[Closed] Adam Johnson

Sunderland are being treated a little unfairly in this IMO, innocent until proven guilty.

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.

The police don't decide who is guilty or otherwise, thankfully.

Ahh, have a go bikebouy for thinking differently to you. Why not.

You can get ride of someone for very minor indiscretions, this is a big one.

But you lot carry on supporting both his and the clubs actions.

It is football after all, clearly above any moral or law based society.

[quote=bikebouy ]But you lot carry on supporting both his and the clubs actions.

and there we go...

[img] [/img]

How about you try addressing the points I made - there are a few question marks in there you could try providing replies to if you think I'm wrong.

You can get ride of someone for very minor indiscretions, this is a big one

For which they have now sacked him, now it's been proved he did something wrong.

How about you stop defending the actions of him and the club.

Sunderland are being treated a little unfairly in this IMO, innocent until proven guilty.

I would've thought, given the nature of the charges, that many employers would put the employee on gardening leave, pending the outcome of the trial.

[quote=bikebouy ]How about you stop defending the actions of him and the club.

Here's a smiley one for you 🙂

[img] [/img]

.

There was me thinking the H in IMHO meant honest. Apparently it means hindsight.

Actually it means humble. 🙂

Everyday is a school day.

...here's hoping that school day doesn't end up in the back of a footballer's Landrover.

wayo 🙂

6 years.

Never saw that coming, good enough for the ****

So should be back in time for Sunderland getting back in the Prem.

Compared to other sentences handed down recently that looks quite severe, but iirc some of the other cases were run on older sentencing guidelines due to the historic nature of the offences?

Compared to other sentences handed down recently that looks quite severe, but iirc some of the other cases were run on older sentencing guidelines due to the historic nature of the offences?

Read on one of the websites that judge considered it a Cat A offence which carries 5-10 years.

He's appealing the conviction. Not sure on what grounds.

NSPCC guy on Sky spoke very well today about the situation. He was happy with he sentence which he thought would act as a deterrent and was appropriate for the crime. He then went on to say that the physiological reports on showed Adams to be pretty immature and that clubs needed to do more to implement the agreed guidelines and that people like Adams needed to be better helped in dealing with their fame and fortune and their position as celebrities.

He's appealing the conviction. Not sure on what grounds.

Great, happy with the sentence. Happy that the Director of the Club stepped down the other week too..

So I wasn't the only one calling for that.

You know those straw men you posted ^^

Torch them up will you.

He was found guilty of another "sexual act" which was his word against hers.

I very much doubt he was convicted on that basis.

This basically sums up the two sides of the argument. First is Johnsons QC:

[i]C: "As a result of guilty plea Adam Johnson has lost everything"
Judge: "He's lost everything as a result of his offending"[/i]

It's the latter that seems to have escaped Johnson altogether - that his admitted grooming of an underage girl has led him to the position he now finds himself in.

I very much doubt he was convicted on that basis.

He might well have been - was a 10-2 verdict so not clear cut in all the Jury's minds.

He then went on to say that the physiological reports on showed Adams to be pretty immature and that clubs needed to do more to implement the agreed guidelines and that people like Adams needed to be better helped in dealing with their fame and fortune and their position as celebrities.

Dunno about that to be honest, is it not everyone's own duty to follow the common, decent standards expected of society?.

He might well have been - was a 10-2 verdict so not clear cut in all the Jury's minds.

You think ten jurors would decide that he was guilty, on the basis of nothing more than "he said she said"? Leaving aside that there's no way the CPS would bring the case in the first place.

Have we done him having bestiality on his laptop yet?

shud av iz ballz cut off

Didn't read any further.

In my ideal world he'd be nailed to a wall have his bits removed with a blunt spoon and then skinned. Streamedlive to put others off following a similar action.

Have we done him having bestiality on his laptop yet?

Having been on a stag do last year, the associated WhatsApp group messages have made me terrified of what would happen if I'm accused of even the most innocuous crime 😯

In my ideal world he'd be nailed to a wall have his bits removed with a blunt spoon and then skinned. Streamedlive to put others off following a similar action.

A world in which we fantasize about public torture seems less than ideal to me, but each to their own.

You think ten jurors would decide that he was guilty, on the basis of nothing more than "he said she said"? Leaving aside that there's no way the CPS would bring the case in the first place.

No, I do not think that it was [i]solely [/i]on the basis of he/she said. I wasn't in court so I don't know what forensic evidence there was, but I can see it coming down to that for the jury.

