The Adam Johnson Trial

[VVD]

I think this one is slightly different, if I may defend the moderating team. This is a legal case.

The EU thread is all about opinion, views and angles. This is a legal case. It's not really 'okay' for people to speculate or argue the toss.

In this instance, we deal with the facts - by reading about them - and awaiting the verdict. By having all this information in one place, and led by informed reports from well-regarded journalists, we lessen the risk of inaccuracies or any claims with possible legal implications.

I do understand why you'd want an EU thread, though.

This thread is full of people's opinions on what sort of person they think Johnson is.

 

[- Doing The Lambert Walk]

This thread is full of people's opinions on what sort of person they think Johnson is.

For what it's worth, I'd be in favour of an EU referendum thread.

That way:

A - it doesn't fill Koeman's
B - I can dip in and out and read and see what the debate is. It


However, I can see why the moderators may not want it. That's because political discussion can turn into a right ****-storm in person, let alone on an online forum. We've got evidence of that happening previously, which is why the moderators set the current precedent. (If I remember rightly)

 

[VVD]

For what it's worth, I'd be in favour of an EU referendum thread.

That way:

A - it doesn't fill Koeman's
B - I can dip in and out and read and see what the debate is. It


However, I can see why the moderators may not want it. That's because political discussion can turn into a right ****-storm in person, let alone on an online forum. We've got evidence of that happening previously, which is why the moderators set the current precedent. (If I remember rightly)

Fair enough, this thread has it's fair share of 'passionate' opinions though.

 

[- Doing The Lambert Walk]

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

 

[- Doing The Lambert Walk]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Beef]

Johnson throwing his team mates under a bus. He said all his team mates use Whats App more then him and they asked him what the legal age was.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

Amazed they didn't know.....hardly a secret. Unless he means non-British players.

 

[OddRiverOakWizards]

Any woman should be able to do these, without fear of being sexually harassed or assaulted.

Unfortunately there will always be predators waiting for the opportunity to take advantage of people, who put themselves in danger. It's not so long ago that I was reading, almost every week in the Echo, of women being sexually assaulted whilst walking home, through one of the town centre parks, in the early hours of the morning. Why do they take this risk?

True, but sometimes the lines get blurry. One of my good friends is an intelligent and attractive female who gets her fair share of admirers. However, she never seems interested in them and has been single for a long time, however when she is drunk she is more receptive to approaches and she ended up dating a 'friend' of hers who had sex with her but she cannot remember it. This is not only one individual I know and it seems that when people have fewer inhibitions they are willing to do more, which kind of encourages this behaviour. I am not saying what is right or wrong and it is clearly not the same as this case but it does suggests that chancers/border line predators or not, tend to be successful.

 

[saintlyhero]

Johnson throwing his team mates under a bus. He said all his team mates use Whats App more then him and they asked him what the legal age was.

Will be interesting to see if they have testimony from a team mate on this dressing room exchange. if Johnson initiated the conversation then asking someone is what we did pre-Google, so not much of a defence.

AJ defence is that of a guilty man trying desperately to justify his actions after getting caught. I very much doubt he was experiencing these internal conflicts whilst it was taking place.

As a post very early on this thread said. It doesn't sound like the prosecution have any solid evidence that the more sexual allegations took place other than he said, she said.

On evidence thus far, I would be surprised if they find him guilty.

 

[ihatemyselfandwanttodie]

I think this one is slightly different, if I may defend the moderating team. This is a legal case.

The EU thread is all about opinion, views and angles. This is a legal case. It's not really 'okay' for people to speculate or argue the toss.

In this instance, we deal with the facts - by reading about them - and awaiting the verdict. By having all this information in one place, and led by informed reports from well-regarded journalists, we lessen the risk of inaccuracies or any claims with possible legal implications.

I do understand why you'd want an EU thread, though.

Agree with this thread and also the EU one.

Only comment is that people already made comments from day one or even before about this case, and we definitely don't have all the facts as the case hasn't finished!

 

[TheSecondStain]

I think the main reason why we have this particular thread is because it has something to do with football [Johnson, unemployed footballer, geddit?] but didn't fit any other thread categories.

 

[Libby]

Agree with this thread and also the EU one.

Only comment is that people already made comments from day one or even before about this case, and we definitely don't have all the facts as the case hasn't finished!

I think it's fair enough to form an opinion on a man who has pleaded guilty to child sex charges. Even if not guilty on the other 2 charges he's still a wrong'un. Let's not beat around the bush here....

