Adam Johnson Trial Verdict

[haway]

Disagree there mind. The nonce's cowardly actions played a major part.

That's not why the club are getting pelters. If he had been suspended straight away what criticism would the club be getting? The club were in a difficult situation but they could have handled it in a way where this wouldn't be an issue imo.

 

[shepherd88]

It's the media doing that, no one else...

Of course it isn't.

 

[John Steed]

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.

Saville being dead when his crimes were discovered was helpful for him.
I was also looking at the girls age as well as your other points. What he did was deplorable but no comparison to Bellfield or Huntley.

 

[FanchesterCity]

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.

I can understand your claim that he didn't realise the gravity of kissing in relation to a minor, but the moment you start touching her breasts, fingering her, or receiving (or asking) for a blowjob, that's not naivety or stupidity alone, that's a conscious decision to gratify your own sexual needs with someone you know is a minor.
You don't say to a minor 'I'll last 10 seconds' without knowing that's referring to ejaculation. And you don't talk about ejaculation with a 15 year old girl you've just been kissing without effectively taking it to a new, more depraved, level.

I think many people might have accepted 'stupidity' as a cause for kissing a 15 year old (who may have had many womanly attributes)... but the rest went WELL beyond stupidity.

 

[shepherd88]

That's not why the club are getting pelters. If he had been suspended straight away what criticism would the club be getting? The club were in a difficult situation but they could have handled it in a way where this wouldn't be an issue imo.

Yes, but if the nonce hadnt been a coward it wouldn't have got this far in the first place, hence a disagreed with you saying it was the only reason.

I'm not exactly one to defend the club either.

 

[Cosmos Rocks]

Show me the articles then

I have seen enough on the BBC in the last couple of days to tell me they are delighting in this situation. There half truths and inuendos are an absolute disgrace. They want to get their own house in order before they start lecturing Sunderland AFC.

You are a very sad bloke if you want to defend that lot because they are out to destroy the Clubs good name purely because we are not next door to their pink palace. pathetic.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Saville being dead when his crimes were discovered was helpful for him.
I was also looking at the girls age as well as your other points. What he did was deplorable but no comparison to Bellfield or Huntley.

Yes I agree, but that's journalistic sensationalism for you - which is a result of him fame (now infamy!). I'm not condoning lousy journalism, just saying that it's as predictable as night follows day.

 

[East Riding Mackem]

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.

true, but the press are making the absolute most of it, using terms like paedo (has to be 13 or under) to sensationalise and sell papers/ attract clicks, even supposedly serious papers like The Times (mind it's been a while since it was a serious paper really)

 

[haway]

Yes, but if the nonce hadnt been a coward it wouldn't have got this far in the first place, hence a disagreed with you saying it was the only reason.

I'm not exactly one to defend the club either.

Aye but all I'm saying is AJ is responsible for his actions, the club for theirs.

Nobody can reasonably blame SAFC for what AJ did, but I haven't seen anyone do that. They're blaming the club for what they did or didn't do. Can't blame AJ for how the club responded imo., much like you can't blame SAFC for what he did. They're distinct in my mind. No doubt what AJ did is vastly worse and I'm not trying to say otherwise.

I have seen enough on the BBC in the last couple of days to tell me they are delighting in this situation. There half truths and inuendos are an absolute disgrace. They want to get their own house in order before they start lecturing Sunderland AFC.

You are a very sad bloke if you want to defend that lot because they are out to destroy the Clubs good name purely because we are not next door to their pink palace. pathetic.

I'm not 'defending the BBC', I just want you to show me where they've done anything wrong.

Do you include all the other media outlets criticising SAFC inc. the Sunderland Echo in this?

 

[Cosmos Rocks]

Yes I agree, but that's journalistic sensationalism for you - which is a result of him fame (now infamy!). I'm not condoning lousy journalism, just saying that it's as predictable as night follows day.

I agree but Sunderland fans should not be supporting them. The media led by the local BBC are delighting in this sad situation. The criminal system has done its job and things need to move on for the good of everyone. However, this witchunt against our club is pretty sickening.

 

[10 Gary Rowells]

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.

As I said earlier the BBC still has the annual John Peel lecture, still venerates the fella despite the fact that he was married to a 15 year old at about the age Johnson was at the time of the offence. He later admitted that he got sexual favours from fans and they 'didn't check their birth certificates' and there are other allegations of under age sex. While he is no longer here and there was no trial it illustrates the double standards and how the media chooses its targets according and apportions outrage selectively.

 

[genericus]

true, but the press are making the absolute most of it, using terms like paedo (has to be 13 or under) to sensationalise and sell papers/ attract clicks, even supposedly serious papers like The Times (mind it's been a while since it was a serious paper really)

The Sun currently courting OUTRAGE that he jetted off for Bachelor jolly in Dubai days before the trial started......Then reports he went last May with Steven Fletcher.

That in a nutshell is why i hate the press, the sun alone on its various facebook pages currently have 28 stories on Johnson and 13 on Marcus Rashford in the space of a week, most of it utter filler shit and tenuous clickbait bollocks

 

[redgauntlet]

What a waste if a thread, people saying the same things over and over again, seeking what, if they get satisfaction what use will it be to anyone?

 

[Purrfect South]

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.

That's a new one. How did he meet her on line?

 

[Cosmos Rocks]

Aye but all I'm saying is AJ is responsible for his actions, the club for theirs.

Nobody can reasonably blame SAFC for what AJ did, but I haven't seen anyone do that. They're blaming the club for what they did or didn't do. Can't blame AJ for how the club responded imo., much like you can't blame SAFC for what he did. They're distinct in my mind. No doubt what AJ did is vastly worse and I'm not trying to say otherwise.



