Adam Johnson found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a child | Sentenced to six years

Status
Not open for further replies.
We need an rvn said:
and you're telling me both the female teacher's cases weren't premeditated and didn't know what they were doing (you do realise they had sex on numerous occasions) ? they were teachers, they'd be more aware than most thick footballers what they were doing as it's a part of teacher training. AJ probably has the IQ of most 15 year olds but teachers don't.

i'm not looking for an argument but you seem to be finding a way to justify it's ok for the lenience of the female teachers but if it's a famous guy / male lets shut the guy behind bars.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find I'm not justifying anything, as I haven't actually mentioned these other cases once, or whether I believe they were judged fairly or correctly. You may not be looking for an argument, but you're not looking for it with a handful of people, and perhaps getting wires crossed.

My point is simply that there are plenty of reasons this case was judged the way it was, and has all been pretty clearly explained, and also discussed at retaliative length in this thread.
 
Jippy said:
Can you honestly say that you've never even seen a pic of such stuff?
Click to expand...

Eh? Not sure if serious, of course I haven't why would I ever search anything online that would bring up some animal and human doing it :confused:

I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to download such videos as I've heard Johnson did, if it's true.
 
Honest John said:
On one level everything is very clear cut. The judge pointed this out succinctly and accurately. From that stand point the sentence makes perfect sense.

But there are questions being asked here that challenge the fundamental premises on which the law is based and they can't be brushed away by saying that we just need to accept that we are just too stupid to understand the complexity of the thinking. Sexual equality vs old ideas about men and women. Why do women apparently get off with lesser sentences? Do we, men, tap the young girl in the high street in mini skirt on the shoulder and ask whether she is over 16 before we ogle her legs and bum. Is it ok to look as long as you don't act out? What message then does that send the downloaders of child porn? What do you do when young girls are reaching sexual maturity earlier and earlier. And what of the overtly coquettish behaviour of some girls that was apparently featured in some measure this case.

It is a minefield.
Click to expand...

It would be possible for someone to make a mistake in that regard, but I still think it's extremely unlikely; most girls around the age of 16 look around that age, and any older man trying to hit it off with someone he thinks might just be over 16 is probably a bit of a creep anyway if he's over the age of, say, 21. Generally, it's probably very easy to get a rough idea of what age someone is within a short period of talking to them, and I'd say that if someone has any sense of doubt, they're probably talking to someone that's too young for them.
 
Jippy said:
Can you honestly say that you've never even seen a pic of such stuff?
Click to expand...
not on purpose but then the national geographic don't warn when animals are about to get dirty.

i think it's not about seeing pics but more he had it saved. similar to clicking on a link and seeing something you didn't want over actually bookmarking / saving the pics. different story.
 
dannyrhinos89 said:
Eh? Not sure if serious, of course I haven't why would I ever search anything online that would bring up some animal and human doing it :confused:

I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to download such videos as I've heard Johnson did, if it's true.
Click to expand...
Loads of people have seen clips or stuff like two girls one cup. We worked our way through one lad's dad porn collection when we were 15 and there was an animal one in there (all unmarked VHS so a lottery what you got). It wasn't my thing, but I don't think it automatically makes the six or so of us who saw it 'depraved monsters'.
 
We need an rvn said:
ok, hypothetical situation... i'm a male teacher and have sex with a 15 year old. i won't even talk about the case about the one who had sex with a 12 year old. are you saying if i were to do that, cooperate and admit my guilt and show deep remorse i'd be let off with the same punishment as those two female teachers. absolutely no chance. both those female teachers knew what they were doing and were fully trained on what was legal / allowed and what is not.

it's just double standards for certain crimes.
Click to expand...

There does seem to be a discrepancy with the way male and female offenders are dealt with in crimes like this, but the solution is not to stop throwing the book at male offenders, especially not remorseless liars like Adam Johnson, which is what you appear to want. The solution is to start protecting young boys in the way we protect young girls by ensuring that women who represent a threat are suitably punished.
 
Do they publish the judge's comments in many cases in the way they did this case? If so then surely someone could pull up one of these cases where a female offender was treated leniently and see exactly the logic behind the sentence?
 
