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.

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: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s9_sexual_activity_with_a_child/

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 **** 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.

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.