Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Sir Gallagher

He obviously got some kind of perverted thrill out of this, its not that hard for a loaded reasonably well known footballer to get his bit of any random bird, especially in England. So why target an under ager?

Cantona's Collars

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

he didn't meet her in a club at all, he was grooming her on Social Media.

Does this mean his sponsorship deal with Haribo and Facebook will be cancelled?:p

BrookieD

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

He ADMITTED grooming.

you don't groom in a once off meeting at a packed club.

He's admitted this, it doesn't need to be proven in court.

Thats fine I was being cautious with my wording

Chris_Bradley

Something tells me they'll go 4 the jugular with this vermin, a large fine won't wash with the public.

Thepoet85

Nice to see Sky Sports News giving it the coverage it should be getting.

1 minute at the start of the show.

John Terry 's future is of more importance it seems.

Cookie_Dough

What a horrible disgusting person he is. The girlfriend must have no self respect. Whatever about standing by him initially when he was pleading not guilty but to be sticking by him now when he's ADMITTED to grooming a child!!

IMO if she had any sense she would be removing herself and her baby from him ASAP, if it's the money she's concerned with them I'm sure she would be entitled to a hefty maintenance payment for their child.

Also IMO Sunderland should have held his suspension while the investigations were ongoing.

Strumms

The bloke because of his status alone could have had any girl practically and I am sure would have had many throwing themselves at him but instead he decides to groom an underage girl on the internet. Those tendencies and those actions are of a certain evil nasty type of individual who must have know also that he would have been throwing his career away but still felt inclined to carry out this act.

Given the seriousness of the allegations I am very surprised that he wasn't suspended with pay by his club while he was being investigated regardless of how he intended to plea at the time. Really poor judgment on Sunderland's behalf. Also surprised they haven't reacted already today and made a statement of some sort. Their website and social media has been very active but not a dickie on this...

Boskowski

Cr@p did I just waste my 5000th post on a friggin paedo thread?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Boskowski wrote: »

Cr@p did I just waste my 5000th post on a friggin paedo thread?

Compter says yes. But if you delete something, this becomes your 5000th.

Canadel

ASOT wrote: »

It wasn't the real Carlton Cole....

Doesn't matter if it was his mam tbh.

Flint Fredstone

Canadel wrote: »

Doesn't matter if it was his mam tbh.

It does, you're saying its him when it's not. It's a fake account.

So what's the story then, he actively sought to have relations with a 15 year old? No, no chance of reprieve if that's the case. This isn't the 60s/70s and he isn't Jimmy Page.

Seriously though, he deserves severe punishment from the courts and the mockery that will be made of him online, but some of the comments about his girlfriend here in this thread are highly unnecessary IMO. "How can she stand by him?" is an obvious, harmless question for someone to ask in such a situation, but automatic assumptions of "gold digging tramp" are just a bit disgusting.

Moneymaker

Absolute schoolgirl error.

recylingbin

Turns out Alan Hansen was right all along.

stankratz

stankratz wrote: »

Seriously though, he deserves severe punishment from the courts and the mockery that will be made of him online, but some of the comments about his girlfriend here in this thread are highly unnecessary IMO. "How can she stand by him?" is an obvious, harmless question for someone to ask in such a situation, but automatic assumptions of "gold digging tramp" are just a bit disgusting.

Absolutely. She was not in the dock and it's pretty low to be sniping at her.

It's like looking at a battered wife and thinking there's something wrong with her.

Mr.Nice Guy

I reckon Sunderland will terminate his contract but I wouldn't be surprised if a lower league club comes in for him. It will be interesting to see how opposition fans would react. Could be another Ched Evans situation...

niallo27

What did they actually do together.

Hope he gets whats coming to him

Stheno

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I reckon Sunderland will terminate his contract but I wouldn't be surprised if a lower league club comes in for him. It will be interesting to see how opposition fans would react. Could be another Ched Evans situation...

He's facing up to ten years for the grooming plea and up to fourteen for the activity plea

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Just checked - he was actually suspended when the allegations were first made, but the suspension was lifted three weeks later. Read into that what you will.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/31940379

If he did deny it and that was the reason for the club allowing him to play, I wonder if they have cause to sue him?

Highly unlikely.

The club paid his wages, he played...what can they sue him for?

Paully D

His contract is up in the summer anyway.

Paully D

Paully D wrote: »

His contract is up in the summer anyway.

His contact is up too

Paully D

I'd be very surprised if he served any time for this. His lawyer, Orlando Powell, is arguably the best defence lawyer in the United Kingdom. My guess is that they'll have negotiated some sort of plea bargain for the 2 guilty pleas (kissing and grooming) and he'll be acquitted of the other 2 charges.

A large fine and damages.

keith16

Paully D wrote: »

His contract is up in the summer anyway.

His contract with free and decent society.

Ulysses Gaze

Stheno wrote: »

He's facing up to ten years for the grooming plea and up to fourteen for the activity plea

If you read sentences for similar type cases in the UK, he won't get near that. He'll probably end up with 3 years inside though.

