Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

nullzero · 21-02-2016 09:33PM

Augme wrote: »

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

Were there not two meetings in which sexual activities took place? My understanding was he searched after one of these meetings, which I understood was the first meeting.

21-02-2016 09:45PM

artanevilla wrote: »

Some of the comments on this thread are very disturbing.

Bigtime.

armaghlad · 21-02-2016 09:59PM

nullzero wrote: »

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...

Well the thread does concern a case in England so forgive my assumption on the age of consent point.

I would agree on your point re differences regarding terminology; my comment was simply to say that the other poster was technically correct in questioning your use of the term paedophile.

I don't mean to be condescending; I do however have a passing interest in the case as someone I know was involved with Sunderland at the time so I've been keeping an eye on proceedings.

Augme · 21-02-2016 10:01PM

nullzero wrote: »

Were there not two meetings in which sexual activities took place? My understanding was he searched after one of these meetings, which I understood was the first meeting.

There were two meetings. One on January 17th and one on January 31st. From what I've read there weren't any meetings after those two. It seems the meeting on the 31st is when the alleged sexual activity beyond kissing took place.

The court was told that the pair met again in his car on January 31.
Ms Blackwell told the jury: "What happened in the car that evening is for you to decide . The Crown's case is that sexual activity took place.
"That the defendant and the girl kissed with tongues for some time during which the defendant unbuttoned her jeans and undid the zip. The defendant then inserted his fingers into her vagina."
The court was told they then moved to a more secluded area where she briefly performed oral sex on him.
After the encounter Johnson began messaging her again, while she was at a pantomime, telling her: "It was class, just wanted to get your jeans off."
She replied: "Next time, deffo."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12153477/Adam-Johnson-due-in-court-for-start-of-child-sex-trial.html

21-02-2016 10:13PM

People like Johnson are sick as **** tbh.

Whatever about any sexual stuff that he hasn't been found guilty of, the grooming of a young girl is vile.

****ing sick

Oranage2 · 22-02-2016 11:57AM

RoboKlopp wrote: »

People like Johnson are sick as **** tbh.

Whatever about any sexual stuff that he hasn't been found guilty of, the grooming of a young girl is vile.

****ing sick

It's an illness no?

The way Johnson talks and writes is very childish and reminds me a bit like Michael Jackson, similar johnson would have had his youth taken away from him by dedicating his life to soccer, he probably didn't see much wrong by 'chasing' this young woman.

Saying all that Adam Johnson did commit a crime and will have to face the music but hopefully he can get the help he needs too.

Bobby Baccala · 22-02-2016 12:27PM

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's an illness no?

The way Johnson talks and writes is very childish and reminds me a bit like Michael Jackson, similar johnson would have had his youth taken away from him by dedicating his life to soccer, he probably didn't see much wrong by 'chasing' this young woman.

Saying all that Adam Johnson did commit a crime and will have to face the music but hopefully he can get the help he needs too.

children know the difference between right and wrong so I don't buy that excuse at all

Oranage2 · 22-02-2016 12:32PM

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

children know the difference between right and wrong so I don't buy that excuse at all

Right or wrong is very subjective, being homosexual 20 years ago was wrong, smoking weed is wrong, things that are wrong aren't always bad. Kissing a 15 year old girl is wrong but not evil or crime of the century, it's a crime sure but in my opinion it's not the balls cutting off crime some people here are making it out to be.

Demosthenese · 22-02-2016 12:41PM

Oranage2 wrote: »

Right or wrong is very subjective, being homosexual 20 years ago was wrong, smoking weed is wrong, things that are wrong aren't always bad. Kissing a 15 year old girl is wrong but not evil or crime of the century, it's a crime sure but in my opinion it's not the balls cutting off crime some people here are making it out to be.

Using your fame and success to groom a person which you would be 100% sure that you should NOT be entering into any sort of sexual relationship is not just wrong - it is a bloody disgrace.

He did more than kiss the girl - stop making excuses for him. Illness ... sweet jesus.

nullzero · 22-02-2016 12:42PM

Jesus, this thread is bringing out some odd opinions from people. If seems like there's a fair few blokes here who think what Adam Johnson did wasn't all that bad, possibly because given the chance they may do the same thing.

Kimbot · 22-02-2016 01:16PM

The replies in this thread are shocking, if it was any of their 14/15 year old daughters I bet people wouldn't be happy about it and calling him allsorts.

