Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

eagle eye

What about it? He will be sentenced like every other horrible creature like him. It's not like he is the first one or will be the last, sadly.

It just irks me sometimes to see a huge thread about this on here but you never hear about the countless cases that happen around this country almost daily.

You never hear the outrage over these despicable creatures getting three or four year sentences and for abusing much younger kids too.

StringerBell

You do yeah, not often in the soccer forum though, where you would probably expect that a high profile footballer who is found to be doing these things is discussed more.

~Rebel~

eagle eye wrote: »

What about it? He will be sentenced like every other horrible creature like him. It's not like he is the first one or will be the last, sadly.

It just irks me sometimes to see a huge thread about this on here but you never hear about the countless cases that happen around this country almost daily.

You never hear the outrage over these despicable creatures getting three or four year sentences and for abusing much younger kids too.

You're right of course, but that's just life, people will respond to something they're in some way personally connected with. Mourning a celebrities death but not someone killed by a suicide bomb in Chad for example. Our interests and emotional impacts get layered based on our existing knowledge and connection to the people involved.

I daresay you're right on the scale of things though and this is a far more regular occurrence than any of us would like to think.

Summary of today's court proceedings including many damning text messages...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/12/adam-johnsons-arrogance-led-to-child-sexual-assault-court-told?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I'm not getting the impression of some girl who was far more mature (sexually) than her 15 years suggest and who tried to seduce Johnson or initially lead it down the road of romantic/sexual contact. She was a young one, starstruck and looking for a shirt and an autograph. He is the one who escalated it according to the above report. It's uneasy reading if I'm honest. This girl should have been exploring these things at her own pace with a boy around her own age and of a similar 'mental age'. Someone who maybe her parents would have invited around to the house for tea, not run off to the police in horror reporting.

NIMAN

niallo27 wrote: »

What would consider major jail time.

5+ years

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

5+ years

I doubt he'd get that for statutory rape.

I suspect it'll be more along the lines of 6 months, serve 4. But it's so hard to tell in the early stages of a prosecution. We have yet to hear his side in terms of what actually happened, so I'm going on the grooming alone albeit that it cleary was at the bad end of that offence ie. sustained and repeated long after he knew her age.

NIMAN

With the public so raw over the Savile stories, I think the law really needs to start getting tough on paedo's.

If another high profile groomer is let off lightly, what does that say?

Have you reas the Guardian article....he knew what he was doing 100%, and if he gets months instead of years for this, it will say a lot about justice.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

With the public so raw over the Savile stories, I think the law really needs to start getting tough on paedo's.

If another high profile groomer is let off lightly, what does that say?

Have you reas the Guardian article....he knew what he was doing 100%, and if he gets months instead of years for this, it will say a lot about justice.

Again, he's not a paedophile. That generally refers to prepubescent child. There is no suggestion she was. Not that it makes it grand.

niallo27

tim_holsters wrote: »

Yeah like you don't know what I'm getting at, but it's an emotive issue so I'll put it too you this way, a groomer's motives are always the same and that is to abuse. It doesn't matter if the kid was 15 or younger Johnson's motives don't change, and that I think is key.

It has to matter if she was 15 or younger, if the girl involved was 10 or younger would you not think this would be a 100 times more ****ed up than it already is.

~Rebel~

niallo27 wrote: »

It has to matter if she was 15 or younger, if the girl involved was 10 or younger would you not think this would be a 100 times more ****ed up than it already is.

It's an interesting question. The repercussions to the victim would unquestionably be much worse if they were younger, and the natural reaction to it would be far more abhorrent, but there's a lot of factors at play when it comes to looking at his actions.

He went after what he wanted - which was an illegal adolescent girl. He clearly identified his target and over a sustained, prolonged period pushed her further and further towards getting what he wanted. Now, he knew at all times that this was both morally and legally wrong, and that his actions would likely harm his victim, potentially in the long term. So, that arguably calls into question whether his actions are worse (in a philosophical sense) if its a 10 year old rather than a 15 year old - one could argue that if 10 year olds are what he was into, then that's who he would have targeted. He had already crossed the line of committing a legally and morally corrupt act, so who's to say where the line would have been drawn if his desires lay elsewhere?

In terms of the crime, yes he would deserve more time if it was a younger victim, but in terms of looking at his actions, it may be that the only reason it wasn't a kid is that they don't tickle his fancy. There are plenty of paedophiles out there who don't act on their urges. He very much did on his Ephebophilia.

