Heron Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Could Sunderland be deducted points if found to have been at all wrong in this scenario? We might need it yet... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 A bit extreme to get on his wife about any of this. She's not at fault and it's pretty presumptuous to assume to know how she feels or what her intentions and motivations are. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Could Sunderland be deducted points if found to have been at all wrong in this scenario? We might need it yet... nah, surely not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Could Sunderland be deducted points if found to have been at all wrong in this scenario? We might need it yet... nah, surely not I thought it's a nigh on impossibility like but was just curious Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 We can hope Like others said, until safc release a statement we don't know what will or could come in the coming weeks/months. It'll be interesting, that's for sure. Could well be even more to it that we havent heard about yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 The club needs to make a statement when the trial ends. If it turns out they did know, then someone should be sacked. Johnson might have a good case for wrongful dismissal if they've sacked him for gross misconduct and it turns out they knew what he'd been up to all along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Plus the fact he's admitted he's spent most of their relationship cheating on her with numerous women "because he can". Ignoring the fact that he finds kids sexy, that is probably justification to leave him. I'm sure if she had a ring on her finger she'd be down the route of divorce already to get her 50%. Some lasses stand by pennyless pricks who knock the shit out of them, some are just daft, it isn't always about money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Really want Johnson's girlfriend to have a life full of absolute misery now like. Cannot stand the horrible money grabbing little slapper. She's absolutely gorgeous but is rotten on the inside like. She has known for 12 months that Johnson is a child abuser, she has backed him and stayed with him throughout. She knows he's cheated on her numerous times. She knows that he'd happily groom a child and ruin her life because of his arrogance. The relationship was in tatters 12 months ago (from the evidence at the court), now she flaunts around like they are stronger than ever despite his despicable actions. Yet she is more than happy to stay with him for her little payday $$$. There is no other reason for her being with him, absolutely not. Of course she's staying with him for the cash, but I can barely blame her. Her choices are: 1) Pretend to stay with him for a bit even though she probably hates him. She's probably not having to sleep with him as she can just tell him she's too upset and ultimately he's probably off to jail imminently anyway. Keep up this charade for a while and she can milk a convicted nonce for hundreds of thousands of pounds and never have to work again in her entire life and have plenty of cash to give her kid the best in life. 2) Leave him now and claim the moral high ground but spend the rest of her days struggling to pay bills and working 45 hour weeks until she's 65 stacking shelves in Tesco. I'm certainly not running down anyone for working at Tesco, but if option 1 is available I can't really blame anyone for taking it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Some pathetic shit on here like. Jealousy overload. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 We can hope Like others said, until safc release a statement we don't know what will or could come in the coming weeks/months. It'll be interesting, that's for sure. Could well be even more to it that we havent heard about yet Hope they use the same lawyer as Johnson to issue the statement. They'll be playing Blyth Spartans next season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Could Sunderland be deducted points if found to have been at all wrong in this scenario? We might need it yet... -10 points for fielding an illegal peado Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Some pathetic shit on here like. Jealousy overload. Spot on. Everyone of us would love a tidy 15 year old for a bit of netflix and chill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 But aye, it's getting embarrassing this like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 But aye, it's getting embarrassing this like. Haha. Butt ate. You eat butts. Hahaha. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I can imagine it's pretty tough coaching someone as thick as this as a defence lawyer. "OK Adam, let's try this again. When I say 'Are you a man of honour?' and stand on your foot, you say yes." still cannot believe he answered no to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Lightening fast 2:30 am edit man Kaiz. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Fuck you hans Now I just seem weirder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Anyway the only thing that could 'save' him at the minute in the "he's not a proper paedo" stakes is if he was just a total deviant. If he was just shagging anyone behind his lasses back regardless of creed or culture. It's slightly more acceptable if she was one of many at this time, men - women - japs - commies, and not necisarilly the only one he was pursuing, in which case it looks pretty cut and dry that this was a bit of a fantasy. Absolutely no chance she looked 25 either, may as well say she looked 68. It's all speculation but I'd be massively surprised if she looked in her 20s, given the photos Johnson would have been looking at on Facebook would have likely been when she was 14 and younger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 The looking older thing only works as a defence if you don't actually know they're underage Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Anyway the only thing that could 'save' him at the minute in the "he's not a proper paedo" stakes is if he was just a total deviant. If he was just shagging anyone behind his lasses back regardless of creed or culture. It's slightly more acceptable if she was one of many at this time, men - women - japs - commies, and not necisarilly the only one he was pursuing, in which case it looks pretty cut and dry that this was a bit of a fantasy. Absolutely no chance she looked 25 either, may as well say she looked 68. It's all speculation but I'd be massively surprised if she looked in her 20s, given the photos Johnson would have been looking at on Facebook would have likely been when she was 14 and younger. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 The chief inspector said that the club knew too the other day The club needs to make a statement when the trial ends. If it turns out they did know, then someone should be sacked. I can't believe some of the head burying going on, from quite a lot of seemingly decent, level headed mackems and all. The chief inspector has already said the club knew about the case and the details. It has been mentioned under oath a few times that Byrne knew and had the whatsapp exchanges, police interviews etc. I think by Johnson and by DCI whateverhernameis. It would be pretty easy to disprove this and why would Johnson lie about this bit under oath? Wouldn't sunderland then have grounds to sue him? The fact they didn't in the first place, after he was sacked, is pretty damning Plus, the whole lying in court thing isn't a great idea........ Byrne may end up being used as a scapegoat. But even if the club release a statement, saying they were unaware and Byrne had kept it to herself, so she has been sacked because of it. Would you honestly believe that? Do you not think other people at the club, in positions of power, would be interested in what was going on, in such a high profile case? Do they not have board meetings or does nobody talk to each other at SAFC? Would Short not be asking what the situation is, with one of the club's star players, who is on bail for a very serious allegation? Our club is run by a pack of cunts and I have no problem in pointing this out, when they've acted badly. I just don't understand why sunderland fans are still trying to act like the club have done nothing wrong? I mean it's bad enough that he was never suspended, pending the outcome of the trial. Instead, they trotted him out every week, for your fans to applaud and cheer for. Now, it sounds as if they have been complicit in the whole thing, for 8-9 months. Yet they decided to do nothing and let him play, knowing full well he was guilty of at least the grooming and the kiss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 The chief inspector said that the club knew too the other day The club needs to make a statement when the trial ends. If it turns out they did know, then someone should be sacked. I can't believe some of the head burying going on, from quite a lot of seemingly decent, level headed mackems and all. The chief inspector has already said the club knew about the case and the details. It has been mentioned under oath a few times that Byrne knew and had the whatsapp exchanges, police interviews etc. I think by Johnson and by DCI whateverhernameis. It would be pretty easy to disprove this and why would Johnson lie about this bit under oath? Wouldn't sunderland then have grounds to sue him? The fact they didn't in the first place, after he was sacked, is pretty damning Plus, the whole lying in court thing isn't a great idea........ Byrne may end up being used as a scapegoat. But even if the club release a statement, saying they were unaware and Byrne had kept it to herself, so she has been sacked because of it. Would you honestly believe that? Do you not think other people at the club, in positions of power, would be interested in what was going on, in such a high profile case? Do they not have board meetings or does nobody talk to each other at SAFC? Would Short not be asking what the situation is, with one of the club's star players, who is on bail for a very serious allegation? Our club is run by a pack of c***s and I have no problem in pointing this out, when they've acted badly. I just don't understand why sunderland fans are still trying to act like the club have done nothing wrong? I mean it's bad enough that he was never suspended, pending the outcome of the trial. Instead, they trotted him out every week, for your fans to applaud and cheer for. Now, it sounds as if they have been complicit in the whole thing, for 8-9 months. Yet they decided to do nothing and let him play, knowing full well he was guilty of at least the grooming and the kiss. yep, that's it for me as well. I think its because for years they have built this myth about Sunderland being a classy outfgit who always try to do the right thing. That of course has been blown out of the water if you'll pardon the expression. Totally agree about the corridors of power in the SOS, 'Has anyone bothered asking Ann about Adam and the kiddy stuff?' 'No, its not really relevant to the football side of it is it' They will have known right to the top, fortunately for them they are media irrelevant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Either way it's no excuse, ignorance is not a get out of jail free card, however as has been said they've done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, if legally he wasn't allowed to play then that would have been stipulated in his bail conditions. As it stands Sunderland have made themselves morally bankrupt, is there a case to answer other than that? The FA need to decide if this is classed as bringing the game into disrepute. I get what's being said though, had Ashley done the same with one of our players then they'd get what was coming to them from the fans, I wouldn't be burying my head in the sand and blaming everyone else but those in charge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Oh I don't think there is any case for them to answer or that the FA should be doing anything. I was more pointing out just how badly they have handled it and how I can't see how anyone can argue any different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie1892 Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Don't really understand why Sunderland's actions are being discussed, as others have mentioned they have broken no laws or rules in their conduct so will suffer absolutely no consequences for it. Yes they are now nonce sympathisers, but other than a few chants that will soon be forgotten it's hardly the story of the century. All it has shown is what we already knew, football clubs are ultimately extremely bent and will go to daft measures to get results. Plus the fact that we punch horses, so we're worse. It's not every day a PL club does the ol' stand by your nonce routine. Stand byyyyyyyyyyyyyy your noooooooooooooooooonce And show the world he loves kids Keep giving all the love you can Stand by your nonce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts