Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

murpho999

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

the apologists continue.

It's disconcerting to have so many SF regulars try to downplay this. Absolutely horrifying actually.

It's not apologists or downplaying. He has commited a crime, he will be punished.
What more do you want?

I wouldn't go as far to call him a paedophile due to her age. In other countries in Europe the age is 14, so it's a grey area.

Lovely Bloke

murpho999 wrote: »

It's not apologists or downplaying. He has commited a crime, he will be punished.
What more do you want?

I wouldn't go as far to call him a paedophile due to her age. In other countries in Europe the age is 14, so it's a grey area.

You are quite simply wrong here.

In other countries the AOC is 14, if the other party is 15 (or 14), otherwise it's 16.

Leroy42

bucketybuck wrote: »

Theres no perspective towards things like this in todays world, you are either thoroughly sickened, outraged and appalled or you are a peado apologist. Theres no nuance at all. Even this post will probably be labelled as somehow excusing Johnsons actions.

Nobody is acting like that. People find this type of behaviour unacceptable and are stating that.

What perspective are you expecting? Well, at least she was 15 so its not so bad I suppose? At least he didn't beat the cr&p out of her?

Oranage2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because you are comparing this to two kids gettings together and getting frisky, or as I said an 18 YO hooking up with an underage, which as we all know can be a much older looking 15 YO in a niteclub.

This is something completely different. This is akin to stalking someone, selecting a target and manipulating them to get what you want. This is not two people meeting up and finding a common ground, a certain spark. This is a vunerable person being manipulated by someone who is determined to take advantage of them.

He didn't mistake her underage, he wasn't "tricked" ( I use that term in the way that many apologists use it) by this girl. He went out of his way to manipulate her. He knew she was underage, as I said this wasn't him acting out of some overtime built up relationship. He purposefully went out to make this happen.

Of course there is a difference between a 5 yo and a 15 yo, biology tells us that. But there is a socially acceptable line drawn based on evidence of how mature people are and when they can be considered mature enough to handle these situations. Do you think Johnson consider her mental maturity? One can of course argue about the line, that is fine but once the line is drawn and accepted people can't just simply ignore it based on what they want. He knew what he was doing and he did it anyway.

I can only assume you are failing to understand the massive difference between a 28 YO and a 15yo, there is simply no equality in that. He had all the power and he used that power to manipulate her to do what he wanted.

I 100% agree it's wrong, I understand that he has some serious issues, I just don't think it's a life ruining crime or he should have his balls cut off or any other torture porn people are suggesting.

Turtyturd

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nobody is acting like that. People find this type of behaviour unacceptable and are stating that.

There are plenty of examples of one poster acting like that. He has put up a front as to how outraged the situation makes him and anyone who even raises a question about the situation is labelled an apologist or sickening.

Just before posting thoughts on Johnson, is the abuse rule being waived for everyone or just a select few?

Lovely Bloke

If people are going to downplay the actions - going out of his way to groom an underage girl, admitting to knowing she was underage, admitting to being in a position to kiss her, and leave enough evidence to be charged with two more counts, then their opinions have to be questioned.

In what world is predatory behaviour like that, in the full knowledge that it is against the law, and also morally reprehensible, "not that bad"?

People who are saying that need to take a look at themselves, or properly acquaint themselves with the case before commenting and making themselves look stupid.

Abuse? Where is the abuse?

Stop making stuff up.

murpho999

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

You are quite simply wrong here.

In other countries the AOC is 14, if the other party is 15 (or 14), otherwise it's 16.

No, you are wrong.

Look up France, Slovakia, Serbia, Sweden in this link.


I don't agree with what he did, and would wonder about what else he has done but some of the comments here about castration etc are completely over the top.

Flint Fredstone

Any examples of the abuse rule being waived or is this just a personal whinge?

fergiesfolly

I have a 15 year old daughter. All her friends are in the 14-16 age group. M
Try as they might to act all grown up, there is nothing I have ever seen, heard of, or heard about, that leads me to believe that any of them have the mental, emotional or sexual maturity to be of any interest to anyone outside their own age group.
Johnson is a predator.
He targeted, groomed and had sexual contact with a CHILD.
Whatever sentence the judge hands down is the least he has coming to him.

Lovely Bloke

murpho999 wrote: »

No, you are wrong.

Look up France, Slovakia, Serbia, Sweden in this link.

