Before any of us join you in calling our American cousins (pun intended) wronguns we might want to consider that it is legal to marry your first cousin in the UK too, and has been since Henry VIII changed the law so that he could marry his cousin.
Adam johnson arrested
- Thread starter SC SAFC
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Before any of us join you in calling our American cousins (pun intended) wronguns we might want to consider that it is legal to marry your first cousin in the UK too, and has been since Henry VIII changed the law so that he could marry his cousin.
I didnt realise it was a real redneck area when I was over there in 2009 on a golfing binge! Had an awesome time there. A slice of golfing heaven.
Wow, didn't know about the crime. Very surprised. Didn't know you were out west earlier either. Love it here, just very expensive. Make your way back.
I am not keen to get involved in this debate but...
The offence I assume he was arrested for was under s.9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 which reads as below
"A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if–
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual, and
(c) either–
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved–
(a) penetration of B's anus or vagina with a part of A's body or anything else,
(b) penetration of B's mouth with A's penis"
Johnson has a statutory defence that he genuinely believed the girl in question to be over 16.
Given that he has been bailed the police must need to carry out further enquiries or wait for some test results (it must be likely that he has been required to give a DNA sample - again this has not been disclosed in the media so far as I can see)
That defence might be easier to run successfully if he met her in a bar and she was looking over 16 (as many posters suggest) than if he picked her up from a school bus stop (there is nothing I have seen in the media to suggest one or the other)...
Whether he is guilty or not, as a matter of law time will tell - that is what the justice system (for all its flaws - and it has many) is for.
Isn`t the truth of the matter though that he is a 27 year old bloke and simply ought to know better; the fact that he is at least 12 years her senior is significant when she is 15/16 (in my opinion anyway). The situation is made worse when you recognise that he is (on any basis) incredibly wealthy and a role model for many.
It seems to me that if he avoids a prosecution or a conviction on the basis of the statutory defence (i.e. she looked old enough) then that might mean in law he should be acquitted; whether that means he is "innocent" I am far from certain. If, in a few years time when my daughter is 15/16 and going out she gets taken to bed by a 27 year old bloke I would string the bastard up.
If Johnson is not prosecuted or is acquitted because this is a set up or a case of mistaken identity then he has my sympathy - for now any sympathy I have rests with the girl. If the police did not think that the allegation was credible they would not have arrested him, if there was an easy answer I guess he would not have been in custody from about 9.00am until he was released at about 10.00pm last night.
I sympathise with the club - I don`t see what else it can do other than suspend him for now - do I want him playing for my team - NO, not unless he can demonstrate that this is some sort of a set up or mistaken identity.
The offence I assume he was arrested for was under s.9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 which reads as below
"A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if–
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual, and
(c) either–
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved–
(a) penetration of B's anus or vagina with a part of A's body or anything else,
(b) penetration of B's mouth with A's penis"
Johnson has a statutory defence that he genuinely believed the girl in question to be over 16.
Given that he has been bailed the police must need to carry out further enquiries or wait for some test results (it must be likely that he has been required to give a DNA sample - again this has not been disclosed in the media so far as I can see)
That defence might be easier to run successfully if he met her in a bar and she was looking over 16 (as many posters suggest) than if he picked her up from a school bus stop (there is nothing I have seen in the media to suggest one or the other)...
Whether he is guilty or not, as a matter of law time will tell - that is what the justice system (for all its flaws - and it has many) is for.
Isn`t the truth of the matter though that he is a 27 year old bloke and simply ought to know better; the fact that he is at least 12 years her senior is significant when she is 15/16 (in my opinion anyway). The situation is made worse when you recognise that he is (on any basis) incredibly wealthy and a role model for many.
It seems to me that if he avoids a prosecution or a conviction on the basis of the statutory defence (i.e. she looked old enough) then that might mean in law he should be acquitted; whether that means he is "innocent" I am far from certain. If, in a few years time when my daughter is 15/16 and going out she gets taken to bed by a 27 year old bloke I would string the bastard up.
If Johnson is not prosecuted or is acquitted because this is a set up or a case of mistaken identity then he has my sympathy - for now any sympathy I have rests with the girl. If the police did not think that the allegation was credible they would not have arrested him, if there was an easy answer I guess he would not have been in custody from about 9.00am until he was released at about 10.00pm last night.
I sympathise with the club - I don`t see what else it can do other than suspend him for now - do I want him playing for my team - NO, not unless he can demonstrate that this is some sort of a set up or mistaken identity.
If you say so .......
You must log in or register to see images
" If the police did not think that the allegation was credible they would not have arrested him, if there was an easy answer I guess he would not have been in custody from about 9.00am until he was released at about 10.00pm last night."
That's patently untrue, the police are almost bound to arrest in situations like this so they can gather DNA evidence etc.
The amount of time he was held doesn't indicate guilt in any way. In fact, by the time his fingerprints, swabs, photos, etc have been taken, less a lunch break, it's quite a short amount of time for what is considered a very serious offence.
Last edited:
Does anybody know the answer to this...
If he is guilty and the club sack him, are the club able to sue him for asset depreciation? I'd put his value around the £8-10m mark and just wiping that kind of asset from your books isn't something you can just brush off when you're having to be so frugal with the balance sheets.