FWIW I was on a jury in a similar (non-footballer, sexual assault) case between adults. It pretty much came down to credibility of witnesses as there was nothing forensic nor conclusive CCTV.

I very much doubt he was convicted on that basis.

@bikebouy - yes you where proven correct on the club too, it seems they did know more at an earlier stage

I appreciate what I posted was over simplified

I don't think it was over-simplified, I think it was a fundamental misrepresentation.

It pretty much came down to credibility of witnesses as there was nothing forensic nor conclusive CCTV.

Not to suggest what he did wasnt reprehensible but if he'd knocked her off her bike and killed her with his car instead, he'd have a few hundred quid fine and some points...

The corroborating evidence is usually pretty damping.

6 years seems a bit over the top. Anyone else not convinced by the whole 'its runined the victims' life angle that the prosecution are coming out with. From what I've read she was perfectly hapy going along with it at the time, knew exactly what she was up to etc etc

Not denying hes a scumbag, but shes not as innocent in this as shes being made out to be...

(I'm aware this may not be the most popular post I've ever made!)

(I'm aware this may not be the most popular post I've ever made!)

I don't think it was over-simplified, I think it was a fundamental misrepresentation.

Sexual assault cases are very difficult. Here we have a case where one party is under age and the other a celebrity 13 (?) years her senior so the stakes etc are very high. Linked below is a high profile case in Canada where there where numerous similar allegations from a variety of people. He was acquitted today.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/24/jian-ghomeshi-acquitted-sexual-assault-trial ]Guardian Link: High profile Guardian case[/url]

6 years seems a bit over the top. Anyone else not convinced by the whole 'its runined the victims' life angle that the prosecution are coming out with. From what I've read she was perfectly hapy going along with it at the time, knew exactly what she was up to etc etc

Not denying hes a scumbag, but shes not as innocent in this as shes being made out to be...

@tplink - the law is there to protect the victim too, she texted him originally to say it was her 15th birthday. He was 25 (?) at the time. There is a world of difference between two 15 yr olds having full sex and a footballer/celebrety of 25 and a 15yo fan engaging in "sexual activity". My question (which @ransos picked up on) was what proof was there or could there have been as I imagined that was the basis for his appeal.

The court could have sentenced him to 5-10 years (perhaps 5 was the legal minimum?). He got 6 so 1 yr more than the minimum ?

She'd just turned 15 and was taken advantage of by someone she "hero worshipped". Those of you who think Johnson is somehow the victim in this case need to take a long hard look at yourselves.

6 years seems a bit over the top. Anyone else not convinced by the whole 'its runined the victims' life angle that the prosecution are coming out with. From what I've read she was perfectly hapy going along with it at the time, knew exactly what she was up to etc etc

He behaved in EXACTLY the same way that the South Yorkshire grooming gangs did - took advantage of her youth and inexperience, flattered her, gave her gifts, then made it clear she 'owed' him sexual favours and escalated the grooming, he knew from the start she'd just turned 15, and, as it turned out, also had a penchant for extreme porn featuring teen girls, and also... animals.

She's had her life turned upside down by a predatory sex offender who held of pleading guilty until the last minute, and his horrendous family and supporters did everything they could do make this underage girl's life hell, including publicising her photo and identity and sending her and her family death threats. Even now, his sister is still abusing the victim in support of her child sex offender/animal porn loving brother, reposting things from supporters such as 'paedophilia is a social construct'.

Your sort of victim blaming attitude is a massive contributing factor in why the police ignored the grooming gangs. And Savile. And Ian Watkins.

Maybe, just maybe, the adult shouldn't have groomed and fiddled with a child.

6 years seems a bit over the top. Anyone else not convinced by the whole 'its runined the victims' life angle that the prosecution are coming out with. From what I've read she was perfectly hapy going along with it at the time, knew exactly what she was up to etc etc
Not denying hes a scumbag, but shes not as innocent in this as shes being made out to be...

Holy ****

Those of you who think Johnson is somehow the victim in this case need to take a long hard look at yourselves

not me..i think hes a scumbag. i'm not dispuing he broke the law. I'm just not buying the 'shes been forever phycologically scared' arguement. Did i not read somewhere that she was bragging about it to her mates until her mum found out?

thats not the same as defending the guy, or thinking hes the victim.

And Savile. And Ian Watkins.

its not even remotely similar...

