TOPIC: Adam Johnson admits child sex charge

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35541528?n...inkname=news_central

And there goes his football career.

Oh dear. You just don't know what's going on in some people's minds do you.

Without knowing the details of this, I do seem to remember when this first broke ages back that there was a pic of the lass circulated on social media and the newspapers. She looked considerably over the age of 16. I hope this is true but you never know these days

chopper wrote:
i seen the same photo and she looked like she was early to mid 20's

alreetmarra wrote:
Yeah I remember the picture, she looked about 25-30. But I think it turned out that the pic was of his actual girlfriend.

chopper wrote:
Appearing at Bradford Crown Court, the 28-year-old admitted one count of sexual activity with a child and one count of grooming.

What does it matter if she looked older, he knew fine well she wasn't, I have seen some of the messages he sent to the schoolgirl, wrong en!!!
Not sure the images going round were the schoolgirl, jail and sack the nonce.

chopper wrote:
Pretty obvious that a photo of an alleged underage victim of a sex offence wouldn't be published in the newspapers.

Will the girl receive compensation? If so it's a disgrace. At 15 you know exactly what you are doing also.

The old compensation syndrone cures a lot of misdemenures and wrong doings.....

Can he play at Newport on Saturday?


I should point out this isn't serious, just in case...

TheLazyLewisGuy wrote:
It's a disgrace that someone should be prosecuted for having sex with a minor? Thin ice.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Some nations like to make this quite hard work, was some case in Germany where it came down to the age of the offender etc...Spain used to be 13, odd some of the things I used to see out there and it was quite a shock to learn that - especially being in La Linea which had a lot of wrong uns about.

Surely Sunderland will cancel his contract today.

The club has got to sack him today.

Strange to think if this happened in some nations in Europe it wouldn't be illegal.

heilkmoon wrote:
That's not what he said though, is it.

crunchblue wrote:


I doubt it

Wazza wrote:
Sounds more like common sense to me. In this country, you could have a lad of 16, 3 months older than his gf and in the same class at school, prosecuted if she just happened to be 15.

Is it the end of the world if the lads 15, the lass 14 and they are both happy to consent?

Should be the same over here.

bluestblue wrote:
really???? finished now.

Armo wrote:
It's quite an interesting read really, you could take from it that if a Teacher went with a 16 year old who they met in a nightclub that the person to blame would be the minor and the person who passed the minor in to the nightclub as being 18. No wonder Licensees take so much care in checking ID etc...

Armo wrote: I'm guessing you don't have a 14 year old daughter.

Few folk on various platforms want to re-read what he's admitted to...

He's pleaded guilty to Grooming. That means he knew exactly what he was doing. He knowingly chased after an underage girl. Then admitted engaging in a sexual activity with her.

Jail, sex offenders list and sacked.

Aye if it was a case of meeting girl in night club, her telling him she's 22 and her looking 22, shagging her with her consent before finding out she's 15, there'd be an ounce of sympathy.

However if he knew she was 15 (however old and mature she looked), then zero sympathy from me. He's a f***ing idiot and deserves what punishment he gets.

He might not be a cert for jail mind, could depend on the other two charges being proved as well as other things.

If there is one type of person you would back to not get jailed in a case like this it would be a millionaire with what he has. Lot of factors to come out, he is totally buggered like if he's gone in to an online chatroom hunting young girls down. Interesting case, plenty of Groomers have not been jailed.

CheadleBlue wrote:
Your right Cheadle, I don't have a 14yo daughter but if I did, and I was 100% it's what she wanted, i'd buy the condoms myself.

Like it or not, it happens anyway. Two choices, stick fingers in ears and go lalala and, incidentally, have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. Or take that fear of prosecution away and hopefully do something about those rates.

Wonder if the reason for him having a loaded gun at the address will come out too?!

CCU wrote:
lol, a blank firing pistol - probably buy one in town for 50 quid.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2977900...ship-father-out.html

heilkmoon wrote:
He should be prosecuted yes but if the girl of fifteen or her family receive thousands of pounds in compensation then it's wrong is what I am saying and people would have to question why her family reported it in the first place.

CCU's hit the nail on the head here.

Regardless of the other stuff in the case he has admitted grooming, which is contacting a person known to be under 16 through whatever means for sexual reasons. He wouldn't plead guilty to this if his defense is he thought she was over 16.

He has also admitted to having sexual contact with a minor.

This to me proves he knew exactly what he was doing.

