Adam johnson
Comments
-
FishFish wrote:VTech wrote:
I can't class this the same as Saville or someone who goes after a child.Ballysmate wrote:
I agree but in spite of the innuendo he has been charged with breaking a law. Maybe the law was right or wrong but it was the law and it was in place then. It is strict liability age rather than apparant age.
Agreed 100%, I've no issue with him being found guilty. I think the penalty was too high considering the scope but that was because as I said earlier, he was in the public eye so must be punished to a high level as the deterrent factor is much higher with a footballer than an "average joe"Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:FishFish wrote:VTech wrote:
I can't class this the same as Saville or someone who goes after a child.Ballysmate wrote:
I agree but in spite of the innuendo he has been charged with breaking a law. Maybe the law was right or wrong but it was the law and it was in place then. It is strict liability age rather than apparant age.
Agreed 100%, I've no issue with him being found guilty. I think the penalty was too high considering the scope but that was because as I said earlier, he was in the public eye so must be punished to a high level as the deterrent factor is much higher with a footballer than an "average joe"
At the end of the day, he, as a 28yo man, he went after a child - 15yo is a child, this was nt a chance meeting up against a wall, so to me, that makes him a Paedophile.0 -
Vtech why do you bring up nightclubs - I haven't seen anything to suggest Adam Johnson met this girl in a nightclub - I'm not saying he didn't but can you link to the story that says he did ? I thought he met her over social media and effectively groomed her given he knew her age.
6 years is more than I expected but probably more than he could have got had he admitted it and not had family and associates harass the girl - I wouldn't say this is equivalent to Savile or even the likes of the muslim grooming cases because there doesn't seem to be the elements of violence and sharing the girl amongst a group, prostituting her etc but it's still a case the deserves come kind of jail sentence. By saying Johnson was a fool you seem to be implying it was a crime of stupidity rather than immorality - I can't agree with you.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
mmm, and I think the 6 year sentence reflects the fact he showed NO remorse whatsoever, continued the liaison over a prolonged period and then did everything he could to cover it up afterwards. Reversing his 'Not guilty' plea on the eve of the trial would also have been a little irksome to the court, reflected in the £50k prosecution costs award.0
-
DeVlaeminck wrote:Vtech why do you bring up nightclubs - I haven't seen anything to suggest Adam Johnson met this girl in a nightclub - I'm not saying he didn't but can you link to the story that says he did ? I thought he met her over social media and effectively groomed her given he knew her age.
6 years is more than I expected but probably more than he could have got had he admitted it and not had family and associates harass the girl - I wouldn't say this is equivalent to Savile or even the likes of the muslim grooming cases because there doesn't seem to be the elements of violence and sharing the girl amongst a group, prostituting her etc but it's still a case the deserves come kind of jail sentence. By saying Johnson was a fool you seem to be implying it was a crime of stupidity rather than immorality - I can't agree with you.
I was talking in general as apposed to this case. This was in response to people suggesting it a similar thing to the Saville case and I commented on what I have personally seen at times. Maybe fool was the wrong word but I meant that in the way that it was foolish to do what he did, of course it is more serious than a simple foolish act so I take your point.Bobbinogs wrote:mmm, and I think the 6 year sentence reflects the fact he showed NO remorse whatsoever, continued the liaison over a prolonged period and then did everything he could to cover it up afterwards. Reversing his 'Not guilty' plea on the eve of the trial would also have been a little irksome to the court, reflected in the £50k prosecution costs award.
I think he thought that his money would buy him out of it ?
As I said above and in other posts, girls throw themselves at these guys, they in effect have "their pick" and so it isn't a shock when someone pays attention and these young stars are only too willing on the whole to take advantage of it.
The issue is where to draw the line. One day makes all the difference which to me is the only issue as the law does need to be flexible. A 17 year old guy with a 15 year 350 day old girl isn't the same as a 28 year old with a 13 year old.
I wonder if he was told to plead innocent ?Living MY dream.0 -
pleading innocent kept him on £60k a week so there were a million reasons to do so.
From what I have read she was one of the kids hanging around after games trying to get a shirt signed. He took advantage of a starstruck kid and deserves his 6 years. No matter when he gets out no club will re-employ him (see Ched Evans)0 -
Frank Wilson wrote:The bar was well and truly set by one of the red tops yesterday who had a picture of him in is swimming trunks and the headline "Peado In His Speedos"
They should have just shopped out the 'S' on the shorts.0 -
From what I have read and heard about the case he actively groomed the girl who was a genuine fan of the team and Johnson himself. She was always hanging around after home games to catch the team. She would have been known to Johnson through that and then facebook and social media contact was initiated I believe by Johnson and he actively worked on the 15 year old, starstruck girl. He gave her a gift of a signed shirt and other things too. He met up with her on his own with the girl in his car a few times including the last one when he made a comment about getting his gift (in exchange for the signed shirt I think). This involved contact and a hand down her pants. Seriously this guy is no fool who got stung by an over age looking, underage girl throwing herself at him in a night club. This was predatory and IMHO a smaller scale version of Saville.
He got 6 years which is deserved.
BTW he probably got told he would have to plead guilty a lot earlier in the proceedings but also advised that pleading guilty at the early stages of the proceedings would end his career sooner. That he should plead not guilty for as long as possible to enable more earnings to come in probably knowing his career would be over when he changed his plea. That is a cynical approach with the pure aim to get as much for himself and to hell with the victim. As the police said, there is only one victim and she was a 15 year old girl. Johnson is no fool, he's no victim and he most certainly is a predator.
One more thing, it came out in evidence that he had a poor relationship with sex. By that I mean he had the attitude (as came out in the case) that he acted like he believed he deserved sex with women he met. He was found with extreme porn on his laptop and had shown predatory tendencies with other women (not just this girl). His defence had even submitted something about him being willing to undertake psycho-therapy over his problem or issues with sex. Basically they admitted he did not have a healthy relationship with sex and sexual activity.
The NSPCC has written to the FA over this case because they believe that the way his team handled this showed a major problem football teams have with safeguarding children. The respected charity believed there is a safeguarding children issue within football clubs. This is serious because of all the outreach clubs do among schools, youth groups and the like. Children are coming into contact with footballers who may have a reputation within their clubs for their sexual activity. Whether that is the Ched Evans type of sexual contact or Johnson's actions, there is something rotten I football teams. This is about teams management of risks and their duty to safeguard vulnerable people that the club, team and players have contact with through the club.
I would personally like to see rules in place at club and FA level where all clubs are responsible for child safeguarding policies. Also, IMHO it is good practise to dismiss or suspend as soon as someone is arrested and paced on police bail. Whether pleading guilty or not guilty is not important it is the fact that proceedings are going ahead should be enough to stop contact with the general public through club activities. I reckon contracts could have clauses to make it all nice and legal to dismiss at this early stage. Sunderland has lost it's CEO or other top executive IIRC due to this approach not happening.
Personally I have no interest in football or footballers but as an uninterested outside observer it does seem to me that football has issues over the highly paid, young men getting up to mischief without any consequences being placed on them at an early stage. Perhaps unfair but what opportunities did Johnson's team have to detect and confront Johnson's actions/attitudes? Do football clubs provide any guidance on things for these guys?
I believe there were a few issues with England Rugby players on a tour in Australia due to boisterous behaviour a few years back. It went too far and the guys got dealt with by the team management and RFU IIRC. Aside from this I do not know of any issues from the elite rugby (union as I don't follow League at all) that is even close to that in football. If rugby players can be managed and/or just do not have many cases of cutting loose and doing things like Ched Evans and Johnson did. Football seems to me to need to learn to follow Rugby Union in the way their stars behave on and off field I think. IIRC there was outrage when I think Sexton faked a dangerous tackle injury in the way footballers do. You know, like the guy in the football World Cup several years back that got a ball kicked directly at his knee then fell around clutching his head as if that was where it hit. Blatant faking that was caught out on TV.0 -
Off the field I agree that the reputation of footballers isn't great. That said unless you mix in those circles it's hard to say if that reputation is deserved or built on the actions of a few high profile individuals.
On the field is a different issue but suffice to say as a footballer the biggest bunch of thugs I ever played were the warwick uni rugby squad in an intra university comp and from what I read such behaviour is not uncommon in rugby union. Diving and simulating injury does plague football but I'd rather that than some steroid using public schoolboy give me a right hander off the ball.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:Football seems to me to need to learn to follow Rugby Union in the way their stars behave on and off field I think.
About half of all the British athletes serving doping suspensions come from one of the two codes of rugby.0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... hnson.html
Daily Mail. Not the place you would find any support for a paedo, but it looks at his sentence and compares his crime with others that have warranted the same 6 years.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3508807/Killers-gun-dealers-rapists-criminals-given-six-year-prison-terms-Adam-Johnson.html
Daily Mail. Not the place you would find any support for a paedo, but it looks at his sentence and compares his crime with others that have warranted the same 6 years.
