Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

11-02-2016 08:05PM

keeponhurling wrote: »

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

Of course he'll be allowed to work once he does his time.

Just like any other sex offender. He can apply all he likes. There is no legal bar to doing so. There might be prohibitions eg. working near a school etc.

Whether he gets work? That's a different story.

niallo27 · 11-02-2016 08:08PM

2smiggy wrote: »

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 ....

Italy and germany its only 14. Is that right, seems a bit ****ed up.

~Rebel~ · 11-02-2016 08:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Leicester seemed to have no difficulty in sacking the lads last summer who made a sex tape with racist comments. If that held up, reckon Sunderland could easily nullify Johnsons contract. Not sure about retrospective wages, but at least they could cut him loose now.

jaykay74 · 11-02-2016 08:39PM

Sacked now...

https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/697866773815824384

~Rebel~ · 11-02-2016 08:42PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Italy and germany its only 14. Is that right, seems a bit ****ed up.

It's just 14 if both parties are 14 or 15, otherwise it rises to 16.

Lovely Bloke · 11-02-2016 08:52PM

TheCitizen wrote: »

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.

I think you're going to have to provice proof for these three in particular, because with Operation Yewtree going on in the UK, I'm sure they'd have beenat least questioned by now, and none of the three have been.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 11-02-2016 08:52PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Leicester seemed to have no difficulty in sacking the lads last summer who made a sex tape with racist comments. If that held up, reckon Sunderland could easily nullify Johnsons contract. Not sure about retrospective wages, but at least they could cut him loose now.

Yes they did. Jamie Vardy made a racist comment last year and nothing was done about it.

Paully D · 11-02-2016 09:07PM

Contract terminated.

A lot easier to do when he only has 5 months left on his deal of course, but about the only really big statement of intent that the club could make to be honest.

http://www.safc.com/news/club-news/2016/february/club-statement?utm_source=home_newsfeed&utm_medium=latest_news_article_0_news_image&utm_campaign=newsclub_news2016februaryclub_statement

Club statement from Sunderland AFC.

In light of Adam Johnson's guilty pleas, the club has today terminated his contract with immediate effect.

The club will make no further comment.

Of course Johnson is under no obligation to disclose whether he was going to plead guilty or not guilty, but a north-east journalist tweeted last night that Sunderland were very surprised with the guilty plea as indications pointed to the opposite.

M5 · 11-02-2016 09:46PM

Correct response. I just hope that they did think he was going to plead not guilty...

MuPpItJoCkEy · 11-02-2016 10:21PM

Quality!

~Rebel~ · 11-02-2016 10:24PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Yes they did. Jamie Vardy made a racist comment last year and nothing was done about it.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. They're not obliged to act on breaches of contract. With the Leicester kids - guys who didn't really add to the first team - they were happy to cut the cord. They obviously had no interest in losing Vardy.

I'm not talking about the moral side of things, only what they're entitled to do based on their contractual agreement with the player should they choose to. Judging by Leicester (and now Sunderland), they were easily able to sack the players in question.

11-02-2016 10:26PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Leicester seemed to have no difficulty in sacking the lads last summer who made a sex tape with racist comments. If that held up, reckon Sunderland could easily nullify Johnsons contract. Not sure about retrospective wages, but at least they could cut him loose now.

Oh sacking as a reaction to a guilty plea is no problem at all. Now they have an admission of wrongdoing. Even bog standard contracts of employment carry the possibility of summary dismissal in case of convictions for offences carrying certain penalties.

It's suing him that would be extremely difficult.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 11-02-2016 10:33PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. They're not obliged to act on breaches of contract. With the Leicester kids - guys who didn't really add to the first team - they were happy to cut the cord. They obviously had no interest in losing Vardy.

I'm not talking about the moral side of things, only what they're entitled to do based on their contractual agreement with the player should they choose to. Judging by Leicester (and now Sunderland), they were easily able to sack the players in question.

Fair enough I think I miss understood the point you were making.I thought you were holding up Leicesters stance as something admirable when it really just suited their circumstances which is why nothing was done with Vardy.I see now what you are saying.

niallo27 · 11-02-2016 10:37PM

Vardy was different, we all have done and said stupid things when pissed with friends.