I'm not 'defending the BBC', I just want you to show me where they've done anything wrong.

Do you include all the other media outlets criticising SAFC inc. the Sunderland Echo in this?

yeah right. the Club have handled this sad situation very well we dont need arseholes like you (if you are a genuine Sunderland fan) supporting them. Remember the BBC allowed Saville to commit crimes against how many kids? Yet the Club and we as supporters are meant to take lectures off them. yeah right.

 

[10 Gary Rowells]

What a waste if a thread, people saying the same things over and over again, seeking what, if they get satisfaction what use will it be to anyone?

I think the issue is that most people on here feel very uncomfortable about this issue and how it reflects on our club and therefore indirectly us - its our club and it is being lambasted left, right and centre, sometimes unfairly.

 

[FanchesterCity]

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.

No worries - you're like me, sometimes you use the wrong phrase in the heat of the moment, but I know what you're saying.
I'd still think you're on shaky ground even if someone says she's 16 in a nightclub - but I think the majority of the public would have some sympathy in those situations, especially if the girl had clearly been attempting to look older in order to be in the club etc. That would be very much a 'one off' innocent (but careless) mistake. But still, it's not a guaranteed get out. Whereas if someone's been showing you fake ID etc, then you've got more to defend yourself with - it's just a case of more supporting evidence as to why you had a 'reasonable belief'.
I'm pretty sure every guy who actually GOES for young women and gets caught says 'she told me she was 16' - which is why it's not such a strong defence in its own right. Some nonces aren't stupid and would hang around known nightclubs to pick up an underage one night stand and use that as their defence. It's made worse if the age gap is considerable (as the judge has to take that into account). So if you're 18 and end up with a 15 year old, you might be shown some leniency, but if you're 27, you're pushing your luck!

Rule of thumb for one night standers... don't leave it to chance with 'she said she was older'. It's one hell of a gamble if she turns out not to be.

 

[Dilligaf60]

The Sun newspapers headline today in massive font - "Huntley, Bellfield and Johnson."
What great journalism to put Johnson in the same category as those two pieces of shit. You then read the story and they are just saying he will be locked up in the same prison as those two. Talk about contriving a sensational headline, the Sun really is the scum of newspapers.

This.
This is the same sun that accused football supporters of beating up a policeman administering the kiss of life. That accused supporters of picking the pockets of corpses. The same sun whose employees paid police officers for stories.
The same sun that supported thatcher during the miners strike. The same sun that told everyone straight sex can't give you aids. The same sun that was complicit in hacking phones. That's just a few I can think of off the top of my head. I don't really think they're in any position to be taken seriously, anyone that does is at the same level and should be pitied.

 

[Sweeper]

Why do you personally need answers?
You are not involved in the case, you are not directly affected by the verdict and thankfully the abuse and to put it bluntly you have no reason to know.

As far as the suspension the club have followed what they could have done by employment law to the letter, granted suspension on full pay could have been an option, even then though he would have been earning money which seems to be one of the points of contention.

However I stand by what I'm saying about people with an axe to grind pushing their own agendas at the expense of allowing the case to die and allowing the victim a bit of closure.
From the second he pleaded guilty and was sacked people have been asking questions of some within the clubs hierarchy, the issue I see however is some of these people have been questioning this person within the clubs hierarchy for a while now and for me at least efforts to throw blame at the door seem petty and agenda based in the case of some people.
Then you have the media pushing unsettling and bullshit stories to grab readers attention (The Sun in particular has had 26 different stories on its website in 4 days, ranging from why EA won't remove Johnson in game, to how he watched porn in the dressing room while making insinuations of people who watch porn are paedophiles)

I expect the witch hunts and pitchforks from gutter cu.nt 'journalists' like that, I don't however expect that from the man on the street, just let the f***ing case go, let him go to jail and let the lass get some closure on what happened without constantly dredging in pointless witch hunts that serve no purpose at all, if anything using a case like this to beat the club with when they have likely been let down as much as anyone makes it look agenda based at best, at worst it makes you look a conceited cu.nt.

It's not a witch hunt and its not pointless. If the club hierarchy were provided with the transcript and messages, and allowed him to play regardless, it is morally abhorrent and heads should roll.

Well I can see your point.

However, whether he actually played or not he'd have still been coming into work, signing autographs, training with the other players, etc.
He'd have been collecting wages, playing in practice matches and wearing the shirt ....... how much worse it is that he actually played is up for debate.

If the case had been dropped, thrown out of court or he'd been found not guilty his playing wouldn't now be an issue.

Is it for the club to act as judge & jury, go against advice from the PFA and tell him not to show his face at the club?

He should have been suspended and told to stay at home. He shouldn't have been involved in any club related activity whatsoever.

 

[haway]

As I said earlier the BBC still has the annual John Peel lecture, still venerates the fella despite the fact that he was married to a 15 year old at about the age Johnson was at the time of the offence. He later admitted that he got sexual favours from fans and they 'didn't check their birth certificates' and there are other allegations of under age sex. While he is no longer here and there was no trial it illustrates the double standards and how the media chooses its targets according and apportions outrage selectively.

I'm not disputing the double standards in all of this. I agree, there are many historical / cultural things that both the press and wider society seems to 'accept', and it's stupid and inconsistent.

My issue was that IMO none of this has anything to do with SAFC, that any premier league club would be getting the pillaring we're getting now in this situation, and that the BBC aren't saying things that are untrue or whatever.

But I do agree, there's an on-going hypocrisy in the media that says 'paedo footballer' while at the same time posting sexualised pictures of children the same age. I don't dispute that, at all.