The Mighty Celtic... - Page 235 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Mighty Celtic...


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, killiefaetheferry said:

Investigated? We've all seen the evidence. Of course the police will consider if criminality has taken place, but we'll all have an opinion on the screenshots that have been widely available. At the very least I'm thinking his online behaviour constitutes a potential dismissal from his employment, regardless of the issue of the age of the girl. 

Why though? 
 

I wouldn’t be expected to be dismissed from my job if I was messaging a bird with lewd messages on any social media platform (nb), unless it was proven to be that she was underage, that’s a whole different game then, but let’s wait and see if that true first.  
 

 

 

 

(I would’ve been sacked a long time before I married again 😂😂)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, killiefaetheferry said:

Investigated? We've all seen the evidence. Of course the police will consider if criminality has taken place, but we'll all have an opinion on the screenshots that have been widely available. At the very least I'm thinking his online behaviour constitutes a potential dismissal from his employment, regardless of the issue of the age of the girl. 

Potential dismissal on what grounds? If its not deemed criminal then I doubt it would to gross misconduct.

Improper use of social media would be a final warning at most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

Potential dismissal on what grounds? If its not deemed criminal then I doubt it would to gross misconduct.

Improper use of social media would be a final warning at most.

Damage to a company’s reputation as a result of an employees actions could in certain circumstances be construed as gross misconduct, given the level of press coverage this would certainly fit into this category.  That could be exasperated if their was any financial loss as a result, eg., sponsors cancelling contracts.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, aaid said:

Damage to a company’s reputation as a result of an employees actions could in certain circumstances be construed as gross misconduct, given the level of press coverage this would certainly fit into this category.  That could be exasperated if their was any financial loss as a result, eg., sponsors cancelling contracts.  
 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, aaid said:

Damage to a company’s reputation as a result of an employees actions could in certain circumstances be construed as gross misconduct, given the level of press coverage this would certainly fit into this category.  That could be exasperated if their was any financial loss as a result, eg., sponsors cancelling contracts.  
 

Correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, aaid said:

Damage to a company’s reputation as a result of an employees actions could in certain circumstances be construed as gross misconduct, given the level of press coverage this would certainly fit into this category.  That could be exasperated if their was any financial loss as a result, eg., sponsors cancelling contracts.  
 

Correct.  The plot thickens.

Police 'assess' new Leigh Griffiths allegation over online comments - BBC News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dandydunn said:

Can I be the sensible head here and judge him on what he has/hasn’t done after it has been thoroughly investigated?

 

Just a thought…….

Remember. We've just had an actual police investigation into a poorly doctored tic-tok video on twitter, as a result of a group of Celtic fans and MSPs. Investigations and facts dont matter these days. Only the outrage. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, aaid said:

Damage to a company’s reputation as a result of an employees actions could in certain circumstances be construed as gross misconduct, given the level of press coverage this would certainly fit into this category.  That could be exasperated if their was any financial loss as a result, eg., sponsors cancelling contracts.  
 

Its the actions that matter for gross misconduct, not the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Its the actions that matter for gross misconduct, not the consequences.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong.  I’ve some experience of this, in a previous employment we had someone convicted for possession of kiddie porn and we wanted him binned on the grounds of gross misconduct.  If he’d received a custodial sentence we could’ve summarily dismissed him on that basis but he didn’t.  If the company had been linked to him in the press, ie, person X who works for company Y was convicted ... the n we could’ve summarily dismissed on that basis but unfortunately he wasn’t.  All we had was a raft of individual misconduct charges which meant that we couldn’t sack then nonce.

https://www.thehrdirector.com/features/hr-in-business/employees-damage-employers-reputation/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

Sorry, but you are completely wrong.  I’ve some experience of this, in a previous employment we had someone convicted for possession of kiddie porn and we wanted him binned on the grounds of gross misconduct.  If he’d received a custodial sentence we could’ve summarily dismissed him on that basis but he didn’t.  If the company had been linked to him in the press, ie, person X who works for company Y was convicted ... the n we could’ve summarily dismissed on that basis but unfortunately he wasn’t.  All we had was a raft of individual misconduct charges which meant that we couldn’t sack then nonce.

https://www.thehrdirector.com/features/hr-in-business/employees-damage-employers-reputation/

 

That's shocking... If that was my work and I found out a fellow employee had kiddie porn and they would not sack him, I would put his fuckin heid through the window.. Like I said earlier, I have 2 boys, and I coach football, this sort of thing disgusts me.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Ramy 1314 said:

That's shocking... If that was my work and I found out a fellow employee had kiddie porn and they would not sack him, I would put his fuckin heid through the window.. Like I said earlier, I have 2 boys, and I coach football, this sort of thing disgusts me.. 

Try having to turn up everyday and look at him knowing what he did and also hearing stories put out by him that he was set up/had just been curious or whatever and knowing the full story but not being able to say anything.
 

Thankfully he didn’t work for me but I know his line manager was disgusted.  All the departmental management wanted him binned but the company lawyers wouldn’t sign it off because he would have a claim at a tribunal and they didn’t want it to go there for the obvious reasons of the publicity it would attract.   Couldn’t even do anything to make it more uncomfortable for him than you’d be legally allowed to for the same reason.  Had to just suck it up as the last thing we wanted was for him to get a payoff.