Mr.Nice Guy

Stheno wrote: »

He's facing up to ten years for the grooming plea and up to fourteen for the activity plea

I'd be very surprised if he is given a sentence like that. If he serves any time at all it will probably be about two years and who knows if he would have to serve the full sentence?

Paully D

Paully D wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if he served any time for this. His lawyer, Orlando Powell, is arguably the best defence lawyer in the United Kingdom. My guess is that they'll have negotiated some sort of plea bargain for the 2 guilty pleas (kissing and grooming) and he'll be acquitted of the other 2 charges.

A large fine and damages.

Although the Court can propose compensation in criminal cases of assault, think there would be a huge backlash at the "rich footballer buys way out of sentence" penalty. Think a short sentence or a suspended sentence on the cards, though much will depend on the nature of the grooming and presume there will be a victim impact statement, or some evidence of what the victim suffered, which could have a bearing.

Paully D

Deleted User wrote: »

Although the Court can propose compensation in criminal cases of assault, think there would be a huge backlash at the "rich footballer buys way out of sentence" penalty. Think a short sentence or a suspended sentence on the cards, though much will depend on the nature of the grooming and presume there will be a victim impact statement, or some evidence of what the victim suffered, which could have a bearing.

Oh absolutely, a suspended sentence on top of the aforementioned for sure (I meant to include that in my earlier post), but I'd be very surprised if he got any jail time and completely astonished if he got any significant jail time.

On an aside, he's the spit of Ian Curtis.

Stheno

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

If you read sentences for similar type cases in the UK, he won't get near that. He'll probably end up with 3 years inside though.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if he is given a sentence like that. If he serves any time at all it will probably be about two years and who knows if he would have to serve the full sentence?

If he's convincted of the addtional two counts, I find it hard to believe he will not serve any jail time, on the basis of the max sentence for all four counts being 44 years

I don't know much about English sentencing apart from what I read when I take an interest in a case, but surely it would set a terrible example if he escaped actual jail-time here. Especially considering how prominent the reporting of celebrities abusing their power and taking not just advantage of women, but kids, has become in the news in the last few years and with the likes of Operation Yewtree in progress.

It would also be another example of 'Famous person does something wrong that the rest of us would be strung up for, but they get a fine'. Considering the crime committed here though, there's no way that the judge can give him a slap on the wrists and send him on his way, surely?

The fact that he has pleaded guilty to some charges with the rest dropped makes me think that there might be some plea deal in play. Even so, I would like to think that it is a plea deal to reduce jail-time rather than negate it. These are some serious fúcking admissions of guilt here. I don't care if the girl looked like Sofia Vergara in age, beauty and build, he knew she was 15 years old and still carried on. For many reasons, he needs to see the inside of a cell for some time.

BorneTobyWilde

Why would a guy on 65,000 thousand pound a week need to groom someone for sex. He could date any 16 year old if that's what he wishes to do.
So this girl was merely days from legal age for consensual sex, could he of not waited the few days. What an idiot.

stankratz

stankratz wrote: »

The fact that he has pleaded guilty to some charges with the rest dropped makes me think that there might be some plea deal in play. Even so, I would like to think that it is a plea deal to reduce jail-time rather than negate it. These are some serious fúcking admissions of guilt here. I don't care if the girl looked like Sofia Vergara in age, beauty and build, he knew she was 15 years old and still carried on. For many reasons, he needs to see the inside of a cell for some time.

Can't plea bargain to affect the penalty in the UK and Ireland, you can only do so in discussions with the prosecution in an effort to get some charges dropped, but it does not go to the Judge.

niallo27

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why would a guy on 65,000 thousand pound a week need to groom someone for sex. He could date any 16 year old if that's what he wishes to do.
So this girl was merely days from legal age for consensual sex, could he of not waited the few days. What an idiot.

Maybe that was the buzz for him. Did he actually have sex with her.

BorneTobyWilde

niallo27 wrote: »

Maybe that was the buzz for him. Did he actually have sex with her.

He denies that.
Pleaded guilty to talking to her online, we'll call that GROOMING to make it sound more dramatic, and guilty of kissing her ''sexual activity''
He admitted the obvious in the face of evidence. He denies he ever broke the law of having sex with a person aged under 16.
That's his story and he's sticking to it.

bucketybuck

stankratz wrote: »

I don't know much about English sentencing apart from what I read when I take an interest in a case, but surely it would set a terrible example if he escaped actual jail-time here. Especially considering how prominent the reporting of celebrities abusing their power and taking not just advantage of women, but kids, has become in the news in the last few years and with the likes of Operation Yewtree in progress.

It would also be another example of 'Famous person does something wrong that the rest of us would be strung up for, but they get a fine'. Considering the crime committed here though, there's no way that the judge can give him a slap on the wrists and send him on his way, surely?

I assume you are aware of the irony here? Celebrities get treated differently so treat this celebrity differently so as to set an example?

