Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

armaghlad

Canadel wrote: »

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.

I don't know. I see where you are coming from, but his profession IMO is definitely an aggravating factor. She was one of his fans! Who liked him because he played for her favourite team! He completely used that to his advantage. Granted (IMO anyway) it was quite an opportunistic set of events which led to him to do what he did.

~Rebel~

Canadel wrote: »

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.

I don't think it's causing him to get tougher sentencing. I think it's getting him the exact same sentencing as anyone who uses social leverage over a child to get what they want from them, whatever that leverage may be.

cowboyBuilder

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.

I'm not saying it was ok !

I'm saying it's a harsh sentence

Moneymaker

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I'm not saying it was ok !

I'm saying it's a harsh sentence

What if it was your daughter?

Sanity_Saviour

niallo27 wrote: »

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.

I wouldnt bother lad, there's more internet points going for absolute outrage regardlesss of the content. Like look at this:

nullzero wrote: »

Jesus, this thread is bringing out some odd opinions from people. If seems like there's a fair few blokes here who think what Adam Johnson did wasn't all that bad, possibly because given the chance they may do the same thing.

This poster (and almost 20 others!!) think that by not calling him the worst scum ever to walk the earth, that you are actually a paedophile! The internet is a funny old place

Ulysses Gaze

bucketybuck wrote: »

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.

In the UK that could mean a max of 2 years in prison. There have been some crazy sentences handed down in the UK for this type of thing.

monkey9

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I'm not saying it was ok !

I'm saying it's a harsh sentence

Well then he shouldn't have done it.

On a controversial note...should her sexual experience be a factor?

Not in determine guilt or innocence of course, but in deciding penalty. If the experience was new to her, would that not increase the impact and thus the penalty should be increased under the old adage "you take your victim as you find them".

monkey9

Deleted User wrote: »

On a controversial note...should her sexual experience be a factor?

Not in determine guilt or innocence of course, but in deciding penalty. If the experience was new to her, would that not increase the impact and thus the penalty should be increased under the old adage "you take your victim as you find them".

He found her as a fifteen year old. So he should be punished accordingly on that basis.

ronjo

He is a scumbag alright but are our sentences lighter?
This is far worse

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/two-year-sentence-for-dublin-teacher-who-sexually-abused-boy-10-597083.html

irishgeo

ronjo wrote: »

He is a scumbag alright but are our sentences lighter?
This is far worse

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/two-year-sentence-for-dublin-teacher-who-sexually-abused-boy-10-597083.html

Yes that is far worse but he pleaded guilty. Mr Johnson didn't plead guilty to the 3rd charge he was convicted off and therefore is not going to get any reduction of his sentence.

ronjo

irishgeo wrote: »

Yes that is far worse but he pleaded guilty. Mr Johnson didn't plead guilty to the 3rd charge he was convicted off and therefore is not going to get any reduction of his sentence.

Aha fair point.

fullstop

RoboKlopp wrote: »

If she was 5 he should never get out.

Johnson is getting away lightly imo

If he's looking at 5-10 years he's really not getting away lightly. Look at the case in this link from a few months ago...teaching assistant admits to having sex with a 15 year old schoolboy 50 times and gets off without a custodial sentence!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schoolboy-groomed-teaching-assistant-we-6536549

mansize

He'll probably get 5 years out in 3 for good behaviour.

I would consider this a reasonable sentence- the judge is far more more learned on this that us and his sentencing will reflect all the factors correctly under law.

The one thing I took from all this is how juvenile and of low intelligence that Johnson appeared

mansize

fullstop wrote: »

If he's looking at 5-10 years he's really not getting away lightly. Look at the case in this link from a few months ago...teaching assistant admits to having sex with a 15 year old schoolboy 50 times and gets off without a custodial sentence!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schoolboy-groomed-teaching-assistant-we-6536549

She pleaded guilty

fullstop

mansize wrote: »

She pleaded guilty

And what?! She pleaded guilty to having sex with an underage boy multiple times FFS.

armaghlad

fullstop wrote: »

If he's looking at 5-10 years he's really not getting away lightly. Look at the case in this link from a few months ago...teaching assistant admits to having sex with a 15 year old schoolboy 50 times and gets off without a custodial sentence!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schoolboy-groomed-teaching-assistant-we-6536549

There was a teaching assistant in Belfast about 2/3 years ago who had sex with a pupil who was allegedly 16. Other than be suspended from her job I don't think she was ever charged and any articles relating to it in mainstream media were removed for some reason!

mansize

The twitter trolls that hounded that poor girl though- with some bs story they met in a club so she deceived him and he was the victim were so far off the mark.

