Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Darkglasses

armaghlad wrote: »

The grooming is the most worrying factor. He was well aware of what he was doing. But does grooming necessarily mean he was going to go through with it? I seem to recall that he called off one of the meetings with this girl? Perhaps it might be argued that this is the reason she ended up telling her parents?

The grooming is definitely the most worrying factor for me too. This is something he spent a lot of time and effort on.

What he didn't do, he shouldn't be charged of. Grooming a minor is itself a crime though.

armaghlad

Darkglasses wrote: »

The grooming is definitely the most worrying factor for me too. This is something he spent a lot of time and effort on.

What he didn't do, he shouldn't be charged of. Grooming a minor is itself a crime though.

I don't know if he spent time and effort. Texting someone is pretty much instant. Did he seek this girl out? Put effort into finding out her details? Or was it just a chance encounter that he decided to exploit using his fame and the girl's infatuation. Not that I condone it. But it would come across worse to me if he was out actively seeking a girl of this age.

As for what he didn't do... I wonder is there anything in relation to intent. He might not have had sex with her; but it certainly comes across that he had considered it at one stage. Is that not a crime?

Chancer3001

Considering something isn't a crime.

And grooming for a kiss isn't worth jail time either imo.

In the texts he comes across as an absolute moron. He's using terms like lol. His mental age probably doesn't match his age.

And of course the girl is innocent in this, but she told him to download snap chat and then sent him a pic in a bikini.

I'm going to predict he gets away with community service. Suspended sentence maybe.

armaghlad

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Considering something isn't a crime.

And grooming for a kiss isn't worth jail time either imo.

In the texts he comes across as an absolute moron. He's using terms like lol. His mental age probably doesn't match his age.

And of course the girl is innocent in this, but she told him to download snap chat and then sent him a pic in a bikini.

I'm going to predict he gets away with community service. Suspended sentence maybe.

Doing something with intent is though in certain areas of law though.

Also it is alleged he did more than kiss and allegedly forced or at least encouraged the girl to commit a sex act on him. That to be would be worthy of a custodial sentence.

He's also a cretin for cheating on his gf!

Chancer3001

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I'm going to predict he gets away with community service. Suspended sentence maybe.

Think for the grooming element he'll get a stint, maybe 6 months, maybe suspended..but it was quite...incessant, he engaged with her repeatedly over a period of time etc.

But of course a conviction on the charges he is fighting and he's looking at definite jail time, and not out in a few months either.

~Rebel~

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Considering something isn't a crime.

And grooming for a kiss isn't worth jail time either imo.

In the texts he comes across as an absolute moron. He's using terms like lol. His mental age probably doesn't match his age.

And of course the girl is innocent in this, but she told him to download snap chat and then sent him a pic in a bikini.

I'm going to predict he gets away with community service. Suspended sentence maybe.

He already had snapchat. He made a second account on it for this to hide it from his wife. He also asked for a naked picture.

Even leaving aside the girl's own testimony of what happened in the car on the 2 occasions (which would definitely warrant more serious jail time), just the hard evidence alone is enough I think for a jail sentence of at least 6 months. He actively sought a sexual relationship with a girl just turned 15, and consistently pushed and pushed to make it happen. He didn't just consider it inwardly, he actively pushed for it to happen, using his position in society to do so.

Creepy as ****

Augme

As for the grooming, on a scale of grooming it wasn't the worst. It's not like the girl needed much convincing. She seemed perfectly happy to go along with it all and even admitted this. To me it would be a lot different if he needed to spend a long time trying to convince and persuade her. I wouldn't be surprised if he did get a suspended sentence if he gets off on the two current charges.

armaghlad

Augme wrote: »

As for the grooming, on a scale of grooming it wasn't the worst. It's not like the girl needed much convincing. She seemed perfectly happy to go along with it all and even admitted this. To me it would be a lot different if he needed to spend a long time trying to convince and persuade her. I wouldn't be surprised if he did get a suspended sentence if he gets off on the two current charges.

Grooming is grooming no matter who needed convincing. The girl liked him long before they met. He took advantage of this

Augme

Augme wrote: »

As for the grooming, on a scale of grooming it wasn't the worst. It's not like the girl needed much convincing. She seemed perfectly happy to go along with it all and even admitted this. To me it would be a lot different if he needed to spend a long time trying to convince and persuade her. I wouldn't be surprised if he did get a suspended sentence if he gets off on the two current charges.

