Adam Johnson joking about raping his victim

PREG1967

is this just 'prison locker room talk' or evidence that you cant cure a sex offender?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3382364/rape-charities-slam-adam-johnson/

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I don't know. What do you think?

PREG1967

Bruce Obedient Kiwi wrote: »

I don't know. What do you think?

i think he may he felt he had to speak like that given the company he was in, probably not safe to be openly contrite, then you could be victimized?

tupenny

Bit of both I think.
Being "1 of the lads", but if truly remorseful I'm not sure he'd say what he said.
Chaps a knob, can't stand him- but media calling him a paedo is harsh Imo

posturingpat

PREG1967 wrote: »

is this just 'prison locker room talk' or evidence that you cant cure a sex offender?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3382364/rape-charities-slam-adam-johnson/

I'd be siding on the prison talk side, he's saying he might as well have shagged her for the sentence he got. I'd agree with him on the Ched Evans case too, the more i looked at that case the more i couldn't understand how he was ever found guilty.

arayess

it was secretly recorded so his language wasn't precise or guarded.

he was referring to the fact he might as well have raped her cos he got 6 years. he was talking in terms of sentence if you take the context of the whole recording and not just an isolated sentence.

I see his point that people have gotten less than 6 years for rape while he got more for dropping his hand.

no I'm not condoning it at all . It was a very bad thing to do.

It was either a stiff sentence or other rape sentences are light. Either way he did a lot worse in terms of sentence than others in his situation might have done.

PREG1967

arayess wrote: »

it was secretly recorded so his language wasn't precise or guarded.

he was referring to the fact he might as well have raped her cos he got 6 years. he was talking in terms of sentence if you take the context of the whole recording and not just an isolated sentence.

I see his point that people have gotten less that 6 years for rape while he got more for dropping his hand.


*no I'm not condoning it at all . It was a vert bad thing to do.

It was either a stiff sentence or other rape sentences are light. Either way he did a lot worse in terms of sentence than others in his situation might have done.

did he 'drop the hand' though, he said he just kissed her

PREG1967

Bruce Obedient Kiwi wrote: »

I don't know. What do you think?

you have no opinion?

arayess

PREG1967 wrote: »

did he 'drop the hand' though, he said he just kissed her

he was convicted of that.pleaded guilty to kissing but was convicted of more

knocked yourself out

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/24/adam-johnson-should-be-jailed-for-up-to-10-years-court-told

Johnson, who has been stripped of his 12 England caps, admitted kissing and grooming the besotted fan on the first day of his trial and was later found guilty of a more serious child sexual assault.

One eyed Jack

He's a fcuking idiot. Full conversation here -

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3377212/adam-johnson-caught-bragging-to-prison-inmates-about-schoolgirl-he-sexually-abused-in-shocking-secret-video/

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

A few hours ago, we had a great laugh about gay baboons raping 5 men. Now I've got to pretend to be all outraged and offended again.

Where did I put my pussy hat?

Mint Sauce

Not saying he did or didn't, but The S*n is a far from reliable source. Would not even waste my download opening or reading it.

PREG1967

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Not saying he did or didn't, but The S*n is a far from reliable source. Would not even waste my download opening or reading it.

way to miss the point

Allinall

Something something Garlic Man.

Murrisk

Can't wait for this thread to spool back to discussing the case and the first mention of "she knew what she was doing". :rolleyes:

PREG1967

Murrisk wrote: »

Can't wait for this thread to spool back to discussing the case and the first mention of "she knew what she was doing". :rolleyes:

what are you suggesting?

anewme

Stupidity and arrogance. The chap has both characteristics in spades and it's a lethal combination. He believed his own hype. All of his problems are of his own making. He's too brain dead to even see it. He'll be bleating on now how he was tricked into the conversation and play the victim. Don't see how anyone can feel sorry for him at all. He'll be well to do that for himself.

Winterlong

He is a vile human and nothing he says can surprise me to be honest.

They say "Paedo Johnson" in the article.

A paedophile is someone who targets kids under-12, ie prepubescent.
Lazy journalism.

There's a term for post-pubescent but I can't be bothered searching... It's definitely something people aren't familiar with from memory.

I have to agree it was a harsh sentence in the scheme of things, age of consent is 15 and below in many countries.
Fellas with 55 convictions for assault, burglary, theft, robbery would hardly get 6 years for that many offences which aren't variable by region like age of consent.
He got a sentence equal to what others have got for manslaughter.

pickarooney

He's in jail for six years. Do we really have to pretend to be revolted by something he said?

WHIP IT!

gilberto_eire wrote: »

They say "Paedo Johnson" in the article.

A paedophile is someone who targets kids under-12, ie prepubescent.
Lazy journalism.

There's a term for post-pubescent but I can't be bothered searching... It's definitely something people aren't familiar with from memory.

