Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Kimbot

The replies in this thread are shocking, if it was any of their 14/15 year old daughters I bet people wouldn't be happy about it and calling him allsorts.

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

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.

Giving an opinion on a case when you don't know the details of a case seems quite odd as well.

jonny24ie wrote: »

The replies in this thread are shocking, if it was any of their 14/15 year old daughters I bet people wouldn't be happy about it and calling him allsorts.

That's probably why the victims and their families aren't the ones who decide innocence/guilt of the accused or get to decide their punishment. That's why we have impartial juries and impartial judges. They look at the facts of the case and decide what should happen. A much better situation than trial by tabloids.

Corholio

Augme wrote: »

Giving an opinion on a case when you don't know the details of a case seems quite odd as well.

To be honest, if the case stopped right now and it was just the actual details, which have come out, up to now that were taken into account it would still look pretty bad on Johnson. A lot of details has already come out in evidence.

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

Giving an opinion on a case when you don't know the details of a case seems quite odd as well.





That's probably why the victims and their families aren't the ones who decide innocence/guilt of the accused or get to decide their punishment. That's why we have impartial juries and impartial judges. They look at the facts of the case and decide what should happen. A much better situation than trial by tabloids.

Being honest most of what you have said has been odd, actually it could more accurately be described as worrying.

armaghlad

Johnson giving evidence today. Had a quick look at tweets from the case. He is playing dumb regarding googling age of consent, claims it is totally unrelated to the schoolgirl and that it was part of a conversation had in the SAFC changing room.

He claims he sent explicit texts to other girls in their 20 (I hope to god his gf finally comes to her senses)

He denies engaging in two sexual offences with the girl but admits kissing with tongue. Says he was unaware it was an offence to communicate beforehand.

Also it turns out AJ has 4 GCSEs... so he clearly isn't the brightest.

@JoshHalliday

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

Being honest most of what you have said has been odd, actually it could more accurately be described as worrying.

Worrying that I know the details of the case and thus can comment on the case? Or worrying that I don't know the details of the case but still haven't called him a "paedophile" who is " a predatory one at that, as this wasn't some opportunistic once off event."?

Augme

Corholio wrote: »

To be honest, if the case stopped right now and it was just the actual details, which have come out, up to now that were taken into account it would still look pretty bad on Johnson. A lot of details has already come out in evidence.

It depends on what your definition of pretty bad is. I don't think pretty bad = multiple years in prison, predatory "paedophile" who is highly likely to reoffend or leave the country with the sole purpose of acting out his "paedophile" desires.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

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.

So...are you saying those who do not view him as a paedophile are possibly paedos themselves?

That's a bit silly. I don't think he's a paedo simply because generally that refers to a desire for sexual actvity with pre-pubescent children. That's not endorsing his behaviour, it's simply accuracy in language...

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

Worrying that I know the details of the case and thus can comment on the case? Or worrying that I don't know the details of the case but still haven't called him a "paedophile" who is " a predatory one at that, as this wasn't some opportunistic once off event."?

It's worrying that you think he isn't likely to ever offend again given his behavior which you feel isn't that bad, especially seeing the girl contacted him first, which is according to you a mitigating factor.

armaghlad

Augme wrote: »

It depends on what your definition of pretty bad is. I don't think pretty bad = multiple years in prison, predatory "paedophile" who is highly likely to reoffend or leave the country with the sole purpose of acting out his "paedophile" desires.

My take on him is as follows.

The guy is a creep first and foremost. And a cheating b*stard. He has a clear criminal record and no other accusations or complaints have ever been made against him. He obviously has low morals given he was sending explicit texts to other girls and given his status of a footballer had an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

Is he a predatory paedophile? No. If he was, and if there was any suspicion of such, I suspect from the off he'd have had strict bail conditions imposed meaning no contact with his child.

Is the guy a pervert? Yes. Wanting to kiss a girl who isn't long turned 15 is creepy. I know girls can look a lot older than what they really are, that still doesn't hide the fact that it is pervy to want to do so.

Does he deserve jail? That depends on whether he is found guilty on all charges. If he is, then yes, a custodial sentence would be appropriate in my view. If he is just guilty of the grooming/kissing; I suspect he will avoid jail time. He has a good lawyer so he may well escape being locked up. Already there are inconsistencies with the girls' evidence.

jaykay74

armaghlad wrote: »

He is playing dumb regarding googling age of consent, claims it is totally unrelated to the schoolgirl and that it was part of a conversation had in the SAFC changing room.

Thats a bit of a stretch credibility wise surely!

TheNap

Wouldnt say the Sunderland players are happy with his statements in court today

armaghlad

jaykay74 wrote: »

Thats a bit of a stretch credibility wise surely!

I don't know. I'm sure whoever he had the conversation with could testify in his favour?

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

It's worrying that you think he isn't likely to ever offend again given his behavior which you feel isn't that bad, especially seeing the girl contacted him first, which is according to you a mitigating factor.

