Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

niallo27 · 24-03-2016 04:15PM

mansize wrote: »

Eh... No.

What is Niall searching???

That_Guy wrote: »

What are you looking up?

That might have come across a bit odd from me, i just mean there is so much ****ed up **** out there that we all have come across at sometime. I am not looking at animal porn dont worry.

Guy:Incognito · 24-03-2016 04:24PM

That_Guy wrote: »

Probably not. But it certainly helps explain the type of individual he is.

It might not help explain anything. It could very easily be a picture on his phone when they arrested him that a mate sent ages before thinking he was being hilarious.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 24-03-2016 05:17PM

That_Guy wrote: »

Probably not. But it certainly helps explain the type of individual he is.

Eh... how? Considering you have no idea what it was, how it got there (or if it was even there in the first place)?

That_Guy · 24-03-2016 05:28PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Eh... how? Considering you have no idea what it was, how it got there (or if it was even there in the first place)?

The following tweets from inside the courtroom really make him out to be a sexual deviant.

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/713029831802417152

It can also now be reported that Adam Johnson browsed a website called “Nice Young Teens”, which featured explicit images but not unlawful

Look, while it wasn't deemed unlawful, it's going into dangerous territory given what he did with that child. Obviously these are separate to the case.

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/713028914214469632

It can now be reported that Adam Johnson was arrested for possessing extreme pornography - bestiality - on his laptop last year

Johnson has since been told by police he will face no further action for possessing bestiality pornography

Quite clearly says that he possessed it. No charges for it though. Why you'd get off on someone having sex with an animal is beyond comprehension to me.

24-03-2016 05:30PM

armaghlad wrote: »

Well he earned £2m odd from when he was first arrested. Plenty of assets as well. And the girl and her family aren't seeking any monetary damages which is highly commendable.

We'll she has a few years in which to do so. Has she signalled that she doesn't want to take a civil action?

6 years seems harsh but then again he did fight the case so he took his chances, that's gonna result in an increased tariff anyway. He probably would have got 2 less if he pleaded guilty.

Moist Bread · 24-03-2016 05:33PM

Man, we really got some mileage out of this thread.

~Rebel~ · 24-03-2016 05:47PM

Coat22 wrote: »

I don't know what is appropriate but the fact that you can do 7-10 years for murder, less for rape etc....to me 6 years seems ridiculous.

I couldn't care less about the guy. He had it all and f*cked it away to drop the laimh for a few minutes. He could have f*cked around with plenty of girls 16+ and continued with his career but he was too thick to figure out that if he really wanted to play around with this girl all he'd have had to do was wait another 10 months.

The difference of opinions on the Soccer forums and AH forums is funny on the same topic. Soccer forum seems to be much more of a mob reaction.

A huge part of this is his reaction to what he's done too though. It wasn't just "dropping the laimh for a few minutes" it was 800 messages sent over the course of 3 months - there was no impulsive reaction here, he worked hard to get what he wanted. The nature of the grooming is pretty troubling - as you said he can easily get women without all this work, so why is he going so far out of his way to get with a child?

He seems to have had no comprehension of how his actions would affect her too, lying for a year pleading complete innocence - a year in which she faced constant abuse, death threats, and being called a liar on a daily basis.

And we always have to keep in mind that she's a child, and children will always be (rightly) protected more by the law than adults, because they're far more vulnerable.

Coat22 wrote: »

Well someone on there made the point about Rolf Harris - remember him? - 5 years and 9 months, countless victims, younger, worse crimes. This is off the wall by comparison

To be honest, it's the Rolf Harris one that looks off the wall, rather than this one.

garra · 24-03-2016 06:05PM

I'm glad he got 6 years, especially after hearing how he groomed her for so long, he knew what he was doing was wrong but thought he was above being caught for it.
Instead of pointing out the outlier instances of similar crimes receiving lesser sentences (and without taking into account the multitude of reasons for those sentences) I would have thought people would be happy to see justice being served fully and without prejudice in this instance.

eagle eye · 24-03-2016 07:39PM

I don't think he got long enough tbh. He groomed her for quite a while and did check out the age of consent but then proceeded further anyways. He has no excuse for what he did and imo he should have got 10 years for it.