We need an rvn said:
not on purpose but then the national geographic don't warn when animals are about to get dirty.

i think it's not about seeing pics but more he had it saved. similar to clicking on a link and seeing something you didn't want over actually bookmarking / saving the pics. different story.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Just seems like people are horrified by this (it is illegal tbf), but I bet loads on here wouldn't want their porn search histories revealed.
 
Jippy said:
Fair enough. Just seems like people are horrified by this (it is illegal tbf), but I bet loads on here wouldn't want their porn search histories revealed.
Click to expand...

Damn right. Luckily none of that was taken into account afaik.
 
Jippy said:
Fair enough. Just seems like people are horrified by this (it is illegal tbf), but I bet loads on here wouldn't want their porn search histories revealed.
Click to expand...

Even our PM is a necrophiliac pig botherer!
 
Alex99 said:
There does seem to be a discrepancy with the way male and female offenders are dealt with in crimes like this, but the solution is not to stop throwing the book at male offenders, especially not remorseless liars like Adam Johnson, which is what you appear to want. The solution is to start protecting young boys in the way we protect young girls by ensuring that women who represent a threat are suitably punished.
Click to expand...

Represent a threat.

It's consensual sex with a teenager, if that's their biggest threat then they have feck all to worry about
 
Jippy said:
Fair enough. Just seems like people are horrified by this (it is illegal tbf), but I bet loads on here wouldn't want their porn search histories revealed.
Click to expand...
Actually its not just porn searches. I have this habit of watching some documentary and then seeing something of interest, googling that subject and then finding myself wandering off all over the internet on searches. Had one day where i was reading about Nazis and the KKK, suspect if my seraches that day were looked at in isolation I would have come across as a complete bastard.
 
Stack said:
Actually its not just porn searches. I have this habit of watching some documentary and then seeing something of interest, googling that subject and then finding myself wandering off all over the internet on searches. Had one day where i was reading about Nazis and the KKK, suspect if my seraches that day were looked at in isolation I would have come across as a complete bastard.
Click to expand...
Ditto. There was a load of references to Stormfront in a thread about Cheerios pulling the youtube vid of their ad cos of the racist comments it attracted. I had a look on their forum. The direction of travel in their threads unsurprisngly gets somewhat samey very quickly.
 
Earthquake said:
I think you'll find I'm not justifying anything, as I haven't actually mentioned these other cases once, or whether I believe they were judged fairly or correctly. You may not be looking for an argument, but you're not looking for it with a handful of people, and perhaps getting wires crossed.

My point is simply that there are plenty of reasons this case was judged the way it was, and has all been pretty clearly explained, and also discussed at retaliative length in this thread.
Click to expand...
that's fair enough. but you have been very clever at actually not answering any of the questions i've put out. you've simply replied with "they've been discussed earlier" or not actually given your opinion, as in the reply i've quoted "or whether i believe they were judged fairly or correctly". you seem to be discussing a case but not saying giving a direct opinion.

it's a hard one and perhaps some are reluctant to give a simple opinion on the matter.

i just stand by my opinion in that he's a **** and in a way i'm glad he's losing it all as it makes young footballers think twice that they're above the law, but i just don't understand why two female teachers in the last few months got off with having sex with minors younger than this girl on numerous occasions, while he gets 6 years. Both teachers were aware of what they were doing and weren't stupid. both were pre-meditated.

no hard feelings i hope but just doesn't sit right with me for some weird reason.
 
We need an rvn said:
...are you saying if i were to do that, cooperate and admit my guilt and show deep remorse i'd be let off with the same punishment as those two female teachers...
Click to expand...

Seems highly unlikely, as I think most would agree if they're being honest.

There's a difference in how the offence is generally perceived, and seemingly also in the way such cases are dealt with by the courts. That is problematic, you'll get no argument from me there. However, I was mainly pointing out that each individual case is different. You need to know the exact circumstances in order to properly assess matters.
 
Honest John said:
So from condeming one act of sexual misconduct you'd condone homosexual rape?

Stone the guy and be done with it.

