Off Topic Adam Johnson gets six years

  • 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!
Chaz said:
Her age - until she reaches 16 - is irrelevant. He groomed a child with the intent to have sex. He had several sessions where sexual activity took place, and he was found guilty by a court of law. No mitigating circumstances, it really is that black and white.
Click to expand...

Whatever we think or feel about it, you're correct Chaz. That's the law and that's how it is.

I'm still unsure of what the level of interaction between them that took place was though. Not sure what the full facts behind the case were either, so I find it difficult to state whether this is the correct sentence or not.

I did stumble across this article by someone named Katie Hopkins ( the apprentice contestant? ) who gives an interesting but rather disturbingly warped and different take on the matter. I'm not too sure why she feels this strongly about the sad episode but it's thought provoking though if nothing else ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-doesn-t-deserve-prison-Twitter-lynching.html
 
Hoops Eternal said:
I'm winging it here as all my children are boys, but I accept that 14/15 year olds are capable of having sex but are they equipped for the emotional aspect at that age?
Click to expand...
And who says all 15 years olds are the same? and who knows the full facts of this case? The judge more than anyone, and he sentenced him to six years. For what was months of grooming and mental pressure. If the girl was a gold digger it would have taken him 10 minutes. He is to undergo psychiatric treatment.

I have a (just) 16 year old daughter. I meet her friends as they come round and make a noise in my house. They are all different. Some are assured young women others are still little girls. Their chronological age is almost irrelevant, whatever the law says. They all have very limited life experience, especially compared to men in their late 20s. And all deserve the chance to grow up without being pestered by blokes nearly twice their age. If my daughter brought a 28 year old home I would instantly ask him why he was so inadequate not to be able to find someone a little closer to his own age with more experience of life. I'm getting tired of the blanket descriptions from some on here who seem to know everything there is to know about the sexual psychology of girls going through puberty. Actually it gives me the creeps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorwayRanger, KPDHoopster and QPR999
Bigchazqpr said:
Well the Germans think so. Personally I think they're probably not mentally ready and 16 is more sensible but children these days are significantly more 'adult' in their behaviour than i was when i was 15 for some reason. Johnson's obviously an unpleasant wrong 'un but I don't subscribe to this 'he's an evil *****' argument.
Click to expand...
Even at sixteen should the girl get pregnant the rest of her life is changed beyond recognition, girls/boys of that age should be enjoying their youth not bringing up children.
Johnson's sentence may seem harsh but he is a man of considerable wealth and as a professional footballer commanded hero status, he knew exactly what he was doing and in my opinion deserves every one of those six years.
 
sb_73 said:
And who says all 15 years olds are the same? and who knows the full facts of this case? The judge more than anyone, and he sentenced him to six years. For what was months of grooming and mental pressure. If the girl was a gold digger it would have taken him 10 minutes. He is to undergo psychiatric treatment.

I have a (just) 16 year old daughter. I meet her friends as they come round and make a noise in my house. They are all different. Some are assured young women others are still little girls. Their chronological age is almost irrelevant, whatever the law says. They all have very limited life experience, especially compared to men in their late 20s. And all deserve the chance to grow up without being pestered by blokes nearly twice their age. If my daughter brought a 28 year old home I would instantly ask him why he was so inadequate not to be able to find someone a little closer to his own age with more experience of life. I'm getting tired of the blanket descriptions from some on here who seem to know everything there is to know about the sexual psychology of girls going through puberty. Actually it gives me the creeps.
Click to expand...
I am a little baffled by your response to my post, that is the point I was trying to make. I said I was winging it as I have no girls, no two people whether they are boys or girls are the same, and thank god for that. I totally agree you, I don't know if she was embarked on a gold digging exercise, but there can be no excuse for his actions.
 
As a Dad and sensible human being i agree completely - but if she gets pregnant 6 months later when she's 16 her life's still a nightmare but... no crime. I think it's a bit of a grey area. The fact that half of Europe wouldn't see this as a crime is also indicative of that i think.
 
Hoops Eternal said:
I am a little baffled by your response to my post, that is the point I was trying to make. I said I was winging it as I have no girls, no two people whether they are boys or girls are the same, and thank god for that. I totally agree you, I don't know if she was embarked on a gold digging exercise, but there can be no excuse for his actions.
Click to expand...
I was elaborating on your point mate, not disputing it. I don't ALWAYS have a go at other posters.
 
Hoops Eternal said:
I am a little baffled by your response to my post, that is the point I was trying to make. I said I was winging it as I have no girls, no two people whether they are boys or girls are the same, and thank god for that. I totally agree you, I don't know if she was embarked on a gold digging exercise, but there can be no excuse for his actions.
Click to expand...

Yes me too. Although Stan's post was very good, I'm wondering if he's quoted the right reply.
 
GoldhawkRd said:
Not necessarily. It may be Johnson's judge that got it wrong. Johnson may appeal. These cases need to be reconciled
Click to expand...
It's pretty well established that judges are too lenient when sentencing women for sexual offences. You can't point to this case and say that it means Johnson was harshly sentenced. The two cases are completely separate.
 
By the way it is coming out that they found really nasty pornography on his computer....young looking girls and animals were involved. He was known to be having multiple one night stands, with many girls ...even tho he had a girlfriend and a new baby...
He deliberately defrauded Sunderland out of money, by lying to them
He seems a Scunthorpe bag of the highest order.....
He was lucky to only get 6 years
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb_73 and QPR999
Chaz said:
It's pretty well established that judges are too lenient when sentencing women for sexual offences. You can't point to this case and say that it means Johnson was harshly sentenced. The two cases are completely separate.
Click to expand...

The flaw in your argument, Chaz, is that the sentence in the woman's case (Berriman) was not set by a single judge, but by the Court of Appeal, and thus the judgement is highly influential.

Cases are decided on their facts. In this respect, I draw your attention to the fact that in the Berriman case there was full penetrative sex on multiple occasions. In Johnson's case, there was no penetrative or oral sex. He was convicted of sexual touching - reprehensible and illegal, but at the less serious end of the scale of such offences
 
GoldhawkRd said:
The flaw in your argument, Chaz, is that the sentence in the woman's case (Berriman) was not set by a single judge, but by the Court of Appeal, and thus the judgement is highly influential.

Cases are decided on their facts. In this respect, I draw your attention to the fact that in the Berriman case there was full penetrative sex on multiple occasions. In Johnson's case, there was no penetrative or oral sex. He was convicted of sexual touching - reprehensible and illegal, but at the less serious end of the scale of such offences
Click to expand...
What are you saying? That he should have been given a community order? Or that she should have been given life? I'm not sure what your position is.
 
Chaz said:
What are you saying? That he should have been given a community order? Or that she should have been given life? I'm not sure what your position is.
Click to expand...

On the facts that I have read, and using Berriman as a yardstick, six years looks too long, and I would think Johnson might get it reduced on appeal. Since you ask, I agree with Col's earlier comment that 3 or 4 years would seem to be appropriate. I say this with caution, because I don't want to second guess the judicial system
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol
The type of prison is important too. I'd rather do 10 years at an open prison than one year on the nonce wing of a Category A jail. Having seen the various points of view on this thread, six years still seems like a punishment greater than the crime, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back