Forum menu
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.
From what I understand he admits kissing her but nothing more. He was found guilty of another "sexual act" which was his word against hers. I think those could be the 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?
+1shud 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.
I appreciate what I posted was over simplified, there was clear evidence in terms of him texting that "he wanted to get her jeans off" however beyond that ? I can understand him appealing. He has nothing to lose really apart from a bit more money which he can well afford.
@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.
I don't see the problem with that: for example, Stuart Hall was convicted (partly) because of the remarkably similar testimony given by several people who didn't know each other.
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.
OK, now we understand each other and we disagree. Let's see if he wins his appeal, he may or may not. He admitted kissing her. The text messages where indisputable. What was denied was the "sexual activity" (I will research seperately exactly what that was but as she was under age at the time it may not be able to be reported)
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 etcNot denying hes a scumbag, but shes not as innocent in this as shes being made out to be...
She's a child.
@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
You're a scumbag too.
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.