MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Premier League footballer earning £60k per week grooms 15 yr old girl and is involved in sexual activity. So sacked, career ruined, life effectively ruined and about to be thrown in prison. Quite right too I think, but 5-10 years as is being suggested....,does that sound a bit OTT?
No
shud av iz ballz cut off
Bourbons for me please.
Depends if sexual exploitation is somehow different if you own a Range Rover. Lots of folk getting jailed for it at present.
He'll be out in two, playing for Sheffield United a few weeks after that.
Sunderland supporter here and pretty disgusted by the whole thing as more and more information comes out.
Throw the book at him..... And make sure its a big heavy one with very pointy corners.
No. £60K per week with a wife and child. He was 27 at the time of the of the offenses so hardly a bit of a kid with too much time and money on his hands. Never stopped to think about the effect on his family, only thought about where he the next * was coming from. The fact that his next target was an underage girl is really going to make his child proud.
He had what most can only dream of yet he blew it to try and * a 15 y/o girl. He deserves whatever is coming to him.
Why should his salary and profession matter?
<Pulls up a chair>
seems a bit steep..what did the likes of
Harris and hall get? wasn't it around 7 for considerably worse behavior.
that said I don't care in the slightest..no doubt a wrong un and should have known better.
I'm more interested in what happens when that other sleeze bag ched evans gets cleared on appeal later in the month..
playing for Sheffield United a few weeks after that.
[img]
[/img]To address the OP, no it doesn't seem excessive. As I understand it Adam Johnson had both googled the age of consent and determined the girl was not yet 16 and still went ahead with his liaison.
Imagine it was your daughter. Have a read here: [url= http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s9_sexual_activity_with_a_child/ ]http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s9_sexual_activity_with_a_child/[/url]
It shouldn't matter Flashy. The crime is the same regardless - I don't agree with the whole role model element. A teacher, police officer etc is a role model, not a footballer, despicable as his actions were.
what did the likes of
Harris and hall get? wasn't it around 7 for considerably worse behavior.
I dimly recollect that Harris and Hall were sentenced under much more lenient legislation because their offences were committed decades ago, so you can't really compare. Basically, they would have got a lot more if they had done it two years ago.
I don't agree with the whole role model element.
Even putting aside the 'he's a role model, punish him more' side of things, he used his status and authority directly in the commissioning of the grooming offence, so that aggravates it in terms of sentencing. Similar to a teacher or policeman who abuses a position of authority in this way.
He throws everything away for a moment of madness and shall have to live to regret it for the rest of his life.
I bet once all his money is gone he will feel the pressure and will eventually take the easy way out ... 😯
I bet once all his money is gone he will feel the pressure and will eventually take the easy way out ...
What, become a Sky Sports pundit?
A teacher, police officer etc is a role model, not a footballer, despicable as his actions were.
And also...
he used his status and authority directly in the commissioning of the grooming offence, so that aggravates it in terms of sentencing.
His salary, and the fact that he was a "Premier league" soccerist aren't really important, bar the fact that he abused a position of trust. No worse than a swimming/gymnastics/whatever coach who's a volunteer abusing their position of trust.
Rolf Harris seems like a full on paedo though; surely they can't let him out?
Teachers, coaches, scout leaders, etc don't get harsher treatment because they're "role models" but because of the access they have to children and the position of trust they occupy. Whether we apply that kind of criteria to footballers is up to society. Personally, I feel they're in a position where they receive much adulation from youngsters and can easily take advantage of that. Which, in the case of Johnson, he's done.
I find it quite disturbing that he's had to check the age of consent.* FFS!
[*if that's true...only taking the poster's word for it]
His salary, and the fact that he was a "Premier league" soccerist aren't really important, bar the fact that he abused a position of trust. No worse than a swimming/gymnastics/whatever coach who's a volunteer abusing their position of trust.
I don't think we disagree, but his status as seen by the victim may explain why his sentence is likely to be a lot more than for an 'ordinary' 27-year-old.
Rolf Harris seems like a full on paedo though; surely they can't let him out?
I think they've just charged him with some more stuff, so hopefully that's the plan!