She was groomed in the most exploitative way. And then she was hounded on social media. Poor girl.

bucketybuck

mansize wrote: »

She pleaded guilty

Why are you defending the peadophile who raped a young boy 50 times???

mansize

fullstop wrote: »

And what?! She pleaded guilty to having sex with an underage boy multiple times FFS.

She didn't put him through the agony of a trial. If Johnson pleaded guilty much earlier he could have been looking at a non custodial sentence. He allowed the girl to called a liar and be hounded because he claimed he wasn't guilty

A bit more than "so what" tbf

mansize

bucketybuck wrote: »

Why are you defending the peadophile who raped a young boy 50 times???

I'm explaining the reasoning in sentencing - where is the defence???

mansize

bucketybuck wrote: »

Why are you defending the peadophile who raped a young boy 50 times???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/pshe_and_citizenship/pdf/rape.pdf

FYI

bucketybuck

mansize wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/pshe_and_citizenship/pdf/rape.pdf

FYI

Its disgraceful that you continue to defend and minimise the impact of that womans crime, what if that had been your son?

mansize

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its disgraceful that you continue to defend and minimise the impact of that womans crime, what if that had been your son?

What??? Where am I doing that?
I am clarifying things. I'm not defending anyone

armaghlad

mansize wrote: »

The twitter trolls that hounded that poor girl though- with some bs story they met in a club so she deceived him and he was the victim were so far off the mark.

She was groomed in the most exploitative way. And then she was hounded on social media. Poor girl.

While I will probably be blamed of defending AJ (which I'm not, he deserves to go down) the girl has to accept some responsibility as to how things panned out for her prior to the arrest.

At 15 and 16 years of age you may be naive and impressionable but you are not ****ing stupid. Almost bragging to your friends and showing up to his house drunk and taking snapchats outside it surely had some bearing on the rumours that emerged and circulated among her school friends and on Facebook.

mansize

armaghlad wrote: »

While I will probably be blamed of defending AJ (which I'm not, he deserves to go down) the girl has to accept some responsibility as to how things panned out for her prior to the arrest.

At 15 and 16 years of age you may be naive and impressionable but you are not ****ing stupid. Almost bragging to your friends and showing up to his house drunk and taking snapchats outside it surely had some bearing on the rumours that emerged and circulated among her school friends and on Facebook.

So what are you saying? She deserved the vilification on social media?

It is 15 btw, not 15/16- all of this happened when she was 15

Darkglasses

armaghlad wrote: »

While I will probably be blamed of defending AJ (which I'm not, he deserves to go down) the girl has to accept some responsibility as to how things panned out for her prior to the arrest.

At 15 and 16 years of age you may be naive and impressionable but you are not ****ing stupid. Almost bragging to your friends and showing up to his house drunk and taking snapchats outside it surely had some bearing on the rumours that emerged and circulated among her school friends and on Facebook.

Completely disagree. This is the reason that there are child protection laws in place at all - When people like Johnson are grooming minors for sexual activity, you can't expect them to know how to deal with it responsibly. I have no idea how you expect her to react really. 15 is very young to be targeted by a professional footballer, too young. She's not legally responsible.

armaghlad

mansize wrote: »

So what are you saying? She deserved the vilification on social media?

It is 15 btw, not 15/16- all of this happened when she was 15

Of course she didn't deserve it. I'm saying she is partially to blame for it. I think she should have had some cop on in that regard. And I think that's a fair comment.

Ashbourne hoop

Some of the posts on this thread are insane, even by Boards soccer standards. Johnson groomed and sexually abused this child, and she was a child. These are the cold facts of the case, everything else is pure whataboutery. Johnson was fully aware of the child's age, even going as far as to google the age of consent, and continued to use her for his own gratification, with the intention of going further. And yes Johnson being a famous footballer should be taken into consideration, as Johnson was aware he was her favourite player, and used that to his own means.
Comments like "sure he only dropped the hand" are sickening to be honest. I'd advise anyone with that opinion to read the girl's statement to see the damage that Johnson has done to this girl. I feel a sentence of up to 5 years would be completely justifiable in my opinion.

Ashbourne hoop

Armaghlad the age of consent is there for a reason, and this girl had yet to reach it, a fact Johnson was FULLY aware of.

armaghlad

Darkglasses wrote: »

Completely disagree. This is the reason that there are child protection laws in place at all - When people like Johnson are grooming minors for sexual activity, you can't expect them to know how to deal with it responsibly. I have no idea how you expect her to react really. 15 is very young to be targeted by a professional footballer, too young. She's not legally responsible.

