Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Jelle1880

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Have to question her standards after reading that she said they'll still be friends though.

Standard breaking up words!

Lovely Bloke

No-ones ever broken up with Jelle though. He wouldn't know. He only breaks up with people.

Jelle1880

True enough.

BorneTobyWilde

Jury out
12-0 result wanted by Judge
A lot to ask on all charges.

Sanity_Saviour

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/705056701045743618

knucklehead6

Not guilty of one so far

Iang87

i guess its more a holding out for what sentence on the one he pleaded guilty to

Coat22

Didn't see that coming (ahem)

Coat22

Jury back in now

Reckon he's guilty on count 2......

Coat22

Coat22 wrote: »

Jury back in now

Reckon he's guilty on count 2......

Yep - guilty

Coat22

Up to 10 years with 5 years minimum - ouch!

cowboyBuilder

Coat22 wrote: »

Up to 10 years with 5 years minimum - ouch!

Thats harsh ... for kissing a 15 year old jaysus

alchemist33

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Thats harsh ... for kissing a 15 year old jaysus

"Sexual touching" too, whatever that means.

Coat22

alchemist33 wrote: »

"Sexual touching" too, whatever that means.

He dropped the laimh.

Still 5-10 years?

niallo27

Coat22 wrote: »

He dropped the laimh.

Still 5-10 years?

Your telling me he will do 5 years for that, that cant be right can it.

The judge told him off for joking in court supposedly and he was apparently heard saying during the trial "Hope this is over by Friday, it's a bit boring now"


Good enough for him. Don't be touching kids again Adam

January

niallo27 wrote: »

Your telling me he will do 5 years for that, that cant be right can it.

He sexually touched an under aged girl and groomed her. He won't even do 5 years, he'll get out early for good behaviour if he's a good boy. Pity for him, should have thought of what he was doing when he was doing it if he didn't want to go to jail.

Moneymaker

Gorgeous girlfriend, a daughter, more money then he can spend in a lifetime and living the dream of millions.

All thrown away to finger a 15 year old.

What an utter moron. His arrogance was astounding throughout the case. Lets see how arrogant he is now.

callaway92

Moneymaker wrote: »

Gorgeous girlfriend, a daughter, more money then he can spend in a lifetime and living the dream of millions.

All thrown away to finger a 15 year old.

What an utter moron. His arrogance was astounding throughout the case. Lets see how arrogant he is now.

Did you really have to write it like that?

That_Guy

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Thats harsh ... for kissing a 15 year old jaysus

Jesus wept. Is this the type of thinking that some people have? He knew well what he was doing and her age.

niallo27

That_Guy wrote: »

Jesus wept. Is this the type of thinking that some people have? He knew well what he was doing and her age.

Yes but 5 to 10 years, if this was some bloke you went to school everyone would think 5 to 10 years was crazy but because he is a footballer he deserves it. This may or may not be your view point but it does seem the general feel of the thread.

That_Guy

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes but 5 to 10 years, if this was some bloke you went to school everyone would think 5 to 10 years was crazy but because he is a footballer he deserves it. This may or may not be your view point but it does seem the general feel of the thread.

You think? I think it's a perfectly reasonable sentence. Total abuse of power/fame etc.

niallo27

That_Guy wrote: »

You think? I think it's a perfectly reasonable sentence. Total abuse of power/fame etc.

Yes i think it would be incredibly harsh, not that i think he will do anything near that.

That_Guy

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes i think it would be incredibly harsh, not that i think he will do anything near that.

Sure all he did was groom an underage girl, sent her illicit messages and gave her a kiss.

Christ. :rolleyes:

niallo27

That_Guy wrote: »

Sure all he did was groom an underage girl, sent her illicit messages and gave her a kiss.

Christ. :rolleyes:

Thats your response to why he should get 10 years. You can kill a man and get less than half that.

~Rebel~

niallo27 wrote: »

Thats your response to why he should get 10 years. You can kill a man and get less than half that.