 

[Libby]

I think the main reason why we have this particular thread is because it has something to do with football [Johnson, unemployed footballer, geddit?] but didn't fit any other thread categories.

Yeah I was suprised when I saw people comparing to the EU thread as I'm under the impression that politics is technically speaking a banned topic on the forum? So can see why there needs to be more thought about it. Though if it's done it should probably be a general politics thread rather than just an 'EU' one. Many boards have a politics thread.

 

[Libby]

Will be interesting to see if they have testimony from a team mate on this dressing room exchange. if Johnson initiated the conversation then asking someone is what we did pre-Google, so not much of a defence.

AJ defence is that of a guilty man trying desperately to justify his actions after getting caught. I very much doubt he was experiencing these internal conflicts whilst it was taking place.

As a post very early on this thread said. It doesn't sound like the prosecution have any solid evidence that the more sexual allegations took place other than he said, she said.

On evidence thus far, I would be surprised if they find him guilty.

Yeah I agree, he will be cross examined by prosecution today so unless they've got something up their sleeve not reported yet or they can trick him into slipping up there isn't a jury in the land who will find him guilty.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

Many charges of sex crimes come down to he said/she said. Don't be so sure on the verdict...depends who they believe. A man who has behaved reprehensibly and has admitted to criminal activity (grooming and sexual activity with a child) and has everything to lose. Or a girl, already shown to be a victim, and who has nothing to gain...indeed it might be in her interests to deny that anything took place beyond a bit of smooching. Not a foregone conclusion, but I expect them to side with her.

 

[Libby]

Many charges of sex crimes come down to he said/she said. Don't be so sure on the verdict...depends who they believe. A man who has behaved reprehensibly and has admitted to criminal activity (grooming and sexual activity with a child) and has everything to lose. Or a girl, already shown to be a victim, and who has nothing to gain...indeed it might be in her interests to deny that anything took place beyond a bit of smooching. Not a foregone conclusion, but I expect them to side with her.

I'm not sure, they have to think he's guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' and like you say it's more his word vs hers - I don't think they can find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as it's mainly circumstantial evidence (upto this point).

I still think that he done it n if not it wasn't down to his reluctance but hers just my opinion but I really do only see a not guily verdict for other 2 charges unless the prosecution pull a rabbit out of the hat today.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

The reasonable doubt thing relies on human being being automatons....they aren't. It depends what the jury consider reasonable doubt....they may have no doubt at all.

 

[ihatemyselfandwanttodie]

I think it's fair enough to form an opinion on a man who has pleaded guilty to child sex charges. Even if not guilty on the other 2 charges he's still a wrong'un. Let's not beat around the bush here....

I hope you are not a Judge!

Not saying he is innocent, but there are also various levels of child sex offences, he has abused his position in society and his responsibility clearly, but he could also be guilty of an error in judgement for a multitude of reasons.

The judges view when passing sentence will be to determine this, how much of threat he poses going forward and his ability to re offend.

 

[Libby]

I hope you are not a Judge!

Not saying he is innocent, but there are also various levels of child sex offences, he has abused his position in society and his responsibility clearly, but he could also be guilty of an error in judgement for a multitude of reasons.

The judges view when passing sentence will be to determine this, how much of threat he poses going forward and his ability to re offend.

So I can not form an opinion because I'm not a judge? He groomed and kissed a CHILD - That's not up for debate, that is a FACT. He knew her age and continued to proceed to meeting her and asking her for/implying sexual favours through text/social media.That makes him a very dangerous individual in my book and he should be jailed for these crimes, regardless if he's found not guilty of the others.


EDIT: Just re-read this and hope it hasn't come across as confrontational as it certainly wasn't intended to be

 

[ihatemyselfandwanttodie]

So I can not form an opinion because I'm not a judge? He groomed and kissed a CHILD - That's not up for debate, that is a FACT. He knew her age and continued to proceed to meeting her and asking her for/implying sexual favours through text/social media.That makes him a very dangerous individual in my opinion and he should be jailed for these crimes, regardless if he's found not guilty of the others.

Stop getting your knickers in twist!

Where did I suggest you could not have an opinion?

Exactly, nowhere...

I was pointing to wider situational events, ones that you have avoided to comment on.

You are the one stating your response is not up for debate, when of course you are naturally incorrect as this is a forum created for the purpose of debate and opinion.

I am not advocating his actions or condoning what he may have done, just offering a wider debate not just focusing on one part.

I hope you can see and accept that, if not I'm sure you will get over it!