Adam Johnson joking about raping his victim

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not sliding by anyone, it's just that most people (that followed the case at least) could see from the evidence that it was an absolute nonsense to charge him with that given that charges of grooming usually entail a person having acted in a manner far different to how they would act with someone who was over the age of consent. For example, talking about things only a child would be interested in, things adults generally are not, such as pretending to be able to get tickets for some famous boy band's next concert, crap like that. If anything Johnson treated her like she was much older than she was. I can remember from trial reports that him parking in a dark lane was one of the main things cited as evidence that he groomed her. Give me a break. He was engaged, people knew him to see, of course he was going to meet her covertly ffs.

After he told her things had gone too far she kept pursing him by the way. Went to his home and took photos, then posted them online.

Six years for a fumble with a girl just mere months from the age of consent does not deserve six bloody years in prison. It's grossly inconsistent with sentencing in the UK, particularly for those with clean records. You can base the reasoning for that on the notion that all sentencing should be increased to match Johnson's sentence but that's preposterous and a laughable effort at trying to justify the six year sentence.

Yeah, he knew what he was doing, nobody has ever, to my knowledge, including Johnson himself, ever suggested otherwise.

You're entitled to your opinion Pete.

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not sliding by anyone, it's just that most people (that followed the case at least) could see from the evidence that it was an absolute nonsense to charge him with that given that charges of grooming usually entail a person having acted in a manner far different to how they would act with someone who was over the age of consent. For example, talking about things only a child would be interested in, things adults generally are not, such as pretending to be able to get tickets for some famous boy band's next concert, crap like that. If anything Johnson treated her like she was much older than she was. I can remember from trial reports that him parking in a dark lane was one of the main things cited as evidence that he groomed her. Give me a break. He was engaged, people knew him to see, of course he was going to meet her covertly ffs.

No Pete, that's not what charges of grooming a child entail at all, and certainly not in the jurisdiction that Johnson was charged with the offence -

Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.
[F1(1)
A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
[F2(a)
A has met or communicated with another person (B) on at least two occasions and subsequently—
(i)
A intentionally meets B,
(ii)
A travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world or arranges to meet B in any part of the world, or
(iii)
B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world,
(b)
A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (iii) and in any part of the world, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence,]
(c)
B is under 16, and
(d)
A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.
(2)
In subsection (1)—
(a)
the reference to A having met or communicated with B is a reference to A having met B in any part of the world or having communicated with B by any means from, to or in any part of the world;
(b)
“relevant offence” means—
(i)
an offence under this Part,
(ii)
F3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(iii)
anything done outside England and Wales F4. . . which is not an offence within sub-paragraph (i) F4. . . but would be an offence within sub-paragraph (i) if done in England and Wales.
(3)
F5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

Your example suggests you don't understand all that much about how adults groom children either (I'll give you a hint - they encourage the children's immature perception that they should be treated like, and related to as adults).

After he told her things had gone too far she kept pursing him by the way. Went to his home and took photos, then posted them online.

So what? That doesn't absolve him of his actions. The victim is not on trial, and if Johnson wanted to claim he was the victim of harassment by a child, that would have been a completely different set of circumstances and a different case.

Six years for a fumble with a girl just mere months from the age of consent does not deserve six bloody years in prison. It's grossly inconsistent with sentencing in the UK, particularly for those with clean records. You can base the reasoning for that on the notion that all sentencing should be increased to match Johnson's sentence but that's preposterous and a laughable effort at trying to justify the six year sentence.

It wasn't six years for a fumble with a girl mere months from the age of consent, you're ignoring the more serious additional charge of grooming a child, and the sentencing for both crimes he was found guilty of, were absolutely consistent with sentencing guidelines and given the fact he went to trial instead of admitting his guilt.

Yeah, he knew what he was doing, nobody has ever, to my knowledge, including Johnson himself, ever suggested otherwise.

Except that Johnson, and it seems yourself, refuses to acknowledge the gravity of his actions. Johnson is a terrible example Pete if you're trying to make the point that he was treated unfairly because of anything other than the fact that he committed a criminal offence, and neither he nor anyone else could claim he was ignorant of the possible consequences of his actions, for himself at least, given that he had already looked it up online and would have found the same information I just did.

WHIP IT!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not sliding by anyone, it's just that most people (that followed the case at least) could see from the evidence that it was an absolute nonsense to charge him with that given that charges of grooming usually entail a person having acted in a manner far different to how they would act with someone who was over the age of consent. For example, talking about things only a child would be interested in, things adults generally are not, such as pretending to be able to get tickets for some famous boy band's next concert, crap like that. If anything Johnson treated her like she was much older than she was. I can remember from trial reports that him parking in a dark lane was one of the main things cited as evidence that he groomed her. Give me a break. He was engaged, people knew him to see, of course he was going to meet her covertly ffs.

After he told her things had gone too far she kept pursing him by the way. Went to his home and took photos, then posted them online.

Six years for a fumble with a girl just mere months from the age of consent does not deserve six bloody years in prison. It's grossly inconsistent with sentencing in the UK, particularly for those with clean records. You can base the reasoning for that on the notion that all sentencing should be increased to match Johnson's sentence but that's preposterous and a laughable effort at trying to justify the six year sentence.

Yeah, he knew what he was doing, nobody has ever, to my knowledge, including Johnson himself, ever suggested otherwise.

That is, truthfully, a jaw-droppingly terrifying post... Jesus

anewme

I was just going to say the same. Talk about victim blaming.

Irish Guitarist

Shocking conversation. The last thing you expect to hear in a prison.

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Six years for a fumble with a girl just mere months from the age of consent does not deserve six bloody years in prison.

She was mere months from 14, not 16. Let's be clear about that.

As for the rest of your post: oh... my... god.

GerryDerpy

I think he just an idiot. What he did probably wasn't the worst thing in the world, after all the age of consent differs country to country. But you have to be a right idiot to risk it.

wonderfullife

Candie wrote: »

It's also sliding by most commentators that he was convicted of grooming as well, a serious charge and one that rightly deserves a lengthy sentence. He knew damn well what he was doing was wrong.

I don't think his sentence is too long, I think the usual sentences are too short.

The entire law surrounding age of consent and consent in general needs some sort of overhaul.

I respect there needs to be some sort of arbitrary age of consent to prevent pedophilia and to protect young people but the blanket assumption that a teenager in the UK aged 15 years and 342 days is incapable of informed consent but is suddenly capable of it in a fortnight is logically and philosophically stupid.

All that being said he deserves 6 years for cheating on Stacey Flounders (fiancee) - absolute stunner and mother of his child!

2Mad2BeMad

chap was on 60k a week, he knew he was doing wrong, he got what he deserved.
While yes people who have done worse got less, doesn't mean he should of got less, its just the justice system he should of got more if you ask me.
A 15 year old girl had a crush on him, and he took advantage of it. Hes a sick person, who thought he'd get his rocks of a young teenage girl.

The funny thing is, he could of had any women he wanted but instead he tried for an underage girl.
And threw away 60k a week. More then most make in 2 years.

wonderfullife

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

A 15 year old girl had a crush on him, and he took advantage of it. Hes a sick person, who thought he'd get his rocks of a young teenage girl.

Why are you talking about her like she's a 2 year old? If she was a tiny bit older, say 16 and not 15, would you still think Adam Johnson is a "sick person"? 16 is legal in the UK.

I've a friend in London who met a 16-year-old girl in a nightclub when he was 27. They're married now with kids and super happy.

Is he sick?

Why do you arbitrarily determine that a 15-year-old is less-capable of informed consent and rational decision making than a 16-year-old? Because someone wrote it in a law?

The German model is a far more nuanced piece of legislation and I think we could do with something similar in this country regarding ages-of-consent for sex, alcohol, voting and smoking whilst simultaneously protecting young people who are not in a position to make informed choices.

The voting one is particularly egregious. Nobody is going to convince me that a 17-year-old, even 16-year-old lacks the necessary maturity and intelligence to understand the issue they'd be voting on.

Murrisk

GerryDerpy wrote: »

I think he just an idiot. What he did probably wasn't the worst thing in the world, after all the age of consent differs country to country. But you have to be a right idiot to risk it.

Personally, I think the age of consent is way too young in some countries. People bringing up "But... but the age of consent in this country is 13!"; it's a meaningless point. Did anyone ever stop and think "That age of consent be fucked up!". Also, AFAIK, in some of the low-age-of-consent countries, teenagers are still only legally allowed to have sex with people very close in age to them. I have less of a problem with this.

Outlaw Pete

Candie wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion Pete.

Even if it's "terrifying"? :P

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No Pete, that's not what charges of grooming a child entail at all, and certainly not in the jurisdiction that Johnson was charged with the offence

Not now they're not... no... which is my point.

Used to be that the charge of grooming was reserved for very specific behaviors. The charge was introduced because the authorities were routinely finding themselves powerless to prosecute individuals that were guilty of insidious levels of what we now call grooming, such as isolating young kids, feeding them a pack of lies (like lying online about their age etc) in an effort to get them to engage in sexual acts either online or in person. Often they would have evidence of the above but where no sexual interaction had yet taken place, no charges could be brought. Generally there was also invariably an element of deception and dishonesty involved. Effectively the brainwashing of children.

Now that has all changed and the charge of grooming has become so diluted that it's seems standard practice for it to be tagged onto almost all cases were a person has had a sexual interaction with someone who has not yet reached the age of consent. It's perhaps a conversation for another thread but I just think there is a world of difference between the sinister deceptive grooming cited above and the things which Johnson did. Both he and the girl discussed between them that she was underage, why it was that they should meet where they did and also why she should delete their conversations. That she was underage and he could get in trouble was out in the open between the two and as also came out during the trial, he had met many other girls (who were all over the age of consent) and had asked the same of them on many occasions. So did he groom those girls also?

So what? That doesn't absolve him of his actions. The victim is not on trial, and if Johnson wanted to claim he was the victim of harassment by a child, that would have been a completely different set of circumstances and a different case.

I'm not citing what she did to suggest she should be punished. I am citing it as it shows that he was not out targeting underage girls and that he had ample opportunity to keep seeing her had he wanted to. That goes against the narrative that he is deserving of a six year prison sentence.

It wasn't six years for a fumble with a girl mere months from the age of consent, you're ignoring the more serious additional charge of grooming a child, and the sentencing for both crimes he was found guilty of, were absolutely consistent with sentencing guidelines and given the fact he went to trial instead of admitting his guilt.

Oh give me a bloody break. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Throw around the word 'grooming' and suddenly someone deserves six years behind bars if they are found guilty of it. And you feel him asking her to delete texts, meet covertly etc is "more serious" than the actual sexual interaction between the two of them?? Come the fcuk on will you. She was 15, not 12. Had she been seven months older he could have taken her to a hotel and had sex with her till Jewish Christmas. This situation is not deserving of the level of sanctimony you are giving it.

Look, I'm NOT saying he didn't deserve to find himself before the courts, course he did, and I'm not saying he is not the an absolute dickhead for cheating on his partner, particularly with a baby on the way, goes without saying. The guy had the world at his feet and behaved like a moron, nobody is is disputing that.... BUT, almost none of that has anything to do with the courts. He had had sexual interaction with a willing 15 year old in a country where the age of consent is 16. How the hell can anyone, given that he has a clean record, believe a six-year prison sentence is warranted for that.

