The trial of Adam Johnson (part 2)

They can sack without conviction for sex offences committed outside of employment. They can if:

The employee's behaviour risks bringing the employer's name into ill repute. Most likely in the case of a senior employee or one whose job takes him or her into regular contact with the organisation's clients or customers. You could argue that Johnson was in 'close' contact with the clubs customers [fans.]

This allows an employer to suspend/ terminate prior to trial/ conviction where the employee has been charged.

 

I'm just glad that it's all becoming so clear

 

This is in par with a borini thread.

Just with longer posts. Most of which i have skipped past.

 

I can't wait for this to end. So that everyone can move on [me included haha.]

 

You'll do anything to catch AJ's attention won't you!!!

 

Well as she's being called by the defence, I would imagine she'll be supporting his story.

 

Would this be why she hasn't been in court? As she's not allowed to see certain evidence before she gives hers? Saying that she was there for first day of evidence but I'm pretty sure witnesses can't watch evidence previous to giving their own? Can anyone confirm?

 

...or at least that they'll be expecting her to.

If I was him I'd be ****ting bricks that I was relying on the evidence of someone I had cheated on, treated like ****e and no doubt upset with the stuff that's come out during the trial.

 

He might have offered her geet loads of sweeties . . . . and a signed shirt (with arrows on, of course)

 

I see nobody has picked up on the fact that he said he still believes she's a genuine girl... he actually said this today. After accusing her of being a liar and making stuff up.

So he believes a person who he is accusing of being a liar to be honest, truthful, authentic, sincere.

please log in to view this image

 

A genuine girl....im not falling for that one again.....last time i got piles and a smack in the gob.

 

I think he said in early police interviews that he thought other people were making her say the things she was against him, It's either a good defence ploy or now that she is 16, he thinks there might be another gobble in there somewhere..

 

I prefer the term "nosh off"

 

Either way, it's a result to that ****er..

 

Jury informed the defence case likely to end tomorrow and they will be allowed to consider the verdicts next week

 

Suppose he has to make sure he has enough petrol in beast with the blackened out windows then, he no doubt has a bit to squeeze in or in his case out before next Monday ha!

On a different note but on theme, apparently Steven Fletcher withdrew his defence support, after AJ's guilty pleas? I can only assume, he either realised he had been led down a path or the thought of perjury might mean the ****er has to have a shave before entering cell no 101..

 

The lass is claiming he shaved all his pubes off. He saying he didn't and never has. Could be important in whether a sexual act was actually carried out on AJ by the girl. It's probably the most relevant information of the whole trial given 99% of the evidence is around the charges he's now pleaded guilty too. Looks like Fletch was his get out clause but now he's ****ed him off so all we know now is Steven Fletcher likes to look at his teammates cocks in the shower.

 

Of course he does, trims them, shaves them and sticks their pubes on his face as a souvenir..

 

Has Fletch been busy checking out the rest of the dressing room or something?

 

Who said we'd sue for wages though? Given he gave one plea one side of the window and the another opposite side of the window. Now we are without him leaving us short with no option to bring in a replacement, given the money involved in the league and maintaining league status, how do you know we wouldn't sue for damages? Nobody can say we can't, you can file papers on anyone for any reason. Whether we'd win or not I don't know, we wouldn't know until it was heard. But it would be a civil case and not an employment tribunal so we'd be well within our rights to file papers for damages surely?