He should get the same sentence any average creep on the street would get, whether it be jail time or not. I imagine that will hinge upon the actual details of the crime.

niallo27

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

He denies that.
Pleaded guilty to talking to her online, we'll call that GROOMING to make it sound more dramatic, and guilty of kissing her ''sexual activity''
He admitted the obvious in the face of evidence. He denies he ever broke the law of having sex with a person aged under 16.
That's his story and he's sticking to it.

So he could have done **** all really so just guilty of being a creep.

StringerBell

niallo27 wrote: »

So he could have done **** all really so just guilty of being a creep.

There is something pretty unsettling about considering chatting up and kissing a child you met through social media to be **** all really tbh.

niallo27

StringerBell wrote: »

There is something pretty unsettling about considering chatting up and kissing a child you met through social media to be **** all really tbh.

Creepy as **** alright. I just though it was a lot worse.

StringerBell

niallo27 wrote: »

Creepy as **** alright. I just though it was a lot worse.

It could well be, its the lesser charges he has please guilty to, I would imagine the evidence of the grooming is overwhelming so there is no point in denying that, I would also think it is pretty tough to prove he actually had sex with her so his defence feel they have a good chance to fight that.

upandcumming

mirwillbeback wrote:

He's admitting the charge of grooming an underage girl - he surely is finished in the game.

I think it was more a plea agreement than anything.

Canadel

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why would a guy on 65,000 thousand pound a week need to groom someone for sex. He could date any 16 year old if that's what he wishes to do.

Can't help who you fall in love with I suppose.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

I assume you are aware of the irony here? Celebrities get treated differently so treat this celebrity differently normally so as to set an example?
He should get the same sentence any average creep on the street would get, whether it be jail time or not. I imagine that will hinge upon the actual details of the crime.

FYP

What irony buckety? You've tried to call me up on something you obviously misunderstand. If you read the thread, you will see that the sentencing recommendations indicate jail-time in such cases. I only stressed that if so, this should be applied to him irrespective of his profession/celebrity, and therefore be treated 'normally'.

Also, where did I say that they should make an example of him? Just because I use the word 'example' in my post does not put it to the means you try to twist it to. Nowhere have I indicated that they should throw the book at him, make an example of him or even invent harsher sentencing just because he is a celebrity and not 'any average creep'.

sword1

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why would a guy on 65,000 thousand pound a week need to groom someone for sex. He could date any 16 year old if that's what he wishes to do.
So this girl was merely days from legal age for consensual sex, could he of not waited the few days. What an idiot.

It is probably a different buzz to corrupt a child, I would think the joy was in the chase and not in actually being with her, sicko and hopefully he will get time in jail where the shoe might be on the other foot

Lovely Bloke

niallo27 wrote: »

So he could have done **** all really so just guilty of being a creep.

This is a pretty sickening post tbh.

A mid-20s man chatting to a 15 year old and bringing her to the point of being in a position to even be kissing him is more than "just being a creep". I assume you are of a similar age, or older, and I also assume you are an upstanding person who wouldn't even think of chatting up a child, let alone kissing one.

Also, the Crown Prosecution have charged him with two more offences, which he's denying, and needs to stand trial for - so for them to charge him they must have at least some evidence (blah blah miscarriage of justice blah blah).

jaykay74

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Pleaded guilty to talking to her online, we'll call that GROOMING to make it sound more dramatic

No, that isn't what grooming is.

niallo27

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

This is a pretty sickening post tbh.

A mid-20s man chatting to a 15 year old and bringing her to the point of being in a position to even be kissing him is more than "just being a creep". I assume you are of a similar age, or older, and I also assume you are an upstanding person who wouldn't even think of chatting up a child, let alone kissing one.

Also, the Crown Prosecution have charged him with two more offences, which he's denying, and needs to stand trial for - so for them to charge him they must have at least some evidence (blah blah miscarriage of justice blah blah).

Yes you are right he is a lot worse than just being a creep. It's all pretty ****ed up really.

Lovely Bloke

jaykay74 wrote: »

No, that isn't what grooming is.

This kind of sinister apologism for what he's done is horrible, from a couple of people in this thread.

"Ah shure, it wasn't too bad, he only chatted to her online a bit and kissed her"

WHAT? none of that is ok, none of it. It's not "a bit creepy".

this is a man in a position of power using that position of power to nefariously put a child into a vulnerable position.

By all accounts this young girl was a bit obsessed with him, can you imagine what it must have been like for a teenage girl to suddenly be in contact with her hero?

She would have done anything he asked her to, AND he knew it.

It's unsettling that people are looking to downplay any aspect of the things he's actually admitted to.

Chris_Bradley

jaykay74 wrote: »

No, that isn't what grooming is.

Quite possibly the most ignorant post I've ever read here.:mad:

If that happened to your daughter you'd want to attack him.

ctrl-alt-delete

Chris_Bradley wrote: »

Quite possibly the most ignorant post I've ever read here.:mad:

If that happened to your daughter you'd want to attack him.

I could be wrong, like many before me, but I got the impression that jaykay74 was saying that grooming is not a dramatic online chat, or something made to sound worse than it is in relation to the post he quoted.

Johnson admitted to something seriously wrong, and something he would have known was a serious crime back then.