Johnson formally charged

Of course. There are some absolute scum bags out their that get short sentences for trafficking innocent kids. Punishment doesn't fit the crime in a lot of instances. You also get people like Savile that got away with far worse. It could be entirely innocent with AJ. Who knows. The facts will come out in course. What I don't agree with - naming him. People should only be named if convicted. If he is found not guilty it will stick. To be honest, I think a lot of the publicity will die down until the trial.

 

If every male in Britain was locked up for shagging a tart under 16 then they'd need to build another 50 prisons.
I shagged a 14 yo when I was 16.
Here mam found out & threatened to get the polis unless I ****ed her too.
She was in her 40's at the time, taught me a lot that woman.

 

Yes - spot on.

 

It goes with the territory mate, the ones you deem far worse, are not in the public eye, they don't serve as role models for the younger generation.

There's also the chance that this is the only time he's been caught, you're working off the assumption that this is a one-off. Who knows what's on laptops that he's binned or phones he's got rid of, how long will a prem footballer keep a phone for nowadays? There's every chance they'll start pulling historical data from every handset they can trace that belonged to him at some point.

 

Mate if they uncovered every ***** that's hiding in society they'd need 50 prisons extra.

The difference is, the charge suggests he knew she was under age and he pursued her, she didn't pretend she was of legal age, she might have been a slag who knows, but that's not the point.

 

for me innocent until proved guilty and my fingers and toes are crossed that he is innocent.
What I am curious of is what the evidence there is against him.
It must be substantial and concrete to proceed.
I just hope it is a fair trial and the media don't find him guilty already like they seem to have done.
If he is found guilty then I hope he gets his just rewards

 

There has to be a 'realistic prospect of conviction' for the CPS to charge someone. It could be substantial or not. That will be up to a jury to decide [unless he pleads guilty.]

 

true enough, it seems that everything is pointing towards him being guilty, naturally assuming that there is enough evidence against him.
What would happen if he got off on a technicality?
I would imagine the CPS are going to make this a watertight case so as technicalities don't come into play.

 

Loads and ifs and buts that hopefully will come out in court.....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/health

For some reason the wrong link has come up...What it was supposed to read is that Johnson is still available for selection..

 

The difference is, the charge suggests he knew she was under age and he pursued her, she didn't pretend she was of legal age, she might have been a slag who knows, but that's not the point.[/QUOTE]

What you are saying is that if, for example, Johnson was bombarding her with texts, there must be something amongst her responses where it states clearly that he has been made fully aware that she is only 15??? Could he not possibly be charged with grooming on the sole evidence that the girl insists that he told him verbally that she was only 15? Her word against his?

 

What you are saying is that if, for example, Johnson was bombarding her with texts, there must be something amongst her responses where it states clearly that he has been made fully aware that she is only 15??? Could he not possibly be charged with grooming on the sole evidence that the girl insists that he told him verbally that she was only 15? Her word against his?

 

Like the Guilford four , Birmingham six or James Hanratty?

 

I only established the definition of grooming yesterday mate!

I said yesterday, there's a slim-to-none chance that he's got an escape route, based on this 'grooming' definition, which you've just highlighted.

The forensics have been analysed I'd imagine, from his phone/tablet/laptop, most people who are convicted think that data is irretrievable after you delete it. He looks that stupid to be fair.

 

Sorry.....I havnt read the whole thread!

Must say, I'm a bit surprised he hasn't been suspended, for his sake and the clubs! I don't fancy this thing hanging over us! I know there is all that 'innocent till proven guilty' malarkey, but I'm a still very uncomfortable over the prospect of him still playing for us!

 

You can only assume that there's somebody incredibly ****ing stupid at your club.

That's shocking.

I'd be less shocked if Sunderland come out and said, "We've shot him".

 

On a football point of view, this decision cannot do the club any good, on the pitch and in the media! How can Johnson possibly perform with this hanging over him, whether he is guilty or not! And every ****er will be wanting us to go down now! Bizarre!

 

How do you know? You don't know what the evidence is. They could have next to nothing but brought the extra charge because it's a public interest case. Charging him with grooming doesn't mean they've got anything solid. Infact they could have nothing at all on grooming but my feel they think they can convince a jury.

This assumption that he's ****ed because of the charge simply isn't true. It's a public intrest case which means they can bring charges on less evidence because it in the 'publics best interest'

Fact is we won't know until the trial but he plea will tell us if they've got anything solid on grooming.

 

The club allowing him to play is as daft as the fans who sing his name. We're a laughing stock.

Still no official statement though