(side note, I have a friend who's 32 now who was subject to very much the same thing when she was 15. She has massive problems with being able to trust men as a result, which actually grew when she got a little older (20ish) and really appreciated how much she had been manipulated and taken advantage of)

NIMAN

afaik, Savile was not abusing toddlers either, often young teenagers.

does that make his crimes not as bad then?

NIMAN

afaik, Savile was not abusing toddlers either, often young teenagers.

does that make his crimes not as bad then?

niallo27

NIMAN wrote: »

afaik, Savile was not abusing toddlers either, often young teenagers.

does that make his crimes not as bad then?

Yes some crimes are worse than other. Do you think Johnson should be in the same bracket as the fella out of the lost prophets.

NIMAN

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes some crimes are worse than other. Do you think Johnson should be in the same bracket as the fella out of the lost prophets.

He's definitely not, no.

That guy should never see daylight again, or else been given an injection.

What sentence do you think AJ will get?

Chancer3001

I doubt he'll get jail time.

I read the text message.

He's sticking to his "we just kissed" story. If the judge believes him, he'll get away with time in jail

NIMAN

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I doubt he'll get jail time.

I read the text message.

He's sticking to his "we just kissed" story. If the judge believes him, he'll get away with time in jail

What about the jury?
People are rightly disgusted by people grooming and sexually abusing minors, I think convincing them that he should not get jail time might be harder.

I predict he will do time. Maybe not as much as I'd like, but time all the same.

Chancer3001

I meant the jury.

Don't think anybody is claiming sex either. Just "sexual contact" which might lessen his punishment

topmanamillion

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/12/adam-johnsons-arrogance-led-to-child-sexual-assault-court-told?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Some absolutely harrowing stuff in that.

“He was used to getting what he wanted. He gave her the shirts and autographs with the knowledge that she would want to please him in return,” Blackwell said. “He knew her age. He knew she looked up to him, he knew he could take advantage of her and he did.”

"Where do you go out?” She replied: “I’m not old enough to go out.”

“Thought I would’ve got a thank you kiss for the shirt.”

fullstop

Turtyturd wrote: »

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

Doesn't seem to be enforced at all anymore, even though it's in the charter. Saw someone call a player a ****ing retard in a match thread last week but apparently that's ok :rolleyes:

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Abuse? Where is the abuse?

Stop making stuff up.

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

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

Here you go

BrookieD wrote: »

scumbag boll^%x and will deserve everything coming.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Link



yeah.

What a dirty cúnt

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Who's calling for castration?

Here you go.

nullzero wrote: »

Should be castrated the sick sack of sh1t.

The whole thing beggars belief. Multi millionaire footballer who undoubtedly has women throwing themselves at him all the time decides to go after a 15 year old school girl while his partner gives birth to their child, just unbelievable. It'll be horrible for the child growing up knowing what her dad was up to as well.

Flint Fredstone

fullstop wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be enforced at all anymore, even though it's in the charter. Saw someone call a player a ****ing retard in a match thread last week but apparently that's ok :rolleyes:

Oh right, it's the abuse of the poor child sex offender he was worried about? I thought it was other posters.
Interesting to see the depths people will sink to just to get one over on some anonymous user they take a dislike to.

Same old same old!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Oh right, it's the abuse of the poor child sex offender he was worried about? I thought it was other posters.
Interesting to see the depths people will sink to just to get one over on some anonymous user they take a dislike to.

Depends on the rule of abuse - either it's ok or it's not ok. I don't think you can open it to a case-by-case sceanrio - that's just going to get messy and lead to a lot of Dispute threads.

Bear in mind, also, we are still in the soccer forum and not the AH one (despite this thread not really havign much to do with soccer)

Flint Fredstone

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Same old same old!

Same old what?

Flint Fredstone

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Depends on the rule of abuse - either it's ok or it's not ok. I don't think you can open it to a case-by-case sceanrio - that's just going to get messy and lead to a lot of Dispute threads.

Bear in mind, also, we are still in the soccer forum and not the AH one (despite this thread not really havign much to do with soccer)

I'm not talking about moderation here. I just thought some things were beyond trying to get someone carded, apparently not.

kevthegaff

I bet this has happened to many previous player knowing/unknowingly, but this time the family weren't paid off

fullstop

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Oh right, it's the abuse of the poor child sex offender he was worried about? I thought it was other posters.
Interesting to see the depths people will sink to just to get one over on some anonymous user they take a dislike to.

