Jail time incoming, probably around 5 years.
-
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
- Thread starter greatwhitenorf
- Start date
Jail time incoming, probably around 5 years.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Sunderland getting some criticism for letting him play on despite knowing that he kissed her and sent sexually explicit messages, which were the two charges he pleaded guilty to. They claim that they would have sacked him if they had known he would plead guilty, but they had seen the evidence (text messages, police testimony, etc).
I guess some will miss the point I'm trying to make but I'll explain my viewpoint anyway...
The man is scum btw.
I remember when I was 15. I also remember girls who were 15 too as I was shagging them at 14/15 and my point is the girl isn't innocent in all this you know. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing.
Yes it's classed as rape due to her age which it rightly should be but she knew it was wrong too.
The man is scum btw.
I remember when I was 15. I also remember girls who were 15 too as I was shagging them at 14/15 and my point is the girl isn't innocent in all this you know. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing.
Yes it's classed as rape due to her age which it rightly should be but she knew it was wrong too.
I don't think anyone here claims she's innocent but she's not the adult in this case; Johnson is and nearly double her age at that. He clearly took advantage of his status knowing what he was doing was illegal and morally wrong.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I got told by a young lad that works for me (17) that the age of consent is different for boys and girls, if a 17 year old girl had sex with a 15 year old boy it would not be rape but if it were the other way round and a 17 year old boy had sex with a 15 year old girl it would be rape.
I know this is not really relevant to this case but I thought I would ask here rather than start a new thread.
I know this is not really relevant to this case but I thought I would ask here rather than start a new thread.
AFAIK women can't technically rape men, it only counts as sexual assault.
glasgowspur
Dimitar Berbatov
Johnson broke the law, he knew what that law was and just to be sure if he was actually acting within the law he googled it, discovered he was on the wrong side of the law and went ahead anyway. No sympathy.
Some elements of the girls story do sound a bit like a girl scorned or caught out and covering herself. But he's still wrong.
She obviously knew where it was leading and didn't seem to mind, but it's still illegal, he's in the wrong.
The law is the law, he knew he was breaking it and the consequences if caught.
Some elements of the girls story do sound a bit like a girl scorned or caught out and covering herself. But he's still wrong.
She obviously knew where it was leading and didn't seem to mind, but it's still illegal, he's in the wrong.
The law is the law, he knew he was breaking it and the consequences if caught.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
Quite. The whole point of an age of consent is that we, as a society, have decided that anyone under that age is not capable of making these decisions with a full understanding of their ramifications. The very reason for that law is that it really doesn't matter what someone under 16 does, it's the responsibility of the adult in the situation to make the right choices.
Last edited:
jts1882
Dean Richards
Kissing an underage girl was one of the charges he pleaded guilty too. Grooming her was the other.
The charge he was found guilty of was "fingering" her. In a Bill Clinton sense he can claim he didn't have sex with that
Robspur12
John Lacy
You are just being partisan here mate. Generally no football club will sack someone on the basis of allegations alone. Footballers have things said against them all the time. Ultimately there has to be clear evidence before writing off a multi million pound asset. But once there is incontrovertible evidence that is proven in court then it is right to sack him which Sunderland did.
Robspur12
John Lacy
As has probably been said in this thread many times, what is sinister is the grooming aspect of this case. Johnston was aware that she was underage. He took advantage of someone who completely idolised him. He initiated the sexual contact. He also pleaded "not guilty " which means his sentence is likely to be higher. However, as bad as his actions are, they were motivated in my opinion by his inflated footballer ego, his addiction to sex and probably a belief he was above the law. All that said, I am a little uncomfortable referring to him as a "paedo" as seen in the tabloids, I think that is over the top.
jts1882
Dean Richards
But the Sunderland CEO has access to his messages and police statements, which reports suggest clearly implicate him for the charges he eventually pleaded guilty to. As a former criminal lawyer, she could make an informed decision to protect the club. Their position is that they reinstated him because he was going to plead not guilty, but wouldn't have done if they had known he would plead guilty. They probably couldn't sack him, although I'm not sure his admitted activities couldn't be against some standards of behaviour requirement for employees, but they could have protected their image by not playing him.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
if she was formerly a lawyer, I wonder if there were concerns of breaking legal professional privilege?
if he intimated he was going to plead not guilty to all charges, could she do anything publicly to prejudice the legal case without breaking the law?
my feeling is, with such cases, its best just to let the law deal with it first then react based on legal outcomes
braineclipse
Willie Hall
They did suspend Johnson... Then brought him back into the fold. So they can clearly stop playing him when the case is ongoing.
Claims have been made that Sunderland knew some of the details that made it look very unlikely that Johnson would just be acquitted on all charges.
WIll probably learn more over time. But Sunderland have at least acted strangely enough for questions to be asked.
Claims have been made that Sunderland knew some of the details that made it look very unlikely that Johnson would just be acquitted on all charges.
WIll probably learn more over time. But Sunderland have at least acted strangely enough for questions to be asked.
jts1882
Dean Richards
He had been charged and was going to stand trial, with a decent chance of being found guilty. She should have based the decision on this. Players have been suspended or not played before while pending trial (e.g. Terry with England). The club could have made a statement that the player was innocent until proved guilty but that it was in the best interests of both club and player for him to not play until resolved, even adding that he should be focusing on his defence rather than football.
As a further issue, some companies have contracts about behaviour bring the company into disrepute. Texting a child, meeting her in a car in a secluded place and kissing her, while knowing her age - all things the CEO knew about - could perhaps have triggered such clauses. This bit is speculation, though.
In her defence, it is possible a background in criminal law, especially if she was a defence lawyer, could make her more inclined to consider the presumption of innocence as an overriding factor. However, as CEO she should have been looking at the overall interests of the company. That said, perhaps having him play is the difference between relegation and next years TV deal.
As a further issue, some companies have contracts about behaviour bring the company into disrepute. Texting a child, meeting her in a car in a secluded place and kissing her, while knowing her age - all things the CEO knew about - could perhaps have triggered such clauses. This bit is speculation, though.
In her defence, it is possible a background in criminal law, especially if she was a defence lawyer, could make her more inclined to consider the presumption of innocence as an overriding factor. However, as CEO she should have been looking at the overall interests of the company. That said, perhaps having him play is the difference between relegation and next years TV deal.