Strumms · 24-03-2016 07:46PM

Total scumbag. No remorse and he has his family condeming the victim and setting up facebook accounts to defend him... seriously i wouldnt give a flying **** if any family member of mine did what he did... id never be speaking to them again full stop... and on a side note to add to all this... animal porn ! Shows whatbsort of mind we are dealing with.. what a guy ! 6 years is **** all really for him.. scumbag.

24-03-2016 07:48PM

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Ridiculous sentence. Should be a year at the most

Would you say that if it was a man of his age grooming your underage daughter?

~Rebel~ · 24-03-2016 07:52PM

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Would you say that if it was a man of his age grooming your daughter?

To be fair, the legal system is constructed entirely to avoid this question.

If it's your daughter you'd be giving him a life sentence, that's exactly why justice is meted out by impartial observers.

I think on the merits of the case and the harm he caused her, both directly and indirectly, along with the sheer amount of time he invested in grooming her, that the sentence is pretty fair.

BorneTobyWilde · 24-03-2016 08:35PM

Had she been 16 he would of still done what he done. She was not a '' target'' it was just the circumstances. No trail here of endless underage girls he was targeting.
Would all have played out the same had she say in that text '' I'm 16''
He still would have continued to do what he did.

Moist Bread · 24-03-2016 08:42PM

Strumms wrote: »

Total scumbag. No remorse and he has his family condeming the victim and setting up facebook accounts to defend him... seriously i wouldnt give a flying **** if any family member of mine did what he did... id never be speaking to them again full stop... and on a side note to add to all this... animal porn ! Shows whatbsort of mind we are dealing with.. what a guy ! 6 years is **** all really for him.. scumbag.

Haha oh man. Tell us how you really feel.

Strumms · 24-03-2016 09:09PM

Moist Bread wrote: »

Haha oh man. Tell us how you really feel.

I did ! But thanks for your contribution.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 24-03-2016 09:23PM

That_Guy wrote: »

The following tweets from inside the courtroom really make him out to be a sexual deviant.

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/713029831802417152

Look, while it wasn't deemed unlawful, it's going into dangerous territory given what he did with that child. Obviously these are separate to the case.

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/713028914214469632

Quite clearly says that he possessed it. No charges for it though. Why you'd get off on someone having sex with an animal is beyond comprehension to me.

Didnt say he didnt. i said you didnt know when you made the original post.

~Rebel~ · 24-03-2016 09:27PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Had she been 16 he would of still done what he done. She was not a '' target'' it was just the circumstances. No trail here of endless underage girls he was targeting.
Would all have played out the same had she say in that text '' I'm 16''
He still would have continued to do what he did.

I'm not sure I get your point...

She obviously was a target, but not because of her specific age. 16 is the legal cutoff point, because a line has to be drawn somewhere, but he was obviously attracted by "young teen girl", rather than by the legal/illegal aspect.

niallo27 · 24-03-2016 09:43PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'm not sure I get your point...

She obviously was a target, but not because of her specific age. 16 is the legal cutoff point, because a line has to be drawn somewhere, but he was obviously attracted by "young teen girl", rather than by the legal/illegal aspect.

I think he is saying he fell for her. Not like jimmy Saville or them boys who just liked young girls and went from one to another

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-03-2016 09:43PM

A lot of people are saying the sentence was harsh but by refusing to take responsibility for his actions he subjected the girl to a sentence: about a year of people calling her a liar, a slag, and all the other terrible slurs thrown her way which have surely had a big impact on someone of her age.

He was the adult in the situation and yet he manipulated her, used her, abused her, and then he threw her to the wolves with his silence. I can't feel any sympathy for him.

mansize · 24-03-2016 10:59PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/03/24/adam-johnson-case-raises-issues-football-cannot-ignore/

Excellent write up in the telegraph

niallo27 · 24-03-2016 11:10PM

mansize wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/03/24/adam-johnson-case-raises-issues-football-cannot-ignore/

Excellent write up in the telegraph

I thought it was a bitter load of ****e, the author seems to use this case for a reason to bash football.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 24-03-2016 11:24PM

mansize wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/03/24/adam-johnson-case-raises-issues-football-cannot-ignore/

Excellent write up in the telegraph

He originally wrote that "Johnson was a monster of football's own making". That plus the content of this article leads me to think that the writer in question is of the opinion Adam Johnson would never have shown interest in underage teenage girls. I find this highly unlikely.