@salad we understand that. What I raised was the basis for his appeal, I imagine grooming/kissing is one thing in terms of sentencing (e pleaded guilty to that) vs what he was also convicted of "sexual activity" (not full sex as we would understand it)

[i]Johnson’s lawyer Orlando Pownall confirmed before the sentencing the footballer has lodged an appeal against his conviction for sexual activity with a child involving penetration.
[/i]

Undoubtably he was a scumbag it being his normal mode of operation to have casual sex on the way home from training, home being where his girlfriend and eventual mother of his child lived.

I can guess he thought (not being very bright) that "sexual activity involving penetration" was Ok with someone under 16 as it wasn't full sex

its not even remotely similar...

Both were able to get away with abuse for years because people dismissed their victims' claims as being gold digging, targeting men just because they were famous, or arguing that they were willing participants (even if they were underage). In this case, people are aware of what's gone on in the past and Johnson was caught, but the attitude of victim blaming remains.

There are actually a few similarities between Ian Watkins and Adam Johnson - Ian Watkins started off cynically and knowingly grooming and exploiting teenage fans, and was a fan of extreme pornography, including stuff with animals. Not saying that Adam Johnson would ever have gone as far as Watkins in progressing ever younger, but he's obviously not quite right and I find it heartening that he's not just been given a slap on the wrists.

So you're happy with an adult sticking his hand down the pants of a 15 year old girl? Why are you having problems understanding that this is wrong?

Should have used Doug Richard's lawyer, or perhaps even a footballer cant afford that level of "privilege"

According to radio4 news he thinks he had a right to have sex with people Including the girl,this is not a case of chatting a underage minor up in a night club and thinking they where over 18(still wrong obviously)He groomed her from the start with the full intention of committing a crime. The appeal will just tie up the courtroom.6 years and that girl will be only in her early 20s with God knows what trust issues.

He's not saying it isn't wrong. He's doubting the victims role/account.

The jury who actually heard the evidence believed her though.

He behaved in EXACTLY the same way that the South Yorkshire grooming gangs did

Except he didn't select his victim on the basis that she was a worthless kufar and therefore legitimate target..

What difference does that make?

Not denying hes a scumbag, but shes not as innocent in this as shes being made out to

TBH, I don't think tpbiker will be alone in his thinking, he's just one of the few dense/ignorant/bigoted enough to actually come out and say shit like that.

I'll let him decide if that's a good thing or not.

Did everyone in this thread wait 'till they were 16 before engaging in "sexual activity"?

Did everyone in this thread only engage in " sexual activity" with over 16s?

Most of the moral outrage in this thread is about the age difference, but in law that makes no difference at all. He (and she) would have been over the age of legal responsibility and just as guilty if they'd both been 15.

Most of the moral outrage in this thread is about the age difference, but in law that makes no difference at all. He (and she) would have been over the age of legal responsibility and just as guilty if they'd both been 15.

Really? Reading through it before it's more about how an individual cynically manipulated a girl into doing what he wanted. He abused his power, wealth and position to get what he wanted. It wasn't the sexual activity part but more how he did it.

It is very rare for yong folk having sex to be prosecuted e.g. 15/17 girl and boy,especially in in a relationship. That isn't what happened here.

Some people just seem determined to assume the victim created the situation in which the offending occurred.

The law is unlikely to prosecute two fifteen year olds experimenting with sex and if it did they would receive far different sentences including a out of court resolution such as a reprimand or caution .

The age difference and the grooming are the entire point / gravem of the offence . It is the exploitation of power over a person vulnerable by age immaturity for sexual gratification. It is because 15 year olds are up for it and willing that the law directs adults to protect them from what can be incredibly damaging experiences. I have just dealt with a similar but historic case where I got to see the long term psychological impact of my clients behaviour on a woman who was now in her late 30s .
Bare in mind all the abuse internet stalking humiliation and death threats his supporters have heaped on her because of his behaviour. That flows directly from his preplanned decision to commit a crime against her .
If a motorist followed a 15 year old on a bike around for months waiting for the ideal moment then deliberately ran her over killing her he'd get life for murder.

Outofbreath - It's not moral outrage. It's about a child being abused by an adult. The fact that you seem to think that this isn't a big deal is a worry. The fact that you don't seem to have a problem with what Ian Watkins had planned to do to babies (which was a whole lot more than "get them to suck his knob) is even scarier.

tpbiker's posts reveals the attitude of those who justify this crime to themselves

"she was asking for it", etc etc

vile

The straw mannimg has started so one last post on this.