It's a mitigating factor in deciding if he's a predator. Most predators go after their victims. Secondly if he is a predator I'd have expected the police to have found additional evidence on his phone or even at this stage for more victims to have come forward. From what I've read it looks like this was just an opportunistic crime from someone who isn't very bright.

Augme

armaghlad wrote: »

My take on him is as follows.

The guy is a creep first and foremost. And a cheating b*stard. He has a clear criminal record and no other accusations or complaints have ever been made against him. He obviously has low morals given he was sending explicit texts to other girls and given his status of a footballer had an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

Is he a predatory paedophile? No. If he was, and if there was any suspicion of such, I suspect from the off he'd have had strict bail conditions imposed meaning no contact with his child.

Is the guy a pervert? Yes. Wanting to kiss a girl who isn't long turned 15 is creepy. I know girls can look a lot older than what they really are, that still doesn't hide the fact that it is pervy to want to do so.

Does he deserve jail? That depends on whether he is found guilty on all charges. If he is, then yes, a custodial sentence would be appropriate in my view. If he is just guilty of the grooming/kissing; I suspect he will avoid jail time. He has a good lawyer so he may well escape being locked up. Already there are inconsistencies with the girls' evidence.

Very similar to my take on the situation as well.

Dots1982

Most newspaper reports on court cases that arent yet concluded will say what is the likely sentence if the defendant is found guilty, haven't seen anything like this on this case.

jaykay74

armaghlad wrote: »

Already there are inconsistencies with the girls' evidence.

I missed that bit. Can you enlighten me

armaghlad

jaykay74 wrote: »

I missed that bit. Can you enlighten me

Something to do with clothing. She said he struggled to get her jeans off during one of the alleged meetings; yet her friend who was with her before the meeting said in giving evidence that she was wearing leggings at the time.

Corholio

Augme wrote: »

It depends on what your definition of pretty bad is. I don't think pretty bad = multiple years in prison, predatory "paedophile" who is highly likely to reoffend or leave the country with the sole purpose of acting out his "paedophile" desires.

Hmm....I never said pretty bad was anything like that. What's pretty bad is that he engaged in these activities with an underage girl, of which he was fully aware of. I don't think he's a predatory paedophile who would constantly reoffend but not saying it's the worst thing doesn't make take away from his actions of which he had time to consider as well. It's not one of those ' I didn't know her age' things that I am sure has happened to footballers.

Corholio

armaghlad wrote: »

Something to do with clothing. She said he struggled to get her jeans off during one of the alleged meetings; yet her friend who was with her before the meeting said in giving evidence that she was wearing leggings at the time.

Was it not him who sent her a text about her jeans? Something like 'Just wanted to get your jeans off' or something like that.

Darkglasses

armaghlad wrote: »

Something to do with clothing. She said he struggled to get her jeans off during one of the alleged meetings; yet her friend who was with her before the meeting said in giving evidence that she was wearing leggings at the time.

Sounds a lot more likely that the friend is incorrect surely both the victim and Adam Johnson himself have made reference to jeans. Why do you consider the friend's testimony more trustworthy, despite her having lesser reasons to remember the day in question?

Kimbot

Or they are those jeggings things she was wearing :P

cowboyBuilder

So he just kissed her ?

I know he shouldn't have but jail time seems a bit severe if this is the case, I thought he actually had slept with her.

Dots1982

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

So he just kissed her ?

I know he shouldn't have but jail time seems a bit severe if this is the case, I thought he actually had slept with her.

That what he maintains.

He also maintains that looking up the age of consent on the internet was unrelated to his involvement with her and if you believe that you'll believe anything.

armaghlad

Darkglasses wrote: »

Sounds a lot more likely that the friend is incorrect surely both the victim and Adam Johnson himself have made reference to jeans. Why do you consider the friend's testimony more trustworthy, despite her having lesser reasons to remember the day in question?

I don't, but things like this can create doubt. I'm inclined to believe the victim ahead of AJ; but even the slightest inconsistency will be used by the defence.

Guy:Incognito

How long is the trial supposed to last and what sort of delay will there be till sentencing?

cowboyBuilder

Dots1982 wrote: »

That what he maintains.

He also maintains that looking up the age of consent on the internet was unrelated to his involvement with her and if you believe that you'll believe anything.

Yes for sure his motives were wrong and maybe he did plan so - but if he only kissed her that's all he can be punished for - plus the grooming.

But I wonder does this merit a prison sentence ? and if so how long ?

~Rebel~

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Yes for sure his motives were wrong and maybe he did plan so - but if he only kissed her that's all he can be punished for - plus the grooming.

But I wonder does this merit a prison sentence ? and if so how long ?

The grooming will warrant greater punishment than the kissing. But those are just the things he's admitted guilt to (no choice with the text evidence making both iron clad), he's still up on 2 counts of sexual activity. If he's found guilty on those, he'll very likely get jail time, particularly given her description of them.