His salary, and the fact that he was a "Premier league" soccerist aren't really important
Everything about a person is important when a crime like this has been committed. I would expect a judge to take all aspects of a person's life into account when deciding how harshly he or she has to be sentenced after grooming a 15 year old girl.
Flying ox for some reason the cps website is rubbish on sex better to google the Sentencing Council's definitive guidelines published april 2014, aside from a bit of gossip i know the square root of zero about this case but guess he ought to deservedly land about or above the 5 year mark if it involved full sex. 10 is the top of the range and seems overboard .
It was not a moment of madness it was calculated grooming.
He used his status as a Premier Footballer to abuse a 15 year old girl. SAFC kept him employed even with the admissions made to them.
As I understand it Adam Johnson had both googled the age of consent and determined the girl was not yet 16 and still went ahead with his liaison.
However, she was only just under the age of consent. Are you telling us that if she was say, six months older, it would be perfectly OK? Which I think is the OPs point. I don't know her exact age. What if it was a day before her birthday? A day after? Any different.
Whilst it's not something I condone, I think it's fair to say it's not that black and white. Didn't John Peel marry a 15 year old? He's still a national treasure.
What if it was a day before her birthday? A day after? Any different.
Yes. It is different.
HTH.
SAFC kept him employed even with the admissions made to them.
Not quite what the statement from the club says Drac.
Statement from Sunderland AFC.
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.
His behaviour is inexcusable and incredibly stupid but it was not a unanimous verdict and he was cleared of one of the charges against him so a maximum permissible sentence seems unlikely.
Some of the comments of the judge (using football analogies and telling hime to say goodbye to his daughter) seem poorly chosen and to be playing to the gallery.
On the other hand he deliberately targeted and isolated an underage girl then seduced her with his power and position does not the deliberate targeting of someone " illegal " and the exploitation of his power and her vulnerability make his crime worse. After all he could have easily waited a year unless he felt it was part of the pleasure that she was too young.
Suspended for 2 weeks then not sacked until a few weeks ago, yeah I'd say they kept him employed. After all he wasn't playing those matches for free.
It's whether they knew he was planning to change to a guilty plea that's the key issue. Chances are he timed his plea change with this in mind, they didn't have to have anything to do with it.
I've seen cases where salary and 'standing' are taken into account by judges when sentencing but the other way round. People with 'more to lose' are seen as having suffered more already from the shame of their crime etc. Seems ****ing rediculous to me.
.
@Drac - the club were told by Johnson that he was pleading not guilty and, on the advice of their legal council, rescinded their own suspension of him (innocent until proven guilty and all that). As soon as he pleaded guilty, they sacked him.
The player lied to the club to keep the cash rolling in (my assumption).
Why should his salary and profession matter?
Well, if he was an MP of good standing then it wouldn't have got to court.
So it does sometimes makes a difference I guess.
[img] 
[/img]
He's obviously not too smart. He could have just used his position as a Premier League football player to abuse a 16 year old girl and would then have done nothing illegal.
According to the news earlier, yes I know, he admitted to the club about the kissing part. To me that should have been enough.
That was according to Johnson, but perhaps he lied?
🙂
Hahaha! True.
What he did was completely wrong, but on an objective sliding scale of depravity, which is what a judge bases a sentence on, he was at the lower end and I suspect the internet pitchfork brigade will be disappointed.
12 months and out in 6, on the sex offenders register for 10 years.
As a father, very difficult to take the emotion out of it though.
Should his position as a football player or his salary have anything to do with it?
Ideally no. However let's draw a parallel with another profession, say for example IT Support. Would meeting a 27 y/o married IT Support Technician on Maplin's car park while he signed a couple of tablet cases in his Nissan have quite the same allure for a 15 y/o girl? Glamorous though the crazy world of IT is, I'm guessing not.
So, yes his profession and salary have got a lot to do with it and should be taken into account when sentencing.
Don't think there is much chance of 12 months , the last one I dealt with pleaded guilty to the proper legal definition of the act of grooming at the first opportunity and got 40 months 10 years on register and indefinite SHPO, so 5 would seem almost about right.
My guy travelled to have sex with a 14 year old girl and instead got a 48 year old bloke with hancuffs and an extendable baton.. oooer!!