I have to agree it was a harsh sentence in the scheme of things, age of consent is 15 and below in many countries.
Fellas with 55 convictions for assault, burglary, theft, robbery would hardly get 6 years for that many offences which aren't variable by region like age of consent.
He got a sentence equal to what others have got for manslaughter.

:eek:

You don't have teenage kids, do you?

Mint Sauce

PREG1967 wrote: »

way to miss the point

I do get the point, but would be interesting to see other news outlets version of events, as I simply have no interest in reading anything they print.

Outlaw Pete

I thought he came across quite well in the full clip tbh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2VZ2xgFqJI

Didn't get the impression there that he was out to impress anyone really, which he could perhaps be forgiven for doing considering his predicament. Just seemed an honest conversation where he appeared to be genuinely expressing how he felt about his sentence and I don't blame him as the sentence was a joke. Sadly now he knows that the people in there that he felt he could have a chat with and trust, really were just setting him up as they saw him as way to make cash.

DrPhilG

I have no sympathy for this guy, he's clearly an entitled prick and a perv.

But he has a point about being treated differently because of his position.

He had the book thrown at him because he was a footballer. Many have done far far worse and been given lighter sentences.

Murrisk

PREG1967 wrote: »

what are you suggesting?

Look back on the threads around the trial and conviction - victim-blaming a go-go.

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sadly now he knows that the people in there that he felt he could have a chat with and trust, really were just setting him up as they saw him as way to make cash.

I can't help but be amused at the fact he claims he was stitched up by the justice system, and now he's going to be claiming he was stitched up by a load of cons!

Poor Adam, always the victim, could never catch a break because he was a famous footballer, not at all because he was an arrogant twat who swallowed his own hype in thinking he was smarter than everyone else.

Murrisk

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't help but be amused at the fact he claims he was stitched up by the justice system, and now he's going to be claiming he was stitched up by a load of cons!

Poor Adam, always the victim, could never catch a break because he was a famous footballer, not at all because he was an arrogant twat who swallowed his own hype in thinking he was smarter than everyone else.

Yup, everyone is out to get him. Strange that other rich, famous footballers don't seem to run into the same difficulties.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't help but be amused at the fact he claims he was stitched up by the justice system, and now he's going to be claiming he was stitched up by a load of cons!

Poor Adam, always the victim, could never catch a break because he was a famous footballer, not at all because he was an arrogant twat who swallowed his own hype in thinking he was smarter than everyone else.

You can't help being amused by what you feel he's going to do? You do realise that by that logic.. you're just amusing yourself.

Look, you can sneer and be as sarcastic as you like, but it won't make his sentence any less inconsistent though, nor his incredulity any less warranted.

Beyondgone

He got turned over for what plenty of better placed people do as routine. In fact, they do worse. Yet carry on regardless. He made a dumb move and got crucified for it. Out and out rapists get less severe sentences. The Law. A great bunch of lads.

Murrisk

Ugh, lads.

PREG1967

Beyondgone wrote: »

He got turned over for what plenty of better placed people do as routine. In fact, they do worse. Yet carry on regardless. He made a dumb move and got crucified for it. Out and out rapists get less severe sentences. The Law. A great bunch of lads.

Gary glitter and jimll fix it dj lee travis etc cases did him no favours

Beyondgone

PREG1967 wrote: »

Gary glitter and jimll fix it dj scott etc cases did him no favours

He was an eejit the one time. They were cnuts full time.

CoolHandBandit

Cold day in hell before i watch or read anything The Sun newspaper publishes.

Father Hernandez

Absolutely not condoning what he did in the first place but having watched this video, his words are completely taken out of context seeing as there are several different clips. Yes he makes a joke about it which isn't correct at all but he's saying in jest for the sentence he got.

A lot of what he's saying is right though, there are far worse people having done worse crimes and getting lenient sentences.

He was made an example of because of who he was, whether right or wrong and also admitted that it was only a kiss (again not agreeing) whereas there were rumours he had done more, etc.

It is also the Sun, absolute rag of a paper looking to stitch him up.

Murrisk

Beyondgone wrote: »

He was an eejit the one time. They were cnuts full time.

A court of law decided that he was grooming his victim. Grooming takes time and intent. Does it matter if it was only once? Once could turn in many times if left unchecked.

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You can't help being amused by what you feel he's going to do? You do realise that by that logic.. you're just amusing yourself.

Look, you can sneer and be as sarcastic as you like, but it won't make his sentence any less inconsistent though, nor his incredulity any less warranted.

Pete the only reason he finds anything incredible is because he thinks hes a famous footballer.

Beyondgone

Murrisk wrote: »

A court of law decided that he was grooming his victim. Grooming takes time and intent. Does it matter if it was only once? Once could turn in many times if left unchecked.

And if my Granny had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. As Gino D'Acampo once said.

