I wouldn't bother mate, he thinks the employees off the pitch at Sunderland are all flawless angelic can't-do-wrong's. It's like debating with a farm animal.
This isn't about the sacking, it's about her knowing about the incident. If it was used in court it's evidence, not just 'hearsay' as you clearly defined it. A police statement is not just hearsay. It's evidence whether it's completely factual or complete bullshit. I don't have a problem as such, I just fail to understand how you can blindly support her despite everything we know.
That's just it. I don't think she did anything bar a possible conflict of interest which goes against the Law Societ's professional conduct rules. Conflict - She was CE of Sunderland and also a criminal lawyer who was not impartial. If it was her legal advice that led to AJ having his suspension lifted then it could be argued that there was a conflict of interest as lawyers are meant to be totally impartial. What I am getting at [neither agreeing or disagreeing btw] - Did she lift the suspension based on reasons of justice or to benefit Sunderland FC? If the former, she has done nothing wrong. If the latter, it is a clear conflict of interest.
Hardly an admission of guilt , just an admission of jumping through the wrong legal hoops , with the club best interest in mind ultimiately . She must have been through hell being pulled in a lot of directions imo.
I think the point is she knew he had kissed the girl much, much earlier. AT THAT POINT he should have been suspended indefinitely.
Since you're busy shaving your nuts I'll put my hand up on your behalf. I'd sooner stick my saveloy in a bucket of tramp sick though
From my perspective (I`m an employment lawyer if that gives me any standing on the debate I`m not sure...) 1. Byrne was, by her own admission, given information as to what Johnson had told his QC he had done (the note she refers to as having received from Pownall). That information included an admission that he had kissed the girl. 2. Byrne knew (or ought to have known) that any defence Johnson was going to run would then have to be based on an argument that he did not know she was under 16 (ultimately this was not a defence he chose to run or one which would have stood up given the evidence reported from the trial). 3. Given that Johnson was always going to have access to youngsters whilst representing the club (autograph hunters as an example) it was madness to allow him to continue to play. He faced serious allegations and she knew that he had kissed the girl by his own admission. 4. Byrne was not representing Johnson so owed him no duty of care as has been suggested on here - her duties were owed to the Club (her employer). If, as she says (I`m dubious as to whether I believe it) she told no-one at the Club as to the admission contained in the note then the buck stops with her - if I was advising the Club (very reasonable rates Ellis if you`re reading...) then I`d not be paying her a penny as she has been grossly negligent. {I`d guess she has been though} 5.In terms of whether Byrne could have been called to court as a witness I`m sure she would have been by either side if they thought she had anything useful to say. The note from Pownall that she handed to Johnson would not have been disclosable as it would have the benefit of legal profession privilege (but as between Johnson and Pownall - she was just a "postman") which means that anything you receive from your lawyer is private and you cannot be forced to share it with anyone; courts included. 6. The "innocent until proven guilty" argument does have some force in this case though. Johnson could have argued that any decision by the Club to not let him play was, in effect, an indication that he was guilty of the allegations. The counter-argument though from the Club could (and should) have been - sorry, serious allegation, we`ll review once the case is over with an agreed form of statement to the outside world being issued. My guess is that Byrne was swayed by the fact that she recommended Pownall to Johnson and if Johnson was being told and telling her that it was Not Guilty pleas then she was blinded by that position - given that she was the CEO of a business the size of SAFC and paid to make big decisions - she got it wrong and has paid the price. Happy Days
give ower Tel bet you've shagged some right dogs when pissed,bet when pissed you think your tools as big as errol flynn
Yeah but I'm not drunk now, back in the day I'd have taken it after a few jars for sure, I can't be done with the Scottish accent on girls though, I don't even know if she's Scottish I'm just presuming so because she's called Maggie and that's a Rod Stewart song!