Stealth edit, he was in I.t but was very scummy
@robin_perrie: The range of sentence for #AdamJohnson is 4-10 years. The starting point is 5 years.aggravating and mitigating factors will affect that
That's according to my mate who is a Sun reporter and was tweeting details of the trial. I've never seen so much discussion about pubic hair length.....
there's some delightful opinions being expressed above. 😕
i think what this case is suggesting is the protection the law offers to women is improving and that's brilliant. Its miles ahead of where society was in the 70s but its still ahead of some of the attitudes on here.
[Devils advocate]
Of course, the other side to this is that in quite a few allegedly enlightened European/western countries this wouldn't be a crime, however morally reprehensible his actions were?
[/Devil's advocate?]
So, yes his profession and salary have got a lot to do with it and should be taken into account when sentencing.
I hope the judiciary don't believe this. The other downside of his profession is that he gets coverage. Apart from the deserved shaming, I see v little purpose in extensive news coverage.
He should be treated like any other person who is guilty of the crime. And we really do not need to know the details....
He should be treated like any other person who is guilty of the crime. And we really do not need to know the details....
But his position* was a factor in the crime - as would a teachers position be in grooming a pupil. I doubt he'd have got very far if he was a Sunday league player.
(*his wage is not though).
But his position* was a factor in the crime - as would a teachers position be in grooming a pupil.
Hardly the same, Teachers are by definition responsible for Children welfare 8 hours a day. Footballers are not.
Hardly the same
Nobody has said it's the "same", only that it's a factor.
Nobody has said it's the "same", only that it's a factor.
Exactly. These players have a godlike status among a subset of teenage fans - he abused that position to coerce one into underage sex, and that has to be an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing.
Also, maintaining his innocence of the grooming offence right up to the court date, probably just to keep the money rolling in, has meant the victim has been deluged with threats and abuse for over a year.
the sun are doing their best to compare him to Huntley and Bellfield 😯
[img] 
[/img]
Of course, the other side to this is that in quite a few allegedly enlightened European/western countries this wouldn't be a crime, however morally reprehensible his actions were?
That's irrelevant.
That's irrelevant.
not really - if we consider, as a nation, that sex with a 15 year old is a perversion, then why are we happy to be in a union with nations that tolerate such perversion ?
Another reason to get out of the EU...
"However, she was only just under the age of consent. Are you telling us that if she was say, six months older, it would be perfectly OK? Which I think is the OPs point. I don't know her exact age. What if it was a day before her birthday? A day after?"
She'd just had her 15th birthday when he started to groom her - she'd told him that. She'd told him that she wasn't old enough to go out, and the text messages show that it was him that kept on turning the conversations sexual. His behaviour was classic grooming, very similar to the guys in Rochdale and Rotherham - find a vulnerable/impressionable teenage girl, flatter her and give her gifts, build a relationship and pressure her into thinking that she owes sexual favours before escalating the abuse.
European countries with a lower age of consent do have disclaimers written into law - for example, countries with an age of 14 have laws such as its a criminal offence if someone 'abuses their position' to have sex with an under 18, or that it's a criminal offence to have sex with somebody under 16/18 if they're not emotionally or physically mature enough to fully understand the act, or that 14-16/18 is only legal if there's no more than a two year age gap between the partners.
Go and have a read about the various conditions surrounding lower ages of consent across Europe TurnerGuy. Come back to us when you understand the matter at hand a little better.
Thread about grooming someone under the age of consent becomes someone's reason to "get out of the EU..."
Weird with a tinge of sinister.
not really - if we consider, as a nation, that sex with a 15 year old is a perversion, then why are we happy to be in a union with nations that tolerate such perversion ?Another reason to get out of the EU...
I didn't realise this was a thread about the EU.
if we consider, as a nation, that sex with a 15 year old is a perversion, then why are we happy to be in a union with nations that tolerate such perversion ?
We consider that people abusing their position to groom a child for sex, knowing them to be underage, is a serious crime.
Your attempt to link this crime to the EU referendum is in extremely poor taste.
