Adam Johnson

SlowDownDerek - 12/2/2016 08:16

Druss_the_Legend - 12/2/2016 07:46

As I was told about other high profile convicted footballers "they have a right to earn a living" so we should welcome them back to the game?

As with the others...NO.
Click to expand...

There's two different elements to that statement. Yes he should have the right to earn a living after he's served his sentence. No we should not welcome him back to the game.
Click to expand...

Being a footballer is a privilege, as much as being a Politician or a head of state, or any other 'celebrity'. Any career in which you have a public profile is doomed if you are convicted of a significant criminal offense. You live and die by the law I'm afraid, that's why people have paid advisers.

Regardless of who you are, rehabilitation always means changing significant aspects of your life. Just be grateful that you're in a country where you get a second chance at life.
 
SlowDownDerek - 12/2/2016 08:54

I don't see why people would feel negative about Sunderland for suing him. Doesn't it suggest that they are also victims of his dishonesty? I don't think I'd have a problem with it if I was a Sunderland fan.
Click to expand...

From a purely business perspective, prior to this offence for the length of his contract he would have been an 'asset' they could have sold for circa £10 million. He effectively made himself worthless by committing the offence for which he has pled guilty.

I suspect they'd have a very good chance of recovering a substantial sum from him if they pursued it. However, I think they'll walk away.
 
Don't think Sunderland will want any more publicity on this. If it transpires that the club knew the extent of Johnson's actions but continued to play him anyway, as his legal team would surely argue, having that dragged through courts, whether true or not, would really damage their reputation.
 
The irony of this and the law is that if he had waited two months they could have got married, sold the wedding photo rights to Hello for a million and and started a family.

What a difference a few days make. A future as a listed pervert rather than a possible career presenting Top Gear.
 
Red Sky - 12/2/2016 08:57

SlowDownDerek - 12/2/2016 08:16

Druss_the_Legend - 12/2/2016 07:46

As I was told about other high profile convicted footballers "they have a right to earn a living" so we should welcome them back to the game?

As with the others...NO.
Click to expand...

There's two different elements to that statement. Yes he should have the right to earn a living after he's served his sentence. No we should not welcome him back to the game.
Click to expand...

Being a footballer is a privilege, as much as being a Politician or a head of state, or any other 'celebrity'. Any career in which you have a public profile is doomed if you are convicted of a significant criminal offense. You live and die by the law I'm afraid, that's why people have paid advisers.

Regardless of who you are, rehabilitation always means changing significant aspects of your life. Just be grateful that you're in a country where you get a second chance at life.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. He has to face up to the commercial realities of the industry that he operates in as we all would. In his industry there is no chance of a return and rightly so.

As Druss says though there can be a fine line and we don't yet know the full details so we should probably wait to see how it pans out before we fully condemn him.
 
Opening statement from the prosecution:

“[The victim's] real passion was Sunderland Football Club. She was a season ticket holder and rarely missed a home game. Her favourite player was Adam Johnson.

“After matches, she would hang around waiting for a glimpse of him, wanting to get a photograph, often sporting a Sunderland shirt with Johnson’s name emblazoned across the back.”

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/adam-johnson-trial-live-sunderland-10875676
 
I've just been debating this at work. It sounds like Johnson is bang to rights but I personally don't think someone's Google history is very strong evidence of anything. When I use Google on my phone it usually suggests the last four or five things I've looked for. It's always interesting after a night in the pub to see the weird and wonderful arguments that needed to be settled using Google. You talk about whatever is in the news, which is more often than not some horrible crime.

 
Who needs the internet history if there is evidence of this:

Johnson: "Where do you go out?"
Girl, 15: "I'm not old enough to go out."
Johnson: "Yeah but you look old enough."

"When you 16?" Johnson asked schoolgirl on New Years Eve

Adam Johnson text to girl: "You in the last year of school?" Girl: "Year 10. Will you still send me a signed shirt?"
 
SlowDownDerek - 12/2/2016 14:15

I've just been debating this at work. It sounds like Johnson is bang to rights but I personally don't think someone's Google history is very strong evidence of anything. When I use Google on my phone it usually suggests the last four or five things I've looked for. It's always interesting after a night in the pub to see the weird and wonderful arguments that needed to be settled using Google. You talk about whatever is in the news, which is more often than not some horrible crime.
Click to expand...

As a stand alone piece of evidence, you're right in that it probably would not be able to prove a person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As part of a body of evidence, it could lend weight to the argument.

I have not see it reported anywhere exactly what the two remaining Sexual Activity with a Child charges relate to, except for that they involve 'penetration.' As Johnson has already pleaded guilty to two offences which include not reasonably believing that the victim was 16 or over, presumably the last element to decide on is whether he did actually carry out the act(s) which the CPS are alleging in relation to those final two charges.
 
In footballing terms the Prosecution needs to prove that he went from the touch line into the box, whether or not he actually took a shot. The same applies if it was goalmouth action at the other end. Time will tell if he has a strong defence behind him.
 
SlowDownDerek - 12/2/2016 08:54
I don't see why people would feel negative about Sunderland for suing him...
Click to expand...

Some things are worth more than money.

Aside from financially, I'm not sure anyone sees how Sunderland can benefit from continuing to be linked with this nasty business.

There can be no winners from this situation.

 
AFCB Lost in Brum - 12/2/2016 23:08

SlowDownDerek - 12/2/2016 08:54
I don't see why people would feel negative about Sunderland for suing him...
Click to expand...

Some things are worth more than money.

Aside from financially, I'm not sure anyone sees how Sunderland can benefit from continuing to be linked with this nasty business.

There can be no winners from this situation.
Click to expand...

You might be right. Especially if legal action would lead to awkward questions being asked about how much Sunderland really knew about what he'd been up to.
 
I can't see that Sunderland knew anything until maybe the day before/morning before he went into court and pleaded guilty. He might have told someone at the club in advance he was going to out of respect so they can prepare to release a statement, but it would have been right on the deadline.
 
Well time will tell if Sunderland decide to take legal action against him. I personally don't think it would make them look bad but who knows?

One thing about this that does concern me is that he has pleaded guilty to one count yet denied another. It's difficult to know why but it seems to relate to the two different parts of their meeting in his car. It is alleged that he stopped kissing her then drove to another location where the sexual activity escalated. He denies this second part and it seems to be her word against his.

The defence for these things often seems to be to paint a picture of the victim as complicit and to assassinate their character. Certainly to call them a liar. I do fear for what this poor girl has coming once the defence starts.

 
I think you should be less concerned than you apparently are...he pleaded guilty at the very last minute to the two "lesser" charges because his legal team would have advised him that the evidence was so overwhelming that it would damage his overall case to persist with the denial.
Regarding the other two "bigger" charges, I am pretty comfortable (as a criminal lawyer) that the jury will be able to weigh up who is telling the truth as to what happened. No need for any of us to keep throwing up what ifs etc, let's just let the case take its course.
 
Fair enough. My concern was more about what his defence team were going to do to the girl not really about the chances of him being convicted. As I say the way these things usually seem to be defended can be quite damaging to the victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;