• 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.
theinediblebulk said:
Yes, and he was. It's the length of suspension that I'm referring to. You can't just suspend someone indefinitely, like some people seem to think you can. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

theinediblebulk said:
You not bother reading the bit about what legally you can do on UNISON's site regarding the fact it has to be dealt with as swiftly as possible then. Here it is again.

Length of suspension: Your employer needs to do what they can to resolve the issue swiftly and keep the suspension to a minimum. Your employer should keep the suspension decision under review.
Click to expand...

Club didn't need to suspend him, they didn't need to sack him. What they could have quite easily done (if they did indeed know that he had kissed a 15 year old) was not select him for the match day squad. To avoid prejudicing the trial, the club could simply state that they were allowing Johnson time to deal with his personal issues without the added pressure of football.
 

theinediblebulk said:
From UNISON's website.
You must be logged on to see external links


Length of suspension: Your employer needs to do what they can to resolve the issue swiftly and keep the suspension to a minimum. Your employer should keep the suspension decision under review.

That's the legal angle. Johnson claimed innocence, the club sought independant legal advice as well as working with outside agencies regarding safeguarding, and of course the PFA were involved as well.

The employers hands were tied in relation to resolving the issue as swiftly as possible due it being a criminal investigation rather than a simple in-house issue. The review would have occurred after all relevant discussions between all parties had taken place and then it would have been decided the suspension would be lifted as legally, that's pretty much what they had to do.
Click to expand...
@Sima
Saves me posting it. Thank you @theinediblebulk
 
shepherd88 said:
Right so now that's established we could have suspended the nonce **** and not played him.
Click to expand...

We did suspend him. Just that the club are legally obliged to sort out the situation as swiftly as possible. As I've already said, after discussions with outside agencies regarding safeguarding, independent legal advice and the PFA, the suspension was lifted. Not saying it's right, just that's the law.
 
Chizno1 said:
Club didn't need to suspend him, they didn't need to sack him. What they could have quite easily done (if they did indeed know that he had kissed a 15 year old) was not select him for the match day squad. To avoid prejudicing the trial, the club could simply state that they were allowing Johnson time to deal with his personal issues without the added pressure of football.
Click to expand...
They could have bit didn't

theinediblebulk said:
We did suspend him. Just that the club are legally obliged to sort out the situation as swiftly as possible. As I've already said, after discussions with outside agencies regarding safeguarding, independent legal advice and the PFA, the suspension was lifted. Not saying it's right, just that's the law.
Click to expand...
Some people won't be told
 
haway said:
Logon or register to see this image


@Reiver

1 = SAFC fans critical of the club
2 = SAFC fans critical of the club who are being reasonable

4= SAFC fans not being critical of the club
3= SAFC fans not being critical of the club who are being reasonable.

Notice, in both cases, the vast majority (2 and 3) of the group in question (1 and 4) are being reasonable. This is not to say that either groups 1 or 4 make up the vast majority of fans.

Hope this helps mate
Click to expand...
Venn
look out piano said:
Diagrams and everything, the thread that keeps on giving :neutral:
Click to expand...
Venn diagrams my arse. Them's Donald Ducks eyes and no mistaking. Quite apt with Mickey Mouse lawyers on here:lol:
 
monty in command said:
Whether Margaret Byrne and the board knew some of the detail, the fact is they are not criminal lawyers, so are not qualified to adjudicate.

Added to this, until the start of the case, AJ was pleading not guilty to all charges, so at some point in time between his various court appearances, where he consistently pleaded not guilty to all charges, and the trial starting, his legal advice changed two of the pleas to guilty, and that was not known until that point, and at that point Sunderland acted immediately and sacked him - I fail to see what more they could have done.

Lots and lots of folks can now look back with 20:20 hindsight and say we should have done this or that, but I think the club has handled an extremely delicate matter pretty well, all things considered, treading a very careful path between the 'innocent until proved otherwise' position and the seriousness of the accusations. Yes the red tops will try to have a field day and accuse the club of taking the charges lightly, but I can't see how suspending him on full pay for a year - in reality the only other thing they could have done - would have been any better AT THE TIME. Clearly, with 20:20 hindsight, that would have been the correct course of action.
Click to expand...


Best post on this whole thread. 10/10 :lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
redgauntlet said:
What do you all want from all of this now boring chewing of the fat. No good can come of snything, our best player has transgressed and is about to be punished for it. The club has lost a good player. Everyone is a loser, it has now gone beyond a joke. What will it take to satisfy you.
Click to expand...

It's only one person who has decided to troll the place constantly since both verdict and statement and boring the shit out of everyone in the process.
 
theinediblebulk said:
We did suspend him. Just that the club are legally obliged to sort out the situation as swiftly as possible. As I've already said, after discussions with outside agencies regarding safeguarding, independent legal advice and the PFA, the suspension was lifted. Not saying it's right, just that's the law.
Click to expand...
And could have re-suspended him
 
Cockney Mackem said:
There's nothing to separate those criticising the club and those calling for action by the club (which is a strange distinction to make anyway. Thinking the club has done something wrong - reasonable. Wanting the club to do something to remedy this - hysterical wum pontificating insincere keyboard warrier)
Click to expand...
* warrior
 
haway said:
Jesus Wept. Stop quoting something that doesn't matter.

If you are a teacher, and you are accused of touching a child, how long do you think keeping the suspension at the minimum would be? 1 week? 2 weeks? No, until after the trial. Take out teacher in that statement and replace it with 'doctor', 'lawyer' or 'policeman' or any job where you have a position of responsibility.

Now, in AJ's case, he was accused of using his job as a footballer to exploit vulnerable children and did so on club premises. 'Keeping the suspension to a minimum' would involve suspending him until after the trial. Nobody is saying he should have been suspended forever and ever until the end of time.



Name a job where you are in a position of trust and you wouldn't be suspended with pay. I'm hardly pretending to know the intricacies of employment law - this is just standard f***ing practice.
Click to expand...

As I said, that's the legal framework that an employer has to operate under. A decision was made regarding what was known at the time after discussions. Why and how that decision was arrived at, I have no idea, what with not being party to the discussions. Not sure anyone on here was present at any of them meetings either. Just seems to be loads thinking you can suspend indefinitely when the law says you can't.
 
safcforever said:
It's been posted loads of times that the employer should act swiftly. The fact we was being paid while suspended means fuck all
Click to expand...

What would happen to a teacher, doctor, lawyer, nurse, paramedic who was up for sexually assaulting a child on work premises? When do you think the suspension would be ended? 'as soon as possible' doesn't necessarily mean before a trial.
 
safcforever said:
It's been posted loads of times that the employer should act swiftly. The fact we was being paid while suspended means fuck all
Click to expand...

The employer has acted swiftly. It's not as if he's still on your payroll.

It's standard practice to suspend on full pay with a crime of this severity.
 
theinediblebulk said:
As I said, that's the legal framework that an employer has to operate under. A decision was made regarding what was known at the time after discussions. Why and how that decision was arrived at, I have no idea, what with not being party to the discussions. Not sure anyone on here was present at any of them meetings either. Just seems to be loads thinking you can suspend indefinitely when the law says you can't.
Click to expand...

To be honest if you suspended with pay do you think the employee would then have a lawsuit against the employer if it went on and on? It's unclear if the Unison link is what is good practise or what is a legal obligation...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top