I was listening last night to another "star" BBC pundit waffling on about Byrnes resignation..hinting, well not hinting really, stating that this was a gambit to close the stable doors. I think he must be a mag as he gave the impression sacking the person in charge would never be enough for him..kicking us out of the premier league or even the whole football league didn't sound as though even that would satisfy his need for punishment. I know it will offend some but although Johnston was a very silly young man..the girl knew what she was doing, plus I thought in this country you were innocent until proven guilty.
Byrne has been caught telling porkie pies. She said the Police informed her of the charges but that Johnson had DENIED the charges and would be pleading not guilty. Under these circumstances she stuck by Johnson and lifted his suspension. In truth, Johnson had ADMITTED the charges and she did a 'cover-up'. She's been caught out and had no option but to resign. Where does this leave Sunderland afc? Can they be charged as Byrne was an employee at the time or will it fall on Byrne? Stay tunes folks, the thick plottens and we haven't heard the last of this.
Something not right about all this. The club were right, imo, not to sack/suspend Johnson until he was found/pleaded guilty. It could be argued that Byrne should have informed the board and Johnson sacked when she got the information that he did actually kiss the girl - even if he was innocent of the other charges, he could be fired for unprofessional behaviour, bringing the club into disrepute etc. I've no legal background, however, 1. Why the **** was Byrne giving that information, text transcripts etc in the first place ? Surely evidence should be withheld from the public until after the court case concludes ? From my understanding, only the police, defence and prosecution should have handled that information beforehand. Whoever gave Byrne that information should be investigated. 2. If the club had moved to sack Johnson once Byne received that information, wouldn't it have unduly influenced the outcome of the trial ? As in, the club would moved to sack Johnson due to evidence they had (but shouldnt have had, see point 1) which would have influenced the opinion of, well, everyone (potential jurors, the judge, public...) ? Which would have left SAFC open to being taken to court for revealing the information, and potentially let Johnson go free on a technicality ? Conspiracy ? Smells to me that Bryne was given that information by the defence, so Johnson would be sacked but then get off free due to the technicality. However, Bryne kept her mouth shut, and no is biting the bullet for that - but she was in a lose -lose situation imo. she would have lost her job no matter what she did. Reckon she will end up with a nice job in texas USA, for a certain company at some point.
Reet, so I shag her forst. Then Gordon, Roger, Terry then Roofer. Sounds like a reet hoot, canny party. Anyone else wanna join in? Bring your lass if you want. I've no objections.
Wee's gannin ti arrange this, Billy I've got to sort out that slapper from WWIN so I'll be 'tied up' so to speak until this is arranged
Can you pervs just draw lots to see who is stirring whose porridge- it wouldn't surprise me if she said no anyway
I think Gordon had his hand up before you but he's busy. You can go third mate. I'm that kind of guy - just so generous.
http://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/about-us/latest-news/Foundation-statement Date published: 8th March 2016 The Foundation of Light acted early and decisively following the arrest of Adam Johnson in 2015. The Foundation is one of the leading sports charities in the UK. It has an exemplary reputation and excellent track record of pioneering work with children, young people and their families. While the charity is closely linked to Sunderland AFC it is structurally and financially independent of the football club. Immediately following the arrest of Adam Johnson, and almost a year before his court case, the Foundation cut all ties with the player because of safeguarding concerns. All materials that included imagery of the player were recalled and destroyed and new literature printed without the player. The Foundation takes its responsibility for safeguarding extremely seriously and is rigorous and vigilant in protecting the welfare of children, young people and vulnerable adults at all times. It has an excellent working relationship with local agencies such as Children’s Services and the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) as well as a number of children’s charities. The Foundation is satisfied its own safeguarding policy is robust and performed effectively, but is never complacent. The arrest of Adam Johnson raised new and significant concerns for the charity and as a result it reviewed its own safeguarding procedures in 2015, and subsequently commissioned an independent safeguarding audit to review all areas of its operations to further reinforce its commitment in this respect. FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE FOUNDATION OF LIGHT: The Foundation of Light was founded by Sir Bob Murray CBE in 2001. It uses the power of football to inspire young people and change lives using a range of pioneering and award-wining sports, health, community and education programmes. The charity works with more than 40,000 people every year in the northeast of England. It is the architect of its own success raising over £4 million per annum. The charity has an eminent and autonomous board of Trustees who are responsible for all decision making including safe-guarding. Decisions taken by SAFC do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions or policy of the Foundation of Light. Chief Executive is Lesley Spuhler OBE. Margaret Byrne was involved with the Foundation in a purely administrative role as Company Secretary. She was not involved in any decision making capacity.
The Police are obliged to provide evidence to an employer under Common Law Police Disclosure where there is an allegation of child sexual offences. They have to do this so that an employer can implement safeguards to protect children. This is perfectly legal.
I think that Maggie is more sinned against than sinner. My brother in law knows her well and he tells me that she is fiercely loyal and committed to SAFC. Letting AJ play may have saved us from relegation. He was (I think) our top scorer last season. Stopping him from playing, when he said he was innocent, could have left us wide open to claims from him about harming his career (and possible England call up even) had he been found not guilty. The PFA, who have been quite silent over this, would then have had a field day with us. Maybe the sensible course would have been to carry on paying the 60k a week with him suspended but maybe Maggie's difficult decision to let him play avoided relegation. Whichever way she decided it was a lose- lose situation but she went for what she thought would be best for us. As it happens, he changed his plea but Maggie didn't know that as she reinstated him way back when none of us knew what was going on. She has resigned hoping that will take the heat off the club although trial by social media goes on. I don't know if she got any payment for resigning but I don't begrudge her one if she was given a sum. I wish her all the best and if whoever replaces her has even half the commitment to SAFC that Maggie has then I'll be happy with that. I expect many of you disagree and are happy to slag her off but we have lost a true fan who tried to do what she believed was best for the club but paid the price for making what, with hindsight, turned out to be the wrong decision.
