• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
hoof ball said:
Adam Johnson is the worst person in the footballing world because he kissed a girl that was almost 16 years old but Marcos Alonso who killed a person by driving drunk is not even criticized.
Click to expand...

There is a difference.
The former was a calculating move over a period of time, the latter was a consequence of stupidity over a shorter time frame. Yes the consequences were absolutely horrific, but the intent wasn't there.

Also, it wasn't just kissing a girl, it was engaging in more sexual activity than that.

If you're going to measure the gravity of the consequences, then yes, a death will usually outweigh a sexual offence, but if you're measuring the heinous nature of the crime, then Johnson's streets ahead.
 

haway said:
Legally not at all...

A defence is you didn't know the person's age...

But a defence is not 'Oh I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to cop off with underage girls'.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's largely a strict liability issue - and you're to blame regardless however...
The only defence is a reasonable belief that the person was not underage - that is not the same as not knowing. Having a reasonably belief would something along the lines of having attempted to make checks and been deliberately mislead (say if the victim had used a fake ID, or presented other false evidence). In those circumstances, you would have a very strong case for holding a 'reasonable belief'. If she merely 'said' she was 16, then you'd have a very weak case for 'reasonable belief'. But either way, 'not knowing' is NOT the same thing.
 
The Master said:
The reasons that the press are ripping into us is because we haven't yet denied that we knew what Johnson had done.
How is that unclear?
Click to expand...
There's loads of different question being asked. Papers coming out with conflicting reasons for asking. Its just not that straightforward, and if the club rushed to clarify one area, they would only be accused of something else, on somebody else's list of grievances. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I'm sure they're discussing the accusations behind closed doors, and weighing their position up.
As things stand, it's just a witch hunt from various parties. If they were so sure that the club knew everything all along, why was it not raised earlier? I don't see any statements from the police saying that they asked the club to suspend AJ.
I'might also puzzled, as to why this convicted Sex offender is not in jail already, while he awaits sentence. Its odd that the courts don't see him as a risk to the public, after he's been convicted, but the media think he was before it.
 
haway said:
They'll have to say something untrue, first.
Click to expand...
You dont have the good name of sunderland afc at heart if you are defending that lot at this time.

They are an absolute disgrace with their bile what is a very sad situation.

If people have emailed or written to them to complain good on them. This an organisation that gave Jimmy Saville free reign remember - no way should our proud club take pelters off that lot.
 
John Steed said:
His crime was at the lower end of the scale of noncing so to put him on the front page of a national publication with two child murderers and rapists who should have been executed is real gutter journalism.
Click to expand...
Grooming and penetration is actually at the higher end in terms of sentencing, but I think the point you're making is that in the grand scheme of offenders, he's at the lower end (first time offender, once child only, not full sex) etc. In that regard, yes, there are men (and women) who've been far worse, but the fame that brought him privilege is the same fame that's now put him in the front pages. He's getting the same treatment as Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris, but arguably less than Jimmy Savile.
 
Cosmos Rocks said:
You dont have the good name of sunderland afc at heart if you are defending that lot at this time.

They are an absolute disgrace with their bile what is a very sad situation.

If people have emailed or written to them to complain good on them. This an organisation that gave Jimmy Saville free reign remember - no way should our proud club take pelters off that lot.
Click to expand...

The only reason our club is taking pelters off anyone is because of what the club chose to over the last year, in particular the last 48 hours.

The fact the BBC swept nonces under the carpet has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening atm and it's pathetic deflection to say it is. Show me the BBC articles that are false, or unfair, or whatever, and I might agree. Otherwise leave the victim complex at the door.
 
haway said:
The only reason our club is taking pelters off anyone is because of what the club chose to over the last year, in particular the last 48 hours.

The fact the BBC swept nonces under the carpet has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening atm and it's pathetic deflection to say it is. Show me the BBC articles that are false, or unfair, or whatever, and I might agree. Otherwise leave the victim complex at the door.
Click to expand...
Mag or a WUM probably both? The Club gas acted admirably and is taking enough completely unwarranted stick without supposdly Sunderland fans joining in. BBC North hates Sunderland AFC but taking their narrow minded view off the world into this is lower than a snakes belly. Nobody with the best intersts of our club at heart should be defending the BBC.
 
FanchesterCity said:
No it isn't. It's largely a strict liability issue - and you're to blame regardless however...
The only defence is a reasonable belief that the person was not underage - that is not the same as not knowing. Having a reasonably belief would something along the lines of having attempted to make checks and been deliberately mislead (say if the victim had used a fake ID, or presented other false evidence). In those circumstances, you would have a very strong case for holding a 'reasonable belief'. If she merely 'said' she was 16, then you'd have a very weak case for 'reasonable belief'. But either way, 'not knowing' is NOT the same thing.
Click to expand...

The threshold is often much lower, if you meet someone and they look older, and say they're 16, you wouldn't have to check a fake ID for it to be reasonable. If someone was in a bar etc you'd be ok.

But I do agree with the sentiment of your post, not knowing isn't the issue, reasonably believing is the issue, although when I said 'not knowing' she was a minor I didn't mean it as in = 'she looked like a minor but I didn't know' but 'I didn't know she was a minor because I couldn't be expected to. But shit phrasing on my part.
 
haway said:
The only reason our club is taking pelters off anyone is because of what the club chose to over the last year, in particular the last 48 hours.

The fact the BBC swept nonces under the carpet has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening atm and it's pathetic deflection to say it is. Show me the BBC articles that are false, or unfair, or whatever, and I might agree. Otherwise leave the victim complex at the door.
Click to expand...
Disagree there mind. The nonce's cowardly actions played a major part.
 
Cosmos Rocks said:
Mag or a WUM probably both? The Club gas acted admirably and is taking enough completely unwarranted stick without supposdly Sunderland fans joining in. BBC North hates Sunderland AFC but taking their narrow minded view off the world into this is lower than a snakes belly. Nobody with the best intersts of our club at heart should be defending the BBC.
Click to expand...

Show me the articles then
 
sidneyeric said:
Ive posted my points before, he didn't realise a kiss was classed as sexual contact, he thought he was just flirting, which he repeated in court, he's guilty of being extremely thick.
Click to expand...
Are you for real? Extremely thick? He met a girl online who he knew was 15 and flirted with her and agreed to meet her. He engaged in two sexual acts with the girl. Is this any different from blokes picking up underage girls on Facebook. He even googled the age of consent. The text were off a sexual nature. He's guilty of been a nonce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top