Beleive me, the whole thing was a complete exercise in frustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, aaid said:

Sorry, but you are completely wrong.  I’ve some experience of this, in a previous employment we had someone convicted for possession of kiddie porn and we wanted him binned on the grounds of gross misconduct.  If he’d received a custodial sentence we could’ve summarily dismissed him on that basis but he didn’t.  If the company had been linked to him in the press, ie, person X who works for company Y was convicted ... the n we could’ve summarily dismissed on that basis but unfortunately he wasn’t.  All we had was a raft of individual misconduct charges which meant that we couldn’t sack then nonce.

https://www.thehrdirector.com/features/hr-in-business/employees-damage-employers-reputation/

 

Aye. I used to work in Human Resources. It's very much the case that rather than the actual behaviour being the determining factor, it can be more important the amount of adverse publicity the employer suffers. The fact that he is a high profile footballer and his disgusting behaviour has had extensive press coverage would suggest his employer has a strong case in potentially dismissing him based on reputational damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, aaid said:

Try having to turn up everyday and look at him knowing what he did and also hearing stories put out by him that he was set up/had just been curious or whatever and knowing the full story but not being able to say anything.
 

Thankfully he didn’t work for me but I know his line manager was disgusted.  All the departmental management wanted him binned but the company lawyers wouldn’t sign it off because he would have a claim at a tribunal and they didn’t want it to go there for the obvious reasons of the publicity it would attract.   Couldn’t even do anything to make it more uncomfortable for him than you’d be legally allowed to for the same reason.  Had to just suck it up as the last thing we wanted was for him to get a payoff.

Beleive me, the whole thing was a complete exercise in frustration.

I get it mate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, aaid said:

Sorry, but you are completely wrong.  I’ve some experience of this, in a previous employment we had someone convicted for possession of kiddie porn and we wanted him binned on the grounds of gross misconduct.  If he’d received a custodial sentence we could’ve summarily dismissed him on that basis but he didn’t.  If the company had been linked to him in the press, ie, person X who works for company Y was convicted ... the n we could’ve summarily dismissed on that basis but unfortunately he wasn’t.  All we had was a raft of individual misconduct charges which meant that we couldn’t sack then nonce.

https://www.thehrdirector.com/features/hr-in-business/employees-damage-employers-reputation/

 

Thats my point exactly. Its the actions that matter. Reputational damage is an extremely high bar to meet in employment law. Otherwise people would be getting legally sacked left right and centre for next to nothing.

If Grittiths hasnt done anything illegal then Celtic cant sack him because some sponsors dont like his actions.

Your example shows how hard itnis to sack somebody and thats even with a criminal conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a manager an employee of mines set up a website showing him with women.  It wasn't anything worse than you would see on page 3 of the Sun at that time.  But the students found out about it and started putting posters on the walls.  I interviewed him and asked him kindly to take his site down as in was not appropriate for a lecturer.  He agreed.  Then a couple of months later it happened again.  I interviewed him again and he agreed to resign.  Griffiths seems like that type of guy.  They cannot help themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Thats my point exactly. Its the actions that matter. Reputational damage is an extremely high bar to meet in employment law. Otherwise people would be getting legally sacked left right and centre for next to nothing.

If Grittiths hasnt done anything illegal then Celtic cant sack him because some sponsors dont like his actions.

Your example shows how hard itnis to sack somebody and thats even with a criminal conviction.

His point was that in that particular case, the company name was actually kept out of the media etc, making it difficult for them to claim reputational damage suffered. Celtic are having their name dragged through the mud online and in print media due to the actions of their employee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, killiefaetheferry said:

His point was that in that particular case, the company name was actually kept out of the media etc, making it difficult for them to claim reputational damage suffered. Celtic are having their name dragged through the mud online and in print media due to the actions of their employee. 

That's even before getting into whether he used his position as a Celtic player to entice young female Celtic fans to interact with him online, before trying to persuade them to send him scuddies. I'll take the point made by others about his knowledge of the first lassie only being 15 or not, and await the outcome of the police involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, killiefaetheferry said:

His point was that in that particular case, the company name was actually kept out of the media etc, making it difficult for them to claim reputational damage suffered. Celtic are having their name dragged through the mud online and in print media due to the actions of their employee. 

Correct.  What has he contributed to Celtic in the last couple of years on money we can only dream of?  Nothing.  And going online to wee girls whilst having a girl and a wee kid.  Bin him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, killiefaetheferry said:

His point was that in that particular case, the company name was actually kept out of the media etc, making it difficult for them to claim reputational damage suffered. Celtic are having their name dragged through the mud online and in print media due to the actions of their employee. 

Indeed, the legal advice was that even if it had just been in the local paper and he could be linked to the company - FTSE 100 - then we could bin him on that basis.  The other annoying thing was that the police obviously confiscated his devices, which included a work PC he had at home.  They found “normal” porn on that but couldn’t return the hard drive to us because while not an offence to possess it, it was an offence to distribute and if they returned it they’d be committing an offence.  So all we could do was negligent loss of company property, if we’d got the drive back and confirmed the porn on it, that was a dismissible offence under the HR policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramy (or any other Celtic fan). Champions League qualifier in 8 days.

Assuming that no players that are bought between now and then will be fit enough to play, whats your starting 11?

Personally id be concerned about playing guys who have made it clear that they want a move. Ie Ayer and Edouard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...