Det Insp Aelfwynn Sampson from Durham Police, the lead investigator of the case, said she met Sunderland chief executive Margaret Byrne on 2 March 2015. She told BBC News: "They were given detail that he had met the girl and sexual activity had taken place." She said the club was also told he had exchanged messages with the girl.
Det Insp Sampson had told Adam Johnson's trial she had met Ms Byrne to outline the case.
The Sunderland Echo reported the officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed as Johnson had not been interviewed.
My understanding is that the police have to abide by the same provisions as anyone else. And, to a certain extent more so, when considering whether or not to disclose confidential information regarding an on-going investigation.
I'm having trouble understanding what and why a serving police officer is doing promulgating this information to the Club? Unless, there were some grounds for believing that they might have relevant information that would assist the evidence gathering and therefore needed to be aware of the background to the matter.
But, as it appears they had not yet interviewed Johnson, let alone charged him at that time, I am having trouble understanding quite what they were doing and why.
Outside of the courtroom and, as the trial approached its third week, he commented to a friend: ‘I hope this is finished by Friday. It’s a bit boring now’.
One has to wonder whether he really is so monumentally thick that he failed to understand what the consequences of a guilty verdict would be or if he genuinely believed he would get away with it/was not guilty.
Are you suggesting a footballer, that has more money than he could ever spend, could be deluded ?
You'd have thought by the 3rd week of the trial it might have sunk in that this wasn't something trivial that would just go away.
Det Insp Aelfwynn Sampson from Durham Police, the lead investigator of the case, said she met Sunderland chief executive Margaret Byrne on 2 March 2015. She told BBC News: "They were given detail that he had met the girl and sexual activity had taken place." She said the club was also told he had exchanged messages with the girl.
Det Insp Sampson had told Adam Johnson's trial she had met Ms Byrne to outline the case.
The Sunderland Echo reported the officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed as Johnson had not been interviewed.
My understanding is that the police have to abide by the same provisions as anyone else. And, to a certain extent more so, when considering whether or not to disclose confidential information regarding an on-going investigation.
I'm having trouble understanding what and why a serving police officer is doing promulgating this information to the Club? Unless, there were some grounds for believing that they might have relevant information that would assist the evidence gathering and therefore needed to be aware of the background to the matter.
But, as it appears they had not yet interviewed Johnson, let alone charged him at that time, I am having trouble understanding quite what they were doing and why.
Maybe something to do with him being around children at Sunderland, they may have had a duty to make the club aware of the situation, just guessing
Adam Johnson pleading guilty to child sex offences was a "massive shock" for Sunderland manager Sam Allardyce.
The footballer, 28, has been told he faces jail after being found guilty of sexual activity with a girl aged 15.
He was playing for Sunderland until the start of his trial but was sacked after changing his pleas and admitting to two charges on the first day.
"It was a massive shock," said Allardyce. "Justice has been done, he's let everybody down."
He added: "This is a big shock to everyone and also a reminder to everybody to make sure that you don't put yourself in that position or situation."
Johnson had denied all four charges he faced up until the start of his trial.
After admitting to two charges - one of grooming and one of sexual activity - he was found guilty of sexual touching, but not guilty on a charge relating to another sexual act.
"I was sat at home when it came on the news and I just was gobsmacked because as far as we were concerned, it was his intention to plead not guilty on all charges," Allardyce added.
"That is why we continued to let him train and play for us."
However, the trial at Bradford Crown Court heard evidence that the club's chief executive, Margaret Byrne, met Johnson and his barrister in May 2015 when he accepted he had kissed the girl and exchanged messages with her.
The jury was told that, before the case came to court, club bosses had seen all the 834 WhatsApp messages the pair sent to each other, along with transcripts of police interviews.
Sunderland yesterday denied they "knew all along that Mr Johnson was intending to change his plea just before trial to enable him to continue to play football for the club".
If by that he means the girl, then a 15 year old girl should be able to feel safe with a 27 year old man. So he can fuck off.
If (and I'm assuming this to be the case) he's referring to that nonce then why should a reasonable, mature 27 year old be concerned about being in the company of a 15 year old? If he believes it to be a temptation then he's a nonce whether or not he actually does anything. Or Allardyce is referring to 'avoid being trapped'. Either way he can doubly fuck off.
