BlueStar Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Dunno like, isn't it often the case that some of the more forthright jurors make a decision and everyone else tends to go along with it? Especially if your verdict would end up overturning what nearly everyone else thinks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Lucky that he's got former teammate Danny as judge for his case Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Even if he's found not guilty of these 2 charges, the 2 charges he has already pleaded guilty to have ended his career and mean he'll have to keep a low profile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 So a club sends a fax late or forgets to sign a page correctly and sanctions are applied if the player involved plays, yet a club knowingly plays a player, self confessed as guilty of a serious criminal offence (short of murder what's actually worse than sexual activity with a child) and nowt'll happen, not even disrepute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie_b Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Presumably when he is found not guilty of the second two sunderland will re sign him? Afterall, they played him for a year when they knew he was guilt of the first two charges. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shintonsghost Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 jury out, judge needs a 12-0 majority. hmmm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 So a club sends a fax late or forgets to sign a page correctly and sanctions are applied if the player involved plays, yet a club knowingly plays a player, self confessed as guilty of a serious criminal offence (short of murder what's actually worse than sexual activity with a child) and nowt'll happen, not even disrepute. Nope I don't think so. One is an infringement of the laws of the game and the other an infringement of the laws of the land. For example had Cantona drop kicked someone in the chippy queue he would not have been banned from playing football. Or if Suarez had bitten his next door neighbour he wouldn't be banned from playing football but as they did it on the pitch they were charged with transgressing the laws of football. I doubt there is much that can be done other than worldwide condemnation of the club for persisting with a child molester to save them from relegation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 So a club sends a fax late or forgets to sign a page correctly and sanctions are applied if the player involved plays, yet a club knowingly plays a player, self confessed as guilty of a serious criminal offence (short of murder what's actually worse than sexual activity with a child) and nowt'll happen, not even disrepute. Nope I don't think so. One is an infringement of the laws of the game and the other an infringement of the laws of the land. For example had Cantona drop kicked someone in the chippy queue he would not have been banned from playing football. Or if Suarez had bitten his next door neighbour he wouldn't be banned from playing football but as they did it on the pitch they were charged with transgressing the laws of football. I doubt there is much that can be done other than worldwide condemnation of the club for persisting with a child molester to save them from relegation I know, nowt will get done, but Johnson's/SAFC's actions unlike those of Cantona in the chippy, or Suarez having his neighbour as a buffet, directly affected the competition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 But didn't transgress the laws of football Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 But didn't transgress the laws of football Yep, that's the morally corrupt get out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Spot on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I thought the jury verdict always had to be unanimous or they throw it out or something? Someone tell the judge to watch 12 Angry Men. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 So if the verdict has to be unanimous if he is found not guilty will that have to be the unanimous view of the jury? Or is that a stupid question? If so I can't see all 12 thinking he is not guilty, albeit based on the anecdotal sketchy stuff we've had so far Or if they cannot agree on a verdict is he therefore found not guilty? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 So if the verdict has to be unanimous if he is found not guilty will that have to be the unanimous view of the jury? Or is that a stupid question? If so I can't see all 12 thinking he is not guilty, albeit based on the anecdotal sketchy stuff we've had so far Or if they cannot agree on a verdict is he therefore found not guilty? Has to be 12 guilty, 0 not guilty. Even if 11 of them think guitly and 1 not guilty, the verdict will be not guilty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I see, cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 So if the verdict has to be unanimous if he is found not guilty will that have to be the unanimous view of the jury? Or is that a stupid question? If so I can't see all 12 thinking he is not guilty, albeit based on the anecdotal sketchy stuff we've had so far Or if they cannot agree on a verdict is he therefore found not guilty? Has to be 12 guilty, 0 not guilty. Even if 11 of them think guitly and 1 not guilty, the verdict will be not guilty This is completely wrong btw. If the jury don't come to a unanimous verdict, the judge will often revise it down later to a majority one (majority being 10-2). If they can't come to a majority, then the jury is declared hung and the trial is over. Prosecution will usually seek a retrial unless there's a good reason not to. Hung juries are pretty rare though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Again, I'm arguing with others who say that Sunderland have legally done nothing wrong. Does morality and ethics not come into it at all? Should Margaret Byrne keep her job and should SAFC have no questions to answer when the trial wraps up?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Ready To Groon see it as Twelve Angry Mags. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonsays Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Is there not some legal issue with Sunderland knowingly having a self admitted nonce in a workplace where he will often come into contact with minors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpy474 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Is there not some legal issue with Sunderland knowingly having a self admitted nonce in a workplace where he will often come into contact with minors? I was wondering that, i mean did he go to give presents to bairns in hospital last x-mas as clubs do. Did the mascots at their games get to meet him. Basically did he get to meet lots of kids as you would do as a professional footballer as part of the job. As it seems he did with the girl in question. There's a lot for Sunderland to explain in that regard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Could there not be a case that they have conspired to keep him off the register by concealing his plans to plead guilty to at least some of the charges? Again not going to be punished by the FA, but the club have questions to answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 What if the club were secretly feeding him children from their childen shed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 What if the club were secretly feeding him children from their childen shed? Immigrant children or real British? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Prime Brittish meat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Questions would surely be asked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts