Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

galwaylad14

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Ridiculous sentence. Should be a year at the most

Would you say that if it was a man of his age grooming your underage daughter?

~Rebel~

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Would you say that if it was a man of his age grooming your daughter?

To be fair, the legal system is constructed entirely to avoid this question.

If it's your daughter you'd be giving him a life sentence, that's exactly why justice is meted out by impartial observers.

I think on the merits of the case and the harm he caused her, both directly and indirectly, along with the sheer amount of time he invested in grooming her, that the sentence is pretty fair.

BorneTobyWilde

Had she been 16 he would of still done what he done. She was not a '' target'' it was just the circumstances. No trail here of endless underage girls he was targeting.
Would all have played out the same had she say in that text '' I'm 16''
He still would have continued to do what he did.

Moist Bread

Strumms wrote: »

Total scumbag. No remorse and he has his family condeming the victim and setting up facebook accounts to defend him... seriously i wouldnt give a flying **** if any family member of mine did what he did... id never be speaking to them again full stop... and on a side note to add to all this... animal porn ! Shows whatbsort of mind we are dealing with.. what a guy ! 6 years is **** all really for him.. scumbag.

Haha oh man. Tell us how you really feel.

Strumms

Moist Bread wrote: »

Haha oh man. Tell us how you really feel.

I did ! But thanks for your contribution.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

That_Guy wrote: »

The following tweets from inside the courtroom really make him out to be a sexual deviant.

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/713029831802417152



Look, while it wasn't deemed unlawful, it's going into dangerous territory given what he did with that child. Obviously these are separate to the case.

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/713028914214469632





Quite clearly says that he possessed it. No charges for it though. Why you'd get off on someone having sex with an animal is beyond comprehension to me.

Didnt say he didnt. i said you didnt know when you made the original post.

~Rebel~

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Had she been 16 he would of still done what he done. She was not a '' target'' it was just the circumstances. No trail here of endless underage girls he was targeting.
Would all have played out the same had she say in that text '' I'm 16''
He still would have continued to do what he did.

I'm not sure I get your point...

She obviously was a target, but not because of her specific age. 16 is the legal cutoff point, because a line has to be drawn somewhere, but he was obviously attracted by "young teen girl", rather than by the legal/illegal aspect.

niallo27

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'm not sure I get your point...

She obviously was a target, but not because of her specific age. 16 is the legal cutoff point, because a line has to be drawn somewhere, but he was obviously attracted by "young teen girl", rather than by the legal/illegal aspect.

I think he is saying he fell for her. Not like jimmy Saville or them boys who just liked young girls and went from one to another

Mr.Nice Guy

A lot of people are saying the sentence was harsh but by refusing to take responsibility for his actions he subjected the girl to a sentence: about a year of people calling her a liar, a slag, and all the other terrible slurs thrown her way which have surely had a big impact on someone of her age.

He was the adult in the situation and yet he manipulated her, used her, abused her, and then he threw her to the wolves with his silence. I can't feel any sympathy for him.

mansize

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/03/24/adam-johnson-case-raises-issues-football-cannot-ignore/


Excellent write up in the telegraph

niallo27

mansize wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/03/24/adam-johnson-case-raises-issues-football-cannot-ignore/


Excellent write up in the telegraph

I thought it was a bitter load of ****e, the author seems to use this case for a reason to bash football.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mansize wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/03/24/adam-johnson-case-raises-issues-football-cannot-ignore/


Excellent write up in the telegraph

He originally wrote that "Johnson was a monster of football's own making". That plus the content of this article leads me to think that the writer in question is of the opinion Adam Johnson would never have shown interest in underage teenage girls. I find this highly unlikely.

If you're sexually attracted to teenagers or children, you are sexually attracted to them. Your profession has nothing to do with it. I'd argue that he's just as likely to have offended, it just would have been a different victim.

He (Brown) tire to set out that this was an example of what happens in football, and yet curiously fails no mention that any previous cases of this footballers abusing children. I wnder why that is....

eagle eye

~Rebel~ wrote: »

To be fair, the legal system is constructed entirely to avoid this question.

If it's your daughter you'd be giving him a life sentence, that's exactly why justice is meted out by impartial observers.

I think on the merits of the case and the harm he caused her, both directly and indirectly, along with the sheer amount of time he invested in grooming her, that the sentence is pretty fair.

An armed robber who didn't hurt anyone gets 10 years and this guy gets 6 and you say that's about right?

I'd say he deserves at least as much time as the armed robber.

mansize

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He originally wrote that "Johnson was a monster of football's own making". That plus the content of this article leads me to think that the writer in question is of the opinion Adam Johnson would never have shown interest in underage teenage girls. I find this highly unlikely.

If you're sexually attracted to teenagers or children, you are sexually attracted to them. Your profession has nothing to do with it. I'd argue that he's just as likely to have offended, it just would have been a different victim.

He (Brown) tire to set out that this was an example of what happens in football, and yet curiously fails no mention that any previous cases of this footballers abusing children. I wnder why that is....

He mentioned Rix. Interested to see if anything further develops from this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mansize wrote: »

He mentioned Rix. Interested to see if anything further develops from this.

One case, seventeen years ago, of a guy who had retired five years earlier? Hardly grounds on which to launch an attack...

Sand

~Rebel~ wrote: »

He seems to have had no comprehension of how his actions would affect her too, lying for a year pleading complete innocence - a year in which she faced constant abuse, death threats, and being called a liar on a daily basis.

In fairness, Johnson didn't send her messages of constant abuse, death threats and calling her a liar on a daily basis. The average joe with a twitter account did. Blaming him for it absolves people of responsibility for their own actions: "Johnson taking legal advice and pleading innocent made me do it!"

mansize

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

One case, seventeen years ago, of a guy who had retired five years earlier? Hardly grounds on which to launch an attack...

You said he hadn't mentioned any...

I wonder will more come forward like happened with the clerical and BBC abuse

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mansize wrote: »

You said he hadn't mentioned any...

I wonder will more come forward like happened with the clerical and BBC abuse

True, but my point was that he hadn't come close to establish the point he was trying to make. It comes across as a hatchet-piece written by a sensationalist tabloid hack with a vendetta against football trying to shoehorn an irrelevant personal agenda into an serious issue.

The clerical and BBC abuse is a different scenario, because that was nearly all historical abuse, whereas the story was written concerning modern-day football.

Of course, football has a responsibility to protect young people within its realm - any profession where children are concerned does - but where has it been proven that it consistently failed in this responsibility?

~Rebel~

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, Johnson didn't send her messages of constant abuse, death threats and calling her a liar on a daily basis. The average joe with a twitter account did. Blaming him for it absolves people of responsibility for their own actions: "Johnson taking legal advice and pleading innocent made me do it!"

It was his fault. Him telling the world that she was lying was the direct catalyst, leading to entirely predictable results. Just look at the poor girl who had the same done to her after Ched Evans raped her and said she was lying about it.

You can say that each and every one of those idiots did it of their own volition, but that's to ignore the world we actually live in. Yes, of course they are also entirely to blame for their own actions - but blame for an event doesn't work in percentages. He set the ball in motion, knowing what would happen.

It would have stopped immediately had he admitted his guilt to begin with. But instead, he lied, ran from the consequences of his actions, and as a result, directly caused this girl to have every Wearside moron directing their vitriol at her for a year.

fullstop

mansize wrote: »

She could have digitally penetrated him also

See i knew you were talking ****e but thanks for confirming. What difference would it make if she digitally penetrated him after grooming, having sex with him 50+ times and then telling him she was pregnant when he tried to end it...not emotionally distressing to a 15 year old at all :rolleyes:

mansize

She was jailed after the sentence was appealed btw

fullstop

mansize wrote: »

She was jailed after the sentence was appealed btw

You are correct, thanks...hadn't seen that.

But again, one wonders how the judge arrived at the original sentence.

Harry Palmr

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/21/adam-johnson-secretly-filmed-prison-abuse-victim

Adam Johnson, the disgraced former England footballer, has been secretly filmed in prison laughing about his conviction for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old fan.

In a video published by the S*n, the ex-Sunderland midfielder dismissed his crimes as “fcuk all” and said he would have been let off with a caution if he was “Joe Public”.

Responding to a fellow prisoner who said Johnson did not rape his victim, the former footballer said: “No, I wish I fcuking did for six years.”