I've quoted the charter for you below, and it wasn't me who brought the issue up in the first place;

"The rules on abuse apply to more than just boards users, and cover players/managers/fans/clubs/sports personalities as well. You may consider certain terms to be a bit of banter, but any nickname or phrase that is even vaguely derogatory may be considered as abuse for the purpose of the charter."

That_Guy

bad2dabone wrote: »

Those texts are super creepy.

He's finished though, done.

Amazing that the Mrs is standing by him still after the revelations that he was texting the young one just after texting the Mrs cooing over their infant daughter. That's so slimy.

She might have known about the texts or whatever but I wonder if she new the content of the messages.

As Conor74 mentioned earlier in this thread, it's unfair to bring her into it. She's going to be processing this for years you'd imagine. She's probably sick to her stomach and thinking of her public perception.

I think it's pretty crap that pictures of her are even published alongside this scumbag because it's really not anything to do with her.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I'm not talking about moderation here. I just thought some things were beyond trying to get someone carded, apparently not.

It's not the moderation, it's the actual rule that the moderators enforce. If you think a post crosses the line report it - regarless of whether it's poster or a player that is being abused. Makes no real difference which.

Dirty Dingus McGee

That_Guy wrote: »

She might have known about the texts or whatever but I wonder if she new the content of the messages.

As Conor74 mentioned earlier in this thread, it's unfair to bring her into it. She's going to be processing this for years you'd imagine. She's probably sick to her stomach and thinking of her public perception.

I think it's pretty crap that pictures of her are even published alongside this scumbag because it's really not anything to do with her.

Really.She is walking alongside him coming out of court.If she doesn't want to be pictured alongside him don't walk anywhere near him.

monkey9

NIMAN wrote: »

afaik, Savile was not abusing toddlers either, often young teenagers.

does that make his crimes not as bad then?

No, Savile was abusing kids as well. One person claimed to have been five when it started. Other reports said even a two year old as well.

OnTheCouch

As others have said, Johnson would hardly have been short of female attention one would imagine, certainly for a man of his status and wealth. So he can hardly be accused of being a person in his 20s who can't attract women of his own age, and therefore goes for someone more naive and easier to manipulate.

So why did he seek out a 15 year old?

Even if he were attracted to girls of that age, as it does appear, he surely could have gone for someone of 16 or 17. Now this would have not pleased many people either in a moral sense - not least his partner, but at least it would have been be completely legal and he would still have his lucrative contract with Sunderland as we speak.

Ages of consent elsewhere are irrelevant, these have been adopted historically to take into consideration social and cultural influences, along with the increase in knowledge and expertise in sexual relationships in a particular country or jurisdiction. Should the age of consent be 11 somewhere, it does not matter a jot, it is 16 in the United Kingdom and therefore it has been decreed in British law that this is the minimum age where individuals can safely and responsibly engage in sexual activity.

Now one could argue Johnson should just have waited until the girl turned 16. But I suspect he wasn't obsessed or in love with her. No, I believe the illegality and the illicit nature of the situation provided him with a real sensation of excitement, the thrill of the forbidden etc.

It appears to me that the reason that many are so angry with him, is because he has essentially abused his privileged position. Professional footballers live in a bubble for the most part and are used to receiving adulation and offers beyond the wildest dreams of the ordinary person. It must be fairly prevalent the situation where they realise fans would do anything for them. Which was undoubtedly the case here. But most are wise enough (or advised within an inch of their lives which may be more relevant) to not go down that road. Not Johnson clearly. Would the girl have been as interested if he were an average Joe 27-28 year old? Even taking the tendency for females to prefer older partners into consideration, most likely not. So he knew he could do whatever he wanted with her.

Now of course his crime would be far more heinous if the girl were under 10 let us say. As others have stated, he is not technically a paedophile. She presumably looked physically older than she was. And she may even have encouraged some of the interaction (although judging by the public messages, she seemed somewhat reticent - it appeared he was doing all the running). But she was only 15, still a good few years off adulthood and would likely have been both emotionally and intellectually immature and prone to making bad decisions. That's another reason why the age of consent law is there, so the chances of youngsters making stupid choices is lessened.