Fair enough

But you should read France and Sweden yourself

France[edit]
The age of consent in France is 15, as specified by Article 227-25 of the Penal Code, which reads: "The fact of the commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a sexual offence by an adult on the person of a minor under fifteen years of age is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000."[28]

Article 227-22 prohibits the "organisation by an adult of meetings involving indecent exposure or sexual relations knowing that minors are present or participating". (Minors refers to under 18s; the text of the article can be subject to interpretation).[28]

Article 227-22-1 prohibits the "soliciting of a minor under the age of fifteen, or a person pretending to be such minor, for sexual purposes through the use of a computer system".[28]

Article 227-27 prohibits sexual relations with minors over age 15 (aged 15, 16 or 17) "1° where they are committed by an ascendant or by any other person having a legal or factual authority over the victim; 2° where they are committed by a person abusing the authority conferred by his functions."[28]

Sweden[edit]
The age of consent in Sweden is 15, as specified by the Swedish Penal Code, Chapter 6 (On Sexual Crimes). The age of fifteen is referred to several times, for example in Section 4, which reads: "A person who has sexual intercourse with a child under fifteen years of age or who with such a child carries out another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape of a child to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years."

There is a position of trust rule in which the age of consent is raised to 18. The section mentioned above continues:"The same applies to the person who carries out an act referred to in the first paragraph to a child more than fifteen years of age but less than eighteen years of age and who is offspring to the perpetrator or in the perpetrator's care or in a similar relationship to the perpetrator, or for whose care or guardianship the perpetrator is responsible due to the decision of a government agency."

It is not legal to have sexual intercourse with related adults either, but the sentences for that (up to two years) are considerably milder than those for rape of a child (two to six years, four to ten years if aggravated).

There is also a close in age exception (Chapter 6, Section 14) "...not sentenced if it is obvious that the act is no violation of the child considered the small difference in age between the person who carries out the act and the child and other circumstances." In a verdict of 30 March 2007, the Supreme Court found that a 17-year-old boy had not committed a criminal act by having sexual intercourse with a girl 14 years and 7 months old. (Case B 415-07)[111]

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't agree with what he did, and would wonder about what else he has done but some of the comments here about castration etc or completely over the top.

Who's calling for castration?

Oranage2

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Fair enough




Who's calling for castration?

So far he is just guilt of grooming and kissing a 15 year old girl, if he's innocent of the other crimes then what punishment would you like him to get ?

Lovely Bloke

Oranage2 wrote: »

So far he is just guilt of grooming and kissing a 15 year old girl, if he's innocent of the other crimes then what punishment would you like him to get ?

Prison time.

But again with the "just guilty of" grooming and kissing a child.

That kind of language only serves to downplay those crimes. As if they are minor crimes. They aren't.

bucketybuck

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

But you should read France and Sweden yourself

What has the position of trust rule got to do with any of this?

Lovely Bloke

bucketybuck wrote: »

What has the position of trust rule got to do with any of this?

Are you going to argue that a professional footballer doesn't hold a position of trust with a 15 year old fan?

Good luck with that one.

Oranage2

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Prison time.

But again with the "just guilty of" grooming and kissing a child.

That kind of language only serves to downplay those crimes. As if they are minor crimes. They aren't.

And what if it was Scarlett johanson and a 15 year old lad, how would you feel then?

I think your over reaction is down to your own emotional feelings towards men that commit crimes on females and your need to be protective, that and stock responses so you can portray yourself as a 'hard man' in front of your friends.

Flint Fredstone

Ah here, some load of bollox being fired around now.

Lovely Bloke

Oranage2 wrote: »

And what if it was Scarlett johanson and a 15 year old lad, how would you feel then?

Same.

Oranage2 wrote: »

I think your over reaction is down to your own emotional feelings towards men that commit crimes on females and your need to be protective, that and stock responses so you can portray yourself as a 'hard man' in front of your friends.

Yeah, thanks for the pop-psychology analytical breakdown there pal.

You've really put me in my place.

But go on and continue to think it's "not that bad" for a mid-20s adult to engage in the grooming of a child, and kissing that child - not to mention the further charges.

jaykay74

Oranage2 wrote: »

15 is a very borderline age, I wouldn't do it myself but a 15 year old would be able to sexually reproduce as well as some of them at that age can be pretty, again I don't think what Johnson did was right but I don't think what he did was a horrible crime.

So not a horrible crime then, Johnson and a 15 year old. What about 14, 13... where do you draw the line ?

Oranage2

jaykay74 wrote: »

So not a horrible crime then, Johnson and a 15 year old. What about 14, 13... where do you draw the line ?

I draw th line at what the law says, 15 is bad, 14 is worse, 13 worse still and so on.

But not long ago 15 year olds would marry and have children as they were the most fertile, biologically there can be an attration, the girl is 1 year off being legally able to have a relationship. Johnson has definitely commited a crime, a very short prison sentence or community service would be punishment enough in my opinion.

Augme

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Are you going to argue that a professional footballer doesn't hold a position of trust with a 15 year old fan?

Good luck with that one.

In the legal sense he doesn't hold a position of trust over them afaik.

bucketybuck

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Are you going to argue that a professional footballer doesn't hold a position of trust with a 15 year old fan?

