• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Adam Johnson Arrested

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Joe Clash said:
He doesn't get off because he's pleaded guilty to the first two charges. He's going down - and if found guilty of the other two charges - for a lot longer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, but he gets credit for the guilty plea Joe. That charge is not a serious as the other two. He has not admitted to knowingly having sex with an underage girl.
He's pleaded guilty to knowing she was, chatting her up/grooming her, meeting her but only touching her sexually and kissing.
No doubt his mitigating circumstances will be it was a big mistake, strain here or there, did wrong but only went so far because he had a sudden realisation of his wrongdoing and couldn't go through with it. Stacey an Family are standing by me. Character witness blah, blah, blah. Even his club are standing by him, letting him play football.
But I never had full sex with her.

What he's pleading guilty to, clothed sexual activity ( if it was her clothed genitalia he groped) carries a starting point of 12 month custody and a range of sentencing from 26 week to 4yrs.
If it was contact of any other part and not her genitalia it's a community order/ an appropriate non custodial sentence.
Sexual activity with a child that involves Penile/any other body part/ object penetration of the anas, mouth or vagina carries a starting point of 4 yrs and a range of sentencing between 3-7 yrs.
Is that harsh enough?
That starting point will probably never be realised in certain cases, especially for first offenders with PGC. Guilty pleas and mitigation. The maximum will probably only be dished out to repeat offenders.




Guidelines also take into consideration if the child consents to sex, when the offender is also young, but leave it open to the judge to give the benefit when sentencing adults.


However, there are plenty of precedents in regard to sentencing:
R v Davies [2005] EWCA Crim 1363 - D aged 19 (extensive record none for sexual offences) pleaded guilty to penetrative sexual activity with a 13 year old girl. D met the girl who was in drink and consensual sex took place. The defendant was sentenced on the basis he believed the girl to be 15 and she initiated sexual activity. Against this judge noted she was in drink and sex was unprotected. Held 16 months YOI too high reduced to 9 months.
R v Held [2006] EWCA Crim 2174 12 months upheld for a 41 year old woman who admitted forming a relationship with a 14 year old girl. Guilty plea on basis of kissing her breasts and partially penetrating her vagina.
R v Davies [2005] EWCA Crim 1363 - D aged 19 (extensive record none for sexual offences) pleaded guilty to penetrative sexual activity with a 13 year old girl. D met the girl who was in drink and consensual sex took place. The defendant was sentenced on the basis he believed the girl to be 15 and she initiated sexual activity. Against this judge noted she was in drink and sex was unprotected. Held 16 months YOI too high reduced to 9 months.
R v Lister [2005] EWCA Crim 1903 - D was a 31 year old teacher who formed a relationship with a 15 year old female pupil which involved embracing and kissing. Held 18 months imprisonment with a 2 year extended period was too long. Reduced to nine months and a 2 year extension period.
R v Sturt [2009] EWCA Crim 77 D 64 no previous convictions guilty plea to sexual activity with a 12 year old boy who he was teaching golf. When victim became distressed D apologised and gave him his phone so he could ring his parents. The Court of Appeal balanced the aggravating features of breach of trust and an element of grooming against the fact D used no force, did not press his attention, apologised, appreciated the victims distress and helped him to ring his parents. 3 years reduced to 18 months.
 
DeeGee said:
No, but he gets credit for the guilty plea Joe. That charge is not a serious as the other two. He has not admitted to knowingly having sex with an underage girl.
He's pleaded guilty to knowing she was, chatting her up/grooming her, meeting her but only touching her sexually and kissing.
No doubt his mitigating circumstances will be it was a big mistake, strain here or there, did wrong but only went so far because he had a sudden realisation of his wrongdoing and couldn't go through with it. Stacey an Family are standing by me. Character witness blah, blah, blah. Even his club are standing by him, letting him play football.
But I never had full sex with her.

What he's pleading guilty to, clothed sexual activity ( if it was her clothed genitalia he groped) carries a starting point of 12 month custody and a range of sentencing from 26 week to 4yrs.
If it was contact of any other part and not her genitalia it's a community order/ an appropriate non custodial sentence.

Guidelines also take into consideration if the child consents to sex, when the offender is also young, but leave it open to the judge to give the benefit when sentencing adults.


