Adam Johnson appeal

[Chef]

Tell ye what ,his crime aside, we could really do with him at the minute !

 

[ATS]

You can't compare the two cases.

That's not how the legal system works.

Why not? They were both adults who committed sex crimes against children.
The teacher should have got the longer sentence as she had full sex, Johnson didn't. You could also argue she was in a bigger position of trust.

 

[judd jenkin]

Why not? They were both adults who committed sex crimes against children.

That's not how the legal system works.

It doesn't allow a bit wriggle room for a few folks on the internet to compare cases to come up with a sentence.

 

[8 JLB]

Naturally. I'd like to think you'd not have a daughter meeting married men at night and bragging about what she was going to do to him anarl.

As predicted;

Exhibit 1. Dangermows blames the victim and her parents and makes out Johnson is some boy and still a hero

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

Exhibit 2. Sidneyeric claims he was innocent and points to other trials as evidence he should never have been convicted

Every time. Every Johnson thread.

People leave said thread in droves because the 2 of them take it over.

 

[sidneyeric]

As predicted;

Exhibit 1. Dangermows blames the victim and her parents and makes out Johnson is some boy and still a hero


Exhibit 2. Sidneyeric claims he was innocent and points to other trials as evidence he should never have been convicted

Every time. Every Johnson thread.

People leave said thread in droves because the 2 of them take it over.

6 posts out of 220 odd is taking over a thread ? aye ok

 

[dangermows]

As predicted;

Exhibit 1. Dangermows blames the victim and her parents and makes out Johnson is some boy and still a hero


Exhibit 2. Sidneyeric claims he was innocent and points to other trials as evidence he should never have been convicted

Every time. Every Johnson thread.

People leave said thread in droves because the 2 of them take it over.

More lies.

You predicted nothing of the sort either.

Apart from that you've done well.

 

[Sima]

Can't answer or debate. Okay then, whatever a child does its nothing to do with their parents, they aren't responsible for their safety and behaviour in anyway.

My daughter wouldnt be going on like that so jobs a good un.

There's little point as your contribution to threads on Adam Johnson more often than not veer towards you either reminiscing about the last minute goal against us and 'limbs all ower' or occasionally mention Papiss Cisse when anyone with a sane mind could see that the photos aligning to that story were a god-awful photoshop.

I should hope your daughter wouldn't be 'going on like that' (whatever that means) because you'd be squarely to blame for her getting fingered behind whatever takeaway is popular when she is 15.

 

[dangermows]

There's little point as your contribution to threads on Adam Johnson more often than not veer towards you either reminiscing about the last minute goal against us and 'limbs all ower' or occasionally mention Papiss Cisse when anyone with a sane mind could see that the photos aligning to that story were a god-awful photoshop.

I should hope your daughter wouldn't be 'going on like that' (whatever that means) because you'd be squarely to blame for her getting fingered behind whatever takeaway is popular when she is 15.

Read the thread marra as you seem to have missed me saying he was an idiot, he did wrong, should take his punishment and any parent would rightly want to kick his arse.

It could possibly be you didn't miss them and instead chose to ignore them. Why only you can answer.

 

[DrewC]

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.

Well put...I think sentences for crimes are all out of line & money & causes influence judges & society....It's over kill or under kill on sentences on various crimes but good luck telling the public about what is over sentences and under sentences ....

 

[0321safc]

I knew the mags would be all over this thread like a moth to a flame

 

[8 JLB]

Read the thread marra as you seem to have missed me saying he was an idiot, he did wrong, should take his punishment and any parent would rightly want to kick his arse.

It could possibly be you didn't miss them and instead chose to ignore them. Why only you can answer.

I quoted what you said above, as did others. Now you're backtracking because your views on the topic have been criticised yet again.

You've been told by several people that they found what you've posted to be unpleasant but still you persist doing the whole "what did I say" routine.

I knew the mags would be all over this thread like a moth to a flame

I'm not a mag. This isn't about football rivalries. It's about whats right and wrong.

The bloke groomed and interfered with a child.