Had a bad day?
He's a football manager, you know the group that have whole books filled with their silly quotes. To have such an aggressive pop at a bloke that, probably left school at 16 without any 'O' Levels, because he says the first thing that comes into his head is a little harsh in my view.
No not a particularly bad day - just that some things rile me more than others.
One of the things that riles me most is the lack of a moral compass within many elements of professional football. That has nothing to do with education and more to do with many people in football believing they are above the law - 'we do things differently in football' is a saying I hear very often, to which I always reply 'not on my watch you don't'.
I deal with it most days and also with the PFA and the LMA. Allardyce's comments don't surprise me because they are symptomatic of the professional football culture - but that doesn't stop me being appalled by it. A 'little harsh' - on that we differ.
My point was that you don't know what he was thinking. You made two assumptions on what he might have meant based on what he said. Probably, as the manager of Sunderland, he had to say something on the subject. To assume that his comments meant what you put forward is what I think is harsh on him.
I suspect that he didn't think about what he was going to say but I'm confident that there is no automatic training as a footballer or a manager on how to field questions about one of your colleagues being found guilty of a sexual act on a child. Let's also remember that media trained professionals sometimes say the wrong thing by accident.
For all we know this comment:
"This is a big shock to everyone and also a reminder to everybody to make sure that you don't put yourself in that position or situation."
Could have been in relation to Johnson lying to the club and then, when admitting his guilt, leaving them exposed as not treating it seriously enough.
I agree that if he had said, specifically, what you assumed he was wrong, but it was, in my view, harsh of you to 'put those words in his mouth' and then say he can "f**k off" and then he can "doubly f**k off".
What Johnson has done is exceptionally stupid by letting himself take advantage of this girl. At the end of the day nobody can stop him from feeling attracted to her but he should never have pursude it. He should have just signed her shirt if she wanted something signed and that is it. If she gave him a peck on the cheek following the the signed shirt fine. But anything more not. But that said he asked her for a thank you kiss. But I think as much as Johnson has been stupid she too has been a bit niave and misguided. Why did she let herself get into this situation n the first place? She should have said no to anything amerous.
A young girl being naive and stupid with an older idol, who'd have thought it? Situation is 100% his making and his fault and any attempt to lay any blame on her is frankly pathetic.
My comments have been slightly misinterpreted. I am not blaming the girl. She is 15 and both girls and boys can still be immerture at that age. Not their fault. Youngsters always develop at their own speed. Johnson has been an idiot taking taking head on advantage of her age. She was clearly star struck and didn't know what to do.
I am sorry if my comments appear to offend but they are certainly not meant to.
"But I think as much as Johnson has been stupid she too has been a bit niave and misguided. Why did she let herself get into this situation n the first place?"
If that's not victim blaming I don't know what is. Stuff like this - and it all adds up - has the potential to perpetuate a culture in which "she was asking for it" or what have you. Which is not on.
She wasn't being nieve at all. She was being a child. That's why adults look to protect children. They are not experienced enough or worldly wise enough to make the right decisions despite what their hormones are doing and telling them. He used that situation to his own calculated adult ends.
I think we agree - the quote about naivete there isn't from me, but what I'd highlighted from a previous post.
Johnson took advantage of an underage girl which is sickening.
Forget about what the manager has said. This quote from Gavin Henderson sums it up perfectly.
Gavin Henderson, 24, Roker Report Writer Whether Sunderland know more than they’ve let on remains subjective. What we do know is that Johnson knew exactly what he had done but continued to represent Sunderland. For me, beyond the crimes committed upon a young girl and the impact it has had on two families, that is the most damning, saddening and sickening aspect of this sorry mess. As a Sunderland supporter, it embarrasses me that someone representing the club who I love has done what Johnson has done. He acted without considering anyone but himself, and for that I hope proper justice will be served. He is a vile human being who deserves everything he has coming to him.
Gavin Henderson can fuck off.
Sunderland AFC are not a victim in this, regardless of what they knew or didn't know.
I guess this is an improvement on Sheffield United fans intimidating a victