Freedom of speech

They do!

 

Can't be arsed reading through all this thread, because no doubt it will be full of similarly ill-informed nonsense, but the fact that large organisations with lots of legal resource and support like MailOnline and Newsquest don't allow comments on their stories about this case should tell you all you need to know about the risks of allowing open discussion about issues like this.

 

Thanks for that.

I'll sleep better now.

 

It was plain for everyone to see you didn’t have the faintest idea what you were on about.

Are you Donald Trump, he does not like facts either? One of his traits is trying to belittle others especially those that point him out to be bereft of any knowledge whatsoever.

Sleep on that eh?

 

Yes. They can do. It depends on the seriousness of the allegation. I've been involved in cases where an employee has been suspended from work whilst on trial at court.

 

Think I should recruit you for my HR team

 

Don't, he watches midget porn on his computer while working and doesn't wash his hands after being to the toilet.

 

The “owners” of this website can do whatever they want with it, even if that means removing comments / closing threads.

At the end of the day, they’re ultimately responsible for what’s posted on here and would also be in trouble if someone said something out of turn.

 

Presumably you mean that they have to explain to the suspended party but not to all and sundry.

 

To him yes but to the general public??

 

Such a nice chap aren't you Kev.

A real diamond. Xx

 

If you were accused of something, whether you did it or not, and your employer chose to suspend you pending an investigation, police or internal, presumably you would want to know why you’re being suspended but would you want your colleagues, suppliers and customers know?

 

That's correct. Natural justice dictates that a person suspended obviously has the right to know the reasons why. But it would be a gross breach of confidentiality for the employer to comment to others about it. Which is why the club is absolutely correct in refraining from any comment other than the plain fact of the suspension.
I was a Nalgo/UNISON shop steward for 25 years. I've had lots of experience of dealing with suspensions. As others have said above, suspension is a device to facilitate investigation. It supposedly does not imply guilt although the ''no smoke without fire" comments unfortunately often happen, even when a person is reinstated with no case to answer.

 

No i wouldnt and that was my point. If it gets to court then thats a whole different scenario i guess?

 

What’s said in open court is on record on both sides of the argument

 

No, not at all under any circumstances.

 

Correct. Apologies for not being clear enough.

 

Very true

 

It's frustrating and I feel the same way. We all want to know the whole truth right *now*.
These things take time, and it is not speculation that reveals the whole truth; that's the job of the judicial system.