Adam Johnson pleads guilty...

When Johnson was on loan at Watford, Aidy used to complain that his Mum came to all the matches and kept bending his ear on how to run the team.

Johnson's Dad and another male relative have supported him in court, but I've never seen any mention of his Mum. Has she died, or has she washed her hands of him?

 

She's currently with the England U20 side as an adviser to Boothroyd.

 

I'm sure you're a thoroughly nice chap, Godfather, but I have to say, I find your comments on this thread a little bit seedy. You're not the 'Godfather' of Glam Rock - Mr Gary Glitter - are you?

 

Why? Because I'm surprised that groping a teen (almost an adult one*) consensually could lead to a ten year prison sentence?

(* in the eyes of the law)

Your comment is totally uncalled for, not least that GG is a pedo which is a different matter altogether. I have a teen daughter(19), would you like to ask her if I spy on her in the shower?

 

I'm sure if your daughter, at 15, had been groomed and abused by a 28 year old man, you'd be saying that a ten year sentence should include spikes, flaying and dismemberment. Not saying you know what, she's almost an adult, she didn't put up a fight etc.

 

You know what? I would talk to my daughter about her feelings, confront the guy (may include violence), report him to the police and then let the courts decide on his punishment.

 

'Groping a teen'??!! Goodness me! You really ought to stop now. I'm not sure that I understand what your point is, but the choice of language you use to express it is unpleasant to put it mildly.

 

That's what he did, how would you like me to describe it?

 

As I understand it, and I accept I haven’t followed the case as closely – and certainly not as lasciviously – as you appear to have done, Johnson spent many months pursuing the girl via various social media platforms with the intention of developing a sexual relationship with her, despite knowing full well that she was below the legal age of consent.
This may come as something of a shock to you, but I would imagine that most people consider Johnson’s behaviour abhorrent and worthy of the long custodial sentence that is likely to be handed down to him.
As for your unprompted comment about watching your daughter shower, I'm afraid words fail me

 

The grooming is a separate offence, one that he has already pleaded guilty to and will be sentenced accordingly. I too consider Johnson’s behaviour abhorrent and worthy of a prison sentence. As for your unprompted comment about Gary Glitter, I'm afraid words fail me.

PS. I followed the Ched Evans case a lot more "lasciviously" than I have this one, does that make me a rapist?

 

Godfather's posts throughout this thread have been pretty unsettling to say the least.

Some of the terminology he has used to describe events that happened to a just turned 15 year old abuse victim have been very strange indeed.

 

A tip for you, old son - try and avoid using words whose meaning you are unsure of. You risk making yourself look rather silly!!

 

I'm really am so sorry you find my building site slang so unsettling but this is a message board not a courtroom.

Victim of abuse? now I don't know enough details to say she is, she certainly could be, I'll let the court decide that.

As far as I have read it was consensual and much of her suffering has come as a result of confiding with her friends. Not that this in anyway condones his behaviour but fifteen year olds are not always as innocent as their parents imagine or hope (cue more faux outrage from a myriad of other posters).

 

Copy and pasted from yours ... read by me as laviciously (which apparently doesn't exist).
Anyhow you get my point ... talking about it implies nothing.

Anyone would think I've been trying to say AJ is innocent ... he's not, not even a little bit.

 

I've probably just misinterpreted your comments - for which I apologise

By the way, the dictionary definition of 'lascivious' is 'feeling or revealing an overt sexual interest or desire'. So when you're next on the building site and one of the lads shouts 'oi,oi' at a piece of passing crumpet you can't tell them to stop behaving lasciviously - that'll shut them up!

 

You should thank me for misinterpreting yours!

When I was boss I had to warn countless workers about such behaviour which always seemed a bit rich as previously I was always the first to whistle.

 

I think people are being too hard on Godfather. He thinks Johnson is vile and a criminal but he is merely questioning the sentence (albeit with some interesting language). He should be able to do that without being called Gary Glitter.

 

Oh, come on, come on

 

I would understand GFs comments if this were a couple of teens having a fumble

This is a 28 year old deliberately targeting a teen, there are no mitigating circumstances, the guy is better off behind bars, who knows what limits he would explore if allowed to get away with it

 

Maybe you should read the thread instead of jumping to conclusions

 

I did

I then read it again twice as I thought I'd misunderstood you

I think we'd all (or most) have compassion/understand a couple of teens, I recall nothing better than getting a grope with a gf when at school myself.

I can't think of a single mitigating circumstance for a 28 year old to groom a 15 year old. 5 years is too good for him.

