The arsehole knew what he's done and still acted like it was a joke when he played against us recently .I wonder if he'll get a similar sentence as those recently convicted ,the only difference he acted alone they as gangs .
I hope he is sent to prison and never plays again, sorry if it sounds harsh, but the guy is scum who thought his fame and riches would protect him.
The Johnson case is a world away from the grooming gang cases. Before anyone starts I'm not supporting him at all. In the grooming cases the gangs usually target vulnerable, often homeless young girls who are very young, feeds them drugs to make them addicts then passes them around the group or even rent them out into prostitution. None of the sexual activity with the gang is consensual. Sometimes, the age is such that consent doesn't even come into it - specifically, under 12s. That makes it rape anyway. As I understand it, Johnson knew the girl was underage (U16) but cultivated the relationship with her and she was won over by his status as a footballer. Sex was consensual, though still illegal. Nothing to do with the colour of anyone's skin. The cases are a world away from each other.
Grooming a kid for sex is grooming regardless if theres one or 31 of them , the guy knew exactly what he was doing as did the others and knew the penalties if caught but that didn't deter him ,a kid under the age of 16 is in the eyes of the law vulnerable regardless of their background I hope his smirk is wiped off his face when he gets sentenced .
I'm not sure what "grooming is grooming" means. That's implying that everyone convicted on an offence gets the same sentence. That doesn't reflect the law. I can tell you that when it comes to sentencing for ANY criminal offence a judge must look at aggravating features, specifically the presence or absence of them. If you think that the Asian grooming gangs have similar levels of aggravating features to the Johnson case then you're wrong. I'm not defending Johnson for a second, but the cases are very different. Having said that, the principal aggravating feature in this case is the position of influence and power he was in - the judge won't like that one bit and will no doubt mention it when sentencing.
I don't for a moment think you're no less outraged as the rest of the posters who read or post on this thread , he deliberately went out of his way to encourage a minor to indulge in sexual activities , not over a chance encounter but over months , what else would this have led to if her father hadn't found out .No there is no detailed comparison to the recent trials from elsewhere in the country but it all started somewhere in similar circumstances .Power and lust are not good bedfellows
You're right up to a point Matt. But the judge won't take into account what might have happened had the Dad not found out. He or she will take into account the circumstances of the offending. How it arose, who instigated it and the resultant harm. The aggravating features are pretty obvious to me and that includes the position of power and influence he was in and their respective ages, but if I was mitigating for him I'd point out that no drugs were involved and the sexual contact was consensual. Small crumbs for his case no doubt, but will be mentioned at the sentencing hearing nonetheless by his counsel and rightly so. As with every offence there are levels of offending whether you, me or anyone else likes it or not, and as serious as this is it's miles away from the Asian grooming gangs. Either way he's for the high jump and his career is over.
In the context we need to mention Franck Ribery, who on several occasions have been accused of having sex with minors. He only got away with it due to his status as a footballer and due to his wealth (he paid a huge compensation, and the charges were dropped). Because he was never convicted he's still a part of the French national setup. Makes me sick - such hipocracy... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ll-scandal-prostitute-breaks-her-silence.html And as for her being a prostitute, it makes no difference, as she IS underage and a child in that sense; that she has a F***** up life doesn't make Riberys case any better...
No it is certainly not aussie...whether its 0ne or a hundred than one its still the same...Grooming....The idiot is a **** and deserves everything he has coming to him.
Don't shoot the messenger. I have set out why his case will be seen differently (or should be) in law when it comes to sentence. He will still "get what's coming to him". If the sentence is too light the Crown can appeal. But if you don't like it lobby your MP or set up a petition advocating that every offender should be sentenced exactly the same no matter the circumstances of the offence. But be careful what you wish for because it'll mean that if someone steals a Mars Bar from a local shop they'll get the same as someone who steals a lorry load of them from the loading bay of a supermarket.
How can you compare stealing a mars bars or in fact stealing anything to Grooming young kids for sex...... If someone stole a fiver and the great train robbers stole millions then its both classed as stealing....
I wasn't comparing grooming with stealing Mars Bars. Can't you read? For god's sake. I was using an analogy to highlight the issue. Yes, both the examples you give are theft but the sentences would be different to reflect the gravity of the offending. That's what will happen here. If you are saying that someone who grooms a single individual who then consents to sex should be treated the same as a gang of men who ply vulnerable homeless girls with drugs to make them dependable addicts, rapes them, passes them around and sells them into prostitution then good for you, but the law doesn't agree with you. I am not diminishing what Johnson did at all and I hope he goes away for a long time, but there are degrees of offending whether you like it or not. What Johnson did may well be more serious than what some offenders did, but there are many cases that are much worse.
