Adam Johnson

The Alchemist - 10/2/2016 12:08

Hasn't he been denying it all this time ?

So what do Sunderland do now ?
Click to expand...

Up until this morning, yes. He is denying two further charges of sexual activity with a child, so the trial is still active
 
...good..plenty of people lining up on here to judge him before the trial I would guess...
 
Eh? He's admitted sexual activity with a child and grooming and we can't judge him? Presume you don't have daughters?
 
bang to rights then...and yes I have daughters FYI

...although we still wouldn't know all the facts and whether he has been advised by his lawyers to plead guilty??
 
You could debate the whole moral question of whether he knew her age at the time, whether she lied to him, etc.

But the facts as they stand are that he's admitted to sexual activity with someone under the age of consent, and in the eyes of the law he's bang to rights.
 
northstandmark - 10/2/2016 13:37

You could debate the whole moral question of whether he knew her age at the time, whether she lied to him, etc.

But the facts as they stand are that he's admitted to sexual activity with someone under the age of consent, and in the eyes of the law he's bang to rights.
Click to expand...

IIRC her parents were family friends so I don't think that the not knowing her age can be used as a defence in this case.
 
northstandmark - 10/2/2016 13:37

You could debate the whole moral question of whether he knew her age at the time, whether she lied to him, etc.
Click to expand...

On a public forum however it's best to just stick to the facts in the public domain and not add opinion. :thumbsup:

northstandmark - 10/2/2016 13:37
the facts as they stand are that he's admitted to sexual activity with someone under the age of consent, and in the eyes of the law he's bang to rights.
Click to expand...
 
northstandmark - 10/2/2016 13:37

You could debate the whole moral question of whether he knew her age at the time, whether she lied to him, etc.

But the facts as they stand are that he's admitted to sexual activity with someone under the age of consent, and in the eyes of the law he's bang to rights.
Click to expand...

It is not a moral question. Part of the offence he has admitted to (if the child is between 13-15) is not reasonably believing that the child was 16 or over.
 
northstandmark - 10/2/2016 16:37

You could debate the whole moral question of whether he knew her age at the time, whether she lied to him, etc.

But the facts as they stand are that he's admitted to sexual activity with someone under the age of consent, and in the eyes of the law he's bang to rights.
Click to expand...

It would be quite difficult to say he didn't know her age when he's pleaded guilty to one charge of grooming.
 
Silent AFCB - 10/2/2016 14:24
It would be quite difficult to say he didn't know her age when he's pleaded guilty to one charge of grooming.
Click to expand...

I've never read the law regarding what constitutes grooming.

If he didn't know she was underage but was pursuing her for sex via phone/tablet could he unwittingly be guilty of grooming?

The reality is that until the evidence is revealed we're all guessing at what happened.


 
Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers it...

A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if A has met or communicated with another person (B) on at least two occasions and subsequently—
(i) A intentionally meets B,
(ii) A travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world or arranges to meet B in any part of the world, or
(iii) B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world,
(b) A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (iii) and in any part of the world, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence,]
(c) B is under 16, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.

So, if AJ has admitted the grooming charge, he has acknowledged doing the above, and that he did not reasonably believe she was under 16.
The nature of the actual offence committed at the meeting will help determine the length of any sentence and/or the level of fine.
 
I wonder if Sunderland knew he was going to plead guilty. Surely they would take a different stance on him continuing to play for them if they did. Perhaps he knew what was coming and kept it to himself so he could earn all the way up to the trial as he would know his earning potential would be severely damaged after his plea. Nonce-sense.

 
SlowDownDerek - 11/2/2016 00:40
...Perhaps he knew what was coming and kept it to himself so he could earn all the way up to the trial as he would know his earning potential would be severely damaged after his plea...
Click to expand...

Hardly surprising.

I'm pretty certain anyone, irrespective of the charges, would do the same.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;