Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

upandcumming · 11-02-2016 12:54AM

mirwillbeback wrote:

He's admitting the charge of grooming an underage girl - he surely is finished in the game.

I think it was more a plea agreement than anything.

Canadel · 11-02-2016 02:35AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why would a guy on 65,000 thousand pound a week need to groom someone for sex. He could date any 16 year old if that's what he wishes to do.

Can't help who you fall in love with I suppose.

11-02-2016 04:29AM

bucketybuck wrote: »

I assume you are aware of the irony here? Celebrities get treated differently so treat this celebrity differently normally so as to set an example?
He should get the same sentence any average creep on the street would get, whether it be jail time or not. I imagine that will hinge upon the actual details of the crime.

FYP

What irony buckety? You've tried to call me up on something you obviously misunderstand. If you read the thread, you will see that the sentencing recommendations indicate jail-time in such cases. I only stressed that if so, this should be applied to him irrespective of his profession/celebrity, and therefore be treated 'normally'.

Also, where did I say that they should make an example of him? Just because I use the word 'example' in my post does not put it to the means you try to twist it to. Nowhere have I indicated that they should throw the book at him, make an example of him or even invent harsher sentencing just because he is a celebrity and not 'any average creep'.

sword1 · 11-02-2016 07:34AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why would a guy on 65,000 thousand pound a week need to groom someone for sex. He could date any 16 year old if that's what he wishes to do.
So this girl was merely days from legal age for consensual sex, could he of not waited the few days. What an idiot.

It is probably a different buzz to corrupt a child, I would think the joy was in the chase and not in actually being with her, sicko and hopefully he will get time in jail where the shoe might be on the other foot

Lovely Bloke · 11-02-2016 08:47AM

niallo27 wrote: »

So he could have done **** all really so just guilty of being a creep.

This is a pretty sickening post tbh.

A mid-20s man chatting to a 15 year old and bringing her to the point of being in a position to even be kissing him is more than "just being a creep". I assume you are of a similar age, or older, and I also assume you are an upstanding person who wouldn't even think of chatting up a child, let alone kissing one.

Also, the Crown Prosecution have charged him with two more offences, which he's denying, and needs to stand trial for - so for them to charge him they must have at least some evidence (blah blah miscarriage of justice blah blah).

jaykay74 · 11-02-2016 09:06AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Pleaded guilty to talking to her online, we'll call that GROOMING to make it sound more dramatic

No, that isn't what grooming is.

niallo27 · 11-02-2016 09:29AM

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

This is a pretty sickening post tbh.

A mid-20s man chatting to a 15 year old and bringing her to the point of being in a position to even be kissing him is more than "just being a creep". I assume you are of a similar age, or older, and I also assume you are an upstanding person who wouldn't even think of chatting up a child, let alone kissing one.

Also, the Crown Prosecution have charged him with two more offences, which he's denying, and needs to stand trial for - so for them to charge him they must have at least some evidence (blah blah miscarriage of justice blah blah).

Yes you are right he is a lot worse than just being a creep. It's all pretty ****ed up really.

Lovely Bloke · 11-02-2016 09:29AM

jaykay74 wrote: »

No, that isn't what grooming is.

This kind of sinister apologism for what he's done is horrible, from a couple of people in this thread.

"Ah shure, it wasn't too bad, he only chatted to her online a bit and kissed her"

WHAT? none of that is ok, none of it. It's not "a bit creepy".

this is a man in a position of power using that position of power to nefariously put a child into a vulnerable position.

By all accounts this young girl was a bit obsessed with him, can you imagine what it must have been like for a teenage girl to suddenly be in contact with her hero?

She would have done anything he asked her to, AND he knew it.

It's unsettling that people are looking to downplay any aspect of the things he's actually admitted to.

Chris_Bradley · 11-02-2016 11:44AM

jaykay74 wrote: »

No, that isn't what grooming is.

Quite possibly the most ignorant post I've ever read here.:mad:

If that happened to your daughter you'd want to attack him.

ctrl-alt-delete · 11-02-2016 12:28PM

Chris_Bradley wrote: »

Quite possibly the most ignorant post I've ever read here.:mad:

If that happened to your daughter you'd want to attack him.

