adam johnson

Green Tea - 3/3/2016 13:06

kefkat - 3/3/2016 10:07

tmg513 - 3/3/2016 08:40

gator - 2/3/2016 22:14

What I do find a disgrace is how he's been allowed out till his sentencing later this month Joe Bloggs would have been JR'd.
Click to expand...

Think of it as adding more to his sentence as he'll have nothing else to do except think about what life on the nonces' wing is going to be like for a few years.
Click to expand...

His life is fcuked! The difference is he wont be broke for life if he has used his money properly.

He comes under the umbrella term of paedophile now: (refer to Lewis post on the actual terms for each category)

Yup tmg he is going to be more than punished locked up with the nonces. What he is done is wrong, disgusting arrogant and pathetic however a stereo type of what 1 classes a paedophile he isn't.

His punishment is complete, even if he wasn't sent down, which he will be.

Ostracised, career over, relationship over, publicly humiliated etc. etc. he hasn't gotten away with it. He has paid the ultimate price for a few minute fumble.

I clicked on a link to this case earlier and was surprised to say other links come up to people like David Bowie, whom the majority of us idolised who also slept with underage girls being around 15. Different times, but it does make you think
Click to expand...

Crazy world we live in. It seems a life can be destroyed so cheaply and there is never any grey area, just black and white.

What is also crazy, is how it gets left to the Jury and how that comes down to luck on what types we have sitting on it. If I was there I would guess we would still be in deliberations. There are definitely unanswered questions, lies, exaggerations and missing pieces in this whole case.

Some key areas for me are that the initial contact came from the girl. It was known she was crazy about him. And she basically got what she wanted - In attention, love/passion, gifts. And its funny how the knowledge of such meetings only came out when he refused to meet her for the third time.
Click to expand...

What deliberations from the jury though? He got found NOT guilty of the offences he had pleaded NOT guilty too.

He was found guilty on the offences HE had pleaded GUILTY too, so the jury really doesn't have much to do with what the judgements are.

Our laws are our laws and he is going away. Many have ''got away'' with sleeping with a willing 15 year old, yes: He got caught. If any good comes out of it maybe some of those will think again and think ''they are the lucky ones'' who just didn't get caught.

You can't argue GT with the laws that HE, Adam Johnson had pleaded guilty too, cos that is what he is going away for. He was found NOT guilty of the others
 
Oh sorry! I didn't realise he had been found guilty of 1 charge he had pleaded not guilty too. The prosecution lie? I dont think so GT. The prosecution will be given the ''facts'' taken down by the police to prosecute on. The ''facts'' taken from the girl. What you also say can go the other way. What say he is guilty of the charge he was found NOT guilty on. Has to cut both ways
 
GT - you really don't understand the subject, the Law and certainly not the ins and outs of the case. You've made up your own little story of what happened, your own little picture of the girl involved and your own little picture of how the Law should be.

In short, you don't live in the real world.
 
Green Tea - 3/3/2016 13:13

Guilty on the one charge but not the second charge. Which means lies in court have taken place by the prosecution.
Click to expand...

It means no such thing!

It simply means the jury didn't have enough evidence/weren't convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the girl had given him a BJ. They were obviously convinced on the evidence presented that he had his hand down her pants.

Which makes him guilty of sexual activity with a minor. Whether or not she was complicit in anything is totally irrelevant on the point of law. He discovered early on that she was barely 15, and continued down the road with that knowledge.

It is regrettable for him that his reputation, relationship and career are all in tatters, but he made his mind up and obviously thought he was safe in so doing. Unfortunately for him, he wasn't.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 3/3/2016 13:23

GT - you really don't understand the subject, the Law and certainly not the ins and outs of the case. You've made up your own little story of what happened, your own little picture of the girl involved and your own little picture of how the Law should be.

In short, you don't live in the real world.
Click to expand...

Concentrate on the "subject matter" and NOT "the poster". Juan has added a great post above which he expresses opinion on my post without targeting me on a personal basis.

If you have contribution to any post, add it. But IF you keep targeting the posters on a personal basis, the thread will likely just be removed again.

:14:
 
Green Tea - 3/3/2016 14:03

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 3/3/2016 13:23

GT - you really don't understand the subject, the Law and certainly not the ins and outs of the case. You've made up your own little story of what happened, your own little picture of the girl involved and your own little picture of how the Law should be.

In short, you don't live in the real world.
Click to expand...

Concentrate on the "subject matter" and NOT "the poster". Juan has added a great post above which he expresses opinion on my post without targeting me on a personal basis.

If you have contribution to any post, add it. But IF you keep targeting the posters on a personal basis, the thread will likely just be removed again.

:14:
Click to expand...

Good, if it keeps your tripe off the internet.

You don't understand the concept of a 15 year old not being considered mature enough to control her own actions under the Law. If this is the case, then this is about you, as much as AJ, because that is of immense concern.

It's the excuse Peodos have used since these sort of Laws came into effect.
 
Yes he's stupid, yes he's a disgusting individual and yes he should be punished. But 10 years for passionately kissing a 15 year old and exchanging messages seems ridiculous to me. He was found not guilty of the more serious charge which was her giving him a bj. Since when has kissing a 15 year old been an offence, FFS I kissed plenty of 15 year olds when I was at school.
By the way I'm not condoning his behavior at all just pointing out that violent criminals and rapists get less.
 
Green Tea - 3/3/2016 14:13

Guilty on the one charge but not the second charge. Which means lies in court have taken place by the prosecution.

And if the prosecution(after the jury have made their conclusion) have lied about the second charge, what credibility does the 1st charge rely on?
Click to expand...

You talk about others seeing no grey areas and yet you can't comprehend that being found not guilty of a charge doesn't mean that people have lied. Firstly, it's about interpretation of the law, secondly, given that the whole situation is about proving something, it may well be that one charge was more easily provable than the other, one need not be contingent on the other, if it was then there would be no need for two seperate charges. Finally, it's all about burden of proof, the prosecution must prove guilt, the defence don't need to prove innocence, they just need to make the jury be unsure about guilt. Not guilty is not the same as innocent, it just means that any conviction would be unsecure. It may well be that the one charge was an absolute slam dunk but the other split the jury too much to be secure. Only the people involved will know.

 
Fulford - 3/3/2016 15:24

Yes he's stupid, yes he's a disgusting individual and yes he should be punished. But 10 years for passionately kissing a 15 year old and exchanging messages seems ridiculous to me. He was found not guilty of the more serious charge which was her giving him a bj. Since when has kissing a 15 year old been an offence, FFS I kissed plenty of 15 year olds when I was at school.
By the way I'm not condoning his behavior at all just pointing out that violent criminals and rapists get less.
Click to expand...


I suppose it comes down to the grooming laws. Most girls are sexually active at that age anyway and if he was a teenager himself I wouldn't really see the big deal. The thing that makes it a bit sick is that he wasn't anywhere near her age and he had a very fit girlfriend at home. That tells me that he has a bit of nonce about him. I said it before but why not go for a 17 year old or something if you fancy a younger model? He has gone for her because she's underage. It's just a bit weird if you ask me. It's even more bizarre him thinking it wasn't going to come out. Why throw all of that away to snog a 15 year old? It all comes back to the fact that he must have strong noncey tendencies.
 
Bikini Inspector - 3/3/2016 16:00

Fulford - 3/3/2016 15:24

Yes he's stupid, yes he's a disgusting individual and yes he should be punished. But 10 years for passionately kissing a 15 year old and exchanging messages seems ridiculous to me. He was found not guilty of the more serious charge which was her giving him a bj. Since when has kissing a 15 year old been an offence, FFS I kissed plenty of 15 year olds when I was at school.
By the way I'm not condoning his behavior at all just pointing out that violent criminals and rapists get less.
Click to expand...


I suppose it comes down to the grooming laws. Most girls are sexually active at that age anyway and if he was a teenager himself I wouldn't really see the big deal. The thing that makes it a bit sick is that he wasn't anywhere near her age and he had a very fit girlfriend at home. That tells me that he has a bit of nonce about him. I said it before but why not go for a 17 year old or something if you fancy a younger model? He has gone for her because she's underage. It's just a bit weird if you ask me. It's even more bizarre him thinking it wasn't going to come out. Why throw all of that away to snog a 15 year old? It all comes back to the fact that he must have strong noncey tendencies.
Click to expand...

Maybe however very very stupid also has if it isn't noncy, it is pure stupidity of the highest order. His brains were not in his head for sure. No one in there right mind could do what he did and expect to get away with it if they weren't minus brain cells
 
He was found guilty on one charge and not on the other, so GT is correct. However, he previously pleaded guilty to grooming and sending explicit texts, what's app messages to a child. It's seldom black or white.
 
In no particular order whilst I continue to ruminate.

Freed for sentencing is usual, it's also now the stage the defence heavily tries to mitigate along with reports.

Seeing one person argue the logic of a Jury makes me smile, whilst they continue to fail to understand the law even in its simplest of guises.

Somebody like that sitting on a jury would see the jury foreman request a majority verdict as acceptable, as said obstinate juror obviously had their own agenda and interpretation and a unanimous verdict would not be forthcoming.

I've served on a jury and it's all quite straightforward when you have an IQ.

The prosecution present evidence as they can prove it...the defence use any means of reasonable doubt they can find.

Loose example -

Murder weapon A has the defendant's finger prints and DNA on it along with blood from the victim.

The defence asks for logical explanations as to how all three could be found on murder weapon without the defendant's knowledge and questions the chain of evidential history to examine cross contamination and the existence of the Yeti to try and provide doubt.

They aren't lying, they are just trying to provide an alterior truth that gains traction to get their client off - it's the job.

Ask a prosecutor have they ever convicted an innocent party they should most likely admit yes unfortunately as it happens when the evidence looks caste iron.

Ask a defence barrister have they ever helped free anybody who was guilty as sin - they should answer their client is entitled to a defence and their guilt and innocence is not known to them.

Some will understand the distinction I'm making.

Juan expressed the law not an opinion.

The previous thread wasn't removed for that either but yes, this one could be as well for entirely similar reasons.

Fulford, I'm assuming you're being ironic hence the line of 'when at school'.

Be interesting to know if the families lawyers are looking at social media following the statement released?
 
Which idiot in the press has claimed ten years?

He'll get custodial mainly because he's a public figure and to set an example, but it won't be long. 18 months might be a decent shout even if on the high side, minimum security and he'll be long out in half that.

On the scale these are minor offences (even given the age gap) - an unknown would likely get register and suspended would be my guess.
 
Thought the judge has told him he will get between 5 and 10 years.
Mike the law must have changed on releasing them on bail whilst awaiting a significant sentence then because Iv'e never known it.
 
mike_field - 3/3/2016 21:24

Which idiot in the press has claimed ten years?

He'll get custodial mainly because he's a public figure and to set an example, but it won't be long. 18 months might be a decent shout even if on the high side, minimum security and he'll be long out in half that.

On the scale these are minor offences (even given the age gap) - an unknown would likely get register and suspended would be my guess.
Click to expand...

Pleading guilty to grooming makes the offence committed far from minor.

Grooming = training a child to commit acts that they wouldn't otherwise of done. And then also plead guilty to kissing with tongues and found guilty of touching the girl inappropriately?

Grooming can look in court for the jury that he took the girl's innocence. He groomed, trained, coaxed her into doing things of a sexual nature.

However, if it is a case of a guy being pestered by a girl that wants to ride him, loves him and is already sexually active. Then the case for grooming can be challenged, in that she is doing what she wants and in full control of her own sexual motions. And that he is "wrongly" following up and fulfilling her desires.

Like I say; if he took her innocence and did in fact groom her as to fill his own sexual desires, he deserves all he gets.

But if its a case of the former, then a custodial sentence for me would be very harsh.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.