Does this perhaps shows how impressionable and vulnerable she was? If anything it might increase the predatory nature of the matter? He wasn't focussing on someone who might give him a "go away you dirty old man" retort, but someone he felt he could win around, the classic grooming target I would have thought.

But for all that, everything hinges on the outcome of the trial. If he was grooming for a kiss and was waiting until she became the right age before more sexual contact took place, it's really bad, but maybe not deserving of a lengthy sentence. If he didn't wait...well he's in a whole world of trouble.

Augme

armaghlad wrote: »

Grooming is grooming no matter who needed convincing. The girl liked him long before they met. He took advantage of this

When it comes to sentencing that's not really the case though. That's one of the reasons sentencing has a maximum terms and why people get different sentences( as well as other reasons).

Deleted User wrote: »

Does this perhaps shows how impressionable and vulnerable she was? If anything it might increase the predatory nature of the matter? He wasn't focussing on someone who might give him a "go away you dirty old man" retort, but someone he felt he could win around, the classic grooming target I would have thought.

But for all that, everything hinges on the outcome of the trial. If he was grooming for a kiss and was waiting until she became the right age before more sexual contact took place, it's really bad, but maybe not deserving of a lengthy sentence. If he didn't wait...well he's in a whole world of trouble.

She contacted him first though.

~Rebel~

Augme wrote: »

When it comes to sentencing that's not really the case though. That's one of the reasons sentencing has a maximum terms and why people get different sentences( as well as other reasons).




She contacted him first though.

She talked to a footballer about getting a jersey signed. He's the one who asked for her phone number and initiated anything beyond a normal fan/player dynamic.

Augme

~Rebel~ wrote: »

She talked to a footballer about getting a jersey signed. He's the one who asked for her phone number and initiated anything beyond a normal fan/player dynamic.

She still contacted him first though. So it's not like he went out of his way to do it. Very few of his actions would indicate he's a serious danger going forward.

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

She still contacted him first though. So it's not like he went out of his way to do it. Very few of his actions would indicate he's a serious danger going forward.

You're having a laugh right?

artanevilla

Some of the comments on this thread are very disturbing.

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

You're having a laugh right?

Nope.

monkey9

Augme wrote: »

She still contacted him first though. So it's not like he went out of his way to do it. Very few of his actions would indicate he's a serious danger going forward.

She's a fifteen year old who wanted to get a signed jersey from him. So what if she contacted him first. He was her hero, it's perfectly natural.

He's the grown adult in this situation and you'll find he did go out of his way to contact her. He was bloody grooming her ffs.

Augme

monkey9 wrote: »

She's a fifteen year old who wanted to get a signed jersey from him. So what if she contacted him first. He was her hero, it's perfectly natural.

He's the grown adult in this situation and you'll find he did go out of his way to contact her. He was bloody grooming her ffs.

The fact still remains he didn't go out of his way to contact her. He didn't hunt her down or make a special effort to get in touch with her. All signs that would point to it being less likely that he is a serious predator.

monkey9

Augme wrote: »

The fact still remains he didn't go out of his way to contact her. He didn't hunt her down or make a special effort to get in touch with her. All signs that would point to it being less likely that he is a serious predator.

Well look, he's not pulling women into bushes at night and raping them. But he did go out of his way to get what he wanted from a fifteen year old.

I do understand the point you're making and maybe, whatever the outcome here is, he won't do this again.

But there shouldn't be any excuses made for him. He took advantage of a fifteen year old who was besotted with him and he knew what he was doing was wrong. He's old enough to know better. It's not like he was still a teenager himself.

Augme

monkey9 wrote: »

Well look, he's not pulling women into bushes at night and raping them. But he did go out of his way to get what he wanted from a fifteen year old.

I do understand the point you're making and maybe, whatever the outcome here is, he won't do this again.

But there shouldn't be any excuses made for him. He took advantage of a fifteen year old who was besotted with him and he knew what he was doing was wrong. He's old enough to know better. It's not like he was still a teenager himself.

I'm not making excuses for him, just point out the reasons I think he could get away with a suspended sentence on the charges he's pleaded guilty to. If he's found guilty of the other two chargers then it's a different story.

Flint Fredstone

He abused his position, he didn't have to go out of his way. In the same way a pervert teacher doesn't have to go out of his/her way to find a victim, they are literally queuing up for them but for other reasons.

