Gemmill 46023 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Would you not question your ceo on what exactly went on.I'd expect mine to give me all the facts without me asking for them. She says in her statement that she withheld those details man. If I'm her and I'm losing my job anyway, am I fuck admitting to basically lying to my employer over something this serious, unless I actually did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46023 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Well, either Short didn't ask her what the basis of Johnson's reinstatement was or she lied then. Personally on a matter as important as this I'd go to the top for as advice. Well no actually, I'd have suspended him as a matter of common sense. But if I was short, I'd ask why he wasn't suspended considering the CPS had a case against him. I mean ffs, even without her being privy to the evidence, there was only one reasonable course of action. The owner can't ignore this. He knew imo. She's effectively admitted to lying by saying she didn't clue the board in on the details of what she knew. She'd be mental to take this all on the chin unless she actually did it or she's been given some sort of comfortable retirement level payoff, and even then they couldn't really afford to do that in case it gets leaked at a later date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5295 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Exactly, the pay off was the only other thing that makes sense but it's hugely risky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21983 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 She says in her statement that she withheld those details man. If I'm her and I'm losing my job anyway, am I fuck admitting to basically lying to my employer over something this serious, unless I actually did it. Unless you're getting a large backhander maybe? Johnson was a 12 million quid asset, its simply not plausible to me he didn't know more. Anyway, since apparently no illegal act has been carried out, there will never be proof either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5295 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Just as another point on this, she is paid about 5 times what Charnley is and yet was incompetent enough to do this despite a background in law. Says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21983 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 She's effectively admitted to lying by saying she didn't clue the board in on the details of what she knew. She'd be mental to take this all on the chin unless she actually did it or she's been given some sort of comfortable retirement level payoff, and even then they couldn't really afford to do that in case it gets leaked at a later date. If Short knew, this is exactly the course of action he'd take. What other option does he have? She's already implicated, with no further paper trail she can't prove owt anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21983 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Just as another point on this, she is paid about 5 times what Charnley is and yet was incompetent enough to do this despite a background in law. Says it all. I don't think she was incompetent, this was a cynical calculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46023 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 If Short knew, this is exactly the course of action he'd take. What other option does he have? She's already implicated, with no further paper trail she can't prove owt anyway. She can stand her ground and insist that they fire her, and create a media storm by pointing the finger at the club. Which, if you didn't do it, is exactly what you'd do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5295 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) @ Renton - If she retires following this then maybe you're right. I just can't see why she would take the fall for this, especially given she was already being paid over half a million a year. How much money would it take to persuade someone to admit to this if you're already paying them that much? I guess the other scenario is that she went to Short/the board, told them and told them her plan for dealing with it. They potentially then agree as long as she takes the fall if it goes south. Seems like this she only resigned because the Guardian got their hands on something. Either way, as you say there's no way of knowing. At least someone has been held responsible though. Edited March 8, 2016 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 She wasn't losing her job when she came out with her first statement though.Maybe Short lives in a cave and only comes out of his cave on a match day.This shit was in every paper for days yet some on here believe Short wasn't aware of all the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46023 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 She wasn't losing her job when she came out with her first statement though.Maybe Short lives in a cave and only comes out of his cave on a match day.This shit was in every paper for days yet some on here believe Short wasn't aware of all the details. Your opinion isn't worth listening to. Just FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21983 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 There really should be an independent investigation but can't think of any authority or mandate for it. Think SAFC are getting off very lightly though, very handy to have a single scape goat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Would worth reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 but worth reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5295 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 ... What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46023 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Would worth reading Precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonatine 11542 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 https://twitter.com/zenxv/status/707279844351090688 Fuck me, there's some thick cunts in this world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Regardless of one trampy mother with horrific parenting ideals view it is still against the fucking law. How many times are these daft twats going to say something like "well it would be legal in France" or "I think you can make your own mind up at 15" before they realize that is all irrelevant, it is against the law in the UK. Edited March 8, 2016 by Howay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7169 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Mad that the age of consent in Germany, Italy, Portugal Etc is 14. France's used to be 13 until recently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21983 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) One of those daft twats on the smb was saying that it was the girl that had groomed Johnson. Seriously. Edited March 8, 2016 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5295 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Mad that the age of consent in Germany, Italy, PortugalEtc is 14. France's used to be 13 until recently! And yet they have a lower rate of teen pregnancy than we do...weird world. Edited March 8, 2016 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21983 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Denmark is interesting, think they have a lower age of consent but there are specific laws to protect against abuse caused by differences in age, like in the Johnson case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 I think the admissions of wrongdoing from Byrne and SAFC conclusively put paid to the argument that SAFC did the right thing in not suspending Johnson. We'll have your apology whenever you're ready, ILDC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobos 298 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Same in Canada Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I have to admit these fucking yokels are doing my head in now, seeing shite on facebook like "well all I know is that when I was 15, 365 days went by and suddenly I was able to make decisions at 16 amazing right?!?" That's one I've copy and pasted from there actually, how can they sit and think that? The law has to put a mark down somewhere, if the law said 15 was okay and he was doing this with a 14 year old lass I'm sure these idiots would say the same fucking thing. Pointing to other countries is fucking daft too, Japan's is 13 are they all fine with that too? The fact is he broke the law, as I've said before regardless of her being "only months away" the bloke is 29, I'd find it rank if he was trying to get fired into a 16 year old anyway. The law is put in place to protect kids that are in school from old predators, this is EXACTLY what this skinny little mope has done. I do not understand how this is still an ongoing discussion and I find it appalling from the mackems (and people from other parts I may add) that are trying to stick up for this utter creep. I have far less respect for these mackems (I understand it is not all, most definitely it is a minority) than I ever thought I could, he has been found guilty for fuck sake pack in defending him by trying to make out that the law is daft you are on about a 29 year old man with a kid picking a girl who hasn't took her GCSE's up from school in his Ferrari, I'd say preventing that sort of behavior is a good law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now