Two people have had sex who shouldn't have.

The Victorians would have blamed the girl for tempting him with her body. We blame him for tempting her with his fame/cash.

The reality is they both knew they were doing wrong and the biggest victim here is his wife and child who will suffer far more than the girl.

Two people have had sex who shouldn't have.
The Victorians would have blamed the girl for tempting him with her body. We blame him for tempting her with his fame/cash.
The reality is they both knew they were doing wrong and the biggest victim here is his wife and child who will suffer far more than the girl.

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what went on here. She was 15 and a fan of his club/him. He was an adult and at least a decade older. He used his position as someone who could get hold of things like club shirts to persuade her into sexual activity because he deserved something in return. It's obviously predatory behaviour. To say the girlfriend is the real victim is nonsense.

The reality is they both knew they were doing wrong

Two people have had sex who shouldn't have.

A 15 year old girl, after 800 texts and messages and pestering from you, meets you in a car, and you put your hand down her trousers. You know this to be illegal,(not least as you're so stupid you had to check via google) but you do it anyway...

That isn't, in any normal person's view at least, two people having sex.

The straw mannimg has started so one last post on this.
Two people have had sex who shouldn't have.
The Victorians would have blamed the girl for tempting him with her body. We blame him for tempting her with his fame/cash.
The reality is they both knew they were doing wrong and the biggest victim here is his wife and child who will suffer far more than the girl.

The reality???

No, The reality is the police thought one person had done something very wrong. A jury agreed with them on most of it. He's now got six years.

@nick I personally think he was so thick / twisted he thought kissing and putting his hands down her trousers was ok but sex might not be so he checked age of consent on his phone after the incident.

It does seem the reason this story came out is the girl created a chat group to share the fact she'd been meeting him, this then turned into ridicule of her and she told her father who then told the mum who went to the police. We have the law to protect young people, they need protecting.

The more I've read on this the more unpleasant and manipulative he clearly is. Hopefully the 3 years inside he will serve will focus his mind a bit.

Its a somewhat different story but Bill Wyman was having sex with Mandy Smith when she was 14, they married when she was 18. Despite being interviewed by the police there was never any prosecution.

A 15 year old girl, after 800 texts and messages and pestering from you, meets you in a car, and you put your hand down her trousers. You know this to be illegal,(not least as you're so stupid you had to check via google) but you do it anyway...

That's not quite what happened though - she sent a friend request to him on Facebook and he accepted, then he messaged her first asking for her phone number. She didn't believe it was actually him, so he sent her a message on Twitter. She accepted (her favourite footballer from her favourite team!) and he then started grooming her. In response to his questions, she told him she'd just turned 15, that she wasn't old enough to go out, and asked him for a signed shirt. He gave her a signed shirt, flattered her, then made it clear he expected sexual favours in return.

Although she sent the friends request (not uncommon for young fans of either gender to send requests to their favourite musicians/sports stars, etc), he was the one who initiated the messaging and personal contact, and he was the one that kept on turning the chat in a sexual direction. He blatantly initiated contact with the intent of grooming her for sexual gratification, despite already having a number of (hopefully mostly adult...) sexual partners. The insidious thing about grooming is that it lures the victim into thinking that what's happening is normal, and that they have some sort of meaningful relationship with their abuser, and it can take years for them to realise that they were exploited by a pervert.

Fortunately I don't have personal experience with this (I didn't even get a snog until I was a positively ancient 18!), but I did have quite a few school friends that had 'older' boyfriends - they were 13-15, the boyfriends were 25-35. In a couple of cases, the older blokes were genuinely just a bit weird - massively immature man children who couldn't maintain relationships with women their own age, and the girls actually seemed more mature than their boyfriends.

But with most, they were blokes that were targeting teenage girls because they knew that their lack of experience led to a lack of confidence, combined with a desperate desire to seem cool and mature, meant that they could be manipulated into doing all sorts of awful stuff (heavy drinking, drugs, amateur porn, etc).

Even in the case of Mandy Smith, she now argues that the age of consent should be raised to 18 due to her own experiences.

Well said.

Spot on mrstoast.

Agreed well said Mrs Toast.

Age of consent though seems irrelevant in Mandy Smiths case Wyman started dating her when she was 13 and had sex at 14 so whether the consent age was 16 or 18 makes no difference.