Mr.H

ok for some reason I was thinking it was the Ched Evans case


Bloody footballers and their women:o

rob316

Stitched up by that rag.

AGC

rob316 wrote: »

Stitched up by that rag.

Good enough for the scum bag.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Yeah... when the S*n stitches up a pedophile, you have to wonder who's side you're on... Tricky one.

That said, how did the manage to get a snitch in the first place and who smuggled the recording equipment insIde? Security issue, right there methinks....

brevity

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That said, how did the manage to get a snitch in the first place

Knowing the Sun, it was probably one of their reporters doing time for hacking phones or some such.

The Talking Bread

rob316 wrote: »

Stitched up by that rag.

This is nothing to do with the paper itself. Yes it is a rag, like all tabloids and if you ask me it is a bit of a non story anyway. He is imprisoned now, if he wants to degrade himself in private, let him. I'm sure he is a psychological and emotional mess at this stage.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Talking Bread wrote: »

This is nothing to do with the paper itself. Yes it is a rag, like all tabloids and if you ask me it is a bit of a non story anyway. He is imprisoned now, if he wants to degrade himself in private, let him. I'm sure he is a psychological and emotional mess at this stage.

Yeah, it is - like I said, the lengths they went to to set him up. You have to wonder what kind of jounalist has this kind of an idea, what his motivations are (we're not talking social jystice here) and the determination to pull it off. Its not like they casually overheard the story.

Not to mention the infringes of law they themselves have committed to get the story.

The Talking Bread

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah, it is - like I said, the lengths they went to to set him up. You have to wonder what kind of jounalist has this kind of an idea, what his motivations are (we're not talking social jystice here) and the determination to pull it off. Its not like they casually overheard the story.

Not to mention the infringes of law they themselves have committed to get the story.

The thread is about Adam Johnson. The news story is about Adam Johnson. The morals of papers and the infringements of law that journalists undergo to get a story is tertiary to the the thread.
Why divert the thread to an anti-tabloid rant.

As I said it is a non story anyway. He clearly doesn't think his crime merits his punishment (regardless of what we think) so is it surprising such comments would come from him in a male bravado way in such an environment

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Talking Bread wrote: »

The thread is about Adam Johnson. The news story is about Adam Johnson. The morals of papers and the infringements of law that journalists undergo to get a story is tertiary to the the thread.
Why divert the thread to an anti-tabloid rant.

As I said it is a non story anyway. He clearly doesn't think his crime merits his punishment (regardless of what we think) so is it surprising such comments would come from him in a male bravado way in such an environment

Bevause its a valid point given the development.

Othetwise, there is no point in continuing the thread - we all know who Johnson is and what he did. This changes nothing.

ShooterSF

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah... when the S*n stitches up a pedophile, you have to wonder who's side you're on... Tricky one.

That said, how did the manage to get a snitch in the first place and who smuggled the recording equipment insIde? Security issue, right there methinks....

Ephebophile no? Still yes. No good side to take!

The Talking Bread

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Bevause its a valid point given the development.

Othetwise, there is no point in continuing the thread - we all know who Johnson is and what he did. This changes nothing.

So should every tabloid story be accompanied with a side story about how the tabloid attains information. You do realise phones are rampant in prison. It was hardly a covert mission to get a video of a famous prisoner when you know you could sell a story to a tabloid. The paper didn't set it up I would imagine, but they bought the footage when someone approached them with it. Probably been other attempts to sell footage but with no substance for a story.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Talking Bread wrote: »

So should every tabloid story be accompanied with a side story about how the tabloid attains information. You do realise phones are rampant in prison. It was hardly a covert mission to get a video of a famous prisoner when you know you could sell a story to a tabloid. The paper didn't set it up I would imagine, but they bought the footage when someone approached them with it. Probably been other attempts to sell footage but with no substance for a story.

Oh, I wouldn't believe any of that for a second.

The Talking Bread

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Oh, I wouldn't believe any of that for a second.

??

What exactly wouldn't you believe! Of course there is a chance that they set him up but it is more likely the other way and I wouldn't call it a lot of effort to record him with easy accessible phones, in fairness.

Ugh, of all the sources

CSF

To be fair, I don't get how anything he said is news. When he fought the case the whole way did people assume he had accepted that the punishment was fitting the crime?