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

I'm not making excuses for him, just point out the reasons I think he could get away with a suspended sentence on the charges he's pleaded guilty to. If he's found guilty of the other two chargers then it's a different story.

Nothing that you are saying will influence his sentencing. In fact a lot of such abuse happens amongst family members or close friends, the girl having made contact with him first has no bearing on the facts of the case which are that he groomed and sexually assaulted this girl. I would contend that Adam Johnson is likely to engage in such behavior in the future, this is plainly a sexual predilection of his and it will be something he will struggle to contain. He is a paedophile and a predatory one at that, as this wasn't some opportunistic once off event. This situation was coldly calculated and indicates a person whom is highly likely to emigrate upon his eventual release from prison and continue to offend in this manner, much like Gary Glitter has done before him.

Guy:Incognito

So do we reckon thats him done with football , regardless of how light a sentence he gets?The "he served his time" opinion doesnt seem to apply to footballers so , lets say he's forcibly away from the game for 12-18 months, is there any way back then? Assuming hes eligible to play at the start of the 2017-18 season, having just turned 30, will he be let?

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

Nothing that you are saying will influence his sentencing. In fact a lot of such abuse happens amongst family members or close friends, the girl having made contact with him first has no bearing on the facts of the case which are that he groomed and sexually assaulted this girl. I would contend that Adam Johnson is likely to engage in such behavior in the future, this is plainly a sexual predilection of his and it will be something he will struggle to contain. He is a paedophile and a predatory one at that, as this wasn't some opportunistic once off event. This situation was coldly calculated and indicates a person whom is highly likely to emigrate upon his eventual release from prison and continue to offend in this manner, much like Gary Glitter has done before him.

it's hard to take you seriously when you don't even know what the word paedophile means to be honest.

armaghlad

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So do we reckon thats him done with football , regardless of how light a sentence he gets?The "he served his time" opinion doesnt seem to apply to footballers so , lets say he's forcibly away from the game for 12-18 months, is there any way back then? Assuming hes eligible to play at the start of the 2017-18 season, having just turned 30, will he be let?

I think his football career is as good as over. He is a pariah and even if he was found innocent on all charges would probably struggle to be signed by anyone.

Guy:Incognito

armaghlad wrote: »

I think his football career is as good as over. He is a pariah and even if he was found innocent on all charges would probably struggle to be signed by anyone.

I dont think so tbh. As with Ched Evans, I'm sure he'd have plenty of offers, its others outside the employ of the clubs that stop it.

armaghlad

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I dont think so tbh. As with Ched Evans, I'm sure he'd have plenty of offers, its others outside the employ of the clubs that stop it.

Yeah well that's what I mean. Some clubs would view him as a potential bargain because he won't play EPL ever again. Possibly lower leagues. Their fans and patrons however might not allow it.

Lovely Bloke

nah, as with Ched Evans, a convicted (and in Johnson's case an admitted) sex offender won't "be let" by fans of any club in England.

He might get a game in China though.

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

it's hard to take you seriously when you don't even know what the word paedophile means to be honest.

What does that sentence even mean?
A paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Children, are persons under the legal age of consent which the girl in this case is. Therefor Adam Johnson having knowingly groomed this girl and having engaged in sexual activities with her can be defined as a paedophile.
It is hard to take you seriously when you act as an apologist for this man whilst hiding behind some notion of qualifying his actions against any sentence you perceive he may be given.
Your comments here are disturbing. This man is clearly a predatory paedophile but you are prepared to state that he cannot be because the underage girl first contacted him looking for a signed football top, which it would seem to mean to you is code for "please groom and sexually abuse me".
If you are going to try and belittle me at least put a reasonable amount of effort into it and maybe extend your point to beyond one poorly structured sentence.

armaghlad

nullzero wrote: »

What does that sentence even mean?
A paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Children, are persons under the legal age of consent which the girl in this case is. Therefor Adam Johnson having knowingly groomed this girl and having engaged in sexual activities with her can be defined as a paedophile.
It is hard to take you seriously when you act as an apologist for this man whilst hiding behind some notion of qualifying his actions against any sentence you perceive he may be given.
Your comments here are disturbing. This man is clearly a predatory paedophile but you are prepared to state that he cannot be because the underage girl first contacted him looking for a signed football top, which it would seem to mean to you is code for "please groom and sexually abuse me".
If you are going to try and belittle me at least put a reasonable amount of effort into it and maybe extend your point to beyond one poorly structured sentence.

...Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. (From wiki)

The girl in question is 16 and was 15 at the time. So technically speaking he isn't a paedophile.

nullzero

armaghlad wrote: »

...Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. (From wiki)

The girl in question is 16 and was 15 at the time. So technically speaking he isn't a paedophile.

OK so what he did was perfectly normal. He researched the legal age of consent found out that pursuing a sexual relationship with this girl would be illegal and went ahead and groomed and abused her anyway.

Anybody engaged in sexual activity with any persons under the age of consent (set at 17 but could realistically be higher when factoring in another party whose age is disproportionate to a 17 year old) is a paedophile.
He has pleaded guilty and in doing so has admitted that he committed a crime.
Should we take from your Wikipedia definition that sex with 12 year Olds is normal and acceptable?

armaghlad

nullzero wrote: »

OK so what he did was perfectly normal. He researched the legal age of consent found out that pursuing a sexual relationship with this girl would be illegal and went ahead and groomed and abused her anyway.

Anybody engaged in sexual activity with any persons under the age of consent (set at 17 but could realistically be higher when factoring in another party whose age is disproportionate to a 17 year old) is a paedophile.
He has pleaded guilty and in doing so has admitted that he committed a crime.
Should we take from your Wikipedia definition that sex with 12 year Olds is normal and acceptable?

"Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19..." Also from Wiki.

Also the age of consent is 16 in the UK, not 17.

Your knowledge of the case is all over the place. I don't disagree with your sentiment but at least be factually accurate.

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

What does that sentence even mean?
A paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Children, are persons under the legal age of consent which the girl in this case is. Therefor Adam Johnson having knowingly groomed this girl and having engaged in sexual activities with her can be defined as a paedophile.
It is hard to take you seriously when you act as an apologist for this man whilst hiding behind some notion of qualifying his actions against any sentence you perceive he may be given.
Your comments here are disturbing. This man is clearly a predatory paedophile but you are prepared to state that he cannot be because the underage girl first contacted him looking for a signed football top, which it would seem to mean to you is code for "please groom and sexually abuse me".
If you are going to try and belittle me at least put a reasonable amount of effort into it and maybe extend your point to beyond one poorly structured sentence.

I don't have to put any effort into that. You're doing a good enough job of that yourself.

nullzero

armaghlad wrote: »

"Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19..." Also from Wiki.

Also the age of consent is 16 in the UK, not 17.

Your knowledge of the case is all over the place. I don't disagree with your sentiment but at least be factually accurate.

I spoke about the age of consent in Ireland, I didn't make reference to 17 being the age of consent in the UK, nor did I categorically state what I was saying which retrospectivly left me open to your comment.

The fact is there were serious offenses committed in a calculated manner by this man and he has admitted guilt.
I would question most people's knowledge of ephebophilia and it's nuanced differences in comparison to pedophilia.

I think that if you're honest you would have to admit that your assessment of my knowledge of this case is in a small part reductive and in a large part condescending, have you yourself got a scholarly knowledge of underage sex or are you in fact simply googling things and quoting Wikipedia?
People in glass houses etc...

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

I don't have to put any effort into that. You're doing a good enough job of that yourself.

Care to elaborate?

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Not knowing what the word paedophile means. Then the highlight being that armaghlad using the wiki definition of paedophile somehow implied that sex with 12 year olds was "normal and acceptable". Bizarre logic that is.

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

Not knowing what the word paedophile means. Then the highlight being that armaghlad using the wiki definition of paedophile somehow implied that sex with 12 year olds was "normal and acceptable". Bizarre logic that is.

I think you're reaching with that statement and you know it.
Could you answer the following? Do you agree that Adam Johnson knowingly committed a crime by grooming and engaging in sexual activity with an underage girl? And do you feel his actions were immoral?

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

I think you're reaching with that statement and you know it.
Could you answer the following? Do you agree that Adam Johnson knowingly committed a crime by grooming and engaging in sexual activity with an underage girl? And do you feel his actions were immoral?

I'm not reaching with any statement.

I've no idea if Johnson knowingly committed those crimes. I don't know if he knew the laws or not. He doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box so it's difficult to say.


I think his actions were definitely immoral.

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

I'm not reaching with any statement.

I've no idea if Johnson knowingly committed those crimes. I don't know if he knew the laws or not. He doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box so it's difficult to say.


I think his actions were definitely immoral.

He did an Internet search to find out the age of consent so he knew damn well he was breaking the law.

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

He did an Internet search to find out the age of consent so he knew damn well he was breaking the law.