IMO it's a simple abuse of position and grooming. Quite right he should go down, and go down hard for a very long time. I have no sympathy for anyone, whatever status or profession, who grooms and commits Sex crimes with minors.
If you want my opinion on his employer, well I think they've been very naive and lack the moral backbone to manage a club, legal support and advice or not. Any management team employing someone who confesses, or is told of an arrest by the police for a charge of this nature, and chooses to ignore and do nothing, legal advice and support or not, and continues to support the employee who has commited these offences should in any moral standing community either sack or stand down from a position of management.
Clearly the management support child abuse.
Sunderland imo acted correctly and in accordance with the law, he said he was not guilty and would plead that way. They suspended him but could not do more till plea / trial. Bikebouy you cannot terminate someone's contract just for being charged with something. I had an ex colleague who was charged with fare dodging (one of the high profile cases) he could not be fired till he was proven guilty
As for Johnson I find it hard to believe this was a first liason with a young fan. His sentence, assuming 5 years, seems correct. He used his position of notoriety to groom a girl who had just turned 15, the 10 year age difference is very relevant. It does however highlight how weak sentencing is for other crimes.
As for EU reference, two things. In Italy the age of consent is 14, if he where not British we couldn't deport him as he has a human right to a family life with his daughter, case law precedent defined by ECJ.
As for EU reference, two things. In Italy the age of consent is 14, if he where not British we couldn't deport him as he has a human right to a family life with his daughter, case law precedent defined by ECJ.
more #jambafacts it's not the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice ]ECJ[/url] its the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights ]European Convention on Human Rights[/url] which was established at the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights ]European Court of Human Rights[/url] which is not the EU
if he where not British we couldn't deport him as he has a human right to a family life with his daughter, case law precedent defined by ECJ.
Handy you mentioned that I am currently invovled in getting some ne'er do wells deported and our Q.C, junior and the relevant Home Office Solicitors haven't noticed that we're wasting our time as they all have kids, I'll point them to this and we can foget about it and go to the pub 😉
@Klunk it was a broad reference and in any case we cannot overule the ECJ because of our membership of the EU. How it was setup is irrelevant, its about the way the EU has migrated and increased its influence.
bikebouy - you are actually aware that this is the UK, not North Korea? Fortunately, if you're accused of anything here, you get to go to trail. A proper trial too. Not one conducted by the tabloid press.
He told his employer that he was innocent of all charges, and intended to please not guilty to all those charges against him. Surely if they then sacked him, he'd be able to take them to court for unfair dismissal?
So don't rail against his employer. They just did what they were legally, contractually obliged in doing, given the information they were supplied.
And I don't understand why the police have now weighed in, and said that they told Sunderland about all the charges against him. Yeah... and....?
Go and have a read about the various conditions surrounding lower ages of consent across Europe TurnerGuy. Come back to us when you understand the matter at hand a little better.
As far as I can see (wikipedia) some countries have age restrictions and some don't.
Not defending the bloke, just think he looks a bit like Rupert Friend...
Quite. If it turned out they'd sacked someone on the back of some baseless allegations, he'd be enforcing payment on the remaining years on his contract if the charges were dropped or thrown out of court. Obviously they would lose quite a handy player too, but that's as self-interested as it gets, and given they suspended him in the first instance, probably not their guiding principle.
I haven't read the details but did the police tell SAFC of the charges, or i understood they'd actually shared some of the evidence as well.
That said - if he maintains innocence up to (and suppose he had beyond the pleading stage of the trial) it's not for the police or the club to say whether the evidence is right or not.
On the other hand - proven guilty or not, most employers have the ability to terminate employment for behaviour likely to damage their reputation.
I suspect - it was in his interest to stay employed to bank as much cash as he could knowing he was guilty and would be a/ going to prison and b/ unemployable as a footballer thereafter. Don't know if that is dishonest or not - just trying to salvage what he can for his family while he can.
And it was probably also not against Sunderland's interests to not invoke any disrepute clause, to fall back against a legal 'innocent until proven guilty' safety net, and use him to avoid relegation, figuring the smell would go away faster than the impact of dropping to the Championship and missing out on the big money.
All IMHO of course.
proven guilty or not, most employers have the ability to terminate employment for behaviour likely to damage their reputation.
