Adam Johnson victim could sue him for £1m

[21.05.2016]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6977812/Adam-Johnson-victim-could-sue-shamed-football-paedo-for-1million.html

Just saw this article on twitter. First of all let me just say that I think what Adam Johnston is disgusting, he used his footballer status to take advantage of an underage girl who was clearly charmed by him and starstruck at being chatted to by her hero. He is a weasel and absolutely deserves prison.

However, when I saw this article, claiming the victim (or her parents) are considering a civil lawsuit over him for £1m it really did annoy me that they are trying to profit out of something like this. The young lassie, who i'm sure was starstruck and flattered by having her hero texting her, wanting to meet her etc, seems to be milking this for his cash. She knew what she was doing and even encouraged his advances in some of the messaging conversations. She knew he was after sex (or sexual activity of some kind) yet she still never said no, she told him their meeting would be "worth it", and still agreed to meet him on several occasions. Not once did she tell him to stop or even report it to her parents or another adult, in fact the whole reason the secret came out was because apparently she was bragging about it to her friends at school. I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like someone who is feeling scared or uncomfortable by him, that very much suggests that she was enjoying his attention.

Therefore, for her to come out saying how traumatised she is and this suggestion that her and her family are going to push for money (and a hell of a lot of money at that!) seems very much like they are milking this for every penny its worth.

Once again, let me re-itterate that Adam Johnston is a sick man and deserves everything he gets in prison.

[Allant1981]

Doesnt really surprise me though, this is the world we live in now, yip he is guilty and should get all the punishment the judge feels is appropriate but how does the lassie getting all that money help her get over her "ordeal" if anything he should be made to pay for costs of counselling if this is what she needs

[easty]

She knew what she was doing and even encouraged his advances in some of the messaging conversations. She knew he was after sex (or sexual activity of some kind) yet she still never said no, she told him their meeting would be "worth it", and still agreed to meet him on several occasions. Not once did she tell him to stop or even report it to her parents or another adult, in fact the whole reason the secret came out was because apparently she was bragging about it to her friends at school. I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like someone who is feeling scared or uncomfortable by him, that very much suggests that she was enjoying his attention.



I've heard that argument a load of times in relation to this case, but it's just not relevant. It doesn't matter what she knew, or what she wanted, or who she bragged to, because she wasn't of legal age. Adam Johnson knew she wasn't, he's the adult, he could have stopped it happening and he didn't.

If Adam Johnson loses a million quid (it won't be that much anyway) through a civil case, then he'll have nobody to blame but himself.

[(((Fergus)))]

Wow, what a charming young lady.

[Sir David Gray]

I've heard that argument a load of times in relation to this case, but it's just not relevant. It doesn't matter what she knew, or what she wanted, or who she bragged to, because she wasn't of legal age. Adam Johnson knew she wasn't, he's the adult, he could have stopped it happening and he didn't.

If Adam Johnson loses a million quid (it won't be that much anyway) through a civil case, then he'll have nobody to blame but himself.

Yep totally agree.

He deserves everything he gets and I have no sympathy for him at all.

One thing I don't agree with (and I know you haven't said this) is people (particularly in the media) calling him a paedophile.

What he did was wrong and shouldn't have happened but he's not a paedophile.

[Hibs Class]

Wow, what a charming young lady.

She's the victim here. She was a child, he groomed her (and admitted to that charge so there's no doubt about it). I don't doubt she's suffered during the past year or so, especially with his public denial of all charges up until the first day of his trial. That she "knew what she was doing" and "encouraged his advances" perhaps reflect more on his grooming skills than on her being some kind of scheming temptress. IMO she certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt rather than being subject to yet more public attacks.


Yep totally agree.

He deserves everything he gets and I have no sympathy for him at all.

One thing I don't agree with (and I know you haven't said this) is people (particularly in the media) calling him a paedophile.

What he did was wrong and shouldn't have happened but he's not a paedophile.

He's a paedophile (the only folk I've seen so far denying that fact are his sister, Katie Hopkins and you!) Clearly she is at the top end of the age range for being a child, but she was a child nonetheless, so he fits the definition.

[21.05.2016]

Yep totally agree.

He deserves everything he gets and I have no sympathy for him at all.

One thing I don't agree with (and I know you haven't said this) is people (particularly in the media) calling him a paedophile.

What he did was wrong and shouldn't have happened but he's not a paedophile.

In the eyes of the law he is. Doesn't matter if the girl was 15 or an infant, she's still legally a child therefore he is a pedophile.