However, there are plenty of precedents in regard to sentencing:
R v Davies [2005] EWCA Crim 1363 - D aged 19 (extensive record none for sexual offences) pleaded guilty to penetrative sexual activity with a 13 year old girl. D met the girl who was in drink and consensual sex took place. The defendant was sentenced on the basis he believed the girl to be 15 and she initiated sexual activity. Against this judge noted she was in drink and sex was unprotected. Held 16 months YOI too high reduced to 9 months.
R v Held [2006] EWCA Crim 2174 12 months upheld for a 41 year old woman who admitted forming a relationship with a 14 year old girl. Guilty plea on basis of kissing her breasts and partially penetrating her vagina.
R v Davies [2005] EWCA Crim 1363 - D aged 19 (extensive record none for sexual offences) pleaded guilty to penetrative sexual activity with a 13 year old girl. D met the girl who was in drink and consensual sex took place. The defendant was sentenced on the basis he believed the girl to be 15 and she initiated sexual activity. Against this judge noted she was in drink and sex was unprotected. Held 16 months YOI too high reduced to 9 months.
R v Lister [2005] EWCA Crim 1903 - D was a 31 year old teacher who formed a relationship with a 15 year old female pupil which involved embracing and kissing. Held 18 months imprisonment with a 2 year extended period was too long. Reduced to nine months and a 2 year extension period.
R v Sturt [2009] EWCA Crim 77 D 64 no previous convictions guilty plea to sexual activity with a 12 year old boy who he was teaching golf. When victim became distressed D apologised and gave him his phone so he could ring his parents. The Court of Appeal balanced the aggravating features of breach of trust and an element of grooming against the fact D used no force, did not press his attention, apologised, appreciated the victims distress and helped him to ring his parents. 3 years reduced to 18 months.


Sexual activity with a child that involves Penile/any other body part/ object penetration of the anas, mouth or vagina carries a starting point of 4 yrs and a range of sentencing between 3-7 yrs.





Is that harsh enough?
That starting point will probably never be realised in certain cases, especially for first offenders with PGC. Guilty pleas and mitigation. The maximum will probably only be dished out to repeat offenders.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I hope the jury will have the intelligence to understand the 'plea bargain' for want of a better phrase, is just that. Millionaire footballer v 15 year old girl In a Bradford court? This will not go well for him. A layman's opinion only.
 
He also got a bit of rusty nail, unconditional, and continue as normal for Sunderland.
After his solicitor informed everyone at Petrelee Magistrates that Adam intends to plead not guilty to all four offences.
That includes getting court dates moved about for his convenience.
 
Joe Clash said:
I hope the jury will have the intelligence to understand the 'plea bargain' for want of a better phrase, is just that. Millionaire footballer v 15 year old girl In a Bradford court? This will not go well for him. A layman's opinion only.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I understand Joe.
However, guilty pleas are always rewarded with less sentence. It's not law, and is up to the judge's discretion. Yet it's invariably somewhere in the region of a third off.
I have never known a judge not to give someone benefit for pleading guilty off of the bat.

However Adam did not plead guilty at the first opportunity so may be in line for just a quarter off.

It can go to as low as a tenth if you plead guilty after the trial has begun.

Btw. Taking advantage of a fan, sexually, who was underage should be enough for the club to sack him don't you think?
Despite the outcome of the trial after what he's now admitted to. He has used his position as a SAFC employee to gratify his sexual urges.
 
DeeGee said:
I understand Joe.
However, guilty pleas are always rewarded with less sentence. It's not law, and is up to the judge's discretion. Yet it's invariably somewhere in the region of a third off.
I have never known a judge not to give someone benefit for pleading guilty off of the bat.

However Adam did not plead guilty at the first opportunity so may be in line for just a quarter off.

It can go to as low as a tenth if you plead guilty after the trial has begun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I get that, but if he's found guilty of the other two charges, then the guilty plea for the first two won't matter - it will be seen as a cynical ruse. He's on trial for the latter charges.
 
Last edited:
1.png


oh Adam...
 
koppel said:
What was he thinking........
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

.....that he was some kind God amongst men, and he could do whatever, he wanted to without running into trouble. There's nice guys, cunts, in-betweens and outright sickos both among us non-Gods and footballers. The cunts and sickos who take home tens of thousands a week and have tens of thousands of people chanting their names every week, will inevitably become even bigger and more dangerous cunts and/or sickos.

This is a level up, but the process is imho the same as Giggs shagging his brother's wife and Terry doing his best friend's fiance (or whatever it was), and - seemingly - feeling no real remorse.
 