Don't think anyone is debating what he has plead guilty to, it is here for anyone who needs to know:

Details of the counts Johnson has admitted

To recap, Johnson has pleaded guilty to two charges this morning.

The first involved meeting a child following sexual grooming between 30 December 2025 and 26 February 2015.

The indictment stated on the first count that Johnson had communicated with the 15-year-old girl on two previous occasions before meeting her while not reasonably believing she was 16 or over.

The second count Johnson pleaded guilty to was sexual activity with a child on 30 January 2015, which involved touching the youngster sexually while not reasonably believing she was over the age of 16.

He's pleaded not guilty to two other charges which I expect are heavier versions related to contact, depending on if he is found guilty or not the sentence could be a very long one or maybe not even a single day.

TheLazyLewisGuy wrote:
No question about why her family reported it, I imagine it's because a pervy footballer shagged their underage daughter.

In a lot of ways most kids these days are far more grown up than I was 37 years ago when I was 15. But emotionally a lot of them are like 9 or 10 year olds were when I was younger. I imagine a lot of this is because of being indulged and over protected, mine are no exceptions, their childishness constantly aggravates me. She should be given compensation, and she should, in no way, be held responsible, at all, for what he has done to her. He has admitted to it, he has groomed her, possibly with promises of cash or whatever, but it is not her fault, the fault lies entirely with him.

heilkmoon wrote:
The lass in the ched Evans case was named on Twitter, and pics posted in the sun.

I know the sun is a load of crap, but still happened there and goes to show how low media outlets can/will sink

Also, take a walk down botch on a Friday and Saturday night. The amount of lads and lassies that doll themselves up to look over 18 yet without makeup they look under 18 is unbelievable

Whats that got to do with grooming?

"Also, take a walk down botch on a Friday and Saturday night. The amount of lads and lassies that doll themselves up to look over 18 yet without makeup they look under 18 is unbelievable"

Nothing to do with grooming, but also why in the past youngsters took up smoking.
They believed it made them look grown up.

chopper wrote:
She was over 18.

There is a lot of people on this thread totally missing the point!!!! grooming a child for sex.

The indictment stated on the first count that Johnson had communicated with the 15-year-old girl on two previous occasions before meeting her while not reasonably believing she was 16 or over.

Must have text messages or something to prove that - what was in them could be crucial as it will indicate his intentions.

The second count Johnson pleaded guilty to was sexual activity with a child on 30 January 2015, which involved touching the youngster sexually while not reasonably believing she was over the age of 16.

With that one and saying not guilty to the other two heavier charges it sounds to me like he's admitting kissing but no more. Could be some ordeal for the girl like.

Stinkyturner wrote:
I'm talking about what he's going to be sentenced with really.

Stinkyturner wrote:
You're entirely right mate. I have no idea why anybody would even consider defending that sort of behaviour mate. If I was the girl's dad I would have been wanting to bray the twat, not just report him to the police. IT IS NOT HER FAULT IN ANY WAY.

This is probably the best factual based article on it I have read:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12...a-sexual-manner.html

Johnson’s guilty pleas mean he could face a maximum sentence of two and a half years in prison and potentially the end of his football career.

But if found guilty of the more serious offences, which he denies, he could be jailed for a maximum of 14-years.

Big, big difference.

Regardless of sentence Wazza, he's still a nonce. Whether he gets off with the lightest of community based sentences or whether he gets the 14 years, he still groomed a child and wanted her sexually. There is no excusing his behaviour. I don't think it has been you that stinky was meaning to be fair.

Surprised no one has asked yet Why the hell is his girlfriend still with him and walking him into court?

Money

Mullen103 wrote:
The gravy train might just of been de-railed, bet she doesn't hang around long!!!

Moorlad wrote:
Just interested in the reality of what happens really me to be honest, he's not going to get hung or out like people would like him to! When folk on the dole are getting suspended sentences for the stuff he has accepted I really cannot see how a millionaire will get jailed - these two not guilty's are the crucial bit.

Funny world, amazing to think if this happened when she was 16 it would all be above board and legal but then again would he have been interested in her at 16 or wanted someone of 15. What a mess he has got himself in to.

A legal bods viewpoint. Bit long winded but sums it up quite well (and asnwers some of the teacher points amde - would be a special case)

Right or Wrong? Adam Johnson Charged with Child Sex Offences
Posted on 24 April, 2015 by David Gibbs

Adam-Johnson-150x150.jpgPremier League football player Adam Johnson has been formally charged by Durham Police on three counts of unlawful sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming. The charges relate to offences committed between December 20 2014 and February 26 2015 with a 15 year old girl.