I doubt he'd have that kind of money/assets available mind.
If he is guilty and the club sack him, are the club able to sue him for asset depreciation? I'd put his value around the £8-10m mark and just wiping that kind of asset from your books isn't something you can just brush off when you're having to be so frugal with the balance sheets.
I doubt he'd have that kind of money/assets available mind.
I wonder if she thinks about Hermes bags or Cartier bracelets whilst she's trying to bash his wrinkly old todger into life.
I am going to wait to see the court case before I pass judgement.
Having had my wife go through a horrid court case after being accussed of running over a 15yo girl outside a school I know a few things: 15yo girls lie to the police and their parents. They will also get their friends to lie. The media love this sort of story and ignore the facts to have a good headline.
In my wifes case she was completely innocent and after the court case was found to be innocent. It did not make up for the fact that the stress of the case made my wife very ill. It also cost us personally because we do not qualify for legal aid and you can no longer claim back all your legal costs.
Until its proven any speculation without seeing the evidence is just fiction. He is innocent until proven guilty.
Having had my wife go through a horrid court case after being accussed of running over a 15yo girl outside a school I know a few things: 15yo girls lie to the police and their parents. They will also get their friends to lie. The media love this sort of story and ignore the facts to have a good headline.
In my wifes case she was completely innocent and after the court case was found to be innocent. It did not make up for the fact that the stress of the case made my wife very ill. It also cost us personally because we do not qualify for legal aid and you can no longer claim back all your legal costs.
Until its proven any speculation without seeing the evidence is just fiction. He is innocent until proven guilty.
Don't forget he had a legally owned, loaded gun which, in itself, makes him a murderer!!
Don't forget he had a legally owned, loaded gun which, in itself, makes him a murderer!!
As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing.
That's enough for the club to sack him by the way, forget about the case in hand. What the **** is he doing with a loaded gun in his house?
Sorry,in the above i meant to add that his only statutory defence would be "IF HE WAS UNDER 21 AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE,AND IT WAS HIS FIRST OFFENCE OF A SIMILAR NATURE". Obviously he's 27 so that would negate any statutory defence. Not saying he's guilty /innocent,only that he could not use this in his defence
You have to give DNA for any arrest mate. It's taken as standard when you take your prints and photo
Problem is though mate 15 year olds are young women no children(no by law in know but biologically they're all woman), must be very hard to accept if you're a father with a daughter approaching that age, I empathise completely, at fifteen the lads may just starting to be become men but the lasses have been pubescent for 2 or 3 years. Once the dress and makeup is on and they're in the nightclubs with a no U21 policy(this what could get him off) and both the bouncers and bar staff have missed her real too then what's a bloke to do? It's deception on the part of the 'victim' not just in regard to sex, they've decived to break multipule laws all night and the courts take this into concidersation. Saw this on the Arsenal board and it makes sense.
I know you'd kick off if a man in his twenties slept with your underage daughter I understand it. I just hope for you she's got a bit sense about you and doesn't go out on the piss at that posing as a 22 year old. No father would like to think their daughter are doing it but it's ten a penny and was going when I was 18 so it's not exactly a new problem.
This all on the bases that this was the situation which is just speculation, but AJ is a pisshead and I'd bet my last penny that it was the situation. He shouldn't be in that situation. We don't need player behaving this way. It transpired it's any of the above I'll want shot of him. Only a baltent lie with no sex taking place at all would get him off the hook with me, but I do sympathise with men who are conned into having sex with these liars.
Don't think the law see's it that way. The Challange U21 rule employed by nightclubs and bars changes everything. I automatically means there's been deception by the 'victim' the entire night who's not only decevied a man into sleeping with her but deceived security and bar staff who are trained to spot this. What's a bloke to do when a women looks over 21 and the establishment has deemed her old enough to be there?
These are the reasons I've never done one night stands. Always been a friends with benefits sort of bloke and stayed clear of taking random girls home from night clubs. AJ has been daft no doubt, but there's a very good chance by law it's not his fault.
It was a starting pistol - legally owned.
Why is that grounds for a sacking?
Many folk have legally owned shotguns - that reason to sack them from their jobs?
You might as well say well we'll sack him for having a tab or he's drunk a few beers.
The press should be ****ed as should Durham police, who kicked the **** out of me years ago, for even mentioning it.
I didn't know what type of gun it was, hardly constitutes being loaded if it was a starting pistol, they only fire blanks. What the **** does he have one of them for? In case Usain Bolt pops round for a brew?
Many folk do have legally owned shotguns, those licenses also dictate that it shouldn't be kept in a loaded state as far as I'm aware and most of them are not role models for easily-influenced kids.
Anyhow, it's academic if it was as you say, a starting pistol.
Nee idea why he wants one mate but doesn't matter if it was an M16.
It has absolutely no bearing on why he was arrested.
I'd imagine is stems from his time in Manchester ....... I'd want afucking machine gun by the front door tbh
Aye .50 cal if I lived in Mosside.I'd imagine is stems from his time in Manchester ....... I'd want afucking machine gun by the front door tbh