Joe Clash said:
I get that, but if he's found guilty for the other two charges, then the guilty plea for the first two won't matter - it will be seen as a cynical ruse. He's on trial for the latter charges.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hopefully Joe if he's found guilty then the reduction for the guilty plea will be irrelevant. Especially after making the victim testify.
Forgive me for being sceptical though. It's usually the case. Glitter only got 16 yrs for Att rape, 4 indecent assaults and sex with a 13 yr old. After pleading not guilty.

Despite having previous custodial sentences for sex with 11 & 12 yr olds.

I think the very, very most Johnson will get, if found guilty of the other 2 charges, is 4yrs ( which he will serve 2)
Yet I doubt he would even get that.
I have heard of cases involving vulnerable girls of the same age by men in their 20's who were cleared of the charge of rape but found guilty of sexual activity of a child , with violence involved , and were only sentenced to between 2 and 3yrs.
Hopefully my faith in the judicial system is restored and I am proved wrong.
 
Whats really odd about this looking through the adam johnson tag on twitter is the number of people willing to defend him. And they're not Sunderland fans.

There's a go of people still thinking "he meet her in a nightclub and how could he know".
He didn't meet her in a club.

Then there's the idiots with the "this is a photo of the girl" "how could you blame him, no way she looked 15".
The photo linked is either Stacey Flounders his girlfriend and idiots getting the wrong end of the stick. Or some some random girl in a tight dress that an reverse image search shows is an american instagram model.

So because of twitter there is weird undercurrent of sympathy for the guy.
 
DeeGee said:
No, but he gets credit for the guilty plea Joe. That charge is not a serious as the other two. He has not admitted to knowingly having sex with an underage girl.
He's pleaded guilty to knowing she was, chatting her up/grooming her, meeting her but only touching her sexually and kissing.
No doubt his mitigating circumstances will be it was a big mistake, strain here or there, did wrong but only went so far because he had a sudden realisation of his wrongdoing and couldn't go through with it. Stacey an Family are standing by me. Character witness blah, blah, blah. Even his club are standing by him, letting him play football.
But I never had full sex with her.

What he's pleading guilty to, clothed sexual activity ( if it was her clothed genitalia he groped) carries a starting point of 12 month custody and a range of sentencing from 26 week to 4yrs.
If it was contact of any other part and not her genitalia it's a community order/ an appropriate non custodial sentence.
Sexual activity with a child that involves Penile/any other body part/ object penetration of the anas, mouth or vagina carries a starting point of 4 yrs and a range of sentencing between 3-7 yrs.
Is that harsh enough?
That starting point will probably never be realised in certain cases, especially for first offenders with PGC. Guilty pleas and mitigation. The maximum will probably only be dished out to repeat offenders.




Guidelines also take into consideration if the child consents to sex, when the offender is also young, but leave it open to the judge to give the benefit when sentencing adults.


However, there are plenty of precedents in regard to sentencing:
R v Davies [2005] EWCA Crim 1363 - D aged 19 (extensive record none for sexual offences) pleaded guilty to penetrative sexual activity with a 13 year old girl. D met the girl who was in drink and consensual sex took place. The defendant was sentenced on the basis he believed the girl to be 15 and she initiated sexual activity. Against this judge noted she was in drink and sex was unprotected. Held 16 months YOI too high reduced to 9 months.
R v Held [2006] EWCA Crim 2174 12 months upheld for a 41 year old woman who admitted forming a relationship with a 14 year old girl. Guilty plea on basis of kissing her breasts and partially penetrating her vagina.
R v Davies [2005] EWCA Crim 1363 - D aged 19 (extensive record none for sexual offences) pleaded guilty to penetrative sexual activity with a 13 year old girl. D met the girl who was in drink and consensual sex took place. The defendant was sentenced on the basis he believed the girl to be 15 and she initiated sexual activity. Against this judge noted she was in drink and sex was unprotected. Held 16 months YOI too high reduced to 9 months.
R v Lister [2005] EWCA Crim 1903 - D was a 31 year old teacher who formed a relationship with a 15 year old female pupil which involved embracing and kissing. Held 18 months imprisonment with a 2 year extended period was too long. Reduced to nine months and a 2 year extension period.
R v Sturt [2009] EWCA Crim 77 D 64 no previous convictions guilty plea to sexual activity with a 12 year old boy who he was teaching golf. When victim became distressed D apologised and gave him his phone so he could ring his parents. The Court of Appeal balanced the aggravating features of breach of trust and an element of grooming against the fact D used no force, did not press his attention, apologised, appreciated the victims distress and helped him to ring his parents. 3 years reduced to 18 months.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What kind of system are you running?

