Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Augme · 20-02-2016 06:38PM

armaghlad wrote: »

Grooming is grooming no matter who needed convincing. The girl liked him long before they met. He took advantage of this

When it comes to sentencing that's not really the case though. That's one of the reasons sentencing has a maximum terms and why people get different sentences( as well as other reasons).

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

She contacted him first though.

~Rebel~ · 21-02-2016 02:36AM

Augme wrote: »

When it comes to sentencing that's not really the case though. That's one of the reasons sentencing has a maximum terms and why people get different sentences( as well as other reasons).

She contacted him first though.

She talked to a footballer about getting a jersey signed. He's the one who asked for her phone number and initiated anything beyond a normal fan/player dynamic.

Augme · 21-02-2016 11:16AM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

She talked to a footballer about getting a jersey signed. He's the one who asked for her phone number and initiated anything beyond a normal fan/player dynamic.

She still contacted him first though. So it's not like he went out of his way to do it. Very few of his actions would indicate he's a serious danger going forward.

nullzero · 21-02-2016 01:01PM

Augme wrote: »

She still contacted him first though. So it's not like he went out of his way to do it. Very few of his actions would indicate he's a serious danger going forward.

You're having a laugh right?

artanevilla · 21-02-2016 01:04PM

Some of the comments on this thread are very disturbing.

Augme · 21-02-2016 03:43PM

nullzero wrote: »

You're having a laugh right?

Nope.

monkey9 · 21-02-2016 04:17PM

Augme wrote: »

She still contacted him first though. So it's not like he went out of his way to do it. Very few of his actions would indicate he's a serious danger going forward.

She's a fifteen year old who wanted to get a signed jersey from him. So what if she contacted him first. He was her hero, it's perfectly natural.

He's the grown adult in this situation and you'll find he did go out of his way to contact her. He was bloody grooming her ffs.

Augme · 21-02-2016 04:39PM

monkey9 wrote: »

She's a fifteen year old who wanted to get a signed jersey from him. So what if she contacted him first. He was her hero, it's perfectly natural.

He's the grown adult in this situation and you'll find he did go out of his way to contact her. He was bloody grooming her ffs.

The fact still remains he didn't go out of his way to contact her. He didn't hunt her down or make a special effort to get in touch with her. All signs that would point to it being less likely that he is a serious predator.

monkey9 · 21-02-2016 04:45PM

Augme wrote: »

The fact still remains he didn't go out of his way to contact her. He didn't hunt her down or make a special effort to get in touch with her. All signs that would point to it being less likely that he is a serious predator.

Well look, he's not pulling women into bushes at night and raping them. But he did go out of his way to get what he wanted from a fifteen year old.

I do understand the point you're making and maybe, whatever the outcome here is, he won't do this again.

But there shouldn't be any excuses made for him. He took advantage of a fifteen year old who was besotted with him and he knew what he was doing was wrong. He's old enough to know better. It's not like he was still a teenager himself.

Augme · 21-02-2016 04:52PM

monkey9 wrote: »

Well look, he's not pulling women into bushes at night and raping them. But he did go out of his way to get what he wanted from a fifteen year old.

I do understand the point you're making and maybe, whatever the outcome here is, he won't do this again.

But there shouldn't be any excuses made for him. He took advantage of a fifteen year old who was besotted with him and he knew what he was doing was wrong. He's old enough to know better. It's not like he was still a teenager himself.

I'm not making excuses for him, just point out the reasons I think he could get away with a suspended sentence on the charges he's pleaded guilty to. If he's found guilty of the other two chargers then it's a different story.

Flint Fredstone · 21-02-2016 04:57PM

He abused his position, he didn't have to go out of his way. In the same way a pervert teacher doesn't have to go out of his/her way to find a victim, they are literally queuing up for them but for other reasons.

nullzero · 21-02-2016 05:02PM

Augme wrote: »

I'm not making excuses for him, just point out the reasons I think he could get away with a suspended sentence on the charges he's pleaded guilty to. If he's found guilty of the other two chargers then it's a different story.

Nothing that you are saying will influence his sentencing. In fact a lot of such abuse happens amongst family members or close friends, the girl having made contact with him first has no bearing on the facts of the case which are that he groomed and sexually assaulted this girl. I would contend that Adam Johnson is likely to engage in such behavior in the future, this is plainly a sexual predilection of his and it will be something he will struggle to contain. He is a paedophile and a predatory one at that, as this wasn't some opportunistic once off event. This situation was coldly calculated and indicates a person whom is highly likely to emigrate upon his eventual release from prison and continue to offend in this manner, much like Gary Glitter has done before him.

Guy:Incognito · 21-02-2016 05:07PM

So do we reckon thats him done with football , regardless of how light a sentence he gets?The "he served his time" opinion doesnt seem to apply to footballers so , lets say he's forcibly away from the game for 12-18 months, is there any way back then? Assuming hes eligible to play at the start of the 2017-18 season, having just turned 30, will he be let?

Augme · 21-02-2016 05:07PM

nullzero wrote: »

Nothing that you are saying will influence his sentencing. In fact a lot of such abuse happens amongst family members or close friends, the girl having made contact with him first has no bearing on the facts of the case which are that he groomed and sexually assaulted this girl. I would contend that Adam Johnson is likely to engage in such behavior in the future, this is plainly a sexual predilection of his and it will be something he will struggle to contain. He is a paedophile and a predatory one at that, as this wasn't some opportunistic once off event. This situation was coldly calculated and indicates a person whom is highly likely to emigrate upon his eventual release from prison and continue to offend in this manner, much like Gary Glitter has done before him.

it's hard to take you seriously when you don't even know what the word paedophile means to be honest.

armaghlad · 21-02-2016 05:10PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So do we reckon thats him done with football , regardless of how light a sentence he gets?The "he served his time" opinion doesnt seem to apply to footballers so , lets say he's forcibly away from the game for 12-18 months, is there any way back then? Assuming hes eligible to play at the start of the 2017-18 season, having just turned 30, will he be let?

I think his football career is as good as over. He is a pariah and even if he was found innocent on all charges would probably struggle to be signed by anyone.

Guy:Incognito · 21-02-2016 05:13PM

armaghlad wrote: »

I think his football career is as good as over. He is a pariah and even if he was found innocent on all charges would probably struggle to be signed by anyone.

I dont think so tbh. As with Ched Evans, I'm sure he'd have plenty of offers, its others outside the employ of the clubs that stop it.

armaghlad · 21-02-2016 05:16PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I dont think so tbh. As with Ched Evans, I'm sure he'd have plenty of offers, its others outside the employ of the clubs that stop it.

Yeah well that's what I mean. Some clubs would view him as a potential bargain because he won't play EPL ever again. Possibly lower leagues. Their fans and patrons however might not allow it.

Lovely Bloke · 21-02-2016 05:40PM

nah, as with Ched Evans, a convicted (and in Johnson's case an admitted) sex offender won't "be let" by fans of any club in England.

He might get a game in China though.

nullzero · 21-02-2016 05:50PM

Augme wrote: »

it's hard to take you seriously when you don't even know what the word paedophile means to be honest.

What does that sentence even mean?
A paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Children, are persons under the legal age of consent which the girl in this case is. Therefor Adam Johnson having knowingly groomed this girl and having engaged in sexual activities with her can be defined as a paedophile.
It is hard to take you seriously when you act as an apologist for this man whilst hiding behind some notion of qualifying his actions against any sentence you perceive he may be given.
Your comments here are disturbing. This man is clearly a predatory paedophile but you are prepared to state that he cannot be because the underage girl first contacted him looking for a signed football top, which it would seem to mean to you is code for "please groom and sexually abuse me".
If you are going to try and belittle me at least put a reasonable amount of effort into it and maybe extend your point to beyond one poorly structured sentence.

armaghlad · 21-02-2016 06:08PM

nullzero wrote: »

What does that sentence even mean?
A paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Children, are persons under the legal age of consent which the girl in this case is. Therefor Adam Johnson having knowingly groomed this girl and having engaged in sexual activities with her can be defined as a paedophile.
It is hard to take you seriously when you act as an apologist for this man whilst hiding behind some notion of qualifying his actions against any sentence you perceive he may be given.
Your comments here are disturbing. This man is clearly a predatory paedophile but you are prepared to state that he cannot be because the underage girl first contacted him looking for a signed football top, which it would seem to mean to you is code for "please groom and sexually abuse me".
If you are going to try and belittle me at least put a reasonable amount of effort into it and maybe extend your point to beyond one poorly structured sentence.

...Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. (From wiki)

The girl in question is 16 and was 15 at the time. So technically speaking he isn't a paedophile.

nullzero · 21-02-2016 06:16PM

armaghlad wrote: »

...Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. (From wiki)

The girl in question is 16 and was 15 at the time. So technically speaking he isn't a paedophile.

OK so what he did was perfectly normal. He researched the legal age of consent found out that pursuing a sexual relationship with this girl would be illegal and went ahead and groomed and abused her anyway.

Anybody engaged in sexual activity with any persons under the age of consent (set at 17 but could realistically be higher when factoring in another party whose age is disproportionate to a 17 year old) is a paedophile.
He has pleaded guilty and in doing so has admitted that he committed a crime.
Should we take from your Wikipedia definition that sex with 12 year Olds is normal and acceptable?

armaghlad · 21-02-2016 06:33PM

nullzero wrote: »

OK so what he did was perfectly normal. He researched the legal age of consent found out that pursuing a sexual relationship with this girl would be illegal and went ahead and groomed and abused her anyway.

Anybody engaged in sexual activity with any persons under the age of consent (set at 17 but could realistically be higher when factoring in another party whose age is disproportionate to a 17 year old) is a paedophile.
He has pleaded guilty and in doing so has admitted that he committed a crime.
Should we take from your Wikipedia definition that sex with 12 year Olds is normal and acceptable?

"Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19..." Also from Wiki.

Also the age of consent is 16 in the UK, not 17.

Your knowledge of the case is all over the place. I don't disagree with your sentiment but at least be factually accurate.

Augme · 21-02-2016 06:35PM

nullzero wrote: »

What does that sentence even mean?
A paedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. Children, are persons under the legal age of consent which the girl in this case is. Therefor Adam Johnson having knowingly groomed this girl and having engaged in sexual activities with her can be defined as a paedophile.
It is hard to take you seriously when you act as an apologist for this man whilst hiding behind some notion of qualifying his actions against any sentence you perceive he may be given.
Your comments here are disturbing. This man is clearly a predatory paedophile but you are prepared to state that he cannot be because the underage girl first contacted him looking for a signed football top, which it would seem to mean to you is code for "please groom and sexually abuse me".
If you are going to try and belittle me at least put a reasonable amount of effort into it and maybe extend your point to beyond one poorly structured sentence.

I don't have to put any effort into that. You're doing a good enough job of that yourself.

nullzero · 21-02-2016 06:48PM

armaghlad wrote: »

"Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19..." Also from Wiki.

Also the age of consent is 16 in the UK, not 17.

Your knowledge of the case is all over the place. I don't disagree with your sentiment but at least be factually accurate.

I spoke about the age of consent in Ireland, I didn't make reference to 17 being the age of consent in the UK, nor did I categorically state what I was saying which retrospectivly left me open to your comment.

The fact is there were serious offenses committed in a calculated manner by this man and he has admitted guilt.
I would question most people's knowledge of ephebophilia and it's nuanced differences in comparison to pedophilia.

I think that if you're honest you would have to admit that your assessment of my knowledge of this case is in a small part reductive and in a large part condescending, have you yourself got a scholarly knowledge of underage sex or are you in fact simply googling things and quoting Wikipedia?
People in glass houses etc...

nullzero · 21-02-2016 06:55PM

Augme wrote: »

I don't have to put any effort into that. You're doing a good enough job of that yourself.

Care to elaborate?

Augme · 21-02-2016 06:59PM

nullzero wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Not knowing what the word paedophile means. Then the highlight being that armaghlad using the wiki definition of paedophile somehow implied that sex with 12 year olds was "normal and acceptable". Bizarre logic that is.

nullzero · 21-02-2016 07:25PM

Augme wrote: »

Not knowing what the word paedophile means. Then the highlight being that armaghlad using the wiki definition of paedophile somehow implied that sex with 12 year olds was "normal and acceptable". Bizarre logic that is.

I think you're reaching with that statement and you know it.
Could you answer the following? Do you agree that Adam Johnson knowingly committed a crime by grooming and engaging in sexual activity with an underage girl? And do you feel his actions were immoral?

Augme · 21-02-2016 08:12PM

nullzero wrote: »

I think you're reaching with that statement and you know it.
Could you answer the following? Do you agree that Adam Johnson knowingly committed a crime by grooming and engaging in sexual activity with an underage girl? And do you feel his actions were immoral?

I'm not reaching with any statement.

I've no idea if Johnson knowingly committed those crimes. I don't know if he knew the laws or not. He doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box so it's difficult to say.

I think his actions were definitely immoral.

nullzero · 21-02-2016 08:32PM

Augme wrote: »

I'm not reaching with any statement.

I've no idea if Johnson knowingly committed those crimes. I don't know if he knew the laws or not. He doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box so it's difficult to say.

I think his actions were definitely immoral.

He did an Internet search to find out the age of consent so he knew damn well he was breaking the law.

Augme · 21-02-2016 08:58PM

nullzero wrote: »

He did an Internet search to find out the age of consent so he knew damn well he was breaking the law.

From what I've read he did the search after they met.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/adam-johnson-googled-age-consent-7360875

Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Comments