I could be wrong, like many before me, but I got the impression that jaykay74 was saying that grooming is not a dramatic online chat, or something made to sound worse than it is in relation to the post he quoted.

Johnson admitted to something seriously wrong, and something he would have known was a serious crime back then.

Moneymaker · 11-02-2016 12:33PM

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I could be wrong, like many before me, but I got the impression that jaykay74 was saying that grooming is not a dramatic online chat, or something made to sound worse than it is in relation to the post he quoted.

Johnson admitted to something seriously wrong, and something he would have known was a serious crime back then.

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

Lovely Bloke · 11-02-2016 01:02PM

Moneymaker wrote: »

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

Usual Presser later with Uncle Sam, I assume the question will be asked.

they've already said that he won't be playing this weekend.

But they probably won't comment "on an ongoing legal case" at the presser either way.

ctrl-alt-delete · 11-02-2016 01:25PM

Moneymaker wrote: »

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

I agree that it is unthinkable that they will have played him knowing he was going to admit to those two charges.

I guess we will find out eventually, but i don't expect we will hear much in that regard in the coming days.

murpho999 · 11-02-2016 01:33PM

Moneymaker wrote: »

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

Why would have to tell Sunderland what he's going to plead?

He had to go through a process and it takes time. He does not have to tell his employers his plea intentions.

I don't see what Sunderland have done wrong here.

Moneymaker · 11-02-2016 01:37PM

murpho999 wrote: »

Why would have to tell Sunderland what he's going to plead?

He had to go through a process and it takes time. He does not have to tell his employers his plea intentions.

I don't see what Sunderland have done wrong here.

I'm not saying they've done anything wrong at all.

I'm saying IF Johnson informed them he intended to plead guilty then it doesn't reflect well on them. If it was always his intention to plead guilty and he didn't disclose this fact to them then it's another scummy move from him.

Either way, he should never play for them again.

murpho999 · 11-02-2016 01:53PM

Moneymaker wrote: »

I'm not saying they've done anything wrong at all.

I'm saying IF Johnson informed them he intended to plead guilty then it doesn't reflect well on them. If it was always his intention to plead guilty and he didn't disclose this fact to them then it's another scummy move from him.

Either way, he should never play for them again.

Sorry, I quoted you but was referring more to how other posters here are saying Sunderland could be in trouble.

As for him, I think it's safe to say that his football career is over.

user2011 · 11-02-2016 01:58PM

Is he still out on bail until the final two charges go to court? If so can anyone tell me why he hasn't been put behind bars for the two charges he has admitted guilt to.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-02-2016 02:32PM

user2011 wrote: »

Is he still out on bail until the final two charges go to court? If so can anyone tell me why he hasn't been put behind bars for the two charges he has admitted guilt to.

No guarantee he'll receive a jail sentence for the the two charges he's admitted and no guarantee he'll be convicted of the other two.

Unless someone is deemed a threat to society, a flight risk, or is facing murder charges, release on bail is a normal procedure, as far as I know.

SteM · 11-02-2016 02:46PM

murpho999 wrote: »

Sorry, I quoted you but was referring more to how other posters here are saying Sunderland could be in trouble.

As for him, I think it's safe to say that his football career is over.

Wouldn't be so sure of that. Look at Ched Evans at Sheffield United. Convicted of rape, sentenced to 5 years and there were still football clubs interested in signing him when he was released. Only supporter pressure stopped a few clubs from hiring him.

Football clubs are desperate for anyone that can give them an advantage and will look the other way if it benefits them and they can get away with it.

Lovely Bloke · 11-02-2016 02:55PM

yeah but Evans hasn't got a contract, and if supporter pressure is enough to see him unemployable you'd have to think that an admitted child-groomer and kisser wouldn't have any hope either.

Evans didn't even admit guilt.

SteM · 11-02-2016 02:57PM

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

yeah but Evans hasn't got a contract, and if supporter pressure is enough to see him unemployable you'd have to think that an admitted child-groomer and kisser wouldn't have any hope either.

