• 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.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
The risk assessment line is genius given he was then pictured before the City game signing autographs which is exactly how the grooming started with the victim in this case.....The clubs negligence defies belief.
 

chunkylover53 said:
I still don't understand why they were given the docs anyway, seems very odd

But if they had them I simply don't believe they didn't bother reading them. They were in a difficult position as it was, to just ignore them is extremely odd behaviour. Especially for a lawyer
Click to expand...
Maybe it was a "legal" decision NOT to read them. You can't make any judgement on them if you haven't read them, that judgement is left to the court. The clubs statement did say that documents were passed on....never said they were read. Just speculation like
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Like it's been said a hundred times, if she didn't see anything in those documents, and was accused of seeing something in those documents, and Adam Johnson didn't say anything in the meeting, why didn't she use those exact words in the statement alleging that she knew something? And now that she's catching all kinds of hell for her ambiguous statement, why doesn't she come out and say "I didn't hear or see anything in that meeting to indicate Johnson might be guilty"?
Click to expand...
Yes but MB is a criminal lawyer
 
Purrfect South said:
This will upset many, but it's the real elephant in the room. I can't believe there were posters on here saying young girls can be as provocative as they like, and it's up to men to show restraint. We as a society have got things totally screwed up. I'm not defending AJ here though. This is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't mean to, and I do understand what you mean (although I disagree), but sentence has very unfortunate phrasing :lol::lol::lol:
 
janey said:
If I was handed a file of court documents I wouldn't read them either, I was almost sacked once because a colleague I was with read court documents that hadn't been filed with the Court, I hadn't realised shed read them but because I managed her we were both nearly sacked. The barristers caused hell on, accused us of contempt of court which theoretically it was.
Click to expand...

Theres a difference between you and the legal representatives of a multi million pound organisation though.
 
rebelsafc said:
Maybe it was a "legal" decision NOT to read them. You can't make any judgement on them if you haven't read them, that judgement is left to the court. The clubs statement did say that documents were passed on....never said they were read. Just speculation like
Click to expand...
Indeed. I'm not a legal expert. But if there was a legal reason they should say what that reason was

Ignorance isn't an excuse
 
chunkylover53 said:
Indeed. I'm not a legal expert. But if there was a legal reason they should say what that reason was

Ignorance isn't an excuse
Click to expand...
They've released a statement which said they took legal advice and it was their understanding he was going to plead not guilty, as soon as he plead guilty he was dismissed. How this situation has turned on safc and Johnson barely gets a mention anymore is a complete joke.
 
Just found this on the internet, if it still relevant it might offer some explanation of the Club's actions and highlight what advice they received from their Independent Legal Advisors and PFA,


Employee investigations: know your rights
Employers cannot…
  • dismiss an employee automatically if they are suspected of a crime or wrongdoing – they can only take this course of action where the nature of the crime or wrongdoing is relevant to that person’s employment and where an employee is found guilty
  • suspend an employee automatically if they are suspected of a crime or wrongdoing – employers should first seek alternatives (such as moving them into a different job or department). Where alternatives are not possible, employers should ideally seek agreement from the employee to refrain from work while an investigation is under way.
  • rely on the police investigation – employers are required to carry out their own investigation into a crime or wrongdoing wherever feasible.
Employers can…
  • suspend an employee if they refuse to refrain from work and the employer believes the employee’s presence in work will jeopardise the employer’s reputation the health and safety of the individual and/or their colleagues or the employer’s investigation. In circumstances where the employee cannot work (for example, if they are held in police custody), suspension is also a viable option.
  • dismiss an employee after conviction and when imprisonment means they are unable to work.
  • dismiss an employee when an internal investigation finds that they have brought the employer into disrepute or where there is a breach of trust and confidence.
You must be logged on to see external links
 
Littlerobbieh said:
They've released a statement which said they took legal advice and it was their understanding he was going to plead not guilty, as soon as he plead guilty he was dismissed. How this situation has turned on safc and Johnson barely gets a mention anymore is a complete joke.
Click to expand...
Johnson is going to prison so don't be silly

SAFC also have questions to answer, they have no answered them. They could make this end
 
Bagpuss said:
The risk assessment line is genius given he was then pictured before the City game signing autographs which is exactly how the grooming started with the victim in this case.....The clubs negligence defies belief.
Click to expand...
Safeguards are strictly outlined by the police. He can sign autographs if he is supervised, which he would be, at a match. The incident with the lass was outside of the workplace, and he was alone, which is a different scenario. The papers are just carefully omitting this in order to slag off the club even more.
 
chunkylover53 said:
Johnson is going to prison so don't be silly

SAFC also have questions to answer, they have no answered them. They could make this end
Click to expand...
They have answered them in their statement. Like Mackem00 says why do they have to answer to accusations from a sex offender and proven liar ? It's people buying into media hype that's caused all this. When I read the statement my 1st thought was 'nice one safc. Then I logged onto here and there was hell on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top