You can chuck the first one.
Click to expand...
I'm so confused as to why you replied to the 'Grammar is the real victim' post with this
 
Chesterlestreet said:
However, I was mainly pointing out that each individual case is different. You need to know the exact circumstances in order to properly assess matters.
Click to expand...
the problem is, how can society function if each case is taken on merit. what i'm saying is, is a crime different because you're a male / celebrity over being a woman / not famous? surely not in most instances.

it's a tough one. but i agree with one thing, i think his arrogance has played a huge part in the 6 year term as if he'd actually shown genuine remorse over the "reported" arrogance in court, it might not be the same result.
 
dhm91 said:
I'm so confused as to why you replied to the 'Grammar is the real victim' post with this
Click to expand...

I don't know mate. I think the guy who's post I originally replied to had stacked up multiple quotes or something like that. My comments were aimed at him not you
 
Jippy said:
Loads of people have seen clips or stuff like two girls one cup. We worked our way through one lad's dad porn collection when we were 15 and there was an animal one in there (all unmarked VHS so a lottery what you got). It wasn't my thing, but I don't think it automatically makes the six or so of us who saw it 'depraved monsters'.
Click to expand...


if you stumble across it by accident like you did then no of course you aren't sick that's completely fine as it's an accident, but from what I've read adam Johnson actively searched it online and had a video collection of it (which he must have downloaded) that is what makes him disgusting and sick.

I Understand people have different things that turn them on but anyone that gets turned on by a human and animal shagging needs to be mentally assessed.
 
Honest John said:
I don't know mate. I think the guy who's post I originally replied to had stacked up multiple quotes or something like that. My comments were aimed at him not you
Click to expand...
Haha that wasn't me. I actually scrolled down some more after I posted it and worked out it was probably a mistake. I've had a long day writing an essay on tort law, my brain is zapped, I was sat there wracking my brain trying to think of the link. :lol: anyway, back to reading this minefield of a thread
 
Tomorrow's papers make for grim reading. These papers could be exaggerating though.
 
dannyrhinos89 said:
if you stumble across it by accident like you did then no of course you aren't sick that's completely fine as it's an accident, but from what I've read adam Johnson actively searched it online and had a video collection of it (which he must have downloaded) that is what makes him disgusting and sick.

I Understand people have different things that turn them on but anyone that gets turned on by a human and animal shagging needs to be mentally assessed.
Click to expand...
The love that dare neigh speak its name.
 
We need an rvn said:
the problem is, how can society function if each case is taken on merit.
Click to expand...

I meant legally, technically, etc. What goes for one offender who has committed crime A, doesn't necessarily go for another, which means that sometimes the anger people express when NN gets less or more than someone else - is misplaced: They don't know the details.

However, what you seem to refer to above is simply discrimination. If female offenders are treated more leniently per default, this is obviously both illogical and highly damnable on the face of it.
 
MThomas said:
Represent a threat.

It's consensual sex with a teenager, if that's their biggest threat then they have feck all to worry about
Click to expand...

Considering these teenagers cannot legally give consent it isn't simply 'consensual sex', is it?

In Adam Johnson's case, he met a girl who was waiting for an opportunity to get an autograph and a photograph with her idol, which happened to be him. This girl had only just turned 15.

Johnson very quickly became concerned with her age, asking if she was in her last year of school, and then asking when she turned 16. Right from the off, he was looking to find a way to engage in sexual activity with her. As it turns out, he decided that not long turning 15 and being in Year 10 was close enough to 16 to justify it to himself. He said himself that she "looked old enough".

If this instance hadn't come out, there's an obvious risk that he'd have had no issue doing the same with other girls that "looked old enough", regardless of whether they were 'almost' 16 or just turned 13. He's clearly a threat to young, impressionable girls, and he obviously has no issue with abusing his status as the star player for a Premier League football team.

Being a teacher is not the same as being a footballer, but there's still opportunity to abuse the power that comes with that position. There are other dynamics when the person is a teacher, mainly being in a position of trust and having responsibility for their pupils' well-being, but if a female teacher showed the same disregard for age and appeared to be actively seeking sexual relationships with minors in a similar manner to Johnson, I'd absolutely consider them a threat to young boys.
 
Man, downloading videos of human and animal doing rubbish is pretty deep.
 
