• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Adam Johnson Case - Post Sensibly

dingdongo said:
Is it for sure that he KNEW she was underage? or was he just being completely stupid in assuming?

Also 'Grooming', does that mean they chatted on FB and he invited her out etc. or was it something more seedy?
Click to expand...
If you admit to grooming, then my view is that you also know the person is underage.
 
surely football clubs have clauses in the player contracts for criminal convictions, Sunderland should have a book to play to
 
I hate this trial by television/media - another import from the US.

I haven't a clue what the parties in this case did and did not do.

So I will let the court decide - sadly in today's post Savile climate, I dont fancy his chances of an impartial trial.
 
StephenH said:
I hate this trial by television/media - another import from the US.

I haven't a clue what the parties in this case did and did not do.

So I will let the court decide - sadly in today's post Savile climate, I dont fancy his chances of an impartial trial.
Click to expand...
Normally I'd agree, but in this case the defendant has admitted to both grooming and "sexually touching" the girl. I'd say it's fairly safe to assume he's done that if he's admitting it.
 
Huddy said:
So now we know he admits to grooming and meeting up with a girl knowingly under 16, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to think the other charges could have some substance.

This clearly isn't a case of him being tricked or deceived into thinking she was older, so throw the book at him and make an example to show it doesn't matter what status and money you have in life this type of offence will not be tolerated.

And from a footballing perspective Sunderland should be considering terminating his contract.
Click to expand...

I was surprised he admitted knowing she was under age. A guilty plea to the facts and the claim to not know her age makes more sense. Then he could defend himself on intent. Now he is known to be guilty on two counts, while defending two others. Why plead guilty to some and not others?
 
jts1882 said:
I was surprised he admitted knowing she was under age. A guilty plea to the facts and the claim to not know her age makes more sense. Then he could defend himself on intent. Now he is known to be guilty on two counts, while defending two others. Why plead guilty to some and not others?
Click to expand...
Maybe the prosecution had evidence to prove that beyond a doubt?
 
Seedy Ron said:
Maybe the prosecution had evidence to prove that beyond a doubt?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's possible. There is probably an internet trail. It's also possible that he pleaded guilty to the two he was guilty of, but what I was wondering whether the two he is contesting are more serious.

All incredibly stupid. He is a millionaire with an attractive wife/gf and presumably plenty of opportunities with adult women if he gets bored with her.
 
jts1882 said:
It's also possible that he pleaded guilty to the two he was guilty of, but what I was wondering whether the two he is contesting are more serious.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine that'll turn out to be exactly the case.

jts1882 said:
All incredibly stupid. He is a millionaire with an attractive wife/gf and presumably plenty of opportunities with adult women if he gets bored with her.
Click to expand...
Maybe adult women don't do it for him, like Steff says he's probably just a nonce.
 
scaramanga said:
Normally I'd agree, but in this case the defendant has admitted to both grooming and "sexually touching" the girl. I'd say it's fairly safe to assume he's done that if he's admitting it.
Click to expand...

If you cough for x&y you will/may get a reduced sentence. Because one thing is for sure you are sure as hell not getting off after all the publicity?

I trust the courts system about as far as could throw it.
 
the dza said:
If he'd have shagged this girl a few months later, it would have 'only' been morally wrong and not much of a news story. It's a weird world in a lot of ways, I doubt the girl would be any more 'grown-up' in the few months from whenever they met to her 16th birthday, but everything changes on the letter of the law.

I'm not defending his actions, just pointing out that a very small amount of time changes everything.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying but for me, yes, that is not right either.
 
StephenH said:
If you cough for x&y you will/may get a reduced sentence. Because one thing is for sure you are sure as hell not getting off after all the publicity?

I trust the courts system about as far as could throw it.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate. Don't fudge around with kids. End of story. If he hadn't then he would have nothing to deal with. I know the point you are making, but in this case it is clear that he is guilty. He admitted it. He has already likely afforded himself the sort of 'immunity' that would've seen most banged up a year ago. Yes indeed, legal system skewed.
 
the dza said:
If he'd have shagged this girl a few months later, it would have 'only' been morally wrong and not much of a news story. It's a weird world in a lot of ways, I doubt the girl would be any more 'grown-up' in the few months from whenever they met to her 16th birthday, but everything changes on the letter of the law.

I'm not defending his actions, just pointing out that a very small amount of time changes everything.
Click to expand...

It's true. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. And for a grown man in his late twenties the line being drawn at 16 shouldn't be a problem. Many countries draw that line quite a bit higher.
 
braineclipse said:
It's true. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. And for a grown man in his late twenties the line being drawn at 16 shouldn't be a problem. Many countries draw that line quite a bit higher.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Another legal curiosity would be if he'd have had sex with the girl at 16, that would have been legally fine -- but if he recorded the footage and had it on his phone, that footage would have been illegal as she's under 18. So you can shag someone at 16, you just can't watch yourself doing it.

I think I'll just ban my daughter from leaving the house until she's 25.
 
Respectfully, I don't agree with @Mr_B when he says: "I don't care if she looked and acted 30, he should do porridge for 5 years and be on a sex offender list for the rest of his life". For me it's all about whether he knew she was underage or not. If he knew it, then it doesn't matter how old she looked or acted; of course he should be done for it. But I was at my cousin's place not too long ago and his daughter was heading out for a night with her friends - she's only 16 but genuinely looked in her early 20s. And I'm guessing she looked pretty similar a few months ago when she was 15. If some 21 or 22 year old bloke in a club that night saw her, I couldn't blame him if he tried to chat her up in the hope it went further. She did not look like a teenager.

As I say; for me it comes down to whether someone knows (or even just suspects) that the person they're trying to get off with is underage. I'm a happily married middle-aged man these days; but back when I was 18-24 years old and went to clubs, I certainly wasn't interested in anyone who looked very young, but if they looked roughly the same age as me, I fully admit I didn't open the conversation by asking to see a birth certificate. And I very much doubt anyone else here did either.

Once again - because this is obviously a hot topic - if a guy knows or has reason to suspect that the girl is underage, I'm definitely not defending him. Throw the bloody book at him. And in this case, Johnson seems to have admitted that he knew. So I'm not talking about him in particular. But I do have sympathy for someone who makes a genuine mistake with a 15 year old who looks 20.

(and for the avoidance of doubt; I'm talking about blokes who are in the same general age-range... if you're a 40 year old bloke who shags a 15 year old, the fact that you honestly thought she was 16 still makes you a dirtbag).
 
DublinSpur said:
They don't. Which is why I'd much rather this all happened in the courts with a simple, "just the facts ma'am" press release at the end.
Click to expand...

It wouldnt make a bit of difference. People would still believe something some idiot wrote on their twitter timeline rather than go read any type of official report.
You get the same thing on here with the "will United/Liverpool winning Europa take our Champion's League space" every other season. Its too hard for people to go to uefa.com or even wikipedia and read the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back