In this hypothetical scenario being discussed on an Internet forum yes. How does that overrule law? Why should a third party be privy to evidence being used in court?
Adam Johnson found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a child | Sentenced to six years
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
- Status
Something that belongs to them was instrumental (literally) in the committing of a crime?
We don't even know it belonged to them. If I took a knife form my work canteen and stabbed somebody with it do you think the police would be giving it to my employer? Why would they need it?
Seems like a reasonable guess that it has something to do with the nature of the crime he was accused of (at the time).
If you're up for trial in a case involving sexual activity w/ a minor, your employer will have to be briefed if the work you do potentially involves minors (which Johnson's does). Makes sense? I guess it does.
But isn't the employer then supposed to suspend you, as a matter of course, until the trial has taken place? That's another odd feature here. You're informed of the situation - and yet you fail to suspend the guy, in spite of this being part and parcel of the thing itself. Who would risk the fallout from doing that? And can you even plausibly do it in the first place - what with the police being fully aware that you've been briefed?
If you're up for trial in a case involving sexual activity w/ a minor, your employer will have to be briefed if the work you do potentially involves minors (which Johnson's does). Makes sense? I guess it does.
But isn't the employer then supposed to suspend you, as a matter of course, until the trial has taken place? That's another odd feature here. You're informed of the situation - and yet you fail to suspend the guy, in spite of this being part and parcel of the thing itself. Who would risk the fallout from doing that? And can you even plausibly do it in the first place - what with the police being fully aware that you've been briefed?
They don't need specifics for that though and the police claim they weren't given specifics. Only Johnson is claiming that. The same Johnson claiming innocence until it went to court.
Sunderland did suspend him initially and then lifted it after legal advice. Surely that suggests they were advised that they were on shaky ground.
I thought we were being purely hypothetical
Not sure how many knives can be used for grooming, or how many knives are given to employees as as benefits of employment.That bolded part is one of the biggest problems I had with the club, given that the work closely with Foundation Of Light and young kids. If I remember right, in their statement they said the police briefed them in that May meeting and child protection measures were put in place in relation to Johnson and FOL, which would make a lot of sense as to how they might know details of the case such as the texts.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm suggesting: They must have been properly advised on the matter. It seems extremely odd, on the face of it, that they would have lifted the initial suspension if they hadn't been advised that this was legit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-doesn-t-deserve-prison-Twitter-lynching.html
Despite the author and website, I find myself agreeing with parts of this. However, I am 100% sure it is wrong as I should not be agreeing with either the site or the author.
Despite the author and website, I find myself agreeing with parts of this. However, I am 100% sure it is wrong as I should not be agreeing with either the site or the author.
What do you mean where are these transcripts? Byrne had a dossier of the police evidence against Johnson on May 4 2015, which she handed to defence barrister Orlando Pownall QC. Among the evidence was a transcript of Johnson’s police interview when he admitted kissing the girl and asked: “Is kissing sexual activity?” Copies of the 834 messages the footballer exchanged with the schoolgirl between December 31 2014 and February 26 2015 were also handed to Mr Pownall by Ms Byrne.
She's a fecking idiot. At 15 you are not capable of making any type of significant decision like this. He took advantage of her.
Wrong. The police, the court, Johnsons solicitor all agree that Byrne was told what Johnson had been charged with and that police had evidence of sexual activity etc.
Correct.
I agree with the Twatter pitchfork brigade part.
Rest of it isn't ironclad in terms of either logic or morals, if you ask me.
She also makes the dubious "it's legal in Germany" point: A 28 year old doesn't stand in the same legal relation to a 14 year old as he or she does to an 18 year old. The German model is more subtle than that, as pointed out by several posters in this very thread.
Only Johnson and his defence attorney is claiming Subderland knew every detail. So, not wrong in what I said at all.
Katie Hopkins has never been right about anything, ever.
She won't even actually think what she's written, she just adopts contrary views in order to act the cnut.
She won't even actually think what she's written, she just adopts contrary views in order to act the cnut.
Usually when this kind of case happens a lot of similar ones follow (whether real or fabricated is another story). Does anyone think more accusations of sexual abuse against a minor involving sport stars will begin to appear over the coming months?
Why would Sunderland be the ones giving evidence to Johnson's defence attorney? Surely the police would be disclosing that to them? Where is this claimed?
This is it exactly. She's a gun for hire, which is why I no longer bother to read anything she's written. If, in true tabloid style, she took the 'string him up' position then her piece wouldn't get so much attention...so she's - predictably - not done that. Yawn. Mail columnists are a waste of opposable thumbs.
It's not claimed. It is fact. It's all over the place when the case has been discussed. Here's one http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/margaret-byrne-quizzed-sunderland-fan-11004661
This is the 1st time I have agreed with this foul loathsome evil little cockroach.
Fair enough. It seems strange to me that his employer was given evidence by police. Though perhaps they were providing him with legal advice at the time.
How does this info make you feel about the suspension flip-flop?
Doesn't really change anything on that. They only lifted it following legal advice and after meeting with the PFA. To me it seems they only lifted the suspension having been advised to do so.
OK. Must remember to get the PFA's lawyers if I ever get nabbed for anything!
BBC saying the Sunderland Chief as resigned .
Johnson's sister has set up a "Justice For Johnson" Facebook page..
Sunderland CEO has resigned, saying she made a "serious mistake" in her handling of the situation.
First decent thing she's done. Shocking conduct for a lawyer.He pleaded guilty to two charges. The only appeal she can have is for a light sentence. But I'm more amazed that she's sticking by him. Family or not, after the disgusting revelations that came out of this trial, I'd want nothing more to do with him. I read recently his childhood friend Dale Roberts committed suicide after his girlfriend cheated on him with Paul Terry (John's brother). One would have thought after going through that experience Johnson would have some conscious about the implications of cheating on family. Never mind breaking the law.
It's good she has gone,she got it wrong
The next player to be accused won't be given the chance to play on they will be suspended from the start till the end of the case.
The next player to be accused won't be given the chance to play on they will be suspended from the start till the end of the case.
She obviously thought (as he did) that he could somehow get off, it took him a whole 10 months to plead guilty. What is also shocking is she/the club were sent the evidence, including the whatsapp messages.
So at what point did they have the conversation with Adam J about what went down? Shows you how these clubs work, if they think you can get off they will back you regardless of guilt.
Breaking News : Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Gary Glitter, Max Clifford and Fred Talbot all give their support to #TeamAJ
How was it that she was given this evidence bundle anyway? Surely the police shouldn't be handing evidence to a suspects employer?
Or was she in some way acting as his legal council?
Or was she in some way acting as his legal council?
Fair enough if those hypothetical clubs also have the evidence prior the trial, but in no way fair if that isn't the case.
If you were charged with the same crime and awaiting trial do you think there's any chance your employer would not suspend you (with pay) pending the outcome?
I don't like that just the accusation would be enough for that. No admission of guilt, no due process,...just doesn't seem right.
Then again, it's not unheard of, right? And guess if the state believes it has enough to charge him...
Then again, it's not unheard of, right? And guess if the state believes it has enough to charge him...
People are absolute morons.
We're not talking about sacking someone on the basis of an accusation, it's suspended with pay.
Guilt can only be determined by the courts, but he should never have has his suspension lifted while it was all ongoing, and making him captain was just ridiculous.
Shit did they make him captain....
- Status