Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be surprised if anyone actually thought sexual abuse of a minor was not wrong.

You're wrong obviously. Anyone who hasn't deemed him a disgusting "pedo" is clearly a "pedo" themselves.


:rolleyes:

There is no trail of abuse in this case? Just a one time foolish decision ?
Girl
'' I was well up for it''
'' recorded messages to brag about it to friends''

The trauma this girl felt was nothing to do with the relationship she was in, she loved that, that's very clear. It was what happened when it came out, the '' abuse'' only started then. Abuse from people on social media, people in her life, press. This is what came out in court.
This seems to be what Johnson is been punished somewhat for, the trauma of what happened to this girl after it became public.
Their relationship was clearly consensual in every way ,just not in the eyes of the law .

LAW IS LAW so no one can argue with it. But this is not a case of sustained child abuse with many victims over the course of many years.
One could argue that if Johnson had admitted to it and shown remorse from the moment it came out that he would probably not get jail time. It would have played out different had he not thrown her to the wolves and instead kept her on side. Had he just admitted they had a relationship, that is was consensual, no rape, no abuse but broke the law regardless.He would of got a slap on the wrist. I can imagine this law is broke 1000's of times a day in uk and no one's batting a eye to it. How many 19 year olds are '' grooming'' 15 years olds with spins in cars, or little gifts to get the in with the girl, they end up in relationship, but no one cares.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Armaghlad the age of consent is there for a reason, and this girl had yet to reach it, a fact Johnson was FULLY aware of.

But it can and has been changed by politicians. If he was playing in Germany he could have had an orgy with 10 14 year olds if he wanted. Would that be ok because the age of consent says so?

On the twitter stuff, as with many cases, thats not on Johnson. Idiots with internet access are responsible for their own actions.

armaghlad wrote: »

Bit of a tangent here, but in other countries the age of consent is lower than 16. Are men in those countries who sleep with say, a 15 year old girl, paedophiles? I read somewhere that humans don't develop adult reasoning until their early 20s. So surely the age of consent should be 21. Is this not an issue that civilised countries could work towards agreed principles? Or would cultural differences make that a non starter?

Ephebaphile, technically - one who is attracted to teenagers.

The post is irrelevant: the law is set, the law was known by the offender, the law was broken by the offender. And whether or not he is normally attracted to underage children/teenagers, the fact is he committed an offense against one and will be punished for it.

I said earlier in the thread and I'll say it again: even if the age of consent was a year or two younger, and he hadn't acted illegally, this is a still a morally represhensible act.

armaghlad wrote: »

I know, I did say it was a tangent.

I'm trying to question attitudes more than anything. Generally speaking, how could it be that it's morally reprehensible one day; but the very next (ie birthday) it be perfectly fine? How can other countries have a lower age of consent? Like in theory you could be 28 in the UK, have a girlfriend of 16, marry her, but the second you set foot in Ireland you could be arrested.

It's morally reprehensible on both days, in my book. Taking sexual advantage of someone who is still developing sexually for your own pleasures is never really a nice move. And sexual development is not complete on a specific birthday - it's just that age is really one only guideline legal bodies can use.

I don't think anyone here would be arguing that he should be viewed any more honourably if the victim had been six or nine months older.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see that Sunderland FC are coming under some serious pressure to explain themselves on this.

The statement they put out completely avoided the stated claim by AJ that he told them, they are sticking to their 'innocent until proven guilty' line, which seems fine expect that he claims he told them he did it.

Now, they can of course argue that he should be judged by the courts etc, but it calls into question how they treat their customers (ie the fans) and what obligation they have as an employer to protect their customers from their employees.

Sunderland cut off all questions about it yesterday at the pre match press conf. I doubt this is going to go away for them though.

I'd be curious how Sunderland fans would see it if they avoid being relegated to the football league by one point (considering his last goal before being sacked earned them that point).

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see that Sunderland FC are coming under some serious pressure to explain themselves on this.

The statement they put out completely avoided the stated claim by AJ that he told them, they are sticking to their 'innocent until proven guilty' line, which seems fine expect that he claims he told them he did it.

Did we read the same statement? They didn't avoid the claim, they contradicted it and said that they were explicitly told all the way that he was pleading not guilty and would fight the claims. They were completely unaware that he was going to change his plea to guilty and the minute he did they sacked him.

Seriously, did we read different statements?

bucketybuck wrote: »

Did we read the same statement? They didn't avoid the claim, they contradicted it and said that they were explicitly told all the way that he was pleading not guilty and would fight the claims. They were completely unaware that he was going to change his plea to guilty and the minute he did they sacked him.

Seriously, did we read different statements?

We both read the same statement, I just paid attention to what they didn't say.

AJ stated that he told SAFC in May 15 that he had kissed the girl, that he had contact with her. He also acknowledged this to the police in his first interview. The police have confirmed that they provided SAFC with copies and summaries of the interviews.

So the narrative that SAFC are trying to put out is that they weren't aware he was going to plead guilty, but that is not the issue. It appears from both AJ and the police that SAFC knew he had, at the very least, been in contact with the girl and something had gone on.

They state that the CEO left during the meeting but do not explain why or did anybody else from SAFC take her place. What was the purpose of the meeting if not for SAFC to try to get the details, yet it seems apart from asking him about his plea they never did.

They then go on to mention "The club reached this decision (to withdraw suspension) only after carrying out a safeguarding assessment and liaising with relevant agencies.", but do not state what this actually was, why they thought it necessary given he was innocent and what agencies were contacted.

bucketybuck wrote: »

Or heard what you wanted to hear more like.

With a host of lawyers present Johnson told his bosses that he was innocent and that he would be fighting the case till the end. You seem to think the club should have played detective themselves and sacked him despite his clear claim of innocence. It isn't the club role to decide his guilt or innocence, especially not when he has his own legal counsel.

He never stated he was innocent, he may well have said he would fight it till the end.

No need to play detective. He stated in the trial that he told SAFC that he kissed her. He stated that they saw the transcripts of the messages. It is not even about whether he is found innocent or guilty. The law is based on beyond all reasonable doubt, but if they knew what he had done they should have acted? There is a world of difference between found guilty in court of law and having done something. I can be speeding in my car but unless the garda have the equipment to prove it then there is simply no case. I know I did it, they know I did it but no court can convict me.

They in no way contradict his statement. They say that he didn't tell them he would plead guilty. They don't even mention what else was said in the meeting and completely avoid dealing with his claim of having told them.

Do you take the same approach to the church? Since the priests weren't convicted then the church really couldn't do anything?

SAFC are using a very tight definition in order to avoid their own moral obligations. Remember this is a customer of theirs. Did they even bother to check if she was ok?

He was arrested, they suspended him. They were given his admission and some police evidence. After meeting with the PFA and his agent they decide to reinstate him. They then make a virtue of the fact that when the court heard the facts that they already know they found him guilty and so they fired him. Thye give no details of what changed between their decision to suspend and then reinstate. They make not mention of his claim to have told them.

Sometimes you don't need a judge to tell you what is right and wrong

Dempsey wrote: »

There are just ethically and morally bankrupt is all then

No different to the vast majority of football clubs or any other organisation that deals in millions and billions of pounds then.

Celtic for example are currently employing someone with a drink-driving conviction for driving almost 4 times over the legal limit and someone who has confessed to racially abusing a fellow professional.

If you want to find ethics and morals, within football is the last place I'd be looking.

LiamoSail wrote: »

Lee Grifiths is a a proper chav alright, but to compare him singing "Rudi Skacel is an effing refugee" with a crowd of his Hibs mates to what Johnson got up to is taking the piss.

Obviously the Griffiths example directly contravenes Celtic's ethos, but Jesus it dosent even register on the Johnstone scale

Not comparing it at all (which should go without saying), just pointing out that the vast majority of clubs are "ethically and morally bankrupt".