I'm not saying she's legally responsible. I'm saying that when her school friends set up a Facebook group about her and AJ that her actions had some bearing on that.

I remember being 15, ok I wasn't the most mature but I wasn't an idiot. Girls at that age can be head over heels for an older guy* (I lost my first gf at that age to some 21 year old cnut with a green 106) so it would appear there was an element of "showing off" to her friends re the snapchats and landing at his house. This lead to the snowball effect of it being discussed in school and spreading onto twitter. Do you think the predatory relationship would have continued if her friends/school pals didn't know? Do you think she would have informed her parents/police? In hindsight it's probably a good thing that she did; and while is clearly the victim and I sympathise, she has to bear some responsibility for the social media side of things.

*AJ is clearly not just an "older guy" in this instance

mansize

armaghlad wrote: »

Of course she didn't deserve it. I'm saying she is partially to blame for it. I think she should have had some cop on in that regard. And I think that's a fair comment.

I certainly can't agree with that. The purpose of grooming is to make the victim acquiesce

armaghlad

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Armaghlad the age of consent is there for a reason, and this girl had yet to reach it, a fact Johnson was FULLY aware of.

I'm aware of the details of the case.

armaghlad

mansize wrote: »

I certainly can't agree with that. The purpose of grooming is to make the victim acquiesce

Is telling all your friends and snapchatting them outside his house acquiescing?

Darkglasses

armaghlad wrote: »

I remember being 15, ok I wasn't the most mature but I wasn't an idiot. Girls at that age can be head over heels for an older guy* (I lost my first gf at that age to some 21 year old cnut with a green 106) so it would appear there was an element of "showing off" to her friends re the snapchats and landing at his house. This lead to the snowball effect of it being discussed in school and spreading onto twitter. Do you think the predatory relationship would have continued if her friends/school pals didn't know? Do you think she would have informed her parents/police? In hindsight it's probably a good thing that she did; and while is clearly the victim and I sympathise, she has to bear some responsibility for the social media side of things.

*AJ is clearly not just an "older guy" in this instance

When you were 15 if a 28 year old, world-famous attractive woman had been grooming you and encouraging you to do everything this girl did, would you have done it? I would have at 15. How you behave in a relationship with another 15 year old at that age is so different it's irrelevant in my opinion.

Yes, I 100% believe that the predatory relationship would have continued even if she had kept it a secret from her friends and family. I'm disturbed that you think she had some control over the situation, and that she kept it going for the sake of showing off to her family.

mansize

armaghlad wrote: »

Is telling all your friends and snapchatting them outside his house acquiescing?

She was 15, I imagine that's how they communicate. She made him aware of her age but he ignored it and convinced her it was irrelevant

bucketybuck

mansize wrote: »

What??? Where am I doing that?
I am clarifying things. I'm not defending anyone

Apologies, but unless you forcefully denounced Johnson without any equivocation whatever that was the type of response you could expect in this thread.

armaghlad

Darkglasses wrote: »

When you were 15 if a 28 year old, world-famous attractive woman had been grooming you and encouraging you to do everything this girl did, would you have done it? I would have at 15. How you behave in a relationship with another 15 year old at that age is so different it's irrelevant in my opinion.

Yes, I 100% believe that the predatory relationship would have continued even if she had kept it a secret from her friends and family. I'm disturbed that you think she had some control over the situation, and that she kept it going for the sake of showing off to her family.

I don't think she had control over the situation. She was infatuated with her hero and he abused this position. What she did have control over was landing up at his house drunk and taking snapchats and telling her friends. I think any teenager who uses social media would have at least some inkling that such information would spread like wild fire.

If I was in a similar position as the victim I'd say I'd have done whatever the female predator wanted. But then again that isnt comparable because when I was 15 my sole purpose in life was to lose my v card; so I don't think I'd have done anything that would have jeopardised that.