If you're sexually attracted to teenagers or children, you are sexually attracted to them. Your profession has nothing to do with it. I'd argue that he's just as likely to have offended, it just would have been a different victim.

He (Brown) tire to set out that this was an example of what happens in football, and yet curiously fails no mention that any previous cases of this footballers abusing children. I wnder why that is....

eagle eye · 24-03-2016 11:34PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

To be fair, the legal system is constructed entirely to avoid this question.

If it's your daughter you'd be giving him a life sentence, that's exactly why justice is meted out by impartial observers.

I think on the merits of the case and the harm he caused her, both directly and indirectly, along with the sheer amount of time he invested in grooming her, that the sentence is pretty fair.

An armed robber who didn't hurt anyone gets 10 years and this guy gets 6 and you say that's about right?

I'd say he deserves at least as much time as the armed robber.

mansize · 24-03-2016 11:52PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He originally wrote that "Johnson was a monster of football's own making". That plus the content of this article leads me to think that the writer in question is of the opinion Adam Johnson would never have shown interest in underage teenage girls. I find this highly unlikely.

If you're sexually attracted to teenagers or children, you are sexually attracted to them. Your profession has nothing to do with it. I'd argue that he's just as likely to have offended, it just would have been a different victim.

He (Brown) tire to set out that this was an example of what happens in football, and yet curiously fails no mention that any previous cases of this footballers abusing children. I wnder why that is....

He mentioned Rix. Interested to see if anything further develops from this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 25-03-2016 12:13AM

mansize wrote: »

He mentioned Rix. Interested to see if anything further develops from this.

One case, seventeen years ago, of a guy who had retired five years earlier? Hardly grounds on which to launch an attack...

Sand · 25-03-2016 12:19AM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

He seems to have had no comprehension of how his actions would affect her too, lying for a year pleading complete innocence - a year in which she faced constant abuse, death threats, and being called a liar on a daily basis.

In fairness, Johnson didn't send her messages of constant abuse, death threats and calling her a liar on a daily basis. The average joe with a twitter account did. Blaming him for it absolves people of responsibility for their own actions: "Johnson taking legal advice and pleading innocent made me do it!"

mansize · 25-03-2016 12:20AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

One case, seventeen years ago, of a guy who had retired five years earlier? Hardly grounds on which to launch an attack...

You said he hadn't mentioned any...

I wonder will more come forward like happened with the clerical and BBC abuse

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 25-03-2016 12:55AM

mansize wrote: »

You said he hadn't mentioned any...

I wonder will more come forward like happened with the clerical and BBC abuse

True, but my point was that he hadn't come close to establish the point he was trying to make. It comes across as a hatchet-piece written by a sensationalist tabloid hack with a vendetta against football trying to shoehorn an irrelevant personal agenda into an serious issue.

The clerical and BBC abuse is a different scenario, because that was nearly all historical abuse, whereas the story was written concerning modern-day football.

Of course, football has a responsibility to protect young people within its realm - any profession where children are concerned does - but where has it been proven that it consistently failed in this responsibility?

~Rebel~ · 25-03-2016 01:44AM

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, Johnson didn't send her messages of constant abuse, death threats and calling her a liar on a daily basis. The average joe with a twitter account did. Blaming him for it absolves people of responsibility for their own actions: "Johnson taking legal advice and pleading innocent made me do it!"

It was his fault. Him telling the world that she was lying was the direct catalyst, leading to entirely predictable results. Just look at the poor girl who had the same done to her after Ched Evans raped her and said she was lying about it.

You can say that each and every one of those idiots did it of their own volition, but that's to ignore the world we actually live in. Yes, of course they are also entirely to blame for their own actions - but blame for an event doesn't work in percentages. He set the ball in motion, knowing what would happen.

It would have stopped immediately had he admitted his guilt to begin with. But instead, he lied, ran from the consequences of his actions, and as a result, directly caused this girl to have every Wearside moron directing their vitriol at her for a year.

fullstop · 25-03-2016 02:16AM

mansize wrote: »

She could have digitally penetrated him also

See i knew you were talking ****e but thanks for confirming. What difference would it make if she digitally penetrated him after grooming, having sex with him 50+ times and then telling him she was pregnant when he tried to end it...not emotionally distressing to a 15 year old at all :rolleyes:

Adam Johnson pleads GUILTY

Comments