Adam johnson sacked

[Geestar]

You're totally missing the point. Nobody is saying they had to sack him as soon as he was charged but they certainly shouldn't have been playing him.

People are saying that....so I am not totally missing the point....maybe just your point.

 

[BensGrandad]

There is talk that he will get 10 years. Does the offense justify such a sentence or is it a little harsh because of his noteriety.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

There is talk that he will get 10 years. Does the offense justify such a sentence or is it a little harsh because of his noteriety.

Another post from you.

 

[BensGrandad]

Another post from you.

Exactly what I would expect from you, so as usual has no relevance to reality.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There is talk that he will get 10 years. Does the offense justify such a sentence or is it a little harsh because of his noteriety.

Talk where? In your living room?

There is talk we may score 10 tomorrow. Surely this is out of all proportion to reality?

 

[swindonseagull]

Talk where? In your living room?

There is talk we may score 10 tomorrow. Surely this is out of all proportion to reality?

Its the voices in his head.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Innocent until proven guilty...while the whole situation is bad I am not sure Sunderland FC are massively in the wrong

You can't have innocent until proven guilty when dealing with child protection. A teacher for example would be suspended at the very least if charged like Johnson was. If an accusation is made, then you have act on that accusation proportionally and appropriately. Johnson actually admitted one of the offences, but that still didn't appear to prompt Sunderland to act. Football clubs have academies and work with children all the time, pros are regular around the academy players etc. Sunderland did not act on a child protection issue, and quite rightly they are being scrutinised for that.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

There is talk that he will get 10 years. Does the offense justify such a sentence or is it a little harsh because of his noteriety.

He is guilty of three offences; two of sexual assault of a child and one of grooming. Just the latter carries a sentencing range of 1-4 years with a starting point of 2 years (ie before any mitigating(?) or aggravating circumstances are considered).
Notoriety doesn't get you a longer/harsher sentence but using your position (eg as a football celebrity) to manipulate a vulnerable person (in this case a child) is going to be seen as an aggravating factor in determining the final sentence for all three charges.

 

[AmexRuislip]

In this country though, we still have a time honoured principle: innocent until proved guilty. Long may we continue to have sufficient control of our own legal system for this to continue!

Totally agree, and one that does not be swayed by the interference of our lovely gutter press

 

[studio150]

In this country though, we still have a time honoured principle: innocent until proved guilty. Long may we continue to have sufficient control of our own legal system for this to continue!

Totally agree, and one that does not be swayed by the interference of our lovely gutter press

Unfortunately not always true given s32 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as one example

 

[Swillis]

Talk where? In your living room?

There is talk we may score 10 tomorrow. Surely this is out of all proportion to reality?

Its the voices in his head.

He is guilty of three offences; two of sexual assault of a child and one of grooming. Just the latter carries a sentencing range of 1-4 years with a starting point of 2 years (ie before any mitigating(?) or aggravating circumstances are considered).
Notoriety doesn't get you a longer/harsher sentence but using your position (eg as a football celebrity) to manipulate a vulnerable person (in this case a child) is going to be seen as an aggravating factor in determining the final sentence for all three charges.

I like how you are all quick to tell Bensgrandad that he is wrong. Don't let the fact the judge told Johnson he is looking at between four and ten years put you off.

 

[jon12345]

I like how you are all quick to tell Bensgrandad that he is wrong. Don't let the fact the judge told Johnson he is looking at between four and ten years put you off.

The judge said an "almost inevitable prison sentence" The media reports are 4 - 10 years which they are basing on sentencing guidelines.

 

[drew]

In this country though, we still have a time honoured principle: innocent until proved guilty. Long may we continue to have sufficient control of our own legal system for this to continue!

Totally agree, and one that does not be swayed by the interference of our lovely gutter press

So, what do you think should happen if a teacher is charged with child abuse? Do you think they should be allowed to continue working with the children they are accused of abusing?

Alternatively, is it more appropriate that the individual be suspended until the case is proven or not.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

"Almost inevitable" so it's not inevitable, judges eh!

The judge said an "almost inevitable prison sentence" The media reports are 4 - 10 years which they are basing on sentencing guidelines.

 

[AmexRuislip]

So, what do you think should happen if a teacher is charged with child abuse? Do you think they should be allowed to continue working with the children they are accused of abusing?

