Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

niallo27 · 02-03-2016 07:03PM

adox wrote: »

Don't you mean hate footballers who groom and sexually assault children?

Bit of a difference than hating footballers.

Yes probably a bit harsh to write that.

niallo27 · 02-03-2016 07:07PM

That_Guy wrote: »

Legally she's still a child. A child is anybody under the age of 18. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Just ones who abuse their power by engaging in sexual activity with minors.

So you saying he should get the same penalty if she was five of fifteen. I dont agree. I think the sentence should be higher the younger the person is. Can i make it clear that i dont think Johnson should get off, it seems to be very black or white for you, either send him down for the max time or he is innocent.

armaghlad · 02-03-2016 07:16PM

Felt sorry for his family and ex being hounded by the press after court. Don't think there have been any "winners" out of all this, other than the girl being vindicated.

Kristopherus · 02-03-2016 07:16PM

Where did this 5-10yrs in the clink come from?

That_Guy · 02-03-2016 07:22PM

niallo27 wrote: »

So you saying he should get the same penalty if she was five of fifteen. I dont agree.

When did I say this?

I think the sentence should be higher the younger the person is.

I would agree with this. That singer from that band Lostprophets engaged in horrific acts with children and he got life.

I think the punishment is completely fair for him and in no way "harsh". She is still a child in the eyes of the law. 15 year olds are very in tune with things these days. A lot more than we would have been that's for sure. It doesn't mean that the sentence should be any more lenient just because of her age.

He knew he had control over her and could manipulate her and he did so. It's a disgusting act.

Can i make it clear that i dont think Johnson should get off, it seems to be very black or white for you, either send him down for the max time or he is innocent.

Who's to say that he won't serve the maximum time he has been given? Only posters speculating that he'll get off within 1-2 years.

Canadel · 02-03-2016 07:24PM

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Standard breaking up words!

Apparently she said to Johnson, "It's not you, it's me."

That_Guy wrote: »

You think? I think it's a perfectly reasonable sentence. Total abuse of power/fame etc.

This is the part I still struggle to get my head around. Johnson wasn't actually in a position of power over the child. Yes, he was a professional footballer, but he didn't directly have any control over the girl in an official capacity like say a teacher, doctor, coach etc.

By the prosecution using Johnson's supposed position of power as a professional footballer over the girl as an argument, they are basically condemning Johnson for simply being a professional footballer, well known and wealthy. He didn't actually have any power over her, but rather a narrative has been constructed by the prosecution in order to create the illusion that he did. It may be a small thing in comparison to the apparent fact that he engaged in sexual contact with a minor, but it still stinks.

02-03-2016 07:26PM

niallo27 wrote: »

So you saying he should get the same penalty if she was five of fifteen. I dont agree. I think the sentence should be higher the younger the person is. Can i make it clear that i dont think Johnson should get off, it seems to be very black or white for you, either send him down for the max time or he is innocent.

If she was 5 he should never get out.

Johnson is getting away lightly imo

~Rebel~ · 02-03-2016 07:28PM

Kristopherus wrote: »

Where did this 5-10yrs in the clink come from?

From here; http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/02/adam-johnson-not-guilty-one-count-of-sex-with-schoolgirl?CMP=share_btn_tw

The judge said his preliminary view was that the case fell into the category of a five-year prison sentence with a range of four to 10 years.

That_Guy · 02-03-2016 07:29PM

Canadel wrote: »

This is the part I still struggle to get my head around. Johnson wasn't actually in a position of power over the child. Yes, he was a professional footballer, but he didn't directly have any control over the girl in an official capacity like say a teacher, doctor, coach etc.

He used his social standing as a means to have power over her. Knowing he was her favourite footballer. Knowing he could pretty much say/do anything to her without fear of grief or rebuttal. He groomed her and pursued her knowing that he could get what he wanted from her.

By the prosecution using Johnson's supposed position of power as a professional footballer over the girl as an argument, they are basically condemning Johnson for simply being a professional footballer, well known and wealthy. He didn't actually have any power over her, but rather a narrative has been constructed by the prosecution in order to create the illusion that he did. It may be a small thing in comparison to the apparent fact that he engaged in sexual contact with a minor, but it still stinks.

They are condemning him for being a professional footballer who used his fame/social standing to manipulate and groom a child.

niallo27 · 02-03-2016 07:31PM

RoboKlopp wrote: »

If she was 5 he should never get out.

Johnson is getting away lightly imo

I agree but she wasnt, when you say he is getting off lightly do you mean a max of ten years is getting off lightly.

Canadel · 02-03-2016 07:35PM

That_Guy wrote: »

He used his social standing as a means to have power over her. Knowing he was her favourite footballer. Knowing he could pretty much say/do anything to her without fear of grief or rebuttal. He groomed her and pursued her knowing that he could get what he wanted from her.

They are condemning him for being a professional footballer who used his fame/social standing to manipulate and groom a child.

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

That_Guy · 02-03-2016 07:39PM

Canadel wrote: »

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

Are you being serious? He knew she was his favourite footballer. He obviously played on that. They can't ignore that fact.

Paully D · 02-03-2016 07:40PM

Statement from Sunderland:

To respect the legal process, Sunderland AFC was unable to comment on this case until after the jury had delivered its verdict. It has now done so and we thank our supporters for their patience and understanding. We now wish to clarify certain matters which arose during the trial.

Mr. Johnson was suspended by the club immediately following his arrest on March 2, 2015. At that time, the club was advised by police of the broad nature of the allegations against Mr. Johnson, who was being advised at all times by his own legal team. The club felt that the decision to suspend was appropriate at that time, even though he had not then been charged with any offence. Two weeks later, his suspension was lifted after a meeting between the club and the Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), and after the club took independent legal advice. The club reached this decision only after carrying out a safeguarding assessment and liaising with relevant agencies.
On 23 April 2015, Mr. Johnson was charged with four offences. The club was informed that it was Mr. Johnson’s intention to defend all the charges, a stance he maintained right up until the first day of trial. The club continued to review the safeguarding procedures it had put in place throughout this time.

On 4 May 2015, an introductory meeting took place between Mr. Johnson, his father and Orlando Pownall QC. Mr. Pownall had not previously met Mr. Johnson. The club’s CEO was present during part of that meeting. During the time that she was present there was no suggestion whatsoever that Mr. Johnson would be changing his plea. Some documents were received relating to the case, which were immediately sent to Mr. Pownall for his attention. However, the club was not in a position to make any judgment on the outcome of the case nor on Mr. Johnson’s decision to defend all the allegations. Following that meeting, Mr. Johnson again confirmed to the club, presumably on advice from his own legal team, that his intention was to defend the charges in their entirety and he was confident of success once all evidence had been considered. He subsequently entered not guilty pleas to all charges on 6 June 2015.

The club did not give evidence either for the prosecution or the defence in this case. It was therefore not present in court when it is understood that a suggestion was made that the club knew all along that Mr. Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club and that the club may also have been involved in tactical discussions about the plea. This is utterly without foundation and is refuted in the strongest possible terms. The club never placed any pressure or demands on Mr. Johnson to play football during this process. Decisions in relation to the pleas and the conduct of the trial have been left entirely to Mr. Johnson and his highly experienced and skilled legal team. Mr. Johnson has admitted in evidence that he changed his plea “on legal advice”.

The club only became aware of the change of plea, in relation to two of the four counts on the indictment, on the first day of the trial, after hearing it reported through the media. The club was not advised in advance that Mr. Johnson would plead guilty to any offence. Had the club known that Mr. Johnson intended to plead guilty to any of these charges, then his employment would have been terminated immediately. Indeed, upon learning of the guilty plea on 11 February 2016, the club acted quickly and decisively in terminating Adam Johnson’s contract without notice.

This has been an extremely difficult time for all involved. The victim and her family have endured an unimaginable ordeal in the last 12 months and we trust that they will now be allowed to move on with their lives without further intrusion or public scrutiny.

Following the announcement of today’s verdict and the release of this detailed statement, the club intends to make no further comment.

~Rebel~ · 02-03-2016 07:41PM

Canadel wrote: »

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

It's not necessarily his fame and social standing that is being taken into account - it's the girl's view of him, and his knowledge of that view.

He had a social leverage, and he used it to the full, beginning with offering her a match-worn jersey. Instead of just giving it to her though, he had her meet him in his jeep in a car park. He then told her he expected a thank you kiss, and it went from there.

He took full advantage of the fact that in her eyes, he wasn't just any normal punter, he was a hero.

adox · 02-03-2016 07:43PM

Canadel wrote: »

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

Why not? She didn't really know him from Adam(boom boom).

It was because he was a famous footballer that she had any interest in him. Her favourite footballer and most likely an idol.

He most certainly used that position to groom and assault her. It seems totally relevant.

Canadel · 02-03-2016 07:44PM

That_Guy wrote: »

Are you being serious? He knew she was his favourite footballer. He obviously played on that. They can't ignore that fact.

I'm very serious. I don't care if she thought he was the best player that ever lived. It should not have been considered nor tolerated as an argument against Johnson in terms of sentencing. By doing so, you're basically saying a sh*t sunday league footballer found guilty of the same level of grooming and sexual misconduct should be seen as an argument in favour of a lesser sentence. A crime is a crime. And being famous or of social standing is not a crime.

armaghlad · 02-03-2016 07:44PM

Canadel wrote: »

And all of that stinks. Being famous is not a crime. And social standing is a nothing statement.

He should have been tried for any sexual interaction and grooming of a minor. But his fame and social standing should not have been taken into consideration by the judge or jury, and the prosecution should have been told where to stick that argument.

Do you think the girl would have been infatuated with Adam Johnson, plumber? Or Adam Johnson, taxi driver?

Moneymaker · 02-03-2016 07:45PM

Given his obvious tendency to lie to just about everyone I'm inclined to believe Sunderland.

Canadel · 02-03-2016 07:53PM

armaghlad wrote: »

Do you think the girl would have been infatuated with Adam Johnson, plumber? Or Adam Johnson, taxi driver?

That is exactly my point. Perhaps. perhaps not. But a 15 year old girl could potentially be infatuated with Adam Johnson plumber or taxi driver or politician or deli counter server. Do you think their profession would be used against them and taken into consideration in sentencing like Adam Johnson's has been? In fact, it's more likely that people in those jobs would have some actual power over the girl, as opposed to Johnson who she merely saw from a distance and admired. It's entirely absurd to attempt to argue that Adam Johnson professional footballer should suffer tougher sentencing because of his fame.

bucketybuck · 02-03-2016 07:56PM

I'd repeat my point from earlier in the thread. I would like Adam Johnson to receive the same sentence that any other person would get for grooming a 15 year old.

armaghlad · 02-03-2016 08:00PM

Canadel wrote: »

That is exactly my point. Perhaps. perhaps not. But a 15 year old girl could potentially be infatuated with Adam Johnson plumber or taxi driver or politician or deli counter server. Do you think their profession would be used against them and taken into consideration in sentencing like Adam Johnson's has been? In fact, it's more likely that people in those jobs would have some actual power over the girl, as opposed to Johnson who she merely saw from a distance and admired. It's entirely absurd to attempt to argue that Adam Johnson professional footballer should suffer tougher sentencing because of his fame.

I don't know. I see where you are coming from, but his profession IMO is definitely an aggravating factor. She was one of his fans! Who liked him because he played for her favourite team! He completely used that to his advantage. Granted (IMO anyway) it was quite an opportunistic set of events which led to him to do what he did.

~Rebel~ · 02-03-2016 08:26PM

Canadel wrote: »

That is exactly my point. Perhaps. perhaps not. But a 15 year old girl could potentially be infatuated with Adam Johnson plumber or taxi driver or politician or deli counter server. Do you think their profession would be used against them and taken into consideration in sentencing like Adam Johnson's has been? In fact, it's more likely that people in those jobs would have some actual power over the girl, as opposed to Johnson who she merely saw from a distance and admired. It's entirely absurd to attempt to argue that Adam Johnson professional footballer should suffer tougher sentencing because of his fame.

I don't think it's causing him to get tougher sentencing. I think it's getting him the exact same sentencing as anyone who uses social leverage over a child to get what they want from them, whatever that leverage may be.

cowboyBuilder · 02-03-2016 09:05PM

That_Guy wrote: »

Jesus wept. Is this the type of thinking that some people have? He knew well what he was doing and her age.

I'm not saying it was ok !

I'm saying it's a harsh sentence

Moneymaker · 02-03-2016 09:08PM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I'm not saying it was ok !

I'm saying it's a harsh sentence

What if it was your daughter?

Sanity_Saviour · 02-03-2016 09:14PM

niallo27 wrote: »

I agree but she wasnt, when you say he is getting off lightly do you mean a max of ten years is getting off lightly.

I wouldnt bother lad, there's more internet points going for absolute outrage regardlesss of the content. Like look at this:

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.

This poster (and almost 20 others!!) think that by not calling him the worst scum ever to walk the earth, that you are actually a paedophile! The internet is a funny old place

Ulysses Gaze · 02-03-2016 10:15PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'd repeat my point from earlier in the thread. I would like Adam Johnson to receive the same sentence that any other person would get for grooming a 15 year old.

In the UK that could mean a max of 2 years in prison. There have been some crazy sentences handed down in the UK for this type of thing.

monkey9 · 03-03-2016 07:23AM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I'm not saying it was ok !

I'm saying it's a harsh sentence

Well then he shouldn't have done it.

03-03-2016 07:29AM

On a controversial note...should her sexual experience be a factor?

Not in determine guilt or innocence of course, but in deciding penalty. If the experience was new to her, would that not increase the impact and thus the penalty should be increased under the old adage "you take your victim as you find them".

monkey9 · 03-03-2016 07:38AM

Deleted User wrote: »

On a controversial note...should her sexual experience be a factor?

Not in determine guilt or innocence of course, but in deciding penalty. If the experience was new to her, would that not increase the impact and thus the penalty should be increased under the old adage "you take your victim as you find them".

He found her as a fifteen year old. So he should be punished accordingly on that basis.

ronjo · 03-03-2016 08:25AM

He is a scumbag alright but are our sentences lighter?
This is far worse

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/two-year-sentence-for-dublin-teacher-who-sexually-abused-boy-10-597083.html

Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Comments