The Adam Johnson Trial

  • 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!
fatletiss said:
Is that 18 years then?
Click to expand...

Nope 5 years for the touching charge.... which he is appealing. Grooming a year (consecutive) and 5 montsh for the kissing but to run concurrently <ok>

Also a restraining order imposed for when he's out.
 
Note the judge doesn't believe in Johnson's remorse. Neither do I as it appeared only after he was charged. I can believe remorse in someone who got tempted and then backed off, but Johnson had plenty of time to realise what he was doing and stop it. Only being reported to the police stopped him. And apparently he tried to get her to destroy evidence....not much remorse there.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
Note the judge doesn't believe in Johnson's remorse. Neither do I as it appeared only after he was charged. I can believe remorse in someone who got tempted and then backed off, but Johnson had plenty of time to realise what he was doing and stop it. Only being reported to the police stopped him. And apparently he tried to get her to destroy evidence....not much remorse there.
Click to expand...

Agreed. With some of the judges comments I don't see an appeal being successful to be honest.
 
Just realised you replied so apologies for the delay.

I don't believe the crime remains the same, as if you drive home safely without harming anyone and get pulled over by the cops you get a different charge than if you had crashed and or killed/injured someone.

Your Q is a wide ranging one and for much wider debate than on here.

My own view is that the punishment should fit the crime, in your example if someone died as a result of drink driving the charge isn't just drink driving, but a more serious charge of dangerous or death by driving.

If they didn't cause injury etc it should just be the DD charge.

saintlyhero said:
You've misunderstood my post completely

I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but if the driver of the car only served community service then I have enough faith in our justice system that it was ruled that this was an accident, but that the driver of the Porsche was culpable for the accident.

That could be careless driving, speeding or driving under the influence as examples..

Again, I think it's fair to say based on the punishment, that this case probably didn't involve alcohol, but I was using that as an example.
Re-reading my post, I didn't make it very clear that I was using alcohol as an example to my question. So i understand the confusion

but my question still stands..

If I had four pints down the pub after work and got in my car to drive home then i'm guilty of a very irresponsible crime of endangering the lives of myself and more importantly others.
If I stick to the speed limits and the rules of the road then driving under the influence is my crime.

Of course the consequences of my actions are varied. It could range from getting home safely, to be being pulled over by the police or being involved in an accident of some kind which could harm nobody or at worst kill someone.

The crime for all those outcomes remains the same. Its the consequence of that crime/action which changes.

So if I had an accident and a child died as a result should my punishment be more than if I had been pulled over?
Click to expand...
 
I hope the girl concerned can now recover. The judge mentioned how Johnson's refusal to admit guilt left the girl exposed to abuse at school and from Sunderland fans. She had been approached and abused by strangers whilst out with her family and now has an eating disorder amongst other psychological problems. She should be enjoying the best years of her life...out with her friends, dating boys her own age, planning her future. All blown away because she was a bit silly....who wasn't silly at fifteen. And he cared nothing for her...the judge revealed that he was having numerous sexual encounters during the time he was grooming her....in his own words, she was just another girl to him. Very sad.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
I hope the girl concerned can now recover. The judge mentioned how Johnson's refusal to admit guilt left the girl exposed to abuse at school and from Sunderland fans. She had been approached and abused by strangers whilst out with her family and now has an eating disorder amongst other psychological problems. She should be enjoying the best years of her life...out with her friends, dating boys her own age, planning her future. All blown away because she was a bit silly....who wasn't silly at fifteen. And he cared nothing for her...the judge revealed that he was having numerous sexual encounters during the time he was grooming her....in his own words, she was just another girl to him. Very sad.
Click to expand...

Fran, I have never met you and probably never will. Please, this girl is no angel, giving a blow job at 15, she will when all this pans out, probably never have to work again.

I totally agree he is guilty and should suffer, but she is no angel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back