Looking on various social media sites, there have been two camps of opinion in relation to this story. Some people have vilified Johnson as a sexual predator, a monster and a paedophile and some have expressed sympathy for him in that “the girl was almost 16 (the age of consent in the UK) and she will have known what she was doing…”. Who is right? Whilst it is not our place to answer this question, we can look at the law relating to these offences.

The law in this country holds that it is not legally possible for a child under the age of 16 to consent to sexual activity. Accordingly, the law does not allow a person’s consent to sexual activity to have effect in the following situations:

• where the person giving consent did not understand what was happing and so could not give informed consent, for example in the case of a child or someone suffering from a severe mental disability;
• where the person giving consent was under the relevant age of consent.

These two situations detailed above are different. In the first, the apparent consent is not treated as real consent because the person consenting did not understand enough to give real consent. This is a question of fact. In the second, consent is real as a matter of fact but the law does not allow it to count.

Where the victim has consented in fact but not in law, such as appears to be the case with Johnson, alternative offences may be appropriate, which is why there has been a charge of unlawful sexual activity..

Johnson , who is 27 years of age, has been charged with offences committed under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, namely

1. Sexual activity with a child, in accordance with Section 9 of the Act
2. Meeting a child following sexual grooming, in accordance with Section 15 of the Act

An offence under Section 9 of the Act is defined in is if:

“A person aged 18 of over (A)…intentionally touches another person (, the touching is sexual and either B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or B is under 13”.

Dependent upon the nature of the sexual activity between Johnson and the girl, he could face a custodial sentence of up to 14 years. It should be noted that, had the girl been under the age of 13, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

An offence under Section 15 of the Act, relating to grooming is defined as if:

“A person aged 18 or over (A)… has met or communicated with another person ( on at least two occasions and subsequently A intentionally meets B, travels with the intention of meeting B…or arranges to meet B or B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world… and

“A intends to do anything to or in respect of B…during or after the meeting…which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence… and

“B is under 16, and

“A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.”

In Johnson’s case, the police and the CPS have decided that they have sufficient information to judge that Johnson has committed sexual acts of some description with this girl and that he was aware she was under the age of legal consent when doing so.

Whilst there may indeed be sympathy for Johnson (and it is not our place to judge whether this sympathy is misplaced, much of which may depend on the individual facts of the case which will be heard by the Court when Johnson is tried), the fact remains that, if he has committed the offences he is alleged to have done, he has acted contrary to the laws of this country and when all is said and done, he has, allegedly, engaged in unlawful sexual intercourse with a child, being a person under the age of 16.

As a side point, it should be noted that whilst it is automatically an offence for a person over 18 years old to engage in sexual activity with a child under 16, it is also an offence for a person over 18 years to have sexual relations with a children under the age of 18, where they act in a position of trust. So in the hypothetical question of a 24 year old teacher engaging in sexual activity with a sixth form student aged 17, because that position of trust is in place, even though she is able to give “consent”, an offence has been committed under Section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and subject to imprisonment of up to 5 years.

Indeed, and although the line, at 16, is arbitrary, that is the law. I'm sure there are young girls of 15 who are emotionally mature enough not to be being taken advantage of, but equally there are young women in their early 20s who are very immature emotionally. That line has to be drawn somewhere I suppose, we're lucky that our only lass is now 27 and nothing of this sort ever happened to her, although she probably was tough enough early enough to look after herself (it's the lads who are a bit slow on the uptake in our house). I dread to think how i'd have felt, or what I'd have done, if some pervert had gone after her when she was 15.

When it comes to sentencing, could well land a judge who chooses to highlight the fact he's a figure in the public eye, was adored by kids at the match as an idol, and uses that for maximum severity, kind of a example to others?

Wazza wrote:
I'd guess that he only admitted those two charges because his lawyers told him he had no chance on those particular counts - the evidence must be clear cut.
The fact that he has pleaded guilty to those to charges isn't likely to go in his favour when it comes to the other two, given that he's already admitted sexual activity with her.

He could get one like that but a Barrister will spend a good length of time saying how he wasn't a certain type of Peadophile trawling the net for victims etc... and his guilty pleas will help him (unless he had no choice and in this situation I would say he probably did have a choice on one plea).

Wait and see I guess, I have heard people say they know more about what has gone on than what I have read on here - if it is true he's looking at a heavy one but he has gone not guilty on these charges for a reason - there is doubt or he simply did not to do it and therefore has nothing to hide.