Adam johnson sacked

[GT49er]

i think its going to be interesting if he's found not guilty on the charges he's pleaded guilty to. ?

He won't be' He's pleaded guilty, so those charges are done and dusted. The jury has no say on these now - all that is left is sentencing.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Sorry but as a parent I can't believe anyone's making tenuous excuses for him. He's a kiddy fiddler, end of story. Sacking him is right as he's admitted two criminal offences. The sentence he then gets will be based on that admission and the outcome of the two charges he's denied, which we should possibly comment on here. But he's admitted two charges of something that makes my skin crawl, having had a decent career and stupid amounts of money.

 

[Da Man Clay]

some divergence from the story there isnt there? just because he has contacted the girl over the internet (or phone, i thought) it doesn't mean he knows she is underage, that's frankly a bizarre conclusion. its considered grooming because she is underage, irrespective of whether or not he knows. presumably this is the law so that the "didnt know" isnt a defense. secondly, and i stand to be corrected, there's no charge or allegation that he actually slept with her. the charge is "sexual activity" which i assume is a qualification that excludes actual sex.

i think its going to be interesting if he's found not guilty on the charges he's pleaded guilty to. if he texted her and kissed her without knowing her age, and nothing more, is a jury going to consider that guilty as charged?

Yeah, sorry, wrong on both chap. He knew she was underage. Specific part of the offence that needs to be proved is that the offender did not believe the victim was over 16.

Sexual activity can include intercourse. It's just saying that she was a willing prticipant or it becomes sexual assault/rape depending on the act.

Oh, and he can't be found not guilty on the charges he's pleaded to. He might be found not guilty on the other two but the ones he has admitted he will likely be going to prison for.

 

[bobby baxter]

Brave move by the club...this is going to cost them a couple of million at least as a lost " asset " and maybe more if Johnstone plays the " Unfair Dismissal " card.[/QUOTE

The bloke has coughed to child sex offences.... He's a nonce!
Very much doubt he could play any card.
And 'when' he is found guilty of the other charges he'll be banged up anyway.
'Er yes I knew she was 15, but still kissed her and touched her ........but I didn't shag her...honest!'

Also known as the Graham Rix defence

 

[Hillian1]

The Police have found a valentines poem written by Johnson.

Roses are red
Violets are blue
I've got some sweets
Get in the van

 

[Swillis]

there is potential that a jury may decide he couldn't reasonably believe she was underage. thats why i think its interesting, how people might react to that verdict.

I would quit while you're behind if I were you. The jury will have nothing to do with it, he has pleaded GUILTY

 

[beorhthelm]

i should go an sit in the corner then. some misapprehensions on my part.

 

[1066gull]

If he's found guilty of having sex with her be should get a minimum of eight years. Probably let out in 4 on good behaviour. It's all very well admitting guilt at the first hand but it maybe admitting part of the offences to try and limit a conviction on the worst offences.

Also I really do think there is a problem with grooming in human society and its more widespread than we all fear.

Its time for adults, and in particular people who are in positions of responsibility, to have a really open and honest debate.

Just simply locking people up who commit these crimes is not gonna eradicate it. If we really want to put an end to child abuse we need to find out the causes in human society why these offences are constantly committed through out generations.

 

[SeagullCrow]

[MENTION=4714]Josh[/MENTION]Halliday is live tweeting from the trial.

Really doesn't look good for Johnson and suggests that he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Sorry but as a parent I can't believe anyone's making tenuous excuses for him. He's a kiddy fiddler, end of story. Sacking him is right as he's admitted two criminal offences. The sentence he then gets will be based on that admission and the outcome of the two charges he's denied, which we should possibly comment on here. But he's admitted two charges of something that makes my skin crawl, having had a decent career and stupid amounts of money.

I meant should NOT comment on here regarding the other two charges. Apologies for not spotting before edit timed out.

 

[1066gull]

And as I just posted that Role Harris is to be charged with seven counts of indecent assault. A man who was highly respected and liked, even by our own Queen is guilty of something that some may derise to be a completely natural human behaviour.

And I'm not in anyway condoning sexual & child abuse. These are crimes that can inflict lasting trauma and damage to the victim but what I want people to talk openly and honestly about is why are we convicting people for something that is a natural human instinct? Why do people and in particular men, commit sex crimes? Why do we incriminate people who participate in prostitution? Why are we taking the rights away from people who want to have sex?

If we can answer these questions responsibly than maybe we can get back to protecting solely the vulnerable people and not criminalising people who are just acting on the human instincts.

 

[Geestar]

You're a pedophile,
You're a pedophile,
Now f&%£ off Adam Johnson,
You're a pedophile.