~Rebel~ · 11-02-2016 10:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh sacking as a reaction to a guilty plea is no problem at all. Now they have an admission of wrongdoing. Even bog standard contracts of employment carry the possibility of summary dismissal in case of convictions for offences carrying certain penalties.

It's suing him that would be extremely difficult.

Gotcha, yeah I wonder if that's something they'll try to do. They're losing a 10m (or so) asset because of this...I wonder is there insurance for this kind of thing? Or will they go down the Chelsea/Mutu route.

nullzero · 12-02-2016 12:39AM

What the hell is wrong with him?
More money than the knows what to do with, playing football for a living, stunner of a missus and a kid, all gone, he could have had as many grown women as he liked but groomed a kid instead, completely nuts. What is it in these people that compels them to do these things? Should be castrated the sick sack of sh1t.

Kristopherus · 12-02-2016 12:41AM

nullzero wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with him?
More money than the knows what to do with, playing football for a living, stunner of a missus and a kid, all gone, he could have had as many grown women as he liked but groomed a kid instead, completely nuts. What is it in these people that compels them to do these things? Should be castrated the sick sack of sh1t.

Well said !!!! The best post in the whole thread.

12-02-2016 12:58AM

nullzero wrote: »

What the hell is wrong with him?
More money than the knows what to do with, playing football for a living, stunner of a missus and a kid, all gone, he could have had as many grown women as he liked but groomed a kid instead, completely nuts. What is it in these people that compels them to do these things? Should be castrated the sick sack of sh1t.

I think it goes deeper than saying "pretty wife, loadsa money, why does he do it".

Take Graham Dwyer - not remotely comparing them, but just as an example of somebody who seemed to have it all engaging in pretty depraved stuff on the side. It's almost like a compulsion.

nullzero · 12-02-2016 01:17AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it goes deeper than saying "pretty wife, loadsa money, why does he do it".

Take Graham Dwyer - not remotely comparing them, but just as an example of somebody who seemed to have it all engaging in pretty depraved stuff on the side. It's almost like a compulsion.

Of course. I'm just examining it from the perspective of a normal person. Clearly for somebody to have the the pretty wife and loads of money and then choose to engage in what he engaged in, he is quite clearly more than dipping his toe into this world of underage grooming and sexual 'contact', he is seemingly an example of a full blooded paedophile, which is bone chilling, in the same way as finding out somebody of a cannibal or a sociopathic killer a la graham Dwyer.

Guy:Incognito · 12-02-2016 09:29AM

Has anyone checked klebersons twitter for his thoughts? Mighg be simw supportive words for johnson .

Oranage2 · 12-02-2016 09:52AM

15 is a very borderline age, I wouldn't do it myself but a 15 year old would be able to sexually reproduce as well as some of them at that age can be pretty, again I don't think what Johnson did was right but I don't think what he did was a horrible crime.

Lovely Bloke · 12-02-2016 10:02AM

Oranage2 wrote: »

15 is a very borderline age, I wouldn't do it myself but a 15 year old would be able to sexually reproduce as well as some of them at that age can be pretty, again I don't think what Johnson did was right but I don't think what he did was a horrible crime.

Sickening.

Leroy42 · 12-02-2016 10:04AM

Oranage2 wrote: »

15 is a very borderline age, I wouldn't do it myself but a 15 year old would be able to sexually reproduce as well as some of them at that age can be pretty, again I don't think what Johnson did was right but I don't think what he did was a horrible crime.

Do you know what grooming actually is? Do you know that this man is 28? Do you know that he intentionally went out to have a sexual contact with this girl?

This isn't some 18 YO man in a niteclub meeting a girl who happens to be underage. This isn't some neighbourhood crush that has been going on for years.

He knew she was underage, went out of his way to maintain contact with her and develop the relationship on-line until such a time as she was willing to meet.

This isn't passion, or love or even liking, this is predatory. This is finding a target, manipulating them to get what you want. It is a well thought out plan with a predefined outcome.

death1234567 · 12-02-2016 10:08AM

Oranage2 wrote: »

15 is a very borderline age, I wouldn't do it myself but a 15 year old would be able to sexually reproduce as well as some of them at that age can be pretty, again I don't think what Johnson did was right but I don't think what he did was a horrible crime.

Jesus H Christ. Seriously? I hope you are just trolling.

Oranage2 · 12-02-2016 10:08AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you know what grooming actually is? Do you know that this man is 28? Do you know that he intentionally went out to have a sexual contact with this girl?

This isn't some 18 YO man in a niteclub meeting a girl who happens to be underage. This isn't some neighbourhood crush that has been going on for years.

He knew she was underage, went out of his way to maintain contact with her and develop the relationship on-line until such a time as she was willing to meet.

This isn't passion, or love or even liking, this is predatory. This is finding a target, manipulating them to get what you want. It is a well thought out plan with a predefined outcome.

don't get me wrong, I definitely don't agree with it, I just think there is a bit of difference between a 15 year old girl and say a child of like 5. Very predatory but at 15 I don't think the girl would have any issues over this latest in life. I just wouldn't consider him a big time paedophile or anything like that.

Lovely Bloke · 12-02-2016 10:08AM

the apologists continue.

It's disconcerting to have so many SF regulars try to downplay this. Absolutely horrifying actually.

jive · 12-02-2016 10:13AM

The faux outrage is hilarious. He broke the law, he'll receive his punishment. Stop acting like this non-violent crime is the most heinous thing that's happened to human kind.

Regardless of what the court decides, he's lost a £50k a week contract (likely would have increased given a further influx of money into the game and a new contract on the horizon) and ruined his career. That's a punishment beyond what most people would receive, certainly in a financial sense.

In b4 I'm a pedo apologist.

jive · 12-02-2016 10:13AM

The faux outrage is hilarious. He broke the law, he'll receive his punishment. Stop acting like this non-violent crime is the most heinous thing that's happened to human kind.

Regardless of what the court decides, he's lost a £50k a week contract (likely would have increased given a further influx of money into the game and a new contract on the horizon) and ruined his career. That's a punishment beyond what most people would receive, certainly in a financial sense.

In b4 I'm a pedo apologist.

bucketybuck · 12-02-2016 10:20AM

jive wrote: »

The faux outrage is hilarious. He broke the law, he'll receive his punishment. Stop acting like this non-violent crime is the most heinous thing that's happened to human kind.

Theres no perspective towards things like this in todays world, you are either thoroughly sickened, outraged and appalled or you are a peado apologist. Theres no nuance at all. Even this post will probably be labelled as somehow excusing Johnsons actions.

Leroy42 · 12-02-2016 10:24AM

Oranage2 wrote: »

don't get me wrong, I definitely don't agree with it, I just think there is a bit of difference between a 15 year old girl and say a child of like 5. Very predatory but at 15 I don't think the girl would have any issues over this latest in life. I just wouldn't consider him a big time paedophile or anything like that.

Because you are comparing this to two kids gettings together and getting frisky, or as I said an 18 YO hooking up with an underage, which as we all know can be a much older looking 15 YO in a niteclub.

This is something completely different. This is akin to stalking someone, selecting a target and manipulating them to get what you want. This is not two people meeting up and finding a common ground, a certain spark. This is a vunerable person being manipulated by someone who is determined to take advantage of them.

He didn't mistake her underage, he wasn't "tricked" ( I use that term in the way that many apologists use it) by this girl. He went out of his way to manipulate her. He knew she was underage, as I said this wasn't him acting out of some overtime built up relationship. He purposefully went out to make this happen.

Of course there is a difference between a 5 yo and a 15 yo, biology tells us that. But there is a socially acceptable line drawn based on evidence of how mature people are and when they can be considered mature enough to handle these situations. Do you think Johnson consider her mental maturity? One can of course argue about the line, that is fine but once the line is drawn and accepted people can't just simply ignore it based on what they want. He knew what he was doing and he did it anyway.

I can only assume you are failing to understand the massive difference between a 28 YO and a 15yo, there is simply no equality in that. He had all the power and he used that power to manipulate her to do what he wanted.

Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Comments