If Premiership clubs enforced that, none of them would be able to scrape a team together most weeks
I suspect - it was in his interest to stay employed to bank as much cash as he could knowing he was guilty and would be a/ going to prison and b/ unemployable as a footballer thereafter.
That was precisely what I thought.
The argument would be whether anything they do nowadays can bring their reputation any further down.
Although i suspect groping a 15 year old still just about gets over that threshold.
[ some of my club's recent signings - I'm not sure if it damages their reputation or just calls into question their claim to be a 'football' club. Cos some of them sure as hell aren't footballers]
And I don't understand why the police have now weighed in, and said that they told Sunderland about all the charges against him. Yeah... and....?
Suspect if you look on facebook for the leading officer on the case, you'll see a Newcastle supporter 😆
he broke the law and he deserves to be punished. That said i don't think hes a 'peodo' in the strictest sense (oviously in the eyes of the law he is), 15 year old girls aren't children. Its the grooming and taking advantage bit which is the sickening bit imo...i know someone who met his wife when she was 15 and he was around 22. They've been married for 15 years.
Hes clearly an arrogant dick..why would you cheat on your GF with anyone, especially when she loooks like his misses and hes just had a kid
That said newcastle fans have him nailed...
nsfw....
That said i don't think hes a 'peodo' in the strictest sense (oviously in the eyes of the law he is),
No he's not. Paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children. He's a sex offender. Still not something to put on your house sign, I suppose.
No he's not. Paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children. .
didn't realise there was a distinction in the eyes of the law. Makes sense...
The distinction in law separates children under 13, and children aged 13 to 15 not pre or post puberty and a 15 year old is a child.
The word paedophile doesn't come into the legal definition. It's more a potential description of the individual's severe personality disorder.
Would 'wrong'un' be a better word?
Would 'wrong'un' be a better word?
😀
Whilst I am not condoning his actions one bit. I find it interesting that he is likely to get a harsher sentence than if he punched her in the mouth and broke her jaw for something she wanted to do and was bragging to her mates on social media about.
I think 'Nonce' could still apply legitimately here, since his new position is likely to be on the Rule 45 wing rather than the right wing.
binners - Member
bikebouy - you are actually aware that this is the UK, not North Korea? Fortunately, if you're accused of anything here, you get to go to trail. A proper trial too. Not one conducted by the tabloid press.He told his employer that he was innocent of all charges, and intended to please not guilty to all those charges against him. Surely if they then sacked him, he'd be able to take them to court for unfair dismissal?
So don't rail against his employer. They just did what they were legally, contractually obliged in doing, given the information they were supplied.
And I don't understand why the police have now weighed in, and said that they told Sunderland about all the charges against him. Yeah... and....?
I can say and think what I like, I'm not alone in my opinion either.
I think to some degree his employer is complicit in this, suspension isn't enough he should have been sacked there and then. And you can sack anyone for pretty much anything and certainly "bringing the game into disrepute" or "not representing the company in the correct manner that we expect in the public environment" is pretty much enough, plenty have been sacked for these type of incidents.
And I agree with the police wading in now stating their actions, good on em' they should state the facts, in this high profile case. If now they've only just come out and said they told the club of the incident and it's potential consequences then thats right, the case is closed and they can say what happened.
I think you quite like the fact that the club shunned responsibility.
I can't decide whether you're a tabloid columnist, maybe Richard Littlejohn, or you're presently sat in a Wsetminster think tank writing the Tories new employment legislation
Ether way I claim my bag of sweets
[quote=bikebouy ]I can say and think what I like, I'm not alone in my opinion either.
Sure, but you're wrong (I'm resisting giving examples of other things lots of people agree with 😉 ). No you can't sack people for pretty much anything.
Let's just imagine for a moment somebody who is falsely accused. They go to their employer expressing their innocence, say they will plead not guilty and fight the charges. Their employer sacks them. Subsequently they are found not guilty. In what way has this person not represented their company properly, or brought anything into disrepute? Can you imagine the field day the lawyers would have?
As far as Sunderland were aware, what was the difference between Mr Johnson and the fictional person I've just described?