots of stuff that casts doubt on his truthfulness, it's not purely her word against his. Of course it could go one way or the other, but I think you and a few others seem to be misinterpreting the level of evidence needed to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Because, whatever you think of them and there fans, they're a proper club with a proper support and history. I'd much rather see clubs like that doing well than all these nothing clubs in the premier league that make money / attract players because they're in/near to London.

Surely not FFS the Smoggies still get grief over a child abuse scandal which happened almost 30 years ago Aye, which is bonkers when you consider that the scandal was about children not having been abused. Higgs actually lived in Newcastle, I lived a couple of doors away from her at the time. Odd family, kids were virtually feral.

Is there some part of his defense I missed? From what I can tell his defense consists of 'I wanted to but changed my mind when I was kissing her, honest' backed up by 'I've always been an honor-less slime-ball but I'm actually being really honest now' and his girlfriend's supporting evidence that 'he's been really honest and open and told me everything... apart from all the stuff I've just found out about'. Where's all this doubt he's supposedly cast?

So essentially, in any sex case unless there are what third party witnesses/evidence the person can never be convicted? That cannot be right. No evidence with the exception of the alleged victim's word resulting in a conviction if contested by the defendant(s)? I'd be genuinely interested to read one case in the UK where it has, but I doubt it exists. Ched Evans?

because there isnt anything There's the girl's evidence that he did. Texts before: 'Depends what you’re up for - a little bit more than kissing. A bit of feeling.' and after: 'it wasn't so bad', 'you felt turned on'. His admission in giving evidence he intended to have sexual contact with her. The only evidence against is his story that he had some sort of epiphany while his tongue was down her throat. You don't need to have all the pieces to see the picture on the jigsaw puzzle. There's no proof though. To be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" you really need some proof. Him saying he wanted more than kissing doesnt mean it happened. I've said it before, I do think he is guilty of a feel of her but I wouldnt be 100%. How high up a percentage would it need to be to qualify as beyond reasonable doubt? It's about 90%. 'Proof' doesn't need to be DNA samples and fingerprints, it can be a combination of factors which back up someone's side of the story.

because there isnt anything There's the girl's evidence that he did. Texts before: 'Depends what you’re up for - a little bit more than kissing. A bit of feeling.' and after: 'it wasn't so bad', 'you felt turned on'. His admission in giving evidence he intended to have sexual contact with her. The only evidence against is his story that he had some sort of epiphany while his tongue was down her throat. You don't need to have all the pieces to see the picture on the jigsaw puzzle.

To be fair like, I don't see what other intentions or motivations she can have other than greed and money. Sexual offences against a child are probably the lowest of the low, there is no justification for staying with and supporting someone who is guilty of it. Especially with the information coming out of the trial about his intentions and the way he conducted himself through it all. It's more what he's said in court for me that makes it bizarre. "You wanted sexual activity with her?" 'Yes.' Why would she stay with him after revelations like that (even if the girl was 27)? Just.. strange. I get what you're both saying, and maybe you're right or at least maybe that's part of it. You look at things like battered person syndrome and it's easy to think "he's beating the f*** out of you on the daily, get the f*** out," but it's just not that easy. This is a different situation, but it does make me think that it might be a bit trickier than it appears. Especially when there were 60,000 reasons per week to stay. She's a pretty lass, but pretty lasses are ten-a-penny in that world, I doubt it would be as easy as some people have suggested for her to find herself a new gravy train if she gets off this one. She'll be well aware of that.

They may possibly have breached FA and statutory child safeguarding guidance, might not be something there would be a great deal of legal comeback on, but there could possibly be. Ultimately it will depend whether the media decide to run with it. At the moment they're just reporting the facts of the case and staying well clear of any comment, once the verdict is delivered their handcuffs will be off and they'll go into overdrive with it. Personally I can see the decision to un-suspend him being the main talking point as it's the most obvious way to drag the story out further and point fingers at scapegoats, as the media loves to do.

I just think we'd be better off with humans that are qualified and experienced in making reasoned interpretations determining the most serious criminal cases, rather than randoms off the street.

