• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Adam Johnson appeal

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my opinion, there are three separate parts:

1) The grooming and actual stuff that happened with the girl.

2) He found out she was underage very early on and could have stopped it, but pursued it even though he knew he was doing wrong.

3) Claiming he was innocent to the club, supporters and everyone else until the very last minute when he changed his plea, so he knowingly lied to everyone.

It's the combination of all of that which makes me think the sentence is fair.
 

haway said:
They do it a lot. I guess it makes sense because the crimes are often linked. I'm trying to think of a good example, but I guess it would be something like if I rape person X and during the rape commit GBH then I will be charged with both rape and GBH. But the rape will be raised to a higher threshold because I've committed a serious act of violence which is an aggravating feature. So I get 15 years for the rape (because it's right at the high end of a rape) and 4 years for the GBH. But if I was to have them run sequentially then the logic would be I would be getting punished twice for the GBH, as the GBH has been taken into account in the rape sentence already. Which is why they often run alongside one another. I think.

Whereas I think that were I to commit a murder on monday, then another unrelated murder on Tuesday, then even if the offences were tried together in the same trial, the sentences would run after one another. E.g. would get something like life with a minimum of 40 years, 20 for the first and 20 for the second.

So in AJ's case I suppose because all the offences he was charged with are so interlinked and are aggravating each other in different ways, that's why the sentences run alongside one another.

Never actually seen that said but that has always been my presumption about why sentences often run alongside one another.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, well put, so one crime may have another taken in mind so its unfair to stack up all the offenses individually.

That bold bit, canny remake of the Craig David classic.
 
becs said:
In my opinion, there are three separate parts:

1) The grooming and actual stuff that happened with the girl.

2) He found out she was underage very early on and could have stopped it, but pursued it even though he knew he was doing wrong.

3) Claiming he was innocent to the club, supporters and everyone else until the very last minute when he changed his plea, so he knowingly lied to everyone.

It's the combination of all of that which makes me think the sentence is fair.
Click to expand...

Fair post, whole thing had an air of `I can do what the feck I like` about it but to be fair, as his folks said, that's the kind of life these lads live.
 
I'm really not sure why some posters are bothered about the length of a sentence for millionaire footballer, he took the piss out of our club and took advantage of a minor.

Are you desperate for him to get released and play for us again?
 
Bit inconsistent, in recent times people have committed graver offences but received lesser sentences
 
Ive never understood the protection of him.

Forget other sentences, absolute grade a bellend to do what he did, groomed an underage lass and went through with it.....deserves everything he gets.
 
Ricci's Special Kebabs said:
I'm really not sure why some posters are bothered about the length of a sentence for millionaire footballer, he took the piss out of our club and took advantage of a minor.

Are you desperate for him to get released and play for us again?
Click to expand...
I think it's more the inconsistency in the sentencing.

I don't think anyone is "bothered", more pointing out examples of others being treated less harshly
 
Mary Hinge said:
Bit inconsistent, in recent times people have committed graver offences but received lesser sentences
Click to expand...
Just because the sentencing was perhaps too lenient for one incident, that shouldn't increase leniency on another.

Adam Johnson groomed and touched a child sexually. Doesn't matter if Father Bumflaps got 4yrs for doing the same, Johnson's sentence is fair and has been upheld under review.
 
chunkylover53 said:
I think it's more the inconsistency in the sentencing.

I don't think anyone is "bothered", more pointing out examples of others being treated less harshly
Click to expand...

I get the inconsistency bit, but why should that matter to us?

If you had a association with him via friends or family fair enough, feel aggrieved. People on here who's has no personal relationship with him he saying he should have his sentence reduced, harshly treated etc, etc is just plain weird.
 
chunkylover53 said:
I think it's more the inconsistency in the sentencing.

I don't think anyone is "bothered", more pointing out examples of others being treated less harshly
Click to expand...

Problem is there is inconsistency in every walk of life from refereeing decisions to prison sentences. My main bug bear is he lied and lied about his innocence until the last moment. He's on the nonce jotter now we should move on from him and the damage he's done to the club
 
The Fish said:
Just because the sentencing was perhaps too lenient for one incident, that shouldn't increase leniency on another.

Adam Johnson groomed and touched a child sexually. Doesn't matter if Father Bumflaps got 4yrs for doing the same, Johnson's sentence is fair and has been upheld under review.
Click to expand...

I agree but all the fookas should get 6 years, few women have been convicted recently but received lesser sentences.....
 
Ricci's Special Kebabs said:
I get the inconsistency bit, but why should that matter to us?

If you had a association with him via friends or family fair enough, feel aggrieved. People on here who's has no personal relationship with him he saying he should have his sentence reduced, harshly treated etc, etc is just plain weird.
Click to expand...
Because it's a message board where people debate stuff

I don't think anyone is commenting more than they would about any other case
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top