Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

StringerBell

Augme wrote: »

Or else they'll find the truth where he gets off or gets a vastly reduced sentence.

The truth where he has already admitted to grooming and kissing a child?

Canadel

StringerBell wrote: »

The truth where he has already admitted to grooming and kissing a child?

Wasn't she only a few months, a year at most, below the age of consent at the time of the offence? Seems lot of people are making a huge jump in terms of the gravity of the accusations they are labelling against Johnson compared to what actually happened. If the girl is a year older what he did is legally fine, though probably still morally reprehensible depending on your own moral standpoint.

StringerBell

Canadel wrote: »

Wasn't she only a few months, a year at most, below the age of consent at the time of the offence? Seems lot of people are making a huge jump in terms of the gravity of the accusations they are labelling against Johnson compared to what actually happened. If the girl is a year older what he did is legally fine, though probably still morally reprehensible depending on your own moral standpoint.

I'm not going back over the details that someone with a passing interest would already know at this point tbh

The fact that his behaviour is still being excused to a large degree by some people on here is still as disgusting as it was the day he plead guilty to grooming and more with a girl a little under half his age, and a little over 15th birthday.

Canadel

StringerBell wrote: »

I'm not going back over the details that someone with a passing interest would already know at this point tbh

The fact that his behaviour is still being excused to a large degree by some people on here is still as disgusting as it was the day he plead guilty to grooming and more with a girl a little under half his age, and a little over 15th birthday.

Fair enough. I'm not excusing his behaviour. I'm just questioning whether he deserves some of the overly harsh criticism he has been receiving. From what I've read of the case, I don't think he's a dangerous sexual predator or rapist. He is an absolute and total idiot, and he did take advantage of someone below the age of consent, though probably the same mental age as him. Then again, maybe he's an extremely clever guy who carefully manipulated this girl to his own sexual advantage. What is clear though is that she was a year below the age of consent. Not two or three or more years. So I think people need to show some perspective too.

Corholio

Canadel wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm not excusing his behaviour. I'm just questioning whether he deserves some of the overly harsh criticism he has been receiving. From what I've read of the case, I don't think he's a dangerous sexual predator or rapist. He is an absolute and total idiot, and he did take advantage of someone below the age of consent, though probably the same mental age as him. Then again, maybe he's an extremely clever guy who carefully manipulated this girl to his own sexual advantage. What is clear though is that she was a year below the age of consent. Not two or three or more years. So I think people need to show some perspective too.

When they first got in touch, she was closer to 14 then she was to 16. I understand the pettiness of 'months' but it works both ways.

Canadel

Corholio wrote: »

When they first got in touch, she was closer to 14 then she was to 16. I understand the pettiness of 'months' but it works both ways.

Ok yeah that's bad. Though by 'got in touch' do you mean non-physical sexual contact? I still think he's more of an idiot than anything else. But obviously idiots can be dangerous too and this girl was most likely taken advantage of in an extreme way.

~Rebel~

Canadel wrote: »

Ok yeah that's bad. Though by 'got in touch' do you mean non-physical sexual contact? I still think he's more of an idiot than anything else. But obviously idiots can be dangerous too and this girl was most likely taken advantage of in an extreme way.

Honestly, i'd say just go read the actual details of the case, the text messages, and her further testimony and see if you still think it's not so bad. most of it is either directly in this thread over the last few pages, or linked.

Ashbourne hoop

Canadel wrote: »

Wasn't she only a few months, a year at most, below the age of consent at the time of the offence? Seems lot of people are making a huge jump in terms of the gravity of the accusations they are labelling against Johnson compared to what actually happened. If the girl is a year older what he did is legally fine, though probably still morally reprehensible depending on your own moral standpoint.

This nonsense again ??? There is an age of consent for a reason, and this girl wasn't it, and Johnson knew this. That's really all that matters.

Canadel

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

This nonsense again ??? There is an age of consent for a reason, and this girl wasn't it, and Johnson knew this.

Yep, you're right. That wasn't my point though.

That's really all that matters.

It's not necessarily all that matters.

Augme

StringerBell wrote: »

The truth where he has already admitted to grooming and kissing a child?

I was referring to the two outstanding charges.

Lovely Bloke

more apologists for the nonce!

In relation to the defence lawyers being sharks. Nope, the ones who are good at their job are the ones we need more of.

Of course they should question everything, and of course they should try to discredit the prosecution evidence and poke holes in it.

If the evidence is solid then it stands up. If the evidence is not solid then nobody should be convicted on the strength of it.

It doesn't matter if it's an admitted nonce on trial or a fella who didn't pay his TV licence. Defence lawyers, especially the rabid ones, are a necessary facet of natural justice.

Irishcrx

He's a scumbag and what he done was deplorable. Maybe the girl was a few month's off the age of consent but it's his intent that matters.

Fact is she was 15 , he was more than aware of that , he knew what he was doing , he preyed on her and used his position as a football to groom her...all this while his wife is giving birth to his child.

' I wanted to get your jeans off so bad , I wouldn't last 10 seconds with you'

Sexual preditor, lock him up and add him to the register.

Imagine what his daughter will think when she gets to 15 and reads about what he was at while her mother was giving birth to her , poor girl...and why his wife is standing by him is beyond me.

armaghlad

Is the law black and white in these cases? If she was a week off her 16th birthday would the criticism be the same? Would she be any more "mature" at that age? FWIW I think Adam Johnson completely abused his status as a footballer and not only is he a cheating b*stard he has also ruined this girl's life.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

more apologists for the nonce!

Oh goody, here's a well-balaned unemotional considered post....

In relation to the defence lawyers being sharks. Nope, the ones who are good at their job are the ones we need more of.

Of course they should question everything, and of course they should try to discredit the prosecution evidence and poke holes in it.

If the evidence is solid then it stands up. If the evidence is not solid then nobody should be convicted on the strength of it.

It doesn't matter if it's an admitted nonce on trial or a fella who didn't pay his TV licence. Defence lawyers, especially the rabid ones, are a necessary facet of natural justice.

Defense lawyers try to get people off, regadless of whether said person committed the crime or not.

Ashbourne hoop

Canadel wrote: »

Yep, you're right. That wasn't my point though.

It's not necessarily all that matters.

It really is. He was well aware of her age and is said to have googled age of consent. He should really serve jail time, even if he is found not guilty to the offences he hasn't already pleaded guilty to.

Chancer3001

No he shouldn't.

Not if he's innocent of the other two charges.

Kissing a 15 year old shouldn't warrant jail time.

Punishment yes, counselling also, or some kind of education , community service, but not jail.

Ashbourne hoop

Chancer3001 wrote: »

No he shouldn't.

Not if he's innocent of the other two charges.

Kissing a 15 year old shouldn't warrant jail time.

Punishment yes, counselling also, or some kind of education , community service, but not jail.

And pleading guilty to grooming a minor?

Iang87

Its the grooming I find worse than anything else. Maybe I'm wrong but randomly kissing a 15 year old in a moment of weakness can be understood to some but to actively seek out one is worrying

Darkglasses

I really don't understand how you can read the texts and the way he pursued her and not think he deserves a custodial sentence. And if you haven't read the details, you really, really need to before judging the situation.

armaghlad

Darkglasses wrote: »

I really don't understand how you can read the texts and the way he pursued her and not think he deserves a custodial sentence. And if you haven't read the details, you really, really need to before judging the situation.

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?

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.