From what I've read he did the search after they met.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/adam-johnson-googled-age-consent-7360875

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

From what I've read he did the search after they met.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/adam-johnson-googled-age-consent-7360875

Were there not two meetings in which sexual activities took place? My understanding was he searched after one of these meetings, which I understood was the first meeting.

artanevilla

artanevilla wrote: »

Some of the comments on this thread are very disturbing.

Bigtime.

armaghlad

nullzero wrote: »

I spoke about the age of consent in Ireland, I didn't make reference to 17 being the age of consent in the UK, nor did I categorically state what I was saying which retrospectivly left me open to your comment.

The fact is there were serious offenses committed in a calculated manner by this man and he has admitted guilt.
I would question most people's knowledge of ephebophilia and it's nuanced differences in comparison to pedophilia.

I think that if you're honest you would have to admit that your assessment of my knowledge of this case is in a small part reductive and in a large part condescending, have you yourself got a scholarly knowledge of underage sex or are you in fact simply googling things and quoting Wikipedia?
People in glass houses etc...

Well the thread does concern a case in England so forgive my assumption on the age of consent point.

I would agree on your point re differences regarding terminology; my comment was simply to say that the other poster was technically correct in questioning your use of the term paedophile.

I don't mean to be condescending; I do however have a passing interest in the case as someone I know was involved with Sunderland at the time so I've been keeping an eye on proceedings.

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

Were there not two meetings in which sexual activities took place? My understanding was he searched after one of these meetings, which I understood was the first meeting.

There were two meetings. One on January 17th and one on January 31st. From what I've read there weren't any meetings after those two. It seems the meeting on the 31st is when the alleged sexual activity beyond kissing took place.

The court was told that the pair met again in his car on January 31.
Ms Blackwell told the jury: "What happened in the car that evening is for you to decide . The Crown's case is that sexual activity took place.
"That the defendant and the girl kissed with tongues for some time during which the defendant unbuttoned her jeans and undid the zip. The defendant then inserted his fingers into her vagina."
The court was told they then moved to a more secluded area where she briefly performed oral sex on him.
After the encounter Johnson began messaging her again, while she was at a pantomime, telling her: "It was class, just wanted to get your jeans off."
She replied: "Next time, deffo."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12153477/Adam-Johnson-due-in-court-for-start-of-child-sex-trial.html

People like Johnson are sick as **** tbh.

Whatever about any sexual stuff that he hasn't been found guilty of, the grooming of a young girl is vile.

****ing sick

Oranage2

RoboKlopp wrote: »

People like Johnson are sick as **** tbh.

Whatever about any sexual stuff that he hasn't been found guilty of, the grooming of a young girl is vile.

****ing sick

It's an illness no?

The way Johnson talks and writes is very childish and reminds me a bit like Michael Jackson, similar johnson would have had his youth taken away from him by dedicating his life to soccer, he probably didn't see much wrong by 'chasing' this young woman.

Saying all that Adam Johnson did commit a crime and will have to face the music but hopefully he can get the help he needs too.

Bobby Baccala

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's an illness no?

The way Johnson talks and writes is very childish and reminds me a bit like Michael Jackson, similar johnson would have had his youth taken away from him by dedicating his life to soccer, he probably didn't see much wrong by 'chasing' this young woman.

Saying all that Adam Johnson did commit a crime and will have to face the music but hopefully he can get the help he needs too.

children know the difference between right and wrong so I don't buy that excuse at all

Oranage2

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

children know the difference between right and wrong so I don't buy that excuse at all

Right or wrong is very subjective, being homosexual 20 years ago was wrong, smoking weed is wrong, things that are wrong aren't always bad. Kissing a 15 year old girl is wrong but not evil or crime of the century, it's a crime sure but in my opinion it's not the balls cutting off crime some people here are making it out to be.

Demosthenese

Oranage2 wrote: »

Right or wrong is very subjective, being homosexual 20 years ago was wrong, smoking weed is wrong, things that are wrong aren't always bad. Kissing a 15 year old girl is wrong but not evil or crime of the century, it's a crime sure but in my opinion it's not the balls cutting off crime some people here are making it out to be.

Using your fame and success to groom a person which you would be 100% sure that you should NOT be entering into any sort of sexual relationship is not just wrong - it is a bloody disgrace.

He did more than kiss the girl - stop making excuses for him. Illness ... sweet jesus.

nullzero

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.