[CropleyWasGod]

She's the victim here. She was a child, he groomed her (and admitted to that charge so there's no doubt about it). I don't doubt she's suffered during the past year or so, especially with his public denial of all charges up until the first day of his trial. That she "knew what she was doing" and "encouraged his advances" perhaps reflect more on his grooming skills than on her being some kind of scheming temptress. IMO she certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt rather than being subject to yet more public attacks.



He's a paedophile (the only folk I've seen so far denying that fact are his sister, Katie Hopkins and you!) Clearly she is at the top end of the age range for being a child, but she was a child nonetheless, so he fits the definition.

As far as I can see, paedophilia refers to people under 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

[21.05.2016]

I've heard that argument a load of times in relation to this case, but it's just not relevant. It doesn't matter what she knew, or what she wanted, or who she bragged to, because she wasn't of legal age. Adam Johnson knew she wasn't, he's the adult, he could have stopped it happening and he didn't.

If Adam Johnson loses a million quid (it won't be that much anyway) through a civil case, then he'll have nobody to blame but himself.

Of course he's at fault, he used his footballer status to charm the lassie and he knew fine well she was underage so he desereves everthing he gets. I'm not for one minute trying to deflect any blame away from him at all. However, her pleading to be the traumatised victim seems a bit of an act to me. Although he made advances towards her thru messages and wanted to meet etc, he never forced her to do anything, she still willing went along with it all and flirted back with him through texts. She was enjoying the attention from him at the time and now is trying milk money out of it which I think says a lot.

[Hibs Class]

As far as I can see, paedophilia refers to people under 12.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

I think the Sex Offenders Act 1997 defines paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16

[easty]

Of course he's at fault, he used his footballer status to charm the lassie and he knew fine well she was underage so he desereves everthing he gets. I'm not for one minute trying to deflect any blame away from him at all. However, her pleading to be the traumatised victim seems a bit of an act to me. Although he made advances towards her thru messages and wanted to meet etc, he never forced her to do anything, she still willing went along with it all and flirted back with him through texts. She was enjoying the attention from him at the time and now is trying milk money out of it which I think says a lot.

The bit in bold....so what? It's one thing for her to have been enjoying/inviting the attention, it's another to actually be in the car with him, who's to say how the actual meetings, and what happened, affected her. I don't know if it's all an act or not, I would hazard a guess at neither do you though. I don't think the default should be that she's 'at it'.

[21.05.2016]

The bit in bold....so what? It's one thing for her to have been enjoying/inviting the attention, it's another to actually be in the car with him, who's to say how the actual meetings, and what happened, affected her. I don't know if it's all an act or not, I would hazard a guess at neither do you though. I don't think the default should be that she's 'at it'.

Aye but she willing met him, willing got in his car, willing engaged in sex acts etc. At no point did she ignore his messages or tell him to stop or report what was going on to someone, instead she was bragging about it to her pals, that doesn't sound like a distressed person who is scared or uncomfortable by him. He made it clear to her thru the messages that he was looking to engage in some sort of sexual activity with her when they met, to which she agreed and then also agreed to meet him and get in his car.

[easty]

Aye but she willing met him, willing got in his car, willing engaged in sex acts etc. At no point did she ignore his messages or tell him to stop or report what was going on to someone, instead she was bragging about it to her pals, that doesn't sound like a distressed person who is scared or uncomfortable by him. He made it clear to her thru the messages that he was looking to engage in some sort of sexual activity with her when they met, to which she agreed and then also agreed to meet him and get in his car.

There's many many people that agree with your stance on it, I'm just not one of them.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think the Sex Offenders Act 1997 defines paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16

Fair enough. The article I read was a US definition.

Edit... There's been another Act passed since then, in 2003. I can't see a definition in there.

[Greentinted]

Yep totally agree.

He deserves everything he gets and I have no sympathy for him at all.

One thing I don't agree with (and I know you haven't said this) is people (particularly in the media) calling him a paedophile.

What he did was wrong and shouldn't have happened but he's not a paedophile.

Indeed that is correct but 'paedophile' tends to be the word used colloquially. If we want to get into linguistic semantics he would be correctly termed an 'ephebophile' or perhaps even a borderline 'hebephile'.

Like yourself, bottom line for me, she was an under-age lassie and he knew as much. 16 is the age of consent, he violated that, to hell wi him and his type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

[Hibrandenburg]

How much is the reputation of a young girl worth? How much is the psychological damage done worth? How much is the shame she'll feel worth? You can't put a price on it but I'm sure 1 million won't settle the bill.

[s.a.m]

Aye but she willing met him, willing got in his car, willing engaged in sex acts etc. At no point did she ignore his messages or tell him to stop or report what was going on to someone, instead she was bragging about it to her pals, that doesn't sound like a distressed person who is scared or uncomfortable by him. He made it clear to her thru the messages that he was looking to engage in some sort of sexual activity with her when they met, to which she agreed and then also agreed to meet him and get in his car.

We protect children because, whatever their intentions, character, level of sexual maturity etc..., we recognise their lack of maturity and judgement, and as a result their vulnerability. We also recognise that that makes them rich picking for predators such as Adam Johnson.

[Smartie]

Wow, what a charming young lady.

Pretty harsh.

I don't think a 15 year old girl is capable of consenting to sexual activity.

I don't think a 16 year old girl is capable of concocting an evil master plan to screw £1 million out of a millionaire.

I'm purely speculating here but I reckon the girl probably quite enjoyed the attention and was looking for nothing more than bragging rights in a playground for getting attention from a footballer. I don't suspect she will have been hugely damaged by the encounter (although I don't know that).

She'll be being cynically advised by a number of parties and tbh the fallout of the whole situation will have been significantly more damaging for her than the initial incident itself.

IMO she's probably a slightly daft wee girl who was preyed upon by someone who abused their situation and he should have known a lot better. But I don't think she deserves abuse or the attention of the numerous parasites who are now going to attach themselves to her.

[s.a.m]

Pretty harsh.

I don't think a 15 year old girl is capable of consenting to sexual activity.

I don't think a 16 year old girl is capable of concocting an evil master plan to screw £1 million out of a millionaire.

I'm purely speculating here but I reckon the girl probably quite enjoyed the attention and was looking for nothing more than bragging rights in a playground for getting attention from a footballer. I don't suspect she will have been hugely damaged by the encounter (although I don't know that).

She'll be being cynically advised by a number of parties and tbh the fallout of the whole situation will have been significantly more damaging for her than the initial incident itself.

IMO she's probably a slightly daft wee girl who was preyed upon by someone who abused their situation and he should have known a lot better. But I don't think she deserves abuse or the attention of the numerous parasites who are now going to attach themselves to her.

Pretty much how I see it.

I'd also like to point out that while we can argue about the borderline nature of her childhood, he's not a borderline adult. I'd originally assumed he was young player, and was taken aback to see that he's actually 28.

[Pete]

How much is the reputation of a young girl worth? How much is the psychological damage done worth? How much is the shame she'll feel worth? You can't put a price on it but I'm sure 1 million won't settle the bill.

How will cash undo psychological damage? How will cash restore pride?

What if the perpetrator was on the dole? Would a lesser amount have the same effect as £1 million from a rich person?

This is about looking at how much someone is worth and squeezing as much cash out of them as possible.

[Hibrandenburg]

How will cash undo psychological damage? How will cash restore pride?

What if the perpetrator was on the dole? Would a lesser amount have the same effect as £1 million from a rich person?

This is about looking at how much someone is worth and squeezing as much cash out of them as possible.

It won't is the short answer. The money is about reparation, it won't repair the damage but it MIGHT compensate her for that what she's lost if that is possible. He's used his money and his prominent status to take advantage of a young girl so why shouldn't those very things be used as compensation?

[easty]

It won't is the short answer. The money is about reparation, it won't repair the damage but it MIGHT compensate her for that what she's lost if that is possible. He's used his money and his prominent status to take advantage of a young girl so why shouldn't those very things be used as compensation?

:agree:

[Pete]

It won't is the short answer. The money is about reparation, it won't repair the damage but it MIGHT compensate her for that what she's lost if that is possible. He's used his money and his prominent status to take advantage of a young girl so why shouldn't those very things be used as compensation?

Maybe it's just me but I don't agree with the principle of financial reparation for crimes like this. She hasn't lost anything financially, it's her reputation that has suffered so how can material goods and pound notes restore that?

The compensation culture has gone too far and it's as if everything has a price tag nowadays. Using this financial sliding scale which takes the perpetrators wealth into consideration keeps a lot of people in very highly paid jobs. It's lucky for them that we've managed to collectively convince ourselves that this is just a natural extension of the justice system.

Again,I just don't like it but I also don't like articles like this that can only serve to damage the girls reputation even further. Exaggerated figures and sensationalist language isn't helping and is a cheap way of selling papers. Typical sun.