This rung out more than any song last night at the darts (Newcastle)

 

[Swillis]

The jury is told that Johnson set up a new Snapchat account to stay in touch with the teenager.

During a message exchange, Johnson asked the girl: “Any chance of a rude one?” the court hears.

She replied: “Maybe”

He then wrote: “Ha, well I will be waiting patiently, lol”

Prosecutor Ms Blackwell tells jurors after Johnson was arrested, his phone was searched.

Police found the footballer had searched the “legal age of consent” online and viewed articles around the subject,the court heard.

 

[Swillis]

The Crown say the pair met on January 30, 2015.

Ms Blackwell says when the schoolgirl was in the car with Johnson she took a snapchat video of the conversation to prove to her friends she was there.

Johnson asked the teen for a kiss before putting his hand down her jeans, the court is told.

He then moved the car to a more secluded spot where he encouraged the girl to perform a sex act on him, the prosecutor tells the jury.

12:57
'It was class just wanted to get your jeans off'

The prosecution allege that sexual contact occurred during the next meeting between Johnson and the girl while they were in his Range Rover.

Afterwards Johnson messaged the girl: “It was class - just wanted to get your jeans off.”

Johnson’s partner Stacy Flounders left the public gallery as the prosecution began to read out these messages.

12:53
Johnson 'asked girl if she was up for a bit of feeling'

Johnson: “Am I only getting a kiss?”
Girl: “Depends what you’re asking for.”

Johnson: “Depends what you’re up for - a little bit more than kissing. A bit of feeling.”
Girl: “Maybe.”

12:40
'Thought I would have got a thank you kiss'

Following the pair’s 20-minute meet-up at a secluded car park in County Durham, Johnson and the girl again exchanged messages, the court hears.

Johnson said: “Thought I would have got a thank you kiss for the shirt.”

Girl: “Didn’t ask.”

Johnson: “Well I’ll come get one.”

Girl: “Really?”

Johnson: “If you want me to"

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

If he's found guilty of having sex with her be should get a minimum of eight years. Probably let out in 4 on good behaviour. It's all very well admitting guilt at the first hand but it maybe admitting part of the offences to try and limit a conviction on the worst offences.

Have you just plucked 8 years old of the air? Why 8 and not 7 or 9?

You do realise there are sentencing guidelines a judge would have to follow. It would depend on what category the harm falls under, and his culpability (were his actions pre-meditated?)

He could end up with a some level of Community Order which will limit his ability to be around children. He could get a year or two in jail. The maximum sentence is 10 years for anything in Category 1 if his level of culpability was also high. I'll see if I can find the full break down of the guidelines later.

 

[1066gull]

Have you just plucked 8 years old of the air? Why 8 and not 7 or 9?

You do realise there are sentencing guidelines a judge would have to follow. It would depend on what category the harm falls under, and his culpability (were his actions pre-meditated?)

He could end up with a some level of Community Order which will limit his ability to be around children. He could get a year or two in jail. The maximum sentence is 10 years for anything in Category 1 if his level of culpability was also high. I'll see if I can find the full break down of the guidelines later.

Somebody got eight years for possessing a stash of images of children. He served 4. I would have thought the offence Adam is charged with is worse.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Somebody got eight years for possessing a stash of images of children. He served 4. I would have thought the offence Adam is charged with is worse.

It isn't anywhere near as simple as that. The person that got 8 years for possessing images of children will have been sentenced following guidelines for a totally different crime, which would have contained it's own category or harm and culpability, for example the age of the children in the photos would have been a factor, as would exactly what the photos depicted.

You cannot compare the two crimes as they are totally different, it's far too black and white to say one crime is worse than another and if person a got so many years than person b should get the same sentence.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I tend to be able to spot when someone is less than half my age, but maybe that's just me

well you are in your 50's
regards
DR

 

[matthew]

He KNEW she was 15.............

Yeah and I'm just saying his life should 't be over for it.

He should get his punishment yes, but if she's 15 and 10 months or 16 and 1 month it makes absolutely no difference if it wasn't for an arbitarary age politicians plucked out of the sky. If she was a couple months older would he still be being called a paedofile?

 

[Swillis]

Yeah and I'm just saying his life should 't be over for it.

He should get his punishment yes, but if she's 15 and 10 months or 16 and 1 month it makes absolutely no difference if it wasn't for an arbitarary age politicians plucked out of the sky. If she was a couple months older would he still be being called a paedofile?

This is a books whom could have slept with his picked of women, instead he chose a young girl. He knew she was a young girl. The bloke is a wrong un.