Well, the reason he'll get proper time is that he admitted instigating this whole process with the intent of it leading to sexual activity. Using his position in society to coerce a child to do things she would not ordinarily do. He admitted that he intended to go as far as he could get away with. Was then found guilty of taking it further than just a kiss, and actually penetrating her with his fingers, with further texts suggesting he intended to go further still. And then, after all this, he pleaded innocent for the following 11 months, leaving a young girl on the receiving end of idiots abuse calling her a slut/homewrecker/liar/golddigger etc, when she was the victim.

Children are always more fiercely protected by law than your average citizen, and rightly so. That's why he'll deservedly get a 5+ year sentence, and probably actually serve 1 or 2 of it.

That_Guy

niallo27 wrote: »

Thats your response to why he should get 10 years. You can kill a man and get less than half that.

A person in power (guard, social worker etc) over here would certainly be given 15+ years if they were found to be in violation of such acts.

I'm not sure what the equivalent is in the UK but I imagine it isn't far off. Whether you care to admit it or not, Adam Johnson is in a state of power somewhat.

He may not serve his entire sentence but if he did indeed penetrate her with his fingers and was still pursuing other interests then I can't believe that you would still deem his sentencing as "harsh".

niallo27

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Well, the reason he'll get proper time is that he admitted instigating this whole process with the intent of it leading to sexual activity. Using his position in society to coerce a child to do things she would not ordinarily do. He admitted that he intended to go as far as he could get away with. Was then found guilty of taking it further than just a kiss, and actually penetrating her with his fingers, with further texts suggesting he intended to go further still.

Children are always more fiercely protected by law than your average citizen, and rightly so. That's why he'll deservedly get a 5+ year sentence, and probably actually serve 1 or 2 of it.

I understand children should be more protected but the fact that she was 15 should be taken into account. Although it should also be taken into account he would have in no doubt gone further if given the chance. Thanks for your reply, it just sometimes you cant even say a sentence is harsh without people thinking your defending him in any way. For a forum that loves football we sure do hate footballers.

adox

niallo27 wrote: »

I understand children should be more protected but the fact that she was 15 should be taken into account. Although it should also be taken into account he would have in no doubt gone further if given the chance. Thanks for your reply, it just sometimes you cant even say a sentence is harsh without people thinking your defending him in any way. For a forum that loves football we sure do hate footballers.

Don't you mean hate footballers who groom and sexually assault children?


Bit of a difference than hating footballers.

That_Guy

niallo27 wrote: »

I understand children should be more protected but the fact that she was 15 should be taken into account.

Legally she's still a child. A child is anybody under the age of 18. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

For a forum that loves football we sure do hate footballers.

Just ones who abuse their power by engaging in sexual activity with minors.

niallo27

adox wrote: »

Don't you mean hate footballers who groom and sexually assault children?


Bit of a difference than hating footballers.

Yes probably a bit harsh to write that.

niallo27

That_Guy wrote: »

Legally she's still a child. A child is anybody under the age of 18. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?



Just ones who abuse their power by engaging in sexual activity with minors.

So you saying he should get the same penalty if she was five of fifteen. I dont agree. I think the sentence should be higher the younger the person is. Can i make it clear that i dont think Johnson should get off, it seems to be very black or white for you, either send him down for the max time or he is innocent.

armaghlad

Felt sorry for his family and ex being hounded by the press after court. Don't think there have been any "winners" out of all this, other than the girl being vindicated.

Kristopherus

Where did this 5-10yrs in the clink come from?

That_Guy

niallo27 wrote: »

So you saying he should get the same penalty if she was five of fifteen. I dont agree.

When did I say this?

I think the sentence should be higher the younger the person is.

I would agree with this. That singer from that band Lostprophets engaged in horrific acts with children and he got life.

I think the punishment is completely fair for him and in no way "harsh". She is still a child in the eyes of the law. 15 year olds are very in tune with things these days. A lot more than we would have been that's for sure. It doesn't mean that the sentence should be any more lenient just because of her age.

He knew he had control over her and could manipulate her and he did so. It's a disgusting act.

Can i make it clear that i dont think Johnson should get off, it seems to be very black or white for you, either send him down for the max time or he is innocent.