[Hibrandenburg]

Same could be said for parking, speeding and any other kind of fines issued in our society. It's a fact of life that our society rewards people financially when they do something good, therefore it stands to reason that punishment should also include a financial element. The question that remains is how much and should it be in direct relation to personal wealth or the same for everyone?

[Pete]

Same could be said for parking, speeding and any other kind of fines issued in our society. It's a fact of life that our society rewards people financially when they do something good, therefore it stands to reason that punishment should also include a financial element. The question that remains is how much and should it be in direct relation to personal wealth or the same for everyone?

Fair enough. It just seems a little unfair that someone who has suffered a lot worse at the hands of poor perpetrators won't get anything like the amount that this girl could potentially get. Way of the world I suppose.

[Allant1981]

Pretty harsh.

I don't think a 15 year old girl is capable of consenting to sexual activity.

I don't think a 16 year old girl is capable of concocting an evil master plan to screw £1 million out of a millionaire.

I'm purely speculating here but I reckon the girl probably quite enjoyed the attention and was looking for nothing more than bragging rights in a playground for getting attention from a footballer. I don't suspect she will have been hugely damaged by the encounter (although I don't know that).

She'll be being cynically advised by a number of parties and tbh the fallout of the whole situation will have been significantly more damaging for her than the initial incident itself.

IMO she's probably a slightly daft wee girl who was preyed upon by someone who abused their situation and he should have known a lot better. But I don't think she deserves abuse or the attention of the numerous parasites who are now going to attach themselves to her.

You seriously dont think a 15 year old is capable of consenting to sex?

[Sir David Gray]

She's the victim here. She was a child, he groomed her (and admitted to that charge so there's no doubt about it). I don't doubt she's suffered during the past year or so, especially with his public denial of all charges up until the first day of his trial. That she "knew what she was doing" and "encouraged his advances" perhaps reflect more on his grooming skills than on her being some kind of scheming temptress. IMO she certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt rather than being subject to yet more public attacks.



He's a paedophile (the only folk I've seen so far denying that fact are his sister, Katie Hopkins and you!) Clearly she is at the top end of the age range for being a child, but she was a child nonetheless, so he fits the definition.


In the eyes of the law he is. Doesn't matter if the girl was 15 or an infant, she's still legally a child therefore he is a pedophile.

I think you need to check the definition of paedophilia again.

Paedophilia is a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.

Someone who is 15 years old isn't pre-pubescent.

What he did was wrong and he will be rightly punished for that but he's not a paedophile.

[Smartie]

You seriously dont think a 15 year old is capable of consenting to sex?

There are 15 year olds and then there are 15 year olds. Some possibly will, most won't.

It doesn't really matter what I think - the law thinks not and that is the set of rules that we all must obey.

TBH there are 20 year olds and then there are 20 year olds. There are 20 year olds who imo wouldn't be capable of consenting to sex. Just because they are legally old enough, doesn't mean they are able to.

In the real world nothing magical happens overnight on a girl's 16th birthday that changes their ability to give consent but the law has to be consistent, it has to lie somewhere and I think it is reasonable that it lies where it does.

I think a bit of common sense and leeway should be allowed to people aged maybe 16-18 who find themselves in this position.


There is absolutely no way that a 28 year old man should be finding himself in a situation like this.

[Hibs Class]

I think you need to check the definition of paedophilia again.

Paedophilia is a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.

Someone who is 15 years old isn't pre-pubescent.

What he did was wrong and he will be rightly punished for that but he's not a paedophile.


I did check. Post 10 is what I found. I understand that the point you're pushing is one definition, but I'm quite happy to accept the UK legal definition. He's a paedophile, according to his conviction.

[CropleyWasGod]

I did check. Post 10 is what I found. I understand that the point you're pushing is one definition, but I'm quite happy to accept the UK legal definition. He's a paedophile, according to his conviction.

That Act has been replaced by the 2003 Act. I can't see any definition in there.

[AndyM_1875]

Being interested in 15 year old girls is ok if you are a 15 year old boy.
Never ever for a 28 year old man, especially one in a position of respect & influence.

Johnson may not be a paedophile but he is certainly a predator. And he deserves jail.

[s.a.m]

Being interested in 15 year old girls is ok if you are a 15 year old boy.
Never ever for a 28 year old man, especially one in a position of respect & influence.

Johnson may not be a paedophile but he is certainly a predator. And he deserves jail.

I was about to say something similar. As said above, there are 15 year old girls and 15 year old girls. A 27/8 year old man should not be getting involved with either of them.