Hey! we might agree on this...... perhaps Johnsons sentence is correct and these other examples were far too short?0 -
mamba80 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3508807/Killers-gun-dealers-rapists-criminals-given-six-year-prison-terms-Adam-Johnson.html
Daily Mail. Not the place you would find any support for a paedo, but it looks at his sentence and compares his crime with others that have warranted the same 6 years.
Hey! we might agree on this...... perhaps Johnsons sentence is correct and these other examples were far too short?
Yep we agree. The other sentences were woefully short.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:
I would personally like to see rules in place at club and FA level where all clubs are responsible for child safeguarding policies. Also, IMHO it is good practise to dismiss or suspend as soon as someone is arrested and paced on police bail. Whether pleading guilty or not guilty is not important it is the fact that proceedings are going ahead should be enough to stop contact with the general public through club activities. I reckon contracts could have clauses to make it all nice and legal to dismiss at this early stage. Sunderland has lost it's CEO or other top executive IIRC due to this approach not happening.
This is the problem I can't agree with. The backbone of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty so how would this work ?
You can't separate footballers from the average guy just because of a job or salary.
What would happen to the average man if wrongly questioned and suspended from work for 18 months, they would lose their home and the sad fact is that many cases of rape or sexual allegations are false.
Please understand that I am not on Johnsons side here, not in the slightest.
I just feel that everyone needs protection and although not a perfect system, it is better than guilty until proven innocent.Living MY dream.0 -
I would agree with VTech on this one, anyone should not have to resign or be dismissed from a job simply because someone has accused them of something...I guess the problem in this case is that Adam Johnson should have pleaded guilty to start with...which would have then led to his dismissal. As has been said though, he claimed innocence, played for over a year on £60k a week and then pleaded guilty immediately before the trial. He is, without doubt, a complete sh!t but I cannot see how that kind of nonsense can be avoided. OK, Sunderland might have had a clause in his contract to recoup his salary...but that conveniently overlooks the fact that the club did very nicely thank you out of his continuing to play for the year.0
-
VTech wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:
I would personally like to see rules in place at club and FA level where all clubs are responsible for child safeguarding policies. Also, IMHO it is good practise to dismiss or suspend as soon as someone is arrested and paced on police bail. Whether pleading guilty or not guilty is not important it is the fact that proceedings are going ahead should be enough to stop contact with the general public through club activities. I reckon contracts could have clauses to make it all nice and legal to dismiss at this early stage. Sunderland has lost it's CEO or other top executive IIRC due to this approach not happening.
This is the problem I can't agree with. The backbone of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty so how would this work ?
You can't separate footballers from the average guy just because of a job or salary.
What would happen to the average man if wrongly questioned and suspended from work for 18 months, they would lose their home and the sad fact is that many cases of rape or sexual allegations are false.
Please understand that I am not on Johnsons side here, not in the slightest.
I just feel that everyone needs protection and although not a perfect system, it is better than guilty until proven innocent.
What about when the accused is charged for child sex offences and through his employment has direct contact?
Saville was a pro folic offender, this guy would have carried on until caught or he died.
Appreciate innocent until proven guilty but when the evidence is clear cut and the risk profile is adverse maybe an accelerated court date would be appropriate.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
Slowmart wrote:VTech wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:
I would personally like to see rules in place at club and FA level where all clubs are responsible for child safeguarding policies. Also, IMHO it is good practise to dismiss or suspend as soon as someone is arrested and paced on police bail. Whether pleading guilty or not guilty is not important it is the fact that proceedings are going ahead should be enough to stop contact with the general public through club activities. I reckon contracts could have clauses to make it all nice and legal to dismiss at this early stage. Sunderland has lost it's CEO or other top executive IIRC due to this approach not happening.
This is the problem I can't agree with. The backbone of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty so how would this work ?
You can't separate footballers from the average guy just because of a job or salary.
What would happen to the average man if wrongly questioned and suspended from work for 18 months, they would lose their home and the sad fact is that many cases of rape or sexual allegations are false.
Please understand that I am not on Johnsons side here, not in the slightest.
I just feel that everyone needs protection and although not a perfect system, it is better than guilty until proven innocent.
What about when the accused is charged for child sex offences and through his employment has direct contact?
Saville was a pro folic offender, this guy would have carried on until caught or he died.
Appreciate innocent until proven guilty but when the evidence is clear cut and the risk profile is adverse maybe an accelerated court date would be appropriate.
It's quite sensible to place people on (paid) leave or prevent them carrying out certain aspects of their work if the charges are serious enough to warrant it. We already have a system in which certain people are held in custody until their trial due to the risk they might pose to the public.0