Who's to say that he won't serve the maximum time he has been given? Only posters speculating that he'll get off within 1-2 years.

Canadel

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Standard breaking up words!

Apparently she said to Johnson, "It's not you, it's me."

That_Guy wrote: »

You think? I think it's a perfectly reasonable sentence. Total abuse of power/fame etc.

This is the part I still struggle to get my head around. Johnson wasn't actually in a position of power over the child. Yes, he was a professional footballer, but he didn't directly have any control over the girl in an official capacity like say a teacher, doctor, coach etc.

By the prosecution using Johnson's supposed position of power as a professional footballer over the girl as an argument, they are basically condemning Johnson for simply being a professional footballer, well known and wealthy. He didn't actually have any power over her, but rather a narrative has been constructed by the prosecution in order to create the illusion that he did. It may be a small thing in comparison to the apparent fact that he engaged in sexual contact with a minor, but it still stinks.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

So you saying he should get the same penalty if she was five of fifteen. I dont agree. I think the sentence should be higher the younger the person is. Can i make it clear that i dont think Johnson should get off, it seems to be very black or white for you, either send him down for the max time or he is innocent.

If she was 5 he should never get out.

Johnson is getting away lightly imo

~Rebel~

Kristopherus wrote: »

Where did this 5-10yrs in the clink come from?

From here; http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/02/adam-johnson-not-guilty-one-count-of-sex-with-schoolgirl?CMP=share_btn_tw

The judge said his preliminary view was that the case fell into the category of a five-year prison sentence with a range of four to 10 years.

That_Guy

Canadel wrote: »

This is the part I still struggle to get my head around. Johnson wasn't actually in a position of power over the child. Yes, he was a professional footballer, but he didn't directly have any control over the girl in an official capacity like say a teacher, doctor, coach etc.

He used his social standing as a means to have power over her. Knowing he was her favourite footballer. Knowing he could pretty much say/do anything to her without fear of grief or rebuttal. He groomed her and pursued her knowing that he could get what he wanted from her.

By the prosecution using Johnson's supposed position of power as a professional footballer over the girl as an argument, they are basically condemning Johnson for simply being a professional footballer, well known and wealthy. He didn't actually have any power over her, but rather a narrative has been constructed by the prosecution in order to create the illusion that he did. It may be a small thing in comparison to the apparent fact that he engaged in sexual contact with a minor, but it still stinks.

They are condemning him for being a professional footballer who used his fame/social standing to manipulate and groom a child.

niallo27

RoboKlopp wrote: »

If she was 5 he should never get out.

Johnson is getting away lightly imo

I agree but she wasnt, when you say he is getting off lightly do you mean a max of ten years is getting off lightly.

Canadel

That_Guy wrote: »

He used his social standing as a means to have power over her. Knowing he was her favourite footballer. Knowing he could pretty much say/do anything to her without fear of grief or rebuttal. He groomed her and pursued her knowing that he could get what he wanted from her.

They are condemning him for being a professional footballer who used his fame/social standing to manipulate and groom a child.

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

That_Guy

Canadel wrote: »

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

Are you being serious? He knew she was his favourite footballer. He obviously played on that. They can't ignore that fact.

Paully D

Statement from Sunderland:

To respect the legal process, Sunderland AFC was unable to comment on this case until after the jury had delivered its verdict. It has now done so and we thank our supporters for their patience and understanding. We now wish to clarify certain matters which arose during the trial.

Mr. Johnson was suspended by the club immediately following his arrest on March 2, 2015. At that time, the club was advised by police of the broad nature of the allegations against Mr. Johnson, who was being advised at all times by his own legal team. The club felt that the decision to suspend was appropriate at that time, even though he had not then been charged with any offence. Two weeks later, his suspension was lifted after a meeting between the club and the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), and after the club took independent legal advice. The club reached this decision only after carrying out a safeguarding assessment and liaising with relevant agencies.
On 23 April 2015, Mr. Johnson was charged with four offences. The club was informed that it was Mr. Johnson’s intention to defend all the charges, a stance he maintained right up until the first day of trial. The club continued to review the safeguarding procedures it had put in place throughout this time.