The judge that presided over Johnson's case was Judge Jonathan Rose. Let's, for a moment, take a look at few other examples of what that particular judge thinks is deserving of a six-year prison sentence:

He gave a six-year sentence to a guy (with previous) who punched, kicked, sexually assaulted and attempted to rape a prostitute.
He gave a six year sentence to a guy who dragged a teenager into the woods and brutally raped her.
He gave a six year sentence to a father who kicked, punched and raped his daughters over many years.


And he gave a guy just a two-year-sentence for a plying a 15-year-old girl with alcohol and then (raping) having sex with her.

So please tell me, in the context of the above, how the hell this same judge can deem giving Adam Johnson a six year prison sentence is apt?

And don't come back to me saying that the above sentences are just too lenient and need to be on scale with Adam Johnson's sentence, as that is just a cop out, as it would effectively mean that you believe the sentences in the above cases should have all exceeded 500 years on prison a piece, or thereabouts, given that that is what would needed to be handed down to these "men" to put them on them on any scale that would warrant what Adam did to be worthy of six years.

It's preposterous, there is not a chance that his actions deserved that sentence, especially given that he had no previous. The guy was simply given the sentence because he was a famous rich footballer and society sees them as believing they are above the law. That's the narrative and one which many on this thread subscribe to.

If Johnson's sentence is so consistent with those of the UK courts then how come in the interim nobody has been able to cite other examples of men with no previous getting six years for the same level of contact with a 15-year-old? Should be lots of them given how adamant people are that the sentence was a fitting one.

Murrisk

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So please tell me, in the context of the above, how the hell this same judge can deem giving Adam Johnson a six year prison sentence is apt?

Those other sentences seem far too short.

Seriously Pete, just stop.

2Mad2BeMad

wonderfullife wrote: »

Why are you talking about her like she's a 2 year old? If she was a tiny bit older, say 16 and not 15, would you still think Adam Johnson is a "sick person"? 16 is legal in the UK.

I've a friend in London who met a 16-year-old girl in a nightclub when he was 27. They're married now with kids and super happy.

Is he sick?

Why do you arbitrarily determine that a 15-year-old is less-capable of informed consent and rational decision making than a 16-year-old? Because someone wrote it in a law?

The German model is a far more nuanced piece of legislation and I think we could do with something similar in this country regarding ages-of-consent for sex, alcohol, voting and smoking whilst simultaneously protecting young people who are not in a position to make informed choices.

The voting one is particularly egregious. Nobody is going to convince me that a 17-year-old, even 16-year-old lacks the necessary maturity and intelligence to understand the issue they'd be voting on.

Theirs a reason it's in law. It's to protect them.
It worked out well for your friend but what about the other 99percent? Most teenagers wouldn't think it's wrong or they wouldnt care if it is ,but it is.
Adults know it's wrong so theirs no one to blame but themselves.
If it's 15yr olds that turn you on you should be locked up. As you should know better.
And yes I do find your friend disgusting. And I'm sure her parents did as well.

Can go back and forth about this but he broke the law and couldn't help himself when a teenager had a crush on him.
His sentence is not wrong it's the other rapists who got less time then him that are wrong they should of got more years.

wonderfullife

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

And yes I do find your friend disgusting. And I'm sure her parents did as well.

Well aren't you a backwards dinosaur.

So I imagine you consider Caroline Flack disgusting too for her relationship with Harry Styles when he was 17 and she was 31?

It's not up to you to judge people of legal age of consent for their relationship choices or assume all parents feel similar ways. Harry Styles mam was cool with him seeing Caroline at 17.

As for Adam Johnson, he knew the law and broke it. If he had waited another few months and broke no law, all he would be is a cheater on his wife. He didn't and he has to do his time now.

Murrisk

wonderfullife wrote: »

As for Adam Johnson, he knew the law and broke it. If he had waited another few months and broke no law, all he would be is a cheater on his wife. He didn't and he has to do his time now.

Once again, more than a 'few'. More than several even. Almost a year, in fact, at a time in life where a year makes a big difference, developmentally.