If he's found not-guilty of those extra 2, could see him getting a suspended sentence alright.

Kimbot

A jail sentance can be had for just the grooming:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming#In_the_UK

ahnowbrowncow

It'll be harsh if he gets any jail time seeing going by cases such as this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3260279/Babysitter-sex-11-year-old-escapes-jail.html

21 year old babysitter has sex with an 11 year old boy and receives a suspended sentence. Plenty of other classes were teachers sleep with their students and don't spend anytime in jail.

Kimbot

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

It'll be harsh if he gets any jail time seeing going by cases such as this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3260279/Babysitter-sex-11-year-old-escapes-jail.html

21 year old babysitter has sex with an 11 year old boy and receives a suspended sentence. Plenty of other classes were teachers sleep with their students and don't spend anytime in jail.

That was a girl that done it and a very immature girl that has issues if I remember rightly.

Johnson is more high profile, has money etc. I cant believe people are defending the guy, he admitted to grooming a child hes guilty so if he gets jail time then its well deserved.

bucketybuck

jonny24ie wrote: »

I cant believe people are defending the guy

This constant strawman is getting very boring to keep reading. Nobody is defending Adam Johnson.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

It'll be harsh if he gets any jail time seeing going by cases such as this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3260279/Babysitter-sex-11-year-old-escapes-jail.html

21 year old babysitter has sex with an 11 year old boy and receives a suspended sentence. Plenty of other classes were teachers sleep with their students and don't spend anytime in jail.

That's when the offender's been female. And even then, escaping jail time is rare.

ahnowbrowncow

jonny24ie wrote: »

That was a girl that done it and a very immature girl that has issues if I remember rightly.

Johnson is more high profile, has money etc. I cant believe people are defending the guy, he admitted to grooming a child hes guilty so if he gets jail time then its well deserved.

Who's defending him? I just stated there is a precedent with a far worse crime, literally a paedophile, receiving a suspended sentence. You're the one who is actually defending a woman having sex with an 11 year old boy.

Kimbot

bucketybuck wrote: »

This constant strawman is getting very boring to keep reading. Nobody is defending Adam Johnson.

Buckety, I have seen plenty of people defending his actions on the internet etc so there are people that are defending him.

bucketybuck

jonny24ie wrote: »

Buckety, I have seen plenty of people defending his actions on the internet etc so there are people that are defending him.

You can find anything you want on the internet, but who in this thread is defending him?

Kimbot

bucketybuck wrote: »

You can find anything you want on the internet, but who in this thread is defending him?

I didnt say anyone in this thread is, im saying there are people that are defending the guys actions.

Leroy42

Johnson said in court today that he told Sunderland everything after he was arrested and that after initially suspending him they asked him to come back playing. He said he told of the kiss.

Doesn't sound like Sunderland have acted particularly morally in this after all.

CSF

bucketybuck wrote: »

This constant strawman is getting very boring to keep reading. Nobody is defending Adam Johnson.

I don't think that's true. Saying that what he did isn't that bad is defending him.

niallo27

CSF wrote: »

I don't think that's true. Saying that what he did isn't that bad is defending him.

I don't agree. Not being as horrified as some other people over what happened is not defending someone.

armaghlad

Some of the faux outrage is actually an insult to the victims of "true" predatory paedophiles.

Yes there is clearly no defending him and not for one second to I condone his behaviour; but I can't help think of a case in the north here that wasn't solved that's quite prominent in the news at the minute. The girl last seen with a convicted child killer from Co Laois (now dead) was the same age as AJ victim. She went to Bundoran one night and never came back.

AJ is not in that same category but you'd think he was going by some ott on here and on social media.

Moist Bread

Moneymaker

Hmmm.

Darkglasses

Jury was told today the defence case is likely to end tomorrow, and that they will be considering their verdicts next week.

StringerBell

Sunderland not going to be able to hold any morale high ground in this it seems.

Leroy42

Based on Johnston evidence Sunderland have some questions to answer in all this.

It is clear that they knew the details and decided to hide behind the 'innocent until proven guilty' line in order to not lose a player.

They will argue they are technically correct, but what sort of example does that set.

And the CEO is a woman. We always hear that we need more women in power to ensure things are different and (although you can't generalise) this doesn't exactly help that cause.

And this was one of their own supporters!

StringerBell

Can't imagine it will go down well with the locals anyway

LuckyLloyd

https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/opinion/2016/7/on-the-sad-inevitability-of-the-grown-man-and-the-teenage-girl

A female perspective

rob316

The girlfriend now ex. confirmed their relationship is over, the girl does have some standards after all.

What a fool, threw a good looking woman, family life and football career away to indulge some fantasy with a teenage girl.

Jelle1880

rob316 wrote: »

The girlfriend now ex. confirmed their relationship is over, the girl does have some standards after all.

What a fool, threw a good looking woman, family life and football career away to indulge some fantasy with a teenage girl.

Have to question her standards after reading that she said they'll still be friends though.