Just because a girl initiates sex doesn't discount the fact she's underage. A 13 year old? Don't tell me you can't tell a 13 year old is not of age. The teacher and the golf instructor cases are blasphemous. A 12 year old boy? What the fuck kind of bullshit show are your courts running?
 
therealITK said:
What kind of system are you running?

Just because a girl initiates sex doesn't discount the fact she's underage. A 13 year old? Don't tell me you can't tell a 13 year old is not of age. The teacher and the golf instructor cases are blasphemous. A 12 year old boy? What the fuck kind of bullshit show are your courts running?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seriously? I'm not sure how to argue, because I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Surely you agree that if he groomed some young girl, then did WHATEVER with her, he's a sick fucker.
 
DeeGee said:
No, but he gets credit for the guilty plea Joe. That charge is not a serious as the other two. He has not admitted to knowingly having sex with an underage girl.
He's pleaded guilty to knowing she was, chatting her up/grooming her, meeting her but only touching her sexually and kissing.
No doubt his mitigating circumstances will be it was a big mistake, strain here or there, did wrong but only went so far because he had a sudden realisation of his wrongdoing and couldn't go through with it. Stacey an Family are standing by me. Character witness blah, blah, blah. Even his club are standing by him, letting him play football.
But I never had full sex with her.

What he's pleading guilty to, clothed sexual activity ( if it was her clothed genitalia he groped) carries a starting point of 12 month custody and a range of sentencing from 26 week to 4yrs.
If it was contact of any other part and not her genitalia it's a community order/ an appropriate non custodial sentence.
Sexual activity with a child that involves Penile/any other body part/ object penetration of the anas, mouth or vagina carries a starting point of 4 yrs and a range of sentencing between 3-7 yrs.
Is that harsh enough?
That starting point will probably never be realised in certain cases, especially for first offenders with PGC. Guilty pleas and mitigation. The maximum will probably only be dished out to repeat offenders.




Guidelines also take into consideration if the child consents to sex, when the offender is also young, but leave it open to the judge to give the benefit when sentencing adults.


However, there are plenty of precedents in regard to sentencing:
R v Davies [2005] EWCA Crim 1363 - D aged 19 (extensive record none for sexual offences) pleaded guilty to penetrative sexual activity with a 13 year old girl. D met the girl who was in drink and consensual sex took place. The defendant was sentenced on the basis he believed the girl to be 15 and she initiated sexual activity. Against this judge noted she was in drink and sex was unprotected. Held 16 months YOI too high reduced to 9 months.
R v Held [2006] EWCA Crim 2174 12 months upheld for a 41 year old woman who admitted forming a relationship with a 14 year old girl. Guilty plea on basis of kissing her breasts and partially penetrating her vagina.
R v Davies [2005] EWCA Crim 1363 - D aged 19 (extensive record none for sexual offences) pleaded guilty to penetrative sexual activity with a 13 year old girl. D met the girl who was in drink and consensual sex took place. The defendant was sentenced on the basis he believed the girl to be 15 and she initiated sexual activity. Against this judge noted she was in drink and sex was unprotected. Held 16 months YOI too high reduced to 9 months.
R v Lister [2005] EWCA Crim 1903 - D was a 31 year old teacher who formed a relationship with a 15 year old female pupil which involved embracing and kissing. Held 18 months imprisonment with a 2 year extended period was too long. Reduced to nine months and a 2 year extension period.
R v Sturt [2009] EWCA Crim 77 D 64 no previous convictions guilty plea to sexual activity with a 12 year old boy who he was teaching golf. When victim became distressed D apologised and gave him his phone so he could ring his parents. The Court of Appeal balanced the aggravating features of breach of trust and an element of grooming against the fact D used no force, did not press his attention, apologised, appreciated the victims distress and helped him to ring his parents. 3 years reduced to 18 months.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
All these cases predate Saville.
The media attention on child abuse cases is such that the Judiciary are imposing far more severe sentences (& rightly so) for them, particularly those where there has been grooming beforehand-the act itself has been prepared & built up to over a period of time in most cases-usually via social media/internet.

It will ultimately depend on the gory details of the actual sexual contact & whether he is convicted of the offences he denies, but it remains child abuse where he has groomed his victim & likely abused his fame & fortune to achieve this.

I agree with the general principle that acquisitive crime has historically been treated far more seriously than offences of violence or abuse, but I think you'll find that there is a groundswell of public disgust at these offences & their perpetrators that the Judiciary are responding to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top