I still can't see him getting much jail time however. Possibly a few months. He'll have been extremely well-advised legally and there will almost certainly have been some plea involved, even if a guilty confession resulted in his contract with Sunderland being cancelled.

Whatever the outcome, it will be a decision he will regret for some time, a man who had it all and threw it all away. Not to mention his name will be ruined in football. All for the sake of a couple of years and a cheap thrill.

BorneTobyWilde

Would he be allowed to play in China on 3 times his Sunderland wages if they came calling for him?

StringerBell

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Would he be allowed to play in China on 3 times his Sunderland wages if they came calling for him?

Depends on his sentence.

topmanamillion

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Would he be allowed to play in China on 3 times his Sunderland wages if they came calling for him?

If he's placed on the sex offenders register, he's pleaded guilty to a sexual offence with a minor so it looks likely he will be, he will be required to sign on in his local police station every week so working abroad would be out of the question.
Ched Evans has the requirement so can't look for club outside England.

topmanamillion

topmanamillion wrote: »

he will be required to sign on in his local police station every week so working abroad would be out of the question.
Ched Evans has the requirement so can't look for club outside England.

I don't think he does.

Evans has restrictions on his travel as he was released early, not because he is on a register.

Usually being on such a register means notifying the police when changing address or moving abroad.

Iang87

This is back on again today. The girl is giving her evidence. At face value its pretty poor reading

Iang87

Iang87 wrote: »

This is back on again today. The girl is giving her evidence. At face value its pretty poor reading

Back on how? Source for the latest Article?

POKERKING

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35579014

Iang87

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Back on how? Source for the latest Article?

Back on as in court was off for the weekend and source would be any reputable site. Assumed that was a given seeing that its a legal case

Boskowski

Boskowski wrote: »

Agreed. And that's kind of my point actually.

But anyway I have a feeling if there was guilty as hell category, someone who is dirty sleazy and couldn't get them young enough for just the one reason and another category, mentally not much more mature than the victim, but getting caught up in something stupid. If I'd have to make a gut call I'd stick Johnson probably in the second category. Not that I actually know and not that it changes anything. But still.

I take it all back. Wtf is wrong with that guy?

Darkglasses

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/699270601224163328

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/699225229911003136


You really have to read the details before making a judgement on the situation. It's sad stuff. Halliday is doing a good job reporting it.

bleach94

When will Johnson be giving evidence himself does anyone know? Presume he will be ?

MD1990

What possible sentence could Johnson be looking at?

Augme

MD1990 wrote: »

What possible sentence could Johnson be looking at?

Probably looking at 2-3 years I'd say. At this stage I'd be leaning towards 2 years.

Mr.Nice Guy

It's callous to put the girl through this. Being subjected to the prosecution calling her a liar, and then there's the verbal abuse that will come from peers in her own area.

I'm not sure he cares though.

Augme

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's callous to put the girl through this. Being subjected to the prosecution calling her a liar, and then there's the verbal abuse that will come from peers in her own area.

I'm not sure he cares though.

Is it callous if she is lying?

Mr.Nice Guy

Augme wrote: »

Is it callous if she is lying?

If she is lying then he is entitled to fight tooth and nail to clear himself of the allegations. But if she is not lying then he is subjecting her to an extremely distressing experience which will scar her, and one would hope - that is, if he is found guilty - that the sentencing would take this on board.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's callous to put the girl through this. Being subjected to the prosecution calling her a liar, and then there's the verbal abuse that will come from peers in her own area.

I'm not sure he cares though.

That's the way the legal system works.If it didn't work like that it would allow young girls to make accusations and not have to back them up.

~Rebel~

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

That's the way the legal system works.If it didn't work like that it would allow young girls to make accusations and not have to back them up.

His point I think is that it's extra ****ty of Johnson to be putting her through this if he really is guilty. He could have at least spared her further hurt by being honest.

We'll see, maybe he's innocent of the further 2 charges, though by the court reporting it doesn't look good.

But that's precisely why the penalty if convicted following a contest is (significantly) greater than that following a plea.

Sexual assault cases can be particularly ugly, but the fundamental principle of justice in a democracy is the presumption of innocence and the right to challenge the case that is being made.

As for it not looking good, it is pretty much impossible to gauge how a case is going when the defence hasn't even started.