On 4 May 2015, an introductory meeting took place between Mr. Johnson, his father and Orlando Pownall QC. Mr. Pownall had not previously met Mr. Johnson. The club’s CEO was present during part of that meeting. During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case nor on Mr. Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations. Following that meeting, Mr. Johnson again confirmed to the club, presumably on advice from his own legal team, that his intention was to defend the charges in their entirety and he was confident of success once all evidence had been considered. He subsequently entered not guilty pleas to all charges on 6 June 2015.

The club did not give evidence either for the prosecution or the defence in this case. It was therefore not present in court when it is understood that a suggestion was made that the club knew all along that Mr. Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club and that the club may also have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea. This is utterly without foundation and is refuted in the strongest possible terms. The club never placed any pressure or demands on Mr. Johnson to play football during this process. Decisions in relation to the pleas and the conduct of the trial have been left entirely to Mr. Johnson and his highly experienced and skilled legal team. Mr. Johnson has admitted in evidence that he changed his plea “on legal advice”.

The club only became aware of the change of plea, in relation to two of the four counts on the indictment, on the first day of the trial, after hearing it reported through the media. The club was not advised in advance that Mr. Johnson would plead guilty to any offence. Had the club known that Mr. Johnson intended to plead guilty to any of these charges, then his employment would have been terminated immediately. Indeed, upon learning of the guilty plea on 11 February 2016, the club acted quickly and decisively in terminating Adam Johnson’s contract without notice.

This has been an extremely difficult time for all involved. The victim and her family have endured an unimaginable ordeal in the last 12 months and we trust that they will now be allowed to move on with their lives without further intrusion or public scrutiny.

Following the announcement of today’s verdict and the release of this detailed statement, the club intends to make no further comment.

~Rebel~

Canadel wrote: »

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

It's not necessarily his fame and social standing that is being taken into account - it's the girl's view of him, and his knowledge of that view.

He had a social leverage, and he used it to the full, beginning with offering her a match-worn jersey. Instead of just giving it to her though, he had her meet him in his jeep in a car park. He then told her he expected a thank you kiss, and it went from there.

He took full advantage of the fact that in her eyes, he wasn't just any normal punter, he was a hero.

adox

Canadel wrote: »

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

Why not? She didn't really know him from Adam(boom boom).

It was because he was a famous footballer that she had any interest in him. Her favourite footballer and most likely an idol.

He most certainly used that position to groom and assault her. It seems totally relevant.

Canadel

That_Guy wrote: »

Are you being serious? He knew she was his favourite footballer. He obviously played on that. They can't ignore that fact.

I'm very serious. I don't care if she thought he was the best player that ever lived. It should not have been considered nor tolerated as an argument against Johnson in terms of sentencing. By doing so, you're basically saying a sh*t sunday league footballer found guilty of the same level of grooming and sexual misconduct should be seen as an argument in favour of a lesser sentence. A crime is a crime. And being famous or of social standing is not a crime.

armaghlad

Canadel wrote: »

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

Do you think the girl would have been infatuated with Adam Johnson, plumber? Or Adam Johnson, taxi driver?

Moneymaker

Given his obvious tendency to lie to just about everyone I'm inclined to believe Sunderland.

Canadel

armaghlad wrote: »

Do you think the girl would have been infatuated with Adam Johnson, plumber? Or Adam Johnson, taxi driver?

That is exactly my point. Perhaps. perhaps not. But a 15 year old girl could potentially be infatuated with Adam Johnson plumber or taxi driver or politician or deli counter server. Do you think their profession would be used against them and taken into consideration in sentencing like Adam Johnson's has been? In fact, it's more likely that people in those jobs would have some actual power over the girl, as opposed to Johnson who she merely saw from a distance and admired. It's entirely absurd to attempt to argue that Adam Johnson professional footballer should suffer tougher sentencing because of his fame.

bucketybuck

I'd repeat my point from earlier in the thread. I would like Adam Johnson to receive the same sentence that any other person would get for grooming a 15 year old.