Laois_Man

Whats the story with AJ being allowed to go home until his sentence hearing. It's been the same for some celebrities caught in the Operation Yewtree investigation who were let go home after being found guilty...Rolf Harris I think it was did a big show arriving to his sentencing hearing on a boat. Is that the way it's done for everyone over there or are rich people given special treatment? I think in Ireland, when you're found guilty on a crime that has a mandatory sentence, you're cuffed and put in a Garda van straight away.

monkey9

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Some of the posts on this thread are insane, even by Boards soccer standards. Johnson groomed and sexually abused this child, and she was a child. These are the cold facts of the case, everything else is pure whataboutery. Johnson was fully aware of the child's age, even going as far as to google the age of consent, and continued to use her for his own gratification, with the intention of going further. And yes Johnson being a famous footballer should be taken into consideration, as Johnson was aware he was her favourite player, and used that to his own means.
Comments like "sure he only dropped the hand" are sickening to be honest. I'd advise anyone with that opinion to read the girl's statement to see the damage that Johnson has done to this girl. I feel a sentence of up to 5 years would be completely justifiable in my opinion.

Going by some of the posts, hopefully this thread has taught some people that to sexually abuse a minor is wrong and they can expect a harsher punishment than they thought possible or warranted.

mansize

Laois_Man wrote: »

Whats the story with AJ being allowed to go home until his sentence hearing. It's been the same for some celebrities caught in the Operation Yewtree investigation who were let go home after being found guilty...Rolf Harris I think it was did a big show arriving to his sentencing hearing on a boat. Is that the way it's done for everyone over there or are rich people given special treatment? I think in Ireland, when you're found guilty on a crime that has a mandatory sentence, you're cuffed and put in a Garda van straight away.

This doesn't have a mandatory prison sentence - judge said he was likely to see jail

Laois_Man

Laois_Man wrote: »

I think in Ireland, when you're found guilty on a crime that has a mandatory sentence, you're cuffed and put in a Garda van straight away.

He hasn't been sentenced yet. It's not unusual for the bail terms to continue to apply even after the conviction but before the sentence

monkey9 wrote: »

Going by some of the posts, hopefully this thread has taught some people that to sexually abuse a minor is wrong and they can expect a harsher punishment than they thought possible or warranted.

I'd be surprised if anyone actually thought sexual abuse of a minor was not wrong.

Moneymaker

This thread gives me cancer.

Augme

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be surprised if anyone actually thought sexual abuse of a minor was not wrong.

You're wrong obviously. Anyone who hasn't deemed him a disgusting "pedo" is clearly a "pedo" themselves.


:rolleyes:

Coat22

Augme wrote: »

You're wrong obviously. Anyone who hasn't deemed him a disgusting "pedo" is clearly a "pedo" themselves.


:rolleyes:

You're wrong too obviously

Anyone who doesn't think he's a disgusting pedo who should be locked up for life and beaten daily in prison by "decent ordinary criminals" is clearly hiding something themselves :rolleyes:

Chris_Bradley

10 years please for this piece of s**t.

niallo27

Darkglasses wrote: »

When you were 15 if a 28 year old, world-famous attractive woman had been grooming you and encouraging you to do everything this girl did, would you have done it? I would have at 15. How you behave in a relationship with another 15 year old at that age is so different it's irrelevant in my opinion.

Yes, I 100% believe that the predatory relationship would have continued even if she had kept it a secret from her friends and family. I'm disturbed that you think she had some control over the situation, and that she kept it going for the sake of showing off to her family.

BorneTobyWilde

There is no trail of abuse in this case? Just a one time foolish decision ?
Girl
'' I was well up for it''
'' recorded messages to brag about it to friends''

The trauma this girl felt was nothing to do with the relationship she was in, she loved that, that's very clear. It was what happened when it came out, the '' abuse'' only started then. Abuse from people on social media, people in her life, press. This is what came out in court.
This seems to be what Johnson is been punished somewhat for, the trauma of what happened to this girl after it became public.
Their relationship was clearly consensual in every way ,just not in the eyes of the law .

LAW IS LAW so no one can argue with it. But this is not a case of sustained child abuse with many victims over the course of many years.
One could argue that if Johnson had admitted to it and shown remorse from the moment it came out that he would probably not get jail time. It would have played out different had he not thrown her to the wolves and instead kept her on side. Had he just admitted they had a relationship, that is was consensual, no rape, no abuse but broke the law regardless.He would of got a slap on the wrist. I can imagine this law is broke 1000's of times a day in uk and no one's batting a eye to it. How many 19 year olds are '' grooming'' 15 years olds with spins in cars, or little gifts to get the in with the girl, they end up in relationship, but no one cares.

bucketybuck

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

One could argue that if Johnson had admitted to it and shown remorse from the moment it came out that he would probably not get jail time.

The only way he doesn't get jailtime is if the genders were reversed.

mansize

bucketybuck wrote: »

The only way he doesn't get jailtime is if the genders were reversed.

There have been cases of sexual assault involving men as the purpitrator that received non custodial sentences