Beren Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Rtg's thread about their derby victories being tarnished has thrown up some surprising views........... or maybe not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tisd09 Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/our-recent-derby-wins.1201922/ Will you still look back on a certain persons goals as fondly as you did previously? Genuine question that I'm interested to know peoples feelings about. Simple yes or no answers will do to. To fukin right. It hurts me when I watch them tho, i still want AJ lining up on March 20th! Is this a massive whoosh or something??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/toontastic-dont-ask-me-why-but.1202228/ Iv just had a look on a Newcastle forum called Toontastic ( what a terrible name for starters ) and they have a whole thread dedicated to just us lovely folk on here Wow, a whole thread Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 He says as he creates a whole thread dedicated to Toontastic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 If Steven Taylor was outed as a nonce I think Sunderland message boards would melt down. As it is we're fine because he's more likely to be a serial killer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy2Sheds Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 7 pages on a thread about McClaren keeping his job (Chronicle poll).This is one of the many reason why they get called sad Mackem bastards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho Time Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 If Steven Taylor was outed as a nonce I think Sunderland message boards would melt down. As it is we're fine because he's more likely to be a serial killer. No chance, he'd do his ACL creeping up on a potential victim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Tbf, their pages all have about 3 posts each. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/toontastic-dont-ask-me-why-but.1202228/ Iv just had a look on a Newcastle forum called Toontastic ( what a terrible name for starters ) and they have a whole thread dedicated to just us lovely folk on here Wow, a whole thread This guy knows: Do you not think it makes more sense to have one thread about them rather than the 40 or so that are started on this board on a daily basis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 They had to have known man, had to!!! And if they didn't they did their utmost to avoid finding out. After what came out last week about how he said at the time of his arrest he thought she was 16 they must have known that something had actually happened and as she was under age they would surely have put two and two together. But ignored it and played him anyway. I'm adamant they knew what had happened. There should be an FA investigation. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 There has been a few raised eyebrows on the jury bench as the jury of eight women and four men leaf through a series of photos of Johnson from his mobile phone, including one of his “groin area”. Dr Hunton is being asked about some web history entries from the defendant's phone. These entries were made only a few days after his second meeting with the girl. One of these web history entries confirms that a Google search for "legal age of consent" was carried out, Dr Hunton has said. The second entry was a web page which was clicked on as part of the Google search. It was an article on the legal age of consent around the world by The Mirror. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Cause always roll out I was writing a book defence of Pete Townsend Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 DC Walton said that Johnson then asked to speak to Stacey Flounders about why he was being arrested. His girlfriend asked him, "who is she?" Johnson then told his girlfriend the girl's name and said again: "I just gave her a few shirts." Stacey then asked Johnson how old the girl was. Johnson said: "Well she said she was 16." busted Whatsapp messages have him saying "that's ages lol" to her saying when she's 16 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho Time Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Not looking good for him judging from the transcripts of his police interviews where he appears to admit that he kissed her, which confuses me as to why he pleaded not guilty to all 4 charges initially - if only for the agenda of making as much money as possible from Sunderland before he went down. Anyway - when does this trial finish ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 He denied any sexual activity in the police interview, just kissing with tongues Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho Time Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Aye, but he pleaded not guilty to kissing and grooming initially - despite the interviews and the evidence - which are the 2 charges he pleaded guilty to at the start of the trial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Aye, sorry, it wasn't in response to your post was just posting it for those that haven't followed the updates today Think the trial is meant to finish the end of next week fwiw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho Time Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Ah fair enough, got a bit confused there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heake Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 From the transcript, its seems he genuinely thought it was "ok" to snog a 15 year old girl ffs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmoset Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Poor lass, such an important time of your life and she's got all this to deal with, hope it doesn't send her off the rails too much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 From the transcript, its seems he genuinely thought it was "ok" to snog a 15 year old girl ffs Aye, ignorance is no excuse though, hope they throw the book at the dirty nonce. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Whens the decision on this? Out of interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 They had to have known man, had to!!! And if they didn't they did their utmost to avoid finding out. After what came out last week about how he said at the time of his arrest he thought she was 16 they must have known that something had actually happened and as she was under age they would surely have put two and two together. But ignored it and played him anyway. I'm adamant they knew what had happened. There should be an FA investigation. 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... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Whens the decision on this? Out of interest. Next Friday I think... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Whens the decision on this? Out of interest. When both sides have finished presenting their case and the jury have then decided on a verdict. There's no deadline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts