• 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.
See the Mail are running the paedo headline again, he could probably sue them for constantly labelling him something, by definition, he is not.
You must be logged on to see external links
 

Jenks said:
He knew her age. He knew the consquences, and used his fame to pursue an underage lass for sex, so hes been made an example of. Let him f***ing rot.
Click to expand...

Nail on the head, anyone that can't see that isn't looking hard enough.
 
sidneyeric said:
He was found guilty by the jury because of 1 message, "you felt turned on" that jury was in a hurry because 2 members were in a hurry to finish the trial, it was the defence lawyers advice to deny the other 2 charges for so long.


Correct.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure you know better that one of the top paid barristers in the country
 
sidneyeric said:
He was found guilty by the jury because of 1 message, "you felt turned on" that jury was in a hurry because 2 members were in a hurry to finish the trial, it was the defence lawyers advice to deny the other 2 charges for so long.


Correct.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

You're sure that was the only reason Adam Johnson was found guilty?

... and to be clear you're saying he shouldn't have been found guilty of fingering a teenage girl (that he knew was underage) because the jurors quickly came to the decision that the text message was sufficient evidence to support the complaint of the teenaged victim?
 
haway said:
It wasn't murder though. It was death by dangerous driving while drunk IIRC. Very different, and while nobody on here (I presume) has ever come close to murdering someone, a lot will have driven drunk. It just takes one bit of bad luck to be the person who drunk drives and kills two people.

Not at all condoning him - obviously - but just saying that accidental death due to negligent behaviour is much, MUCH less serious than murder where you intend to kill or at least commit GBH.
Click to expand...
Unbelievable :rolleyes:
 
Purrfect South said:
Unbelievable :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why unbelievable?

I've never drunk driven. I've never needed to and would be far to anxious to do it (both that I'd be arrested or hurt someone). That said, I've done stupid things when drunk which have put mine and friends at risk in other ways.

Anyone who drink drives is taking a risk that they will kill someone. That's why it's immoral, and illegal. But it's not to be equated with murder. When someone kills someone driving drunk they are taking a gamble with other people's lives that doesn't pay off. That's a terrible thing to do but one that millions of people across the country have decided to take at some point. Same with people using phones, speeding recklessly etc.

He was rightly punished but IMO in cases where people die as a result of negligence it's just in no way comparable to murder - where there is an intent to harm or kill.

I'm really not justifying drink driving. I think there should be stricter penalties for ANYONE caught drink driving. What I don't like though is that as a society we tend to give people 3 points (6 now is it?) for using a phone while driving but if they're the unlucky one who kills someone they get 10 years. The sentence should be for taking the risk in the first place (e.g. the negligence to drink drive, or to use a phone). That's the issue, IMO, the recklessness to get behind the wheel pissed.
 
SPUFF said:
Double edged sword.

Used being a star to get into he kegs so cant go crying the reflecting sentence is unfair.
Click to expand...

You could of course argue she got in touch with him and pursued him because he was famous.

He's thick as fuck mind, and got caught, so needs to take his medicine.

*the point Eric is making about the verdict is they went off one text to decide if he did actually do the act. That's dodgy grounds given what was said in the message when you're supposed to determine if there is any doubt.
 
sidneyeric said:
He was found guilty by the jury because of 1 message, "you felt turned on" that jury was in a hurry because 2 members were in a hurry to finish the trial, it was the defence lawyers advice to deny the other 2 charges for so long.
Click to expand...

Awful choice of words, had he used seemed instead of felt then it might have been a different outcome.
 
I've long thought the national press aren't done with our club or our fans (some of them) over this case.

Some of the responses to this thread confirm exactly why they'll be back for another feeding frenzy when the time is right.
 
I mean, he also said

AJ: "Confident aren't you? Am I only getting a kiss?"

SG: "Depends on what else you're after"

AJ: "I dunno, it depends what you are up for.. a little bit more than a kiss"

SG: "Like?"

AJ: "A bit of feeling. Just see. No pressure. Lol"

AJ: "Keep deleting our convos"

They next meet on January 30th when the sexual activity allegedly took place in the car park behind a Chinese takeaway. Afterwards they exchange more messages.

AJ: "Wasn't bad, was it?"

AJ: "Think we better go in the back next time."

AJ: "It was class. Just wanted to get your jeans off"

SG: "Next time haha"

AJ: "I will last 10 seconds tho lol"​

So I wouldn't suggest the entire case rests on one text. The above are clearly him grooming her as he pursues sexual activities with someone he knows to be under the legal age of consent. Asking if he'd "only" getting a kiss. Suggesting "a bit of feeling". Trying to convince her to do more.

People can argue the validity of an arbitrary age of consent, they can try and claim she was 'up for it', or that his sentence is too harsh because other sentencing has been more lenient, but the bloke's a wrong'un, he manipulated then fiddled with a child and I'm glad he's not in a position to sexually take advantage of any other children.
 
Without even reading the thread I can summarise the content as follows

1. @dangermows calling people 'mags' who find Johnson's crime and behaviour repulsive

2. @sidneyeric frantically googling comparable cases to 'prove' why Johnson's sentence was extreme and why he should be let out tomorrow

And people wonder why supporters of other teams still sing about Sunderland and 'paedos' at our fans.

When the biggest fan forum never fails to deliver points 1 and 2 above.
 
Dappa said:
The law is the law, my comment was aimed at the sympathisers thinking he should have got a telling off.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, i am by no way judging his sentence, it's more about how it's not consistent with other cases. There's paedo groups that get similar sentences
 
8 JLB said:
Without even reading the thread I can summarise the content as follows

1. @dangermows calling people 'mags' who find Johnson's crime and behaviour repulsive

2. @sidneyeric frantically googling comparable cases to 'prove' why Johnson's sentence was extreme and why he should be let out tomorrow

And people wonder why supporters of other teams still sing about Sunderland and 'paedos' at our fans.

When the biggest fan forum never fails to deliver points 1 and 2 above.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
judd jenkin said:
I've long thought the national press aren't done with our club or our fans (some of them) over this case.

Some of the responses to this thread confirm exactly why they'll be back for another feeding frenzy when the time is right.
Click to expand...

eh? If I were you I'd not take condemnation of a sex offender as a comment on your club.

Sure, he'll be referred to as "Ex-Sunderland star Adam Johnson", but that prefix isn't a way for the national press to action some imagined vendetta against your club.

As if the fourth estate got together and decided to drag your clubs name through the muck for... what? shits and giggles?
 
The Fish said:
eh? If I were you I'd not take condemnation of a sex offender as a comment on your club.

Sure, he'll be referred to as "Ex-Sunderland star Adam Johnson", but that prefix isn't a way for the national press to action some imagined vendetta against your club.

As if the fourth estate got together and decided to drag your clubs name through the muck for... what? shits and giggles?
Click to expand...

Well the club could've handled it better I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top