Evans didn't even admit guilt.

We'll see. A lot depends on the trial and whatever sentence he gets. I won't assume at this point that his footballing career is over though.

Mitch Connor · 11-02-2016 03:09PM

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

yeah but Evans hasn't got a contract, and if supporter pressure is enough to see him unemployable you'd have to think that an admitted child-groomer and kisser wouldn't have any hope either.

Evans didn't even admit guilt.

As far as I am aware Evans has an appeal coming up soon and his people are very confident it will be a success.

He has always denied rape, so it will be interesting to see the public reaction if a court agrees with him; and if he can get any sort of career back after being hounded out for what would then have to be considered false allegations/conviction.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-02-2016 05:09PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

As far as I am aware Evans has an appeal coming up soon and his people are very confident it will be a success.

He has always denied rape, so it will be interesting to see the public reaction if a court agrees with him; and if he can get any sort of career back after being hounded out for what would then have to be considered false allegations/conviction.

This is what I found strange (specific to Ched Evans): he's convicted, he's unsuitable to hire. If it's overturned - hey! Welcome back!!
We're talking the same person here...?

With Johnson, admitting guilt puts him on a different basis to start off with.

2smiggy · 11-02-2016 05:40PM

if you look at the link for the age of consent around Europe, it's hardy as bad as all are making out. Wrong what he has done, and will probably be the end of his career, but there are much worse things done ever day ....

TheCitizen · 11-02-2016 05:46PM

Johnson's career will be finished now and rightly so, weird and creepy behaviour.

It is interesting that things have changed for the better in relation to sex with under age girls, being a superstar of some kind no longer shields them from it. Back in the 1970's David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Mick Jagger, lots of other stars, probably footballers as well were doing this kind of thing, good to see footballers or rock "stars" etc. getting done for it now.

11-02-2016 07:02PM

Moneymaker wrote: »

So did he hide the fact he was going to plead guilty from Sunderland?

The latter is unthinkable, that he told Sunderland he was going to plead guilty and they continued to pick him anyway.

Have Sunderland made any statements since yesterday at all?

Highly unlikely he'd have divulged his legal strategy to his employer. No more than anyone who is up for an offence would go to the boss and analyse it.

Sunderland employed him to play football. He played football. They paid him. They have no real business interfering with the criminal process or having some internal trial before the trial, like a mini hearing of the matter. I suspect he may have injuncted any attempts to do so, on the basis that an adverse finding by his employer may have prejudiced later proceedings.

Augme · 11-02-2016 07:29PM

Why have Sunderland not sacked him yet?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 11-02-2016 07:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Highly unlikely he'd have divulged his legal strategy to his employer. No more than anyone who is up for an offence would go to the boss and analyse it.

Sunderland employed him to play football. He played football. They paid him. They have no real business interfering with the criminal process or having some internal trial before the trial, like a mini hearing of the matter. I suspect he may have injuncted any attempts to do so, on the basis that an adverse finding by his employer may have prejudiced later proceedings.

It's entirely possible that there was a clause in his contract stating that he acts as a model citizen even in his off-field behaviour, or inform them of any intentions that could reflect the club in a bad light.

This article is kinda interesting and, if relevant to Johnson, Sunderland may well have a case.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jan/22/the-secret-footballer

keeponhurling · 11-02-2016 07:57PM

If he is convicted and serves what punishment the legal system seems suitable - should he never be allowed to work again ?
As a player, or at any job?

He's in his 20s, he has a lot of years to fill until retirement

11-02-2016 08:02PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's entirely possible that there was a clause in his contract stating that he acts as a model citizen even in his off-field behaviour, or inform them of any intentions that could reflect the club in a bad light.

Precisely. Indeed it's highly likely that there is a clause about actions that might discredit the club. Not that he must be perfect, merely that he must behave well when representing the club.

But a players sexual activities, moral, immoral, criminal or legal is highly unlikely to reflect on the club. Particularly as he actually played for them. The argument would be that he did his job, and retrospectively his wages would be deducted because he was a bad person when he did it? It seems like a very difficult case.

Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Comments