I agree, it appears to me that the burden is what it ought to be. My issue is that I think that a lot of the people plucked off the street for jury duty don't have the capacity to grasp where that burden lies.

This is what I've been asking for days. Suppose the jury must just decide who to side with in all these paedophile cases where the only witness is the victim... I honestly don't know. Yeah, while I reckon he probably did have a feel, even with that I wouldnt be sure 100% Can he get time for the other two things he pleaded guilty for? Reckon after all this we might see him with community service and a fine(?) The test is not "all doubt", it's "reasonable doubt". No offence like, but you are demonstrating the main problem with the jury system, normal people struggle to understand where the line is between reasonable doubt and absolutely no doubt, juries can be easily swayed too far to the side of caution by a good barrister representing someone that can afford one. The jury don't have to have been there and seen it to convict. It's a balancing exercise, one persons word against another can and often does lead to criminal convictions, especially when there is evidence the tips the balance. The jury can weigh the content of the messages, the admission of intent and everything else in the balance. It's not 'pics or it didn't happen'.

They almost certainly knew he was guilty, this is from a legal fella I know......"SAFC would have had copies of the advice from Counsel (Orlando Pownall QC is a big, big cheese in crime) and copies of the prosecution evidence once he was charged. They will have known the content of the whatsapp messages straightaway." They knew and played him to save themselves, which is utterly despicable in my opinion, and you're right, the FA should investigate it. The classy c***s. Would they have all that though? Strictly speaking they're nothing to do with this case, it's a matter between the crown and Johnson. Basically if an employee is charged with a child sexual offence, then there is procedure to follow for the employers. As a football club would have children of all ages on it's premises, they have a duty to consider there being any further risk of him reoffending while on bail. That is why in most cases like this, the employee would be suspended pending the outcome, simply to be on the safe side. Most SAFC fans seem to think that the club would simply ask him if he was guilty, he denies it, and they carry on, innocent until proven guilty and all that. However there's more to it than that. The club need to investigate further to see if they aren't putting children at risk, their legal people must have spoken to him, social services and the police. They would also have had to look into the CPS case itself and as my legal friend has said, they would have known the details of the case and the evidence against him. If they didn't do this, they were negligent themselves. I think at the very least they have turned a blind eye to this. If the CPS are pushing for prosecution you can bet they have good grounds for doing so. Sunderland have stuck their fingers in their ears and shouted 'la la la la can't hear anything' over the entire duration until he admitted to it. My view is that they did know and played him anyway, I cannot believe otherwise, it seems incomprehensible that they would not have had doubts at least. They kept playing him for one reason, he is one of their best players. Not sure if I am completely missing the point but it seems to me that it's more a case of the PFA being at fault than the SMB's...from what I can gather... The PFA's duty is to represent the interests of players, like any union should their members. The club has a duty to safeguard children. Whatever the PFA's position, it was the club's choice what to do, in similar circumstances almost any other employee would have been suspended. The club allowed Johnson to stay, for a year, in a position that we now know he exploited to have sexual contact with a child. Whatever they knew about the evidence, whatever pressure they had from the PFA, he should have been suspended.

Clearly never watched us play Actually said as much last time he was on. Wants the job. Aye, it was a strange response and there was something about it that made me think he was positioning himself for the job, or has already been lined up

I just hope they cling on until the penultimate week so we can be the ones to send them down. http://www.themag.co.uk/assets/aston-villa-sob-on-the-tyne-banner-newcastle-united-nufc-650x400.jpg

Can't see that happening. He may resign but the club hierarchy have long since rolled over and accepted relegation, sacking him would just cost money they don't want to spend.

According to the commentators the problem may be that we've brought in too many players.

As if the useless cunt could get the team to 'stick' anyway. I guarantee he sent the team out with instructions to 'keep it tight for the first 20 minutes'.

Alan 'I thought they were saying Boo urns' Pardew http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/familyguy/images/8/8d/Burns-excellent.gif

They're not married, if she'd left him she only would've been entitled to £15,000 per year child support, that's when he was earning £60,000 per week. Can't blame her for wanting to stay on the gravy train. She's also clearly been lied to by him about what really happened, it's been reported she walked out when they were reading the messages today.