Any man or woman who defends that action should be desperately ashamed of themselves.

 

[redandwhiterob]

So fuck, I'd rather people think I was guilty but have my freedom than be locked up on the nonce wing for 6 years. It's not like he couldn't afford to reach a generous settlement either. I'd have settled ASAP if I was him, as I say though I don't know if our legal system allows that.

Maybe he tried but the family didn't want to play ball

 

[dangermows]

It's getting boring now.

I quoted what you said above, as did others. Now you're backtracking because your views on the topic have been criticised yet again.

You've been told by several people that they found what you've posted to be unpleasant but still you persist doing the whole "what did I say" routine.


I'm not a mag. This isn't about football rivalries. It's about whats right and wrong.

The bloke groomed and interfered with a child.

Any man or woman who defends that action should be desperately ashamed of themselves.

Quoting and predicting aren't the same things.

Plenty have also echoed my thoughts too, and that is he did wrong and the sentencing was OTT. I thought it then and I think now. If people think that's defending him then more fool them.

I knew the mags would be all over this thread like a moth to a flame

It's because of their moral compass that's all.

 

[maghater]

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.

Prosecution must prove a case beyond all reasonable doubt, seems strange to me that he was found not guilty of one count of sexual activity, but guilty of the second, must therefor of only half believed her. Girl didn't mention either of the sexual activity claims until the third or fourth police interview, claimed she didn't want to get Adam into trouble. He probably was guilty, but probably isn't good enough grounds to reach a guilty verdict on.

 

[shepherd88]

Can't answer or debate. Okay then, whatever a child does its nothing to do with their parents, they aren't responsible for their safety and behaviour in anyway.

My daughter wouldnt be going on like that so jobs a good un.

No, it's Johnson fault. However if we are saying she's a child then I'd expect responsibility, in terms of how she behaves, where she goes etc to lie with her parents. You know, neglect, shit parenting and all that. Like when kids are little fuckers and the parents get stick.

Nice try with your choice of wording.

Not sure how you can blame the parents, 15 year olds don't always listen to their parents.

Also and maybe I am wrong, but wasn't it her dad who reported the whole horrible incident when he found out?

 

[Doberman]

did he appeal his conviction or appeal the sentence? Having pleaded guilty, I'm not sure how he can appeal his conviction. The sentence, however, was totally ludicrous. He would have done less time if he had mowed the lass down in his land rover and killed her.

 

[phunboy]

A lot of interesting reading in the guidelines here, it appears the judge had little choice in the length!...

You must be logged on to see external links

Doing my nut in, I`m certain I read on sentencing that as he`d pissed around court by pleading innocence for so long he lost any chance of early release!

Cheers for that canny interesting.

 

[8 JLB]

It's getting boring now.



Quoting and predicting aren't the same things.

Plenty have also echoed my thoughts too, and that is he did wrong and the sentencing was OTT. I thought it then and I think now. If people think that's defending him then more fool them.



It's because of their moral compass that's all.

And still you persist.

 

[palm 1]

I quoted what you said above, as did others. Now you're backtracking because your views on the topic have been criticised yet again.

You've been told by several people that they found what you've posted to be unpleasant but still you persist doing the whole "what did I say" routine.


I'm not a mag. This isn't about football rivalries. It's about whats right and wrong.

The bloke groomed and interfered with a child.

Any man or woman who defends that action should be desperately ashamed of themselves.

There's a thread a while back where Dangermows was saying there was nothing wrong with a women staying with her paedophile husband. Also Reckoned it was ok to be attracted to kids as long as you didn't act on your urges.
He hates the police but is a paedo apologist
He wonders why posters think he's a bit of a wrong un

 

[judd jenkin]

There's a thread a while back where Dangermows was saying there was nothing wrong with a women staying with her paedophile husband. Also Reckoned it was ok to be attracted to kids as long as you didn't act on your urges.
He hates the police but is a paedo apologist
He wonders why posters think he's a bit of a wrong un

Holy shit. Now it makes sense.