One Adam Johnson

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Castro's Coffin said:
Different though. He was a teacher and it is illegal to have a relationship with an under 18 when you are in a job such as that where you have a duty of care up to age 18. A teacher having consensual sex with a 17 year old would go down as happened to one at a school near me.
Click to expand...

Unless of course the teacher is female, in which case a slap on the wrists is about as bad as it gets, if they're really harshly dealt with they might get a suspended sentence.
 
HCAFC (Airlie Tiger) said:
Unless of course the teacher is female, in which case a slap on the wrists is about as bad as it gets, if they're really harshly dealt with they might get a suspended sentence.
Click to expand...

I now realise that the 17 year old girl who taught me at 14 I had a lot to learn wasn't giving me a great experience but using and abusing me, giving me issues which haunt me to this day.<laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: HCAFC (Airlie Tiger)
Let's sue Sunderland. They continued playing him and picking up points and we got relegated. Loss of money, etc..
 
Apparently Johnson was obsessed with hardcore porn and sleeping with other women behind her back. Perhaps he was a sex addict. If so it could be a mitigating factor in his sentencing.
 
The judge said the starting point was 5 years. He lied. Abused a position of trust. Delayed his guilty plea for a year subjecting his victim to abuse. I think 7 years.
 
Alpha Kenny body said:
The judge said the starting point was 5 years. He lied. Abused a position of trust. Delayed his guilty plea for a year subjecting his victim to abuse. I think 7 years.
Click to expand...

He didn't abuse a position of trust. That applies to teachers, social workers etc and covers those in their care up to 18.
 
Castro's Coffin said:
He didn't abuse a position of trust. That applies to teachers, social workers etc and covers those in their care up to 18.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People are getting confused cos he's famous, when what he did is the same as anyone in a 'normal' job doing it. The girl wasnt in his care, she was just star-struck.
 
Bum_Chinned_Crab said:
Agreed. People are getting confused cos he's famous, when what he did is the same as anyone in a 'normal' job doing it. The girl wasnt in his care, she was just star-struck.
Click to expand...

Meh, early morning choice of words. He abused a reverred position in society. He took advantage of a young girl who idolised him. Using that position for his (illegal) gain.
 
Johnson is the culprit here and not the victim. However, initially, whereas he was suspended by Sunderland when charged with these offences his lawyers/agent told Sunderland that he was pleading Not Guilty and therefore was innocent until proven otherwise and should be allowed to play. Sunderland accepted Johnson's word, stood by him, lifted the suspension and played him. I don't believe they had any other option as, like all football clubs, Sunderland have Solicitors who would have given their Professional Legal Advice at that time. A year on, just prior to the trial, Johnson changed his plea to Guilty which left Sunderland no option but to sack him - which they did. The press conference (what I saw here in Oz earlier) with Sam Allardyce, confirmed all of the above. I cannot see where Sunderland did anything wrong and I am sure there is someone on these boards who is more learned in British Law who could clarify this matter as surely, as a consequence to Johnson's subsequent Guilty plea, Sunderland would/could be in a position to claim back at least a years wages that they had paid him (some 3 million I believe) as he had obviously lied to them so as to continue playing and earning wages through this deception.
 
TigerRoo said:
Johnson is the culprit here and not the victim. However, initially, whereas he was suspended by Sunderland when charged with these offences his lawyers/agent told Sunderland that he was pleading Not Guilty and therefore was innocent until proven otherwise and should be allowed to play. Sunderland accepted Johnson's word, stood by him, lifted the suspension and played him. I don't believe they had any other option as, like all football clubs, Sunderland have Solicitors who would have given their Professional Legal Advice at that time. A year on, just prior to the trial, Johnson changed his plea to Guilty which left Sunderland no option but to sack him - which they did. The press conference (what I saw here in Oz earlier) with Sam Allardyce, confirmed all of the above. I cannot see where Sunderland did anything wrong and I am sure there is someone on these boards who is more learned in British Law who could clarify this matter as surely, as a consequence to Johnson's subsequent Guilty plea, Sunderland would/could be in a position to claim back at least a years wages that they had paid him (some 3 million I believe) as he had obviously lied to them so as to continue playing and earning wages through this deception.
Click to expand...

That's their version of the story, the one given in court was the opposite.

Either he's lying under oath or Sunderland are covering their tracks.
 
TigerRoo said:
Johnson is the culprit here and not the victim. However, initially, whereas he was suspended by Sunderland when charged with these offences his lawyers/agent told Sunderland that he was pleading Not Guilty and therefore was innocent until proven otherwise and should be allowed to play. Sunderland accepted Johnson's word, stood by him, lifted the suspension and played him. I don't believe they had any other option as, like all football clubs, Sunderland have Solicitors who would have given their Professional Legal Advice at that time. A year on, just prior to the trial, Johnson changed his plea to Guilty which left Sunderland no option but to sack him - which they did. The press conference (what I saw here in Oz earlier) with Sam Allardyce, confirmed all of the above. I cannot see where Sunderland did anything wrong and I am sure there is someone on these boards who is more learned in British Law who could clarify this matter as surely, as a consequence to Johnson's subsequent Guilty plea, Sunderland would/could be in a position to claim back at least a years wages that they had paid him (some 3 million I believe) as he had obviously lied to them so as to continue playing and earning wages through this deception.
Click to expand...

You really haven't read up on how much Sunderland knew and when, have you?

I can't see the chief exec surviving the fallout.
http://www.theguardian.com/football...nd-adam-johnson-sexual-abuse?CMP=share_btn_tw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back