I see there is now talk of officially withdrawing his England caps. Seems to me that there is a witch hunt which is perhaps just going a bit too far. He's an idiot and is rightly being punished but it strikes me some would lock him up and throw away the key.

Taking his international caps away, I think, is just going too far. If you take his caps away then Gascoigne should suffer the same. Smashing your wife's face black and blue, as Gascoigne did, is cowardly and wicked beyond belief. Any bloke who can clench his fist and batter a defenceless woman is, in my book, committing a crime at least on a par with that of Johnson.

I'm a father of three teenage girls - 14, 15 and 16 - and if I was told that my 15 year old had indulged in a physical relationship with a 28 year old in similar circumstances to the Johnson case or that my 16 year old had been punched and kicked and had her face rearranged by a cowardly partner then there is no doubt which one I'd be after first.
 
dogwithabone said:
I see there is now talk of officially withdrawing his England caps. Seems to me that there is a witch hunt which is perhaps just going a bit too far. He's an idiot and is rightly being punished but it strikes me some would lock him up and throw away the key.

Taking his international caps away, I think, is just going too far. If you take his caps away then Gascoigne should suffer the same. Smashing your wife's face black and blue, as Gascoigne did, is cowardly and wicked beyond belief. Any bloke who can clench his fist and batter a defenceless woman is, in my book, committing a crime at least on a par with that of Johnson.

I'm a father of three teenage girls - 14, 15 and 16 - and if I was told that my 15 year old had indulged in a physical relationship with a 28 year old in similar circumstances to the Johnson case or that my 16 year old had been punched and kicked and had her face rearranged by a cowardly partner then there is no doubt which one I'd be after first.
Click to expand...

A balanced view from someone who is qualified to comment.

It's got a bit ridiculous this. I know people who know him well, I hear things about others involved which I believe are true. As it is, he's done wrong, is being rightly punished for it and will take the consequences of it.

The media reporting today is nothing short of a disgrace. Cheap, sensational and designed to provide nothing more than a laugh for the average punter daft enough to by the rag its printed in.

He's entitled to do whatever he likes within the law, whether the public like it or not. His privacy has been breached, but most importantly so has that of his poor baby daughter and equally innocent partner and their lives made even more difficult. They are becoming victims through no fault of their own. And that should not happen.

It is frankly not on the public interest to publish whether he had the clap, was taking tablets for it or was daft enough to download porn to have a laugh with his pals or for whatever other reason. The journalists writing for The Sun should be ashamed.
 
Adisa said:
Tomorrow's papers make for grim reading. These papers could be exaggerating though.
Click to expand...
It annoys me that when the papers talk about that teen lass smut site that he went on, they describe it depicting 'girls barely past the age of consent', when in reality, the judge affirmed it was legal and so the 'girls' are actually 18+ women significantly over the age of consent.
 
1
Jippy said:
It annoys me that when the papers talk about that teen lass smut site that he went on, they describe it depicting 'girls barely past the age of consent', when in reality, the judge affirmed it was legal and so the 'girls' are actually 18+ women significantly over the age of consent.
Click to expand...

I know. A young bloke going there. The shame of it.

Not me. Oh no. I wouldn't have anyone look at my history ans assume any such thing.

Like any responsible middle aged surfer I won't go near any smutty site unless the ladies are using clothes pegs to keep their tits up
 
...aka Las Cortinas said:
What amazes me is how people, like yourself, read sections of a post without interpreting it as an whole.

I'm not defending him. I dislike the cnut and wouldn't think twice about dissociating his head from his body if she were my daughter. However, anybody with an ounce of reasonable thought can see he's clearly been made an example. I used to be a Prison Officer and the real dirty nonces parading those halls rarely got a sentence that severe.

Don't try to patronise me fella, I'd imagine I've got more life experience than you and your dad put together.
Click to expand...

So it's bad if it's your daughter but not someone else's? Nice. Is he being treated more harshly (arguably) because he's famous? Let's say he is. Famous people can utilise their fame for their own deviant purposes, which is exactly what Johnson did. Maybe he deserves additional punishment because of that.

Given you know nothing whatsoever about me I'll regard your last comment as utter moronic tosh.
 
This guy has potential. He should get a TV show or become a politician on his release
 
Status
Not open for further replies.