Jackie Broon

From what I understand it's quite the opposite. If someone writes something potentially defamatory the burden of proof in court would be on them to demonstrate that what they wrote is true, not the other way around.

Me too, although it depends how much the press decide to run with that angle after the story hits the headlines again tomorrow. But the mackems saying they haven't actually broken any rules and can't be punished might not actually be correct.

You don't know that. You're surmising. She may have still put in safeguarding procedures even with Johnson still there, but to be honest it's irrelevant. There would still have been no rules broken which could lead to a points deduction. I think it's wrong, and the rules should be changed, but as it stands that's the way it is. http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/rules-of-the-association/2015-16/fa-complete-handbook-proof---oct-15.ashx page 126 J. RULES, REGULATIONS AND LAWS OF THE GAME (g) Safeguarding Children A Participant shall abide by any regulations for safeguarding children as determined by The Association from time to time. Page 319: REGULATIONS FOR FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION DISCIPLINARY ACTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 These Regulations set out the way in which proceedings under Rules E and G of the Rules of The Association shall be conducted. Page 326: 8 PENALTIES 8.1 The Regulatory Commission shall have the power to impose any one or more of the following penalties on the Participant Charged: (a) a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct; (b) a fine; © suspension from all or any specified football activity from a date that the Regulatory Commission shall order, permanently or for a stated period or number of matches; (d) the closure of a ground permanently or for a stated period; (e) the playing of a match or matches without spectators being present, and/or at a specific ground; (f) any order which may be made under the rules and regulations of a Competition in which the Participant Charged participates or is associated, which shall be deemed to include the deduction of points and removal from a Competition at any stage of any Playing Season; (g) expulsion from a Competition; (h) expulsion from membership of The Association or an Affiliated Association; (i) such further or other penalty or order as it considers appropriate

If you, Durham, or anyone else can show me the rule Sunderland football club have broken then I'll quite happily take the points deduction. Acting immorally isn't a specific offence as far as I know. Don't get me wrong, I think the club have came out of this terribly, but no rules have been broken in respect of getting points deducted. The Daily Mail is a repugnant, contemptible mess of a 'newspaper', and is in no position to moralise on any subject, to anyone........ever. It would be the most abhorrent rag this country still has in print if it weren't for The Sun. I'd rather read Mein Kampf. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/safeguarding/introduction-to-safeguarding-children Margaret Byrne (and therefore the club) withheld information which it seems would have almost certainly changed the outcome of whatever safeguarding assessment/s were carried out.

Adrian Durham writing in the Daily Mail As much as I despise Johnson, and to a lesser extent Byrne for what they did, Sunderland AFC haven't actually broke any FA rules. If they did I'm sure a top 'reporter' like Durham would have been able to find it. He's almost as bad in print as he is on his radio show. I wouldn't be so certain. The FA have child safeguarding policies, given what Byrne has said about her not disclosing the details she knew to anyone, Sunderland cannot have carried out a valid safeguarding assessment.

Still going down but at least we're taking these fuckers with us!

Merson is just a white nose.

These hints at change in philosophy are just making me think back to what could have been had Ashley not set out on his gigantic failure of a strategy in the first place and just supported Kev. It's a bit depressing to think about really.

He's not getting sacked, it'll be gardening leave, then he'll be given the choice to walk or take over again if we go down.

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.