Good luck with that one.

When on a righteous crusade you can claim every adult has a position of trust if you want, but we all know those laws tend to deal with people in direct positions of "legal and factual" authority, such as the childs teacher or doctor. Johnson wasn't this childs teacher, doctor or any other type of authority, beyond being a creepy old guy who should have known better.

As per your own quote what legal and factual authority did Johnson have over this kid? Being a professional footballer is no more relevant than him being a professional butcher or baker.

It just seemed strange you smugly saying murph0999 should read up on France and Sweden himself when the parts you chose to quote weren't really relevant to anything.

M5

Got to love the Sun

StringerBell

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

the apologists continue.

It's disconcerting to have so many SF regulars try to downplay this. Absolutely horrifying actually.

Pretty eye opening in fact.

Coat22

bucketybuck wrote: »

When on a righteous crusade you can claim every adult has a position of trust if you want, but we all know those laws tend to deal with people in direct positions of "legal and factual" authority, such as the childs teacher or doctor. Johnson wasn't this childs teacher, doctor or any other type of authority, beyond being a creepy old guy who should have known better.

As per your own quote what legal and factual authority did Johnson have over this kid? Being a professional footballer is no more relevant than him being a professional butcher or baker.

It just seemed strange you smugly saying murph0999 should read up on France and Sweden himself when the parts you chose to quote weren't really relevant to anything.

I think you're pissing against the wind here on this one mate. I would imagine a sizable portion of those reading this thread agree with you and Orange2 but remain silent as they don't want to feel the wrath of the "hang them up. Worse than mass murderers etc crew."

For my tuppence worth the guy is a muppet. Had it all but had f*cked that away for nothing. He broke the law and he'll probably do prison time along with losing what most people would have thought of as the dream career.

But perspective is called for (and no doubt the judge will exercise same). The girl was 15, she's probably over the age of consent by now and not a 9 or 10 year old. Yes he groomed her and he knew he was breaking the law and he will be punished accordingly.

But the outrage by some one here? Give me a break.

jaykay74

Oranage2 wrote: »

I draw th line at what the law says, 15 is bad, 14 is worse, 13 worse still and so on.

But not long ago 15 year olds would marry and have children as they were the most fertile, biologically there can be an attration, the girl is 1 year off being legally able to have a relationship. Johnson has definitely commited a crime, a very short prison sentence or community service would be punishment enough in my opinion.

When were 15 years old marrying and having kids in Ireland? Just curious!

Oranage2

jaykay74 wrote: »

When were 15 years old marrying and having kids in Ireland? Just curious!

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/church-state-and-marriage-1.2188131 Not that long ago at all

TheCitizen

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

the apologists continue.

It's disconcerting to have so many SF regulars try to downplay this. Absolutely horrifying actually.

SF?

bucketybuck

Coat22 wrote: »

I think you're pissing against the wind here on this one mate. I would imagine a sizable portion of those reading this thread agree with you and Orange2 but remain silent as they don't want to feel the wrath of the "hang them up. Worse than mass murderers etc crew."

The worst part is that certain people will believe that I am in here defending peadophiles or trying to minimise the impact of the crime. :rolleyes: Calling for perspective is the same as absolution of guilt in the eyes of righteous.

Mars Bar

TheCitizen wrote: »

SF?

soccer forum. not sinn fein!

Ashbourne hoop

Oranage2 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/church-state-and-marriage-1.2188131 Not that long ago at all

Forty odd years ago, that's quite a long time

TheCitizen

Mars Bar wrote: »

soccer forum. not sinn fein!

:pac: For a second there I thought he was trying to implicate Sinn Fein in this, was beginning to wonder if he was Enda in real life

Oranage2

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Forty odd years ago, that's quite a long time

Ha as someone quickly approaching that age I'd have to disagree

Ashbourne hoop

Some amount of nonsense on this thread. Johnson deliberately groomed a 15 year old girl for his own purposes. this was not a girl he mistakenly stuck for an over 18, he knew she was 15 and built up the relationship regardless. He may yet be convicted of more serious crimes. There are no grey areas here, the age of consent is there for a reason, and this girl hadn't reached it. This guy's career is finished, no question about it. No club will touch him as the outcry from fans and sponsors will be huge. Posters saying ah sure she was nearly 16 and what if Scarlett Johansen did the same thing.......seriously.

Ashbourne hoop

Oranage2 wrote: »

Ha as someone quickly approaching that age I'd have to disagree

I've gone beyond it, unfortunately it is a long time.........

keeponhurling

TheCitizen wrote: »

:pac: For a second there I thought he was trying to implicate Sinn Fein in this, was beginning to wonder if he was Enda in real life

Now to the most important question in all of this - has Gerry Adams condemned Johnson yet ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TheCitizen wrote: »

:pac: For a second there I thought he was trying to implicate Sinn Fein in this, was beginning to wonder if he was Enda in real life

You weren't the only one, I assure you.

