• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.

andymcnish said:
You don't understand either employment law or child protection then.

If I own a bar and have a reasonable belief that an employee is dipping the til, i can sack him. In fact if i know it's one of two but can't find out which even after making all reasonable investigations, I can sack them both.

This isn't some sort of complex fraud by the way.
You ask the employee:
Did you meet her through work?
Did you know she was under 16?
Did you kiss her with tongues?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Goodbye.
Click to expand...

And you sir are talking cacbabble.
A completely different scenario you are making up.
 
ollie c said:
Maybe. But I would expect the moral outrage to be accompanied by voting with feet. You have to be true to yourself ( not you specifically, of course).
Click to expand...
I don't think so, you'll get the odd person that thinks that way but why should people be driven out of the club by the action (or inactions) of a couple of temporary members of staff?
 
Tadger said:
"On 4 May 2015, an introductory meeting took place between Mr. Johnson, his father and Orlando Pownall QC. Mr. Pownall had not previously met Mr. Johnson. The club’s CEO was present during part of that meeting. During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention."

More than one source has stated that these documents were transcripts of WhatsApp messages and texts.

I don't think the club knew he was going to change his plea and I think they believed that he was going to fight the allegations. What I don't agree with is that they thought it appropriate to allow him to carry on playing when faced with those transcripts.
Click to expand...
Must be true then :eek:
 
Hawkings Boots said:
Can't read through 119 pages to see if this has been said before but whether the club knew or not does anyone know whether they could have even legally terminated his contract until he pleaded guilty?
Click to expand...

They could legally terminate his contract following a thorough investigation. Were they in a position to conduct that investigation given it surrounded an active criminal case? I doubt it. If they were would they want to try and put themselves in the position to do that or just let the police and courts do what they are experts at?
 
walesie said:
I don't think so, you'll get the odd person that thinks that way but why should people be driven out of the club by the action (or inactions) of a couple of temporary members of staff?
Click to expand...
Because the smell will linger, unfortunately.
 
walesie said:
You're an odd ball you mind.
Click to expand...

See that is your only defence, if I am an oddball, then so are most of the people on this thread, because the majority disagrees with you

Throw all the personal insults around you want.
 
haway said:
It was an undisputed fact of the case man, have you ever been in CC when a judge sums up evidence?
Click to expand...

Yes.

haway said:
And the majority of the country disagree with you...
Click to expand...

:lol::lol: fuck off man.

I couldn't give a shit.

The majority of SAFC fans disagree with you on here, so stop pretending they don't, its why you have been awake all night trying to change people's minds.
 
johnson said:
See that is your only defence, if I am an oddball, then so are most of the people on this thread, because the majority disagrees with you

Throw all the personal insults around you want.
Click to expand...

And the majority of the country disagree with you...
 
haway said:
Why would SAFC be called to give evidence?
Click to expand...

If they categorically had the evidence which proved that Johnson was guilty and had not even discussed sacking him why wouldn't they?

They could have proved without doubt that his wages were not a factor in him continuing to plead not guilty if that was the case.
 
Rober33 said:
tidied.
Click to expand...

Ok, so on that basis the club should never have suspended him in the first place and were far too hasty to do so? Did they suspend him without consulting the PFA or taking legal advice in the hope that no-one would question it? Did they suspend him without even discussing the issue at club level? Did they not have safeguarding measures already in place? If that is the case, then it's an altogether different reason to question the club and its procedures.

I hope the club have done everything spot on but, and again it's just my opinion, there are more unanswered questions than answered.
 
The Sandance Kid said:
The statement is very strong? Really?
It doesn't address the one issue the fans want to know... Did the club know he was guilty (I.e did they have all the evidence) but played him anyway?

The statement just talks about his plea. No mention of the details stated in court and the press hysteria would all go away if the club said they "didn't have any evidence".

It has been stated in court that they did. That they knew he was guilty and played him anyway. I'm sorry but the club statement did not address this at all.
Click to expand...

Not just the fans either. The statement has caused a complete shit storm with the press for the exact same reason as some fans are unhappy about it. I still don't know where I sit with it tbh. If the club had said in the statement that they denied all accusations of knowing about what went on then I would take their word for it whole heartedly and that would have been the end to it as far as I'm concerned. It could have been put to bed once and for all. As they haven't done that they have opened themselves up to this criticism. The fact they haven't denied these accusations, coupled with the fact they are refusing to sue the player doesn't sit comfortably with me.
 
Rober33 said:
Is there any evidence suggesting they even actually saw the transcripts let alone trawled through 834 messages to try and ascertain his guilt?

For all we know, from the evidence so far, all they did was pass on the documents to Johnson's new Barrister.
Click to expand...

I find it impossible to believe that SAFC's CEO, a qualified lawyer, wouldn't have had a gander at information of one of her employees regarding a criminal investigation.

She wants sacking for incompetence at the very least if she didn't look at them.
 
he should have been stood down from playing but still have got paid

the difference between legal obligation and moral obligation

is clearly beyond the leadership capacity of our club

no wonder we make so many other fuck ups

we really are just a small club at every level other than support
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top