Augme · 22-02-2016 01:26PM

nullzero wrote: »

Jesus, this thread is bringing out some odd opinions from people. If seems like there's a fair few blokes here who think what Adam Johnson did wasn't all that bad, possibly because given the chance they may do the same thing.

Giving an opinion on a case when you don't know the details of a case seems quite odd as well.

jonny24ie wrote: »

The replies in this thread are shocking, if it was any of their 14/15 year old daughters I bet people wouldn't be happy about it and calling him allsorts.

That's probably why the victims and their families aren't the ones who decide innocence/guilt of the accused or get to decide their punishment. That's why we have impartial juries and impartial judges. They look at the facts of the case and decide what should happen. A much better situation than trial by tabloids.

Corholio · 22-02-2016 01:37PM

Augme wrote: »

Giving an opinion on a case when you don't know the details of a case seems quite odd as well.

To be honest, if the case stopped right now and it was just the actual details, which have come out, up to now that were taken into account it would still look pretty bad on Johnson. A lot of details has already come out in evidence.

nullzero · 22-02-2016 01:40PM

Augme wrote: »

Giving an opinion on a case when you don't know the details of a case seems quite odd as well.

That's probably why the victims and their families aren't the ones who decide innocence/guilt of the accused or get to decide their punishment. That's why we have impartial juries and impartial judges. They look at the facts of the case and decide what should happen. A much better situation than trial by tabloids.

Being honest most of what you have said has been odd, actually it could more accurately be described as worrying.

armaghlad · 22-02-2016 01:51PM

Johnson giving evidence today. Had a quick look at tweets from the case. He is playing dumb regarding googling age of consent, claims it is totally unrelated to the schoolgirl and that it was part of a conversation had in the SAFC changing room.

He claims he sent explicit texts to other girls in their 20 (I hope to god his gf finally comes to her senses)

He denies engaging in two sexual offences with the girl but admits kissing with tongue. Says he was unaware it was an offence to communicate beforehand.

Also it turns out AJ has 4 GCSEs... so he clearly isn't the brightest.

@JoshHalliday

Augme · 22-02-2016 01:52PM

nullzero wrote: »

Being honest most of what you have said has been odd, actually it could more accurately be described as worrying.

Worrying that I know the details of the case and thus can comment on the case? Or worrying that I don't know the details of the case but still haven't called him a "paedophile" who is " a predatory one at that, as this wasn't some opportunistic once off event."?

Augme · 22-02-2016 01:59PM

Corholio wrote: »

To be honest, if the case stopped right now and it was just the actual details, which have come out, up to now that were taken into account it would still look pretty bad on Johnson. A lot of details has already come out in evidence.

It depends on what your definition of pretty bad is. I don't think pretty bad = multiple years in prison, predatory "paedophile" who is highly likely to reoffend or leave the country with the sole purpose of acting out his "paedophile" desires.

22-02-2016 02:03PM

nullzero wrote: »

Jesus, this thread is bringing out some odd opinions from people. If seems like there's a fair few blokes here who think what Adam Johnson did wasn't all that bad, possibly because given the chance they may do the same thing.

So...are you saying those who do not view him as a paedophile are possibly paedos themselves?

That's a bit silly. I don't think he's a paedo simply because generally that refers to a desire for sexual actvity with pre-pubescent children. That's not endorsing his behaviour, it's simply accuracy in language...

nullzero · 22-02-2016 02:09PM

Augme wrote: »

Worrying that I know the details of the case and thus can comment on the case? Or worrying that I don't know the details of the case but still haven't called him a "paedophile" who is " a predatory one at that, as this wasn't some opportunistic once off event."?

It's worrying that you think he isn't likely to ever offend again given his behavior which you feel isn't that bad, especially seeing the girl contacted him first, which is according to you a mitigating factor.

armaghlad · 22-02-2016 02:13PM

Augme wrote: »

It depends on what your definition of pretty bad is. I don't think pretty bad = multiple years in prison, predatory "paedophile" who is highly likely to reoffend or leave the country with the sole purpose of acting out his "paedophile" desires.

My take on him is as follows.

The guy is a creep first and foremost. And a cheating b*stard. He has a clear criminal record and no other accusations or complaints have ever been made against him. He obviously has low morals given he was sending explicit texts to other girls and given his status of a footballer had an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

Is he a predatory paedophile? No. If he was, and if there was any suspicion of such, I suspect from the off he'd have had strict bail conditions imposed meaning no contact with his child.

Is the guy a pervert? Yes. Wanting to kiss a girl who isn't long turned 15 is creepy. I know girls can look a lot older than what they really are, that still doesn't hide the fact that it is pervy to want to do so.

Does he deserve jail? That depends on whether he is found guilty on all charges. If he is, then yes, a custodial sentence would be appropriate in my view. If he is just guilty of the grooming/kissing; I suspect he will avoid jail time. He has a good lawyer so he may well escape being locked up. Already there are inconsistencies with the girls' evidence.

jaykay74 · 22-02-2016 02:13PM

armaghlad wrote: »

He is playing dumb regarding googling age of consent, claims it is totally unrelated to the schoolgirl and that it was part of a conversation had in the SAFC changing room.

Thats a bit of a stretch credibility wise surely!

TheNap · 22-02-2016 02:13PM

Wouldnt say the Sunderland players are happy with his statements in court today

armaghlad · 22-02-2016 02:15PM

jaykay74 wrote: »

Thats a bit of a stretch credibility wise surely!

I don't know. I'm sure whoever he had the conversation with could testify in his favour?

Augme · 22-02-2016 02:19PM

nullzero wrote: »

It's worrying that you think he isn't likely to ever offend again given his behavior which you feel isn't that bad, especially seeing the girl contacted him first, which is according to you a mitigating factor.

It's a mitigating factor in deciding if he's a predator. Most predators go after their victims. Secondly if he is a predator I'd have expected the police to have found additional evidence on his phone or even at this stage for more victims to have come forward. From what I've read it looks like this was just an opportunistic crime from someone who isn't very bright.

Augme · 22-02-2016 02:21PM

armaghlad wrote: »

My take on him is as follows.

The guy is a creep first and foremost. And a cheating b*stard. He has a clear criminal record and no other accusations or complaints have ever been made against him. He obviously has low morals given he was sending explicit texts to other girls and given his status of a footballer had an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

Is he a predatory paedophile? No. If he was, and if there was any suspicion of such, I suspect from the off he'd have had strict bail conditions imposed meaning no contact with his child.

Is the guy a pervert? Yes. Wanting to kiss a girl who isn't long turned 15 is creepy. I know girls can look a lot older than what they really are, that still doesn't hide the fact that it is pervy to want to do so.

Does he deserve jail? That depends on whether he is found guilty on all charges. If he is, then yes, a custodial sentence would be appropriate in my view. If he is just guilty of the grooming/kissing; I suspect he will avoid jail time. He has a good lawyer so he may well escape being locked up. Already there are inconsistencies with the girls' evidence.

Very similar to my take on the situation as well.

Dots1982 · 22-02-2016 02:47PM

Most newspaper reports on court cases that arent yet concluded will say what is the likely sentence if the defendant is found guilty, haven't seen anything like this on this case.

jaykay74 · 22-02-2016 03:02PM

armaghlad wrote: »

Already there are inconsistencies with the girls' evidence.

I missed that bit. Can you enlighten me

armaghlad · 22-02-2016 03:25PM

jaykay74 wrote: »

I missed that bit. Can you enlighten me

Something to do with clothing. She said he struggled to get her jeans off during one of the alleged meetings; yet her friend who was with her before the meeting said in giving evidence that she was wearing leggings at the time.

Corholio · 22-02-2016 04:01PM

Augme wrote: »

It depends on what your definition of pretty bad is. I don't think pretty bad = multiple years in prison, predatory "paedophile" who is highly likely to reoffend or leave the country with the sole purpose of acting out his "paedophile" desires.

Hmm....I never said pretty bad was anything like that. What's pretty bad is that he engaged in these activities with an underage girl, of which he was fully aware of. I don't think he's a predatory paedophile who would constantly reoffend but not saying it's the worst thing doesn't make take away from his actions of which he had time to consider as well. It's not one of those ' I didn't know her age' things that I am sure has happened to footballers.

Corholio · 22-02-2016 04:02PM

armaghlad wrote: »

Something to do with clothing. She said he struggled to get her jeans off during one of the alleged meetings; yet her friend who was with her before the meeting said in giving evidence that she was wearing leggings at the time.

Was it not him who sent her a text about her jeans? Something like 'Just wanted to get your jeans off' or something like that.

Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Comments