[Hibs Class]

That Act has been replaced by the 2003 Act. I can't see any definition in there.

2003 act refers to child sex offences but uses the same definition of a child and the crime. As I said, I understand the distinction some folk are making and I get that one definition relates to younger children, but it also seems clear that the Johnson case meets an accepted legal definition (as opposed to tabloid usage). I would certainly not have any enthusiasm for making the argument as to why he isn't a paedophile.

[Sir David Gray]

Being interested in 15 year old girls is ok if you are a 15 year old boy.
Never ever for a 28 year old man, especially one in a position of respect & influence.

Johnson may not be a paedophile but he is certainly a predator. And he deserves jail.


I was about to say something similar. As said above, there are 15 year old girls and 15 year old girls. A 27/8 year old man should not be getting involved with either of them.

I totally agree with both statements.

[Speedy]

I've heard that argument a load of times in relation to this case, but it's just not relevant. It doesn't matter what she knew, or what she wanted, or who she bragged to, because she wasn't of legal age. Adam Johnson knew she wasn't, he's the adult, he could have stopped it happening and he didn't.

If Adam Johnson loses a million quid (it won't be that much anyway) through a civil case, then he'll have nobody to blame but himself.

In a civil case, it is absolutely relevant.

[Steve-O]

Maybe it's just me but I don't agree with the principle of financial reparation for crimes like this. She hasn't lost anything financially, it's her reputation that has suffered so how can material goods and pound notes restore that?

The compensation culture has gone too far and it's as if everything has a price tag nowadays. Using this financial sliding scale which takes the perpetrators wealth into consideration keeps a lot of people in very highly paid jobs. It's lucky for them that we've managed to collectively convince ourselves that this is just a natural extension of the justice system.

Again,I just don't like it but I also don't like articles like this that can only serve to damage the girls reputation even further. Exaggerated figures and sensationalist language isn't helping and is a cheap way of selling papers. Typical sun.

Given the chat about her having lost all of her confidence, it is quite possible this episode could cost her future earnings.

[Steve-O]

2003 act refers to child sex offences but uses the same definition of a child and the crime. As I said, I understand the distinction some folk are making and I get that one definition relates to younger children, but it also seems clear that the Johnson case meets an accepted legal definition (as opposed to tabloid usage). I would certainly not have any enthusiasm for making the argument as to why he isn't a paedophile.

There is no 'legal definition' for paedophile and there is no crime specifically of 'paedophilia'. The other poster is quite correct that he is not actually a paedophile, despite what the Sun newspaper thinks.

[Sergio sledge]

The article I read (not the sun article linked in the OP) said that they were considering a civil case against Johnson and that a legal expert estimated that the payout could be six figures but if they could prove long lasting damage to the girl then it may be up to £1m.

I'm not sure where I stand with civil cases, one the one hand he has been convicted so justice has been done in that respect, whats the need for a civil case against him. I'd imagine they wouldn't be pursuing a civil case if he wasn't a multi-millionaire. It could be construed as them trying to grab a bit of cash while they can and take advantage of the situation.

On the other hand, no-one really knows the damage this situation has done to the girl long term and the reality is that she will probably suffer (despite his conviction) from a certain amount of abuse/teasing for a long time because of this and it will probably take her a while to get over it. As someone else mentioned, the effect this could have on her future job prospects (considering it was all going on at a time when she is likely trying to get qualifications in school or college) is hard to measure. The whole incident and the fallout from it could have a big effect on her future relationships as well, so there's likely to be both reputational and emotional damage to her. He took adantage of her and put her through the ordeal, so why shouldn't she take advantage of him and hit him where it is likely to hurt the most, his bank balance.

I always thought civil cases were most relevant in situations where criminal convictions couldn't be pursued or where there wasn't enough evidence for criminal charges so civil was the best possible route, but I accept that there are situations where criminal convictions alone aren't enough to help victims out and compensate them for the damage they suffered.

[21.05.2016]

Being interested in 15 year old girls is ok if you are a 15 year old boy.
Never ever for a 28 year old man, especially one in a position of respect & influence.

Johnson may not be a paedophile but he is certainly a predator. And he deserves jail.

:agree:

Amazing that he could have been so stupid as to do something like this anyway. There was always a high chance that this was going to get found out either by her going away and telling or someone finding their messages or whatever. He's thrown away a successful, very high earning football career and ruined his life.