 

I agree but he won't get 5 years for just for grooming. I guess what really surprised me is a sentence of 'up to 10 years for the grope considering she is not under an age where legally the responsibility is entirely his (or wouldn't be had they had actual sex). back in the eighties I doubt this would have even made the courtroom (not that it makes it alright and I certainly wouldn't be such a cad).

 

You keep poking away at this concept but unless you're not explaining it very well you're just plain wrong. A 15yo might be able to give sufficient consent to prevent the law automatically deciding sex with her is rape. But it would still be another criminal offence carrying a 14yr max sentence. The law attributes no responsibility to a child when it comes to a sexual relationship with an adult as long as that child is under 16. So Adam Johnson is 100% entirely responsible. For once there really is no grey area.

 

Sometimes I think GF uses particularly words for effect and he deserves any criticism he gets in that respect.

Johnston has no mitigating circumstances at all, in my mind. He knew it was an offence, and still went ahead. Full stop. But how serious was the actual offence. Fairly serious I would say, but not horrendous.

Edit: I certainly think that Johnstone should have admitted everything at the beginning, so that the victim did not have to go through over the past year.

But I do think GF's main argument has some merit. From what we know, and if we try and forget about his girlfriend and baby, etc, the actual offences were probably at the medium to lesser end of the seriousness spectrum - and that is what the judge should be considering.

She was a child because of a line drawn by the law. But we all know that the line is really far more blurred than that. No one suddenly turns into an "adult" physically or psychologically, on their 16th birthday. The girl was obviously fully aware what was going on had probably been discussing such matters with her friends for several years. She was quite proud of what had happened with Johnston and was openly telling her friends, and texting about the experience, I believe.

I was about 15 when I had a bit of a crush on a young woman teacher at a college I was attending. I would have been delighted with a physical encounter with her and I wouldn't have considered it a crime at all, if I had succeeded. But maybe once or twice would have been enough!

This case regarding a teacher had sex with a 15 year old 80 times, reported in this link seems to be far more serious, yet she got 2 years, initially suspended.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/17/teach...pupil-80-times-after-sentence-review-5508467/

Or this one, 5 years for a teacher sexually assaulting a 4 year old girl at playschool.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/trainee-montessori-teacher-sexually-assaulted-7491441

What Johnston did was terrible for so many reasons, but I cant think it was anywhere as bad as other cases where the sentence was far less than the 7 or 8 years GF was complaining about.

Edit; I certainly think Johnstone should have admitted last May, and saved the girl all the problems she has encountered. He should get a couple of extra years for that.

 

As others have said if Johnson had met the girl in a pub or nightclub and one thing had led to another his offence would be no where near as bad, and in fact some might say it should not be an considered an offence at all, if the girl lied about her age.

However, it appears that he was fully aware of her age, and not only that, he actively pursued over a period of time, this is what makes it a serious crime worthy of branding him a paedophile. Having said that I think a 10 year sentence which has been suggested would be OTT, as far worse crimes, such as murder often get a lot less than that.

At the end of the day he deserves a severe sentence, but in the scheme of things he does not deserve more time than some murderers get!

 

I think 10 is the upper edge of the band and agree it would be harsh. I expect the judge to end up nearer 4. Your last bit is a common refrain people come out with but can you find an actual example?

 

Hey just be sure, I'm not complaining! ... it's not the liberal 70's/80's anymore and the law is the law; he gets what's coming to him. I'll even say that as a celebrity figure he should get hammered as an example for others.

 

Is paedophilia not when one has a sexual attraction towards pre-pubescent children?

I'm not sure what word should best be used to describe Johnson, but I don't think it's 'paedophile'.

 

Obviously someone convicted of "murder" won't get less. But in the below case a man deliberately sought out a man who complained about his friend cycling on the pavement. He punched him, killing him. The cyclist had ridden off so the friend had time to think about it before belting man so not in heat of moment.

Sentence 4 years. If Johnson got 10 years, then I think that would be absurd (in comparison). Just my personal opinion - I'm sure a case can be made on intent, but if some tool wants to play the hard man with an innocent pedestrian then I think they should be in the clink for a decade if they guy dies.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lewis-gill-killed-andrew-young-3181527

 

I'm not going to argue that manslaughter sentences in this country are sufficient. They're plainly not. But it's not murder by definition of the law. And it's a false economy to compare one crime type with another IMO.

 

to be continued ....

 

Johnson's sister has started something called “Justice for Johnson” on Facebook.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/08/footballer-adam-johnson-sister-justice-for-johnson-facebook

He pleaded guilty. What justice is she asking for?

 

Good Lord. It would appear that idiocy is a family trait.