Oat23

CSF wrote: »

To be fair, I don't get how anything he said is news. When he fought the case the whole way did people assume he had accepted that the punishment was fitting the crime?

People seem to be bothered by the part where he says he wished he had done more with the girl if he was going to get 6 years. It was obviously a dark joke but sure we can't tell jokes these days.

~Rebel~

Oat23 wrote: »

People seem to be bothered by the part where he says he wished he had done more with the girl if he was going to get 6 years. It was obviously a dark joke but sure we can't tell jokes these days.

Whether a joke or not, it certainly suggests a lack of remorse, which would likely affect his ongoing attempts to get a reduced sentence.

Lyle Lanley

Don't think an illegal video will be taken into account.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Lyle Lanley wrote: »

Don't think an illegal video will be taken into account.

Well, there's nothing for it to be taken into account for. But it might influence things like parole and/or probation conditions.

One_Of_Shanks

The Talking Bread wrote: »

So should every tabloid story be accompanied with a side story about how the tabloid attains information. You do realise phones are rampant in prison. It was hardly a covert mission to get a video of a famous prisoner when you know you could sell a story to a tabloid. The paper didn't set it up I would imagine, but they bought the footage when someone approached them with it.

No offence, but you need to brush up on what The Sun have done in the past and are capable of because it contradicts most of what you said there.

There is a genuine reason why people are bringing it up and it's not to defend Johnson, it's just a valid point.
I wouldn't put anything past them.

Either way Johnson is in jail where he should be.

The Talking Bread

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Lyle Lanley wrote: »

Don't think an illegal video will be taken into account.

Well, there's nothing for it to be taken into account for. But it might influence things like parole and/or probation conditions.

It wouldn't.

The Talking Bread

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

So should every tabloid story be accompanied with a side story about how the tabloid attains information. You do realise phones are rampant in prison. It was hardly a covert mission to get a video of a famous prisoner when you know you could sell a story to a tabloid. The paper didn't set it up I would imagine, but they bought the footage when someone approached them with it.

No offence, but you need to brush up on what The Sun have done in the past and are capable of because it contradicts most of what you said there.

There is a genuine reason why people are bringing it up and it's not to defend Johnson, it's just a valid point.
I wouldn't put anything past them.

Either way Johnson is in jail where he should be.

Excuse me? Elaborate on that post! Enlighten me as to what I need to "brush up " on?!!

The Talking Bread

I am well aware of phone hacking if that is the thing I "need to brush up on".

All I am saying it is for a different thread.

CSF

Oat23 wrote: »

CSF wrote: »

To be fair, I don't get how anything he said is news. When he fought the case the whole way did people assume he had accepted that the punishment was fitting the crime?

People seem to be bothered by the part where he says he wished he had done more with the girl if he was going to get 6 years. It was obviously a dark joke but sure we can't tell jokes these days.

Actually yeah that's horrific to be fair. It's a dark joke if me or you make it, I don't know what terms to use to describe it when someone who actually groomed a minor says it, because even if he's also joking, he's also probably serious.

One_Of_Shanks

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I am well aware of phone hacking if that is the thing I "need to brush up on".

All I am saying it is for a different thread.

Wasn't trying to offend you at all fella. It maybe looked that way in black and white but genuinely wasn't meant that way.

When I said brush up on your history about the lies they've told and things they've done yeah the hacking would be one of them but nowhere near top of the list.

Like you said, it's all best left for another thread.

My point was that I can completely understand the others discrediting anything that originates from that rag because they have a history of making up despicable lies and fabricating "evidence" and I just wouldn't put anything past them.

The Talking Bread

The quote was what it was. The quote is the story and I'm my opinion is a pretty non story anyway. He clearly thinks what he has done doesn't merit the sentence which is his perogative. I just mean it's not shocking that a person that has done what he done, doesn't seem to understand the nature and extent of what he has done and is clearly now in a very bad state mentally given what he has thrown away would say something like that.

So, as I said, iso it surprising that he has that mindset!

I see they have more footage and quotes out now.

Anyway he clearly is a messed up guy

One_Of_Shanks

Oh well you won't catch me arguing with that. The point about the Sun was the only reason I quoted you to begin with but hey we'll leave it there.