(Although curious to know why even soccer forum was brought up - was that some kind of shoe-horned dig?)

Coat22

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Some amount of nonsense on this thread. Johnson deliberately groomed a 15 year old girl for his own purposes. this was not a girl he mistakenly stuck for an over 18, he knew she was 15 and built up the relationship regardless. He may yet be convicted of more serious crimes. There are no grey areas here, the age of consent is there for a reason, and this girl hadn't reached it. This guy's career is finished, no question about it. No club will touch him as the outcry from fans and sponsors will be huge. Posters saying ah sure she was nearly 16 and what if Scarlett Johansen did the same thing.......seriously.

I don't think anyone is saying "its grand" or "he should get away with it" but the usual reaction of "burn him at the cross. He's up their with Hitler and Stalin" is laughable.

Knex*

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Prison time.

But again with the "just guilty of" grooming and kissing a child.

That kind of language only serves to downplay those crimes. As if they are minor crimes. They aren't.

Well, in a way, that's exactly what they are.

CSF

Arguments of 'this sexual offence is worse than this sexual offence' rarely go well.

No need to decide whether it's Adam Johnson or Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville has committed the worst offence.

They're all paedophiles and the court will determine their punishments relative to the severity and frequency of their crimes.

Dirty Dingus McGee

CSF wrote: »

Arguments of 'this sexual offence is worse than this sexual offence' rarely go well.

No need to decide whether it's Adam Johnson or Rolf Harris or Jimmy Saville has committed the worst offence.

They're all paedophiles and the court will determine their punishments relative to the severity and frequency of their crimes.

Definetely Rolf Harris.There is no explaining how traumatic hearing Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport is.

CSF

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Definetely Rolf Harris.There is no explaining how traumatic hearing Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport is.

A poor man's Don Conroy.

Iang87

After the texts its very hard to defend him in anyway. I actually think its made worse as he knew he was in a position of relative power. Brutal stuff really

monkey9

@JoshHalliday is a journalist providing updates from the court. Some of it really is sickening in fairness.

Right Turn Clyde

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

how the hell have Sunderland being allowing him to play?

It was a straight-forward situation for Sunderland. Allow him to continue in his job because of the presumption of innocence and due process of law but sack him as soon he pleaded, or was found to be, guilty.

Either way they've taken a principled stance that could be defended by right-thinking, reasonable people. Forget about the guys on the terrace shouting 'pedo', Sunderland's concern would have been their bottom line, and they correctly judged that this would be a non-issue as far as their reputation is concerned.

My mouth dropped open when I read this story last year because I could only imagine the media storm it was going to create, but in reality it's all been very subdued. Dark days ahead for Johnson, but this is over as a Sunderland story.

Well played Sunderland FC.

jaykay74

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.

Where did you read that ? The evidence presented seems to be that she was only a touch over 15 when it started. 15th birthday in Nov, met in Jan... Long way off 16. And he was totally aware of the dates/age involved.

Iang87

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

It was a straight-forward situation for Sunderland. Allow him to continue in his job because of the presumption of innocence and due process of law but sack him as soon he pleaded, or was found to be, guilty.

Either way they've taken a principled stance that could be defended by right-thinking, reasonable people. Forget about the guys on the terrace shouting 'pedo', Sunderland's concern would have been their bottom line, and they correctly judged that this would be a non-issue as far as their reputation is concerned.

My mouth dropped open when I read this story last year because I could only imagine the media storm it was going to create, but in reality it's all been very subdued. Dark days ahead for Johnson, but this is over as a Sunderland story.

Well played Sunderland FC.

If Sunderland were aware of the extent of the facts about it then they should have sacked him a while back. I'm wondering did he not tell them to make what will be his final few quid in football.

lassykk

monkey9 wrote: »

@JoshHalliday is a journalist providing updates from the court. Some of it really is sickening in fairness.

Jesus he really is a sick puppy

Johnson obviously, not the journalist

Lovely Bloke

jaykay74 wrote: »

Where did you read that ? The evidence presented seems to be that she was only a touch over 15 when it started. 15th birthday in Nov, met in Jan... Long way off 16. And he was totally aware of the dates/age involved.

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/698114502609530880

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/698114809020182528

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/698125644329254912

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/698127734363549697

Right Turn Clyde

Iang87 wrote: »

If Sunderland were aware of the extent of the facts about it then they should have sacked him a while back. I'm wondering did he not tell them to make what will be his final few quid in football.

I can see no reason why he would have told his high-paying employer that he was involved in criminal activity. He might be disgusting, but I doubt he's totally stupid.

Lovely Bloke

Yep, only a few text messages, and a bit of kissing.

Nothing in it really. Be grand.