Alternatively, is it more appropriate that the individual be suspended until the case is proven or not.

If a teacher is charged with child abuse, I think they would / should be suspended straight away, no contact with children / school, allowing legal system to to their job.

 

[Triggaaar]

I like how you are all quick to tell Bensgrandad that he is wrong. Don't let the fact the judge told Johnson he is looking at between four and ten years put you off.

But the judge didn't say that did he. I would be pretty surprised if it's 10 years.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I like how you are all quick to tell Bensgrandad that he is wrong. Don't let the fact the judge told Johnson he is looking at between four and ten years put you off.

But BG is wrong; Adam Johnson is guilty of three offences not one and, as others have already pointed out, this is not what the judge has said.

 

[BensGrandad]

The judge just said a long time media speculation is 10 years. I dont agree with bail until sentenced to enable him to sort out his affairs and say goodbye to his daughter. Would a lorry driver or plumber have been given that chance, I dont think so.

Just to clarify for Alex Dawson I am not wrong. The judge could give him 5 years on each count to run consecutively ie effectively a total sentence of 15 years all within sentencing guide lines or give him the same to run concurrently again within guide lines but effectively a 5 year sentence, some great difference.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

The judge just said a long time media speculation is 10 years. I dont agree with bail until sentenced to enable him to sort out his affairs and say goodbye to his daughter. Would a lorry driver or plumber have been given that chance, I dont think so.

Just to clarify for Alex Dawson I am not wrong. The judge could give him 5 years on each count to run consecutively ie effectively a total sentence of 15 years all within sentencing guide lines or give him the same to run concurrently again within guide lines but effectively a 5 year sentence, some great difference.

The judge said his preliminary view was that the case fell into the category of a five-year prison sentence with a range of four to 10 years. The media are going with the 10 years maximum tariff for the headlines as it looks more dramatic as a headline. It's likely to be around 5 years unless something comes back in the report which means the judge can impose a longer sentence, or a degree of remorse has been shown by Johnson and the sentence is reduced (given the reports of Johnson's attitude during the trial this seems unlikely). Johnson is likely to serve half the sentence in prison and then providing he's behaved inside he'll be released on licence for the remainder.

Not all 3 offences have the same tariff. The grooming (depending on the category it comes under) has a range of 1 - 7 years with a maximum of 10. It's very unlikely the judge will make the sentences run consecutively.

As regards being released on bail until the sentencing this is standard procedure. Most people awaiting sentencing are bailed while reports are carried out. Unless they've been remanded in custody until the trial or there is a flight risk/they might breach the terms of their bail conditions. This isn't something being given to Johnson because he is famous.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

There is talk that he will get 10 years. Does the offense justify such a sentence or is it a little harsh because of his noteriety.

He is guilty of three offences; two of sexual assault of a child and one of grooming. Just the latter carries a sentencing range of 1-4 years with a starting point of 2 years (ie before any mitigating(?) or aggravating circumstances are considered).
Notoriety doesn't get you a longer/harsher sentence but using your position (eg as a football celebrity) to manipulate a vulnerable person (in this case a child) is going to be seen as an aggravating factor in determining the final sentence for all three charges.

But BG is wrong; Adam Johnson is guilty of three offences not one and, as others have already pointed out, this is not what the judge has said.

The judge just said a long time media speculation is 10 years. I dont agree with bail until sentenced to enable him to sort out his affairs and say goodbye to his daughter. Would a lorry driver or plumber have been given that chance, I dont think so.

Just to clarify for Alex Dawson I am not wrong. The judge could give him 5 years on each count to run consecutively ie effectively a total sentence of 15 years all within sentencing guide lines or give him the same to run concurrently again within guide lines but effectively a 5 year sentence, some great difference.

Jesus Christ!
1) He is guilty three offences, not one (cf "the offense"), as you originally contended so you are/were incorrect (ie wrong).
2) The Sentencing Council Guidelines for Sexual Grooming of a child over 13 but under 16 give a range of 1-4 years custody with a starting point of 2 years pre-mitigation/aggravation were the intent was to commit an assault by penetration or rape. If this was not the intent then the range is 1-2.5 years custody with a starting point of 1.5 years. Hence, the judge cannot sentence Johnson to 5 years custody for Grooming so you are wrong again.