He'll never play football again. When he comes out of prison no club will touch him with a barge pole, it'll be a bit the Ched Evans case. It would be a PR nightmare for any club to take on a man found guilty of child sex (unless your a disgusting corrupt and immoral club like Heart of Midlothian of course). Clubs wont want to risk sponsors or fans walking away.

[silverhibee]

The article I read (not the sun article linked in the OP) said that they were considering a civil case against Johnson and that a legal expert estimated that the payout could be six figures but if they could prove long lasting damage to the girl then it may be up to £1m.

I'm not sure where I stand with civil cases, one the one hand he has been convicted so justice has been done in that respect, whats the need for a civil case against him. I'd imagine they wouldn't be pursuing a civil case if he wasn't a multi-millionaire. It could be construed as them trying to grab a bit of cash while they can and take advantage of the situation.

On the other hand, no-one really knows the damage this situation has done to the girl long term and the reality is that she will probably suffer (despite his conviction) from a certain amount of abuse/teasing for a long time because of this and it will probably take her a while to get over it. As someone else mentioned, the effect this could have on her future job prospects (considering it was all going on at a time when she is likely trying to get qualifications in school or college) is hard to measure. The whole incident and the fallout from it could have a big effect on her future relationships as well, so there's likely to be both reputational and emotional damage to her. He took adantage of her and put her through the ordeal, so why shouldn't she take advantage of him and hit him where it is likely to hurt the most, his bank balance.

I always thought civil cases were most relevant in situations where criminal convictions couldn't be pursued or where there wasn't enough evidence for criminal charges so civil was the best possible route, but I accept that there are situations where criminal convictions alone aren't enough to help victims out and compensate them for the damage they suffered.

You could say he took advantage of Sunderland FC by telling them he was innocent of these charges and he would be found not guilty by the courts, only for him to plead guilty on the 1st day of the case to 2 of the charges, in that space of time Sunderland stood by him and I'm sure i read he made £3.5m in wages in that time from the club, so while he still was able to work and make a fortune the young girl had to live through a horrible ordeal until the trial came to court where she was made to give evidence, the judge will bear that in mind when sentencing Johnson and will see him get a bigger sentence, his only thought from when he was first spoken to the police was how much money he could make before this went to court from Sunderland FC, if he can make £3.5m in the time he was charged to it going to court, knowing he was guilty of at least 2 of the charges then only fair that the female should get a slice of that.

Sunderland FC should also be taking legal action against him as well, strange that the female has taken no action against Sunderland FC for still employing him after he admitted to the director that he had kissed a 15 year old girl, he should have been sacked straight after he admitted that, have Sunderland paid her off with a out of court settlement(brown envelope or in this case a suitcase) but making sure she takes no legal action against the club.

Hope he rots in prison for a long time.

[silverhibee]

:agree:

Amazing that he could have been so stupid as to do something like this anyway. There was always a high chance that this was going to get found out either by her going away and telling or someone finding their messages or whatever. He's thrown away a successful, very high earning football career and ruined his life.

He'll never play football again. When he comes out of prison no club will touch him with a barge pole, it'll be a bit the Ched Evans case. It would be a PR nightmare for any club to take on a man found guilty of child sex (unless your a disgusting corrupt and immoral club like Heart of Midlothian of course). Clubs wont want to risk sponsors or fans walking away.

He will have no need to play football again when he comes out of prison, he has made a fortune from the game and will see out the rest of his life a wealthy man, hope he doesn't get to spend it for a long time while he rots in prison.

[Scouse Hibee]

He will have no need to play football again when he comes out of prison, he has made a fortune from the game and will see out the rest of his life a wealthy man, hope he doesn't get to spend it for a long time while he rots in prison.

Part of the problem, paid far too much, have everything done for them and some think they can have whatever they want.

[Pete]

You could say he took advantage of Sunderland FC by telling them he was innocent of these charges and he would be found not guilty by the courts, only for him to plead guilty on the 1st day of the case to 2 of the charges, in that space of time Sunderland stood by him and I'm sure i read he made £3.5m in wages in that time from the club, so while he still was able to work and make a fortune the young girl had to live through a horrible ordeal until the trial came to court where she was made to give evidence, the judge will bear that in mind when sentencing Johnson and will see him get a bigger sentence, his only thought from when he was first spoken to the police was how much money he could make before this went to court from Sunderland FC, if he can make £3.5m in the time he was charged to it going to court, knowing he was guilty of at least 2 of the charges then only fair that the female should get a slice of that.

Sunderland FC should also be taking legal action against him as well, strange that the female has taken no action against Sunderland FC for still employing him after he admitted to the director that he had kissed a 15 year old girl, he should have been sacked straight after he admitted that, have Sunderland paid her off with a out of court settlement(brown envelope or in this case a suitcase) but making sure she takes no legal action against the club.

Hope he rots in prison for a long time.

I thought about the club angle as well and how open he'd be to legal action from them. He could counter that by saying that he gave them goals/assists/points etc...how much will that point at Liverpool be worth in financial terms?

I see they are swapping Johnson tops free of charge. Quite right.

[Pete]

There is no 'legal definition' for paedophile and there is no crime specifically of 'paedophilia'. The other poster is quite correct that he is not actually a paedophile, despite what the Sun newspaper thinks.

In future, we should just use the catch-all phrase: jambo.

[Betty Boop]

Sentenced to six years.

[easty]

Sentenced to six years.

good

[Hibbyradge]

It can also now be reported that Adam Johnson browsed a website called “Nice Young Teens”, which featured explicit images but not unlawful.

It can now be reported that Adam Johnson was arrested for possessing extreme pornography - bestiality - on his laptop last year.

It can also be reported that Adam Johnson was taking medication used to treat sexually-transmitted infections when he was arrested last year.

He's not a paedophile though. :rolleyes:

[Beefster]

...

Therefore, for her to come out saying how traumatised she is and this suggestion that her and her family are going to push for money (and a hell of a lot of money at that!) seems very much like they are milking this for every penny its worth.

...

It's now been reported that the young girl took an overdose on the day that she gave evidence. I'd say she's fairly traumatised.

[Steve-O]

It can also now be reported that Adam Johnson browsed a website called “Nice Young Teens”, which featured explicit images but not unlawful.

It can now be reported that Adam Johnson was arrested for possessing extreme pornography - bestiality - on his laptop last year.

It can also be reported that Adam Johnson was taking medication used to treat sexually-transmitted infections when he was arrested last year.

He's not a paedophile though. :rolleyes:

Which of the three points above are you inferring makes him a paedophile?

You do realise saying he's not a paedophile is not the same as saying he's done nothing wrong, right?

[Pete]

Which of the three points above are you inferring makes him a paedophile?

You do realise saying he's not a paedophile is not the same as saying he's done nothing wrong, right?

Maybe the horses were quite young.

[Sir David Gray]

Which of the three points above are you inferring makes him a paedophile?

You do realise saying he's not a paedophile is not the same as saying he's done nothing wrong, right?

I thought about writing something along those lines but decided it wasn't worth the hassle.

[Allant1981]

It can also now be reported that Adam Johnson browsed a website called “Nice Young Teens”, which featured explicit images but not unlawful.

It can now be reported that Adam Johnson was arrested for possessing extreme pornography - bestiality - on his laptop last year.

It can also be reported that Adam Johnson was taking medication used to treat sexually-transmitted infections when he was arrested last year.

He's not a paedophile though. :rolleyes:

He isnt a paedophile though

[Hibbyradge]

Which of the three points above are you inferring makes him a paedophile?

You do realise saying he's not a paedophile is not the same as saying he's done nothing wrong, right?

I'm just surprised anyone thinks it's worth making the pedantic distinction on his behalf.

[Steve-O]

I'm just surprised anyone thinks it's worth making the pedantic distinction on his behalf.

It's not pedantic, it's fact.

I'm surprised that people are prepared to throw a term like "paedophile" around when it's not even true.

I don't care about Adam Johnson one little bit, incidentally.

[blackpoolhibs]

Anyone remember Bill Wyman of the Stones having a relationship with a 15 year old girl who he actually married after she'd become of age.

He was about 50 odd when all this was going on but he was a rock star and classed as ok? :confused:

[johnbc70]

Anyone remember Bill Wyman of the Stones having a relationship with a 15 year old girl who he actually married after she'd become of age.

He was about 50 odd when all this was going on but he was a rock star and classed as ok? :confused:

John Peel married a 15yr old in the 60s.

[Hibbyradge]

It's not pedantic, it's a fact.


The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's quite the opposite. :greengrin

However, here are a couple of facts.

1. The Cambridge dictionary defines Paedophile as someone who is sexually attracted to children.

2.The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier" (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1989). The UK has ratified this convention.

The victim had only just turned 15 when he started to groom her so it's easy to understand why folk think he was sexually attracted to a child. He was.

I'm not going to split hairs about the correct definition for someone like him.

[QUOTE=Steve-O;4630005

I don't care about Adam Johnson one little bit, incidentally.[/QUOTE]

I know.