Jimoslimos

Beyondgone wrote: »

He was an eejit the one time. They were cnuts full time.

I thought at the time the sentence was a tad harsh but looking at the summary of evidence it was a little more calculated than a one-time mistake. He knew full well what he was doing, and even went to the trouble of googling information on age of consent.

That said, although the sentence was fully warranted, I think if it was a rugby player in a similar situation they wouldn't have got as long a stretch for two reasons a) social class and b) lack of media interest in the story.

PREG1967

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I thought at the time the sentence was a tad harsh but looking at the summary of evidence it was a little more calculated than a one-time mistake. He knew full well what he was doing, and even went to the trouble of googling information on age of consent.

That said, although the sentence was fully warranted, I think if it was a rugby player in a similar situation they wouldn't have got as long a stretch for two reasons a) social class and b) lack of media interest in the story.

his ' please delete this convo' text message makes him seem so dim but calculated even if it was just 1+1=2

Murrisk

Beyondgone wrote: »

And if my Granny had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. As Gino D'Acampo once said.

That make no sense, we're not talking hypotheticals with this case. There was evidence, he was convicted based upon it. And as said by another poster said, he was much more calculated than his apologists like to make out.

Beyondgone

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I thought at the time the sentence was a tad harsh but looking at the summary of evidence it was a little more calculated than a one-time mistake. He knew full well what he was doing, and even went to the trouble of googling information on age of consent.

That said, although the sentence was fully warranted, I think if it was a rugby player in a similar situation they wouldn't have got as long a stretch for two reasons a) social class and b) lack of media interest in the story.

Also, people assume rugby players have suffered more than their fair share of traumatic brain injuries...


runs and ducks..

In all fairness, people who commit long-term, horrific assaults, get lesser sentences. So do I think this sentence on a massive fool is fair? No. Not really. I didn't set the sentencing precedence. Being an idiot shouldn't add 4 years to his term. Idiots don't get to choose their status.

Mr.Plough

Interesting video. I disliked him before watching it, but didn't dislike him any more after watching it.

Beyondgone

Mr.Plough wrote: »

Interesting video. I disliked him before watching it, but didn't dislike him any more after watching it.

I dislike him too. But 6 years for what he did? Have a look at what other crims are getting sentenced to. Come back with "this is proportionate". It isn't.

Mr.Plough

Beyondgone wrote: »

I dislike him too. But 6 years for what he did? Have a look at what other crims are getting sentenced to. Come back with "this is proportionate". It isn't.

Yeah was just saying he came off ok in the interview considering the circumstances.

anewme

Mr.Plough wrote: »

Interesting video. I disliked him before watching it, but didn't dislike him any more after watching it.

Sure what more can you expect from a pig, only a grunt.

Pac1Man

Handbags is all. Nothing news.

anewme

Pac1Man wrote: »

Handbags is all. Nothing news.

That seems to be his attitude to whole thing.

He may have made a gross error of judgement by thinking that way.

Outlaw Pete

Ģ

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Pete the only reason he finds anything incredible is because he thinks hes a famous footballer.

Come on, the sentence was a joke, the guy had a clean record and it was him who cut off contact with her. If he is this rich footballer who thought he was above the law and could do what he liked, as you are portraying him to be, then how come a slew of other underage girls haven't come forward also?

I'm not saying what he did should have went unpunished but the punishment far outweighed the crime. He was in his 20's. She was just shy of the age of consent. Perspective ffs.The sentence was wholly inconsistent with sentences handed down to other men who did similar and by the same judge too.

anewme

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ģ

Come on, the sentence was a joke, the guy had a clean record and it was him who cut off contact with her. If he is this rich footballer who thought he was above the law and could do what he liked, as you are portraying him to be, then how come a slew of other underage girls haven't come forward also?

I'm not saying what he did should have went unpunished but the punishment far outweighed the crime. He was in his 20's. She was just shy of the age of consent. Perspective ffs.The sentence was wholly inconsistent with sentences handed down to other men who did similar and by the same judge too.

The guy is a complete sleaze who, by the way is still talking about her "tits" is this video, which you think he generally came across well in.

The only person now who he is damaging, is himself. But he's not clever enough to see that. the kind of weasel who always blames someone else.

Anyone who can't see that this is not going to go well for him, is as deluded as the man himself.

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Come on, the sentence was a joke, the guy had a clean record and it was him who cut off contact with her.

So? That doesn't undo anything. All that says is that he was bored. Also, she was just turned 15. She was nearly a full year off consent and in the teenage years, a lot of mental development will happen in that time.

PREG1967

Murrisk wrote: »

So? That doesn't undo anything. All that says is that he was bored. Also, she was just turned 15. She was nearly a full year off consent and in the teenage years, a lot of mental development will happen in that time.

did he dump her when she turned 16