Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Flint Fredstone

tim_holsters wrote: »

Why did you only stop at 2 much's mate. If I'd said 3 or 4 you probably would've used a couple more yeah?

Okaaaaaaaay..... This is odd.

batistuta9

Paully D wrote: »

Those WhatsApp messages are disgusting. Based on what came out in court today, hopefully he will have the book thrown at him.

How was this going down in the dressing room/club or even with the fans in the city do you know.

I don't mean this week now obviously but since the allegations first came up

StringerBell

If Sunderland were aware of the details then playing him is a disgrace, honour his contract while the legalities get sorted, fine, but don't select the ******* for squads allow him to represent you any more not to mention pay him performance bonuses. I really hope he was lying to them too.

Paully D

Sunderland get more than enough wrong but the constant "Sunderland should have done X, Y, Z" in every 2nd post is getting very old now.

They suspended him when he was first arrested and lifted the suspension when he was bailed while the legal process continued:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/adam-johnson-returns-to-sunderland-training-as-club-lift-his-suspension-following-arrest-for-10117339.html

A club statement said: "The club has discussed the current position in detail with both the PFA [Professional Footballers' Association] and Adam's representatives.

"In line with those discussions we recognise that the player is entitled to re-commence his duties with the club while the legal process continues. He will therefore return to training.

"The club's own investigation cannot continue until the conclusion of the legal process. Sunderland AFC will make no further comment on the matter due to the ongoing police investigation."

He then had his contract terminated hours after he pleaded guilty.

The club are not psychic and I think it's only fair that they get the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the constant hypotheticals. I read from a north-east journalist that Sunderland were shocked at the guilty plea as indications had pointed to the opposite.

Don't forget that Sunderland's Chief Executive is a lawyer who has worked as a Legal Director in the past. They wouldn't have been short of getting the correct legal advise on how to handle the situation.

monkey9

Yeah I'm not sure Sunderland have done much wrong here to be honest. They are his employer and have dealt with it accordingly.

The main issue here is Johnson himself and not Sunderland.

NIMAN

From what I read today in the news reports, if he doesn't get major jail time for this it will be an absolute disgrace.

niallo27

NIMAN wrote: »

From what I read today in the news reports, if he doesn't get major jail time for this it will be an absolute disgrace.

What would consider major jail time.

tim_holsters

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Okaaaaaaaay..... This is odd.

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.

Yep, a kid is a kid. He took advantage of her. Those texts are creepy as ****.

The guy is a sick man.

Flint Fredstone

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.

And all I was saying is that it would have been far worse if it was a 5 or 6 year old.

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.