Laws vary widely though ...

France 15
Germany 14 provided age gap not more than 3 years
Italy 14 with exception that two 13yo is ok

When it comes to football Frank Ribery has a bit of a track record, allegedly

They both knew what they were doing? Youd feel happy if you had a daughter who was groomed?

Does ANY 15yr old girl know what she wants and has the maturity of an adult?

He was an adult who preyed on a developing teenager.

You know those straw men you posted ^^
Torch them up will you

Im guessing you still haven't worked out what was strawmanny about your posts 🙄

Does ANY 15yr old girl know what she wants and has the maturity of an adult?

Some could.

Again, not in any way defending Johnson, but does some magic switch go off in a boy or girls head when they wake up on their 16th birthday that allows them to make adult decisions all of a sudden.

The increased sexualisation of children and much freer access to adult material must have changed the landscape significantly for young teenagers

Again, not in any way defending Johnson, but does some magic switch go off in a boy or girls head when they wake up on their 16th birthday that allows them to make adult decisions all of a sudden.

No. But that just means we stop protecting them when they're 16 (because you have to draw the line somewhere). I'm not sure it would be much less wrong if she had been 16, but crucially it would have been legal.

How do STWers see grooming compared with forced marriage?

The forced marriage unit deals with over 1000 cases a year (only a proportion of the people forced into marriage) of which one in eight is under 16. And yet I've failed to find anyone being jailed for a forced marriage concerning an underage girl. When jail sentences have been handed out they have been for cases involving older people who have suffered violence, rape, and death threats to get them to marry.

So in answer to the OP: the sentence reflects the media hype. If he were anonymous I doubt it would have made court, because even the IMO more serious offense of forcing an under age person into marriage rarely (if ever) gets to court.

Mrs. Toast is spot on. 100% right.

Let's just bear one thing in mind here. This is a guys wealthy beyond most of our dreams. He has celebrity status and is worshiped by thousands. I think it's pretty safe to say he could have his pick of women. Yet he decides to prey on a 15 y/o girl. A girl who has just turned 15 at that. Why? He knew it was wrong, he googled it. Had the girl not confessed to her dad who's to say how far it would have gone. I'm quite confident that once he'd achieved his goal then she would have been quickly passed over for the next conquest. It's plain and simple. He wanted to **** a 15 year old girl. How old would the next one be? Thankfully it's not something anyone needs to worry about anymore.

Mrs. Toast is right. There are definite parallels between Johnson, the Asian grooming gangs and Ian Watkins. Those who are defending him should be ashamed of themselves.

@Educator. Not sure what point you are trying to make. Sentence reflects the media hype? Don't think so. Oh, and for the record forced marriage is abhorrent and anyone involved in making it happen should be tried and if found guilty sent down accordingly.

The sentence appears to be towards the bottom end of the tariff for the particular nature of the offence. Judges don't just make up sentences, it couldn't have been much lower given the proven facts of the case. I'm not sure whether his position of power made a difference to the categorisation which gave that sentencing range, but I'd be surprised if it didn't.

Perhaps you'll get my point if you consider what would happen if the media found out a pro footballer were involved in a forced marriage with an underage girl. I'm absolutely certain he would be "sent down accordingly". According to the crime and his status. A challenge for you, of those hundreds of forced under-age marriages reported by the FMU, find me one protagonist that was prosecuted.

As with all offences there are degrees of severity. Everyone seems to agree he did a despicable thing but whilst there may be parallels with more heinous offenders, some comparisons seem to me to be sufficiently removed as to risk undermining the argument imho.
In truth I don't know what the right answer is but presumably one more uncertain juror would have meant a not guilty verdict - my experience of jury service was anything but inspiring and served to confirm for me that there ought to be a minimum intelligence test of some sort if justice is to be served.

Edukator. Forced marriage is most definitely wrong, however as I understand it they take place abroad so they cannot be prosecuted here ? I believe the age of consent in the UK is 16 for sex and 18 for marriage, you can be married befire 18 with parental permission ?

@aracer I think sentence was towards bottom end of the range as it wasn't full sex, not sure though.

When all is said and done this is certainly a wake up call for other footballers

Girls under the age of 16 are married by clerics in the UK, Jambalaya. One was quoted as saying he would be happy to marry girls of 12.

Do you have his name or details to identify the individual or was it an anonymous quote?