[Hibbyradge]

Anyone remember Bill Wyman of the Stones having a relationship with a 15 year old girl who he actually married after she'd become of age.

He was about 50 odd when all this was going on but he was a rock star and classed as ok? :confused:

Mandy Smith was 13 when she started going out with Wyman.

That was over 30 years ago and opinions and awareness were a lot different then. Look at all the cases which have come to light in recent years.

I don't think it would be allowed to happen nowadays whether it was a rock star, a DJ, or an England international.

[Steve-O]

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's quite the opposite. :greengrin

However, here are a couple of facts.

1. The Cambridge dictionary defines Paedophile as someone who is sexually attracted to children.

2.The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier" (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1989). The UK has ratified this convention.

The victim had only just turned 15 when he started to groom her so it's easy to understand why folk think he was sexually attracted to a child. He was.

I'm not going to split hairs about the correct definition for someone like him.



I know.

You're wrong. I suggest you do a bit more research into your definition.

[Beefster]

You're wrong. I suggest you do a bit more research into your definition.

He's actually not on the first point at least.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paedophile

Not that it actually matters. Everyone knows that, rightly or wrongly, 'paedophile' has become the commonly-used word to describe a person sexually attracted to children of any age.

[blackpoolhibs]

Mandy Smith was 13 when she started going out with Wyman.

That was over 30 years ago and opinions and awareness were a lot different then. Look at all the cases which have come to light in recent years.

I don't think it would be allowed to happen nowadays whether it was a rock star, a DJ, or an England international.

30 years ago, bloody hell. Yes it was a lot different then, although we seem to be seeing cases of child abuse from that time and before coming to the courts.

I wonder if he will be getting an early morning call anytime soon?

[CropleyWasGod]

30 years ago, bloody hell. Yes it was a lot different then, although we seem to be seeing cases of child abuse from that time and before coming to the courts.

I wonder if he will be getting an early morning call anytime soon?
It would probably need a complaint.

Unless Mandy Smith herself complains, there's probably not a case.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[blackpoolhibs]

It would probably need a complaint.

Unless Mandy Smith herself complains, there's probably not a case.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Aye i suppose. :agree:

[Hibbyradge]

You're wrong. I suggest you do a bit more research into your definition.

Which part of what I wrote is wrong?

[Pete]

So a paedophile is someone who is attracted to children but paedophilia is where you are attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Confusing.

[Steve-O]

He's actually not on the first point at least.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paedophile

Not that it actually matters. Everyone knows that, rightly or wrongly, 'paedophile' has become the commonly-used word to describe a person sexually attracted to children of any age.

I think it does matter. We should be more fearful of those who are actually paedophiles than thicko footballers who have committed a single offence against a 15 year old.

An actual paedophile is almost exclusively interested in children younger than 11 (or 13 depending what you read). Clearly, that's not Johnson since he seemed to be trying to **** anything that moved, 99% of whom were of legal age.

I suspect his crime was more to do with him knowing he could easily take advantage of this girl, rather than him being specifically interested in her because of her age / or because she looked particularly young (which apparently, she didn't).

[stoneyburn hibs]

He's a paedo, no doubt in my eyes. Debate it until there is a blue moon. Adult tries to coerce/abuse child. Hopefully he has a horrible sentence.

[Haymaker]

John Peel married a 15yr old in the 60s.

IIRC he married in the United States in a state where it is/was legal to marry at 15.

Therefore he didn't break any law.

[Scouse Hibee]

I think it does matter. We should be more fearful of those who are actually paedophiles than thicko footballers who have committed a single offence against a 15 year old.

An actual paedophile is almost exclusively interested in children younger than 11 (or 13 depending what you read). Clearly, that's not Johnson since he seemed to be trying to **** anything that moved, 99% of whom were of legal age.

I suspect his crime was more to do with him knowing he could easily take advantage of this girl, rather than him being specifically interested in her because of her age / or because she looked particularly young (which apparently, she didn't).

At one time they have all committed a single offence,they move on and commit more,I think we should be fearful of everyone that commits an offence against a child and label them accordingly.

[Steve-O]

At one time they have all committed a single offence,they move on and commit more,I think we should be fearful of everyone that commits an offence against a child and label them accordingly.

All those who have committed multiple offences have previously started somewhere, but not all first time offenders go on to commit more. Not many do, despite the perception out there. I'd be very surprised if Johnson offended in this way again.

I'd be less surprised if he was found to be cheating on his partner though.