So what exactly did I say that was incorrect? He admitted to breaking the law. He has been found guilty and sentenced. The judges did not see his case warranting an appeal. He needs to shut up and serve his time. He groomed a kid ffs. Perhaps if he had even just once shown an ounce of remorse he may have stood a chance - instead his friends and family hounded the victim and claimed his innocence when he knew all along he wasnt.
-
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
- Thread starter super-niall
- Start date
- Status
So what exactly did I say that was incorrect? He admitted to breaking the law. He has been found guilty and sentenced. The judges did not see his case warranting an appeal. He needs to shut up and serve his time. He groomed a kid ffs. Perhaps if he had even just once shown an ounce of remorse he may have stood a chance - instead his friends and family hounded the victim and claimed his innocence when he knew all along he wasnt.
Dsb
Winger
Can't believe this is still going , nothing good ever comes out of these threads
Mackem DJ
Striker
Ridiculously harsh sentence. You hear stories in the press every week about people engaging in full on noncey activity, full sex with those underage etc who barely get a 3rd of the punishment.
That said, Hes a f***ing muppett for what he did do and how far he took things with this person.
That said, Hes a f***ing muppett for what he did do and how far he took things with this person.
This issue should have always been above football but when 1000s of your fans seem to be taking satisfaction from the fact he is a "paedophile" and seem to think sex offences is a topic for "banter" and jolly songs then it can hardly surprise you when people question your motives.
safctommie
Winger
The judge could and did send him down for 6 years so fuck off with the harsh sentence shit.
I forgot it was only our fans that chanted those songs....
Stockton Mackem
Striker
It was a harsh sentence.
There is no such thing as a harsh sentence - he commited a harsh crime. Bet he wasnt concerned with the harshness at the time of the act.
D
Deleted member 5265
Guest
It wasn't.
What?
The Voice Of Reason
Heaven Branch
I have no problem with the sentence if it is consistently applied
It isn't
It isn't
Stockton Mackem
Striker
No, but i refuse to feel sorry for anyone guilty of a crime (especially when they have admitted certain parts) when they are dealt a sentence. He deserves what he got. Everyone knows what he did was wrong and he deserves to be punished as a result. Perhaps if he hadnt lied, changed his plea, hounded the victim and her family the jury and the judges would have given more strength to his arguement. As it stands the only evidence available (some loose texts and her statement) appear to show that he lied again.
I dont feel sorry for the fact he is serving six years. I can understand the arguement its diff to others convicted to some extent but they should all be severely punished. Prison is a joke these days as it is, drugs and f***ing playstations galore - perhaps if he feared the consequences more he wouldnt have groomed a bairn.
rentaghost
Striker
What is there to disagree with the following statement:
Any decent person would just be happy that he was put away for what he did.
Any decent person would not sympathise with the length of a prison sentence because any decent person would not commit a crime like that in the first place.
What are people doing defending this bloke? If he got a couple of years extra so f***ing what?
D
Deleted member 5265
Guest
The law.
JohnnyM1
Midfield
Since you have gone to the trouble of posting this twice, I'll offer a reply.
1) "Any decent person would just be happy that he was put away for what he did." - I'm not sure why you think this. One aspect of our judicial system is making sure people who commit crimes are punished, sure. But there are other aspects such as proportionality and equity. Proportionality being that the sentence one is given should correspond to the crime, equity being that everyone in similar circumstances who commit the same offences should be treated and thus sentenced equally. You can be pleased that AJ was found out, arrested, prosecuted and (hopefully) prevented from offending again, and be pleased his victim has been vindicated and has justice. But you can still think that the offence he committed didn't warrant 6 years and that many others, in similar circumstances, would not have faced a comparable sentence.
So I just think it's bollocks to say "any decent person should just be happy he's been locked up" because there's more to British justice.
2) "Any decent person would not sympathise with the length of a prison sentence because any decent person would not commit a crime like that in the first place." - Again, unsure why you think this. The fact I would never groom a 15 year old, or would never commit a burglary, or never commit crimes X Y and Z doesn't mean I can't hold an opinion that a sentence is disproportionately long. You seem to somehow think that when I say he shouldn't have got 6 years, I'm somehow tacitly saying it was ok, or wasn't really serious. Quite the contrary - I was one of the main posters on here at the time when people were making slurs against the victim who was saying how it was wrong - an abuse of power etc. But the point of the judicial system isn't just to brand anyone who ever commits a crime a criminal and lock them up for as long as we fancy. And I just don't think 6 years was a necessary or appropriate sentence.
3) "What are people doing defending this bloke? If he got a couple of years extra so f***ing what?" - Not sure anyone is defending his crime. If they are, point them out and I'll call them a fuckwit. And it's all well and good saying "so what if he got an extra few years?" but these extra years cost society money. A lot of money. They also result, in the bigger picture, in more crime. They result in extra-stigmatisation and marginalisation of offenders. These are big issues in our society - our prisons are completely understaffed and overcrowded. This is resulting in people being locked up for 23 hours a day and when they get out they are so cooked up they're more likely to commit further crime. We need a prison system that takes repeat/ dangerous offenders and makes them safer/ less likely to offend. Sorry but giving him 6 years and the wasted resources that entails helps nobody.
There is a spectrum of sex offences. They are all *obviously* serious. But again, to repeat myself for the millionth time, I think within that scale of sex offences, this was not at the more serious end. It's still a sex offence and should be treated as such, but 6 years? Not for me.
JohnnyM1
Midfield
Since you have gone to the trouble of posting this twice, I'll offer a reply.
1) "Any decent person would just be happy that he was put away for what he did." - I'm not sure why you think this. One aspect of our judicial system is making sure people who commit crimes are punished, sure. But there are other aspects such as proportionality and equity. Proportionality being that the sentence one is given should correspond to the crime, equity being that everyone in similar circumstances who commit the same offences should be treated and thus sentenced equally. You can be pleased that AJ was found out, arrested, prosecuted and (hopefully) prevented from offending again, and be pleased his victim has been vindicated and has justice. But you can still think that the offence he committed didn't warrant 6 years and that many others, in similar circumstances, would not have faced a comparable sentence.
So I just think it's bollocks to say "any decent person should just be happy he's been locked up" because there's more to British justice.
2) "Any decent person would not sympathise with the length of a prison sentence because any decent person would not commit a crime like that in the first place." - Again, unsure why you think this. The fact I would never groom a 15 year old, or would never commit a burglary, or never commit crimes X Y and Z doesn't mean I can't hold an opinion that a sentence is disproportionately long. You seem to somehow think that when I say he shouldn't have got 6 years, I'm somehow tacitly saying it was ok, or wasn't really serious. Quite the contrary - I was one of the main posters on here at the time when people were making slurs against the victim who was saying how it was wrong - an abuse of power etc. But the point of the judicial system isn't just to brand anyone who ever commits a crime a criminal and lock them up for as long as we fancy. And I just don't think 6 years was a necessary or appropriate sentence.
3) "What are people doing defending this bloke? If he got a couple of years extra so f***ing what?" - Not sure anyone is defending his crime. If they are, point them out and I'll call them a fuckwit. And it's all well and good saying "so what if he got an extra few years?" but these extra years cost society money. A lot of money. They also result, in the bigger picture, in more crime. They result in extra-stigmatisation and marginalisation of offenders. These are big issues in our society - our prisons are completely understaffed and overcrowded. This is resulting in people being locked up for 23 hours a day and when they get out they are so cooked up they're more likely to commit further crime. We need a prison system that takes repeat/ dangerous offenders and makes them safer/ less likely to offend. Sorry but giving him 6 years and the wasted resources that entails helps nobody.
There is a spectrum of sex offences. They are all *obviously* serious. But again, to repeat myself for the millionth time, I think within that scale of sex offences, this was not at the more serious end. It's still a sex offence and should be treated as such, but 6 years? Not for me.
HE GROOMED A 15 YEAR OLD GIRL....
what do you think his intentions were then ... a bag of chips each?
Erm... what?
A minority of Football fans are morons who revel in and latch onto any type of one upmanship they can get their hands on. You're fully aware of the satisfaction and 'banter' you along with most other clubs aimed at Boro over allegations that surrounded their town. Nothing to do with the football club but hey ho, open season to the idiots.
For every idiot who uses the Johnson case to provoke Sunderland, there's an idiot with the mentality that he's been treated harsh and can be sympathised with simply because he played for SAFC. Somebody made a very good point earlier when stating that if this was an Asian Rotherham taxi driver it would be a different story from the sympathisers.
I agree this should be above fan rivalry. The only way football should be brought into it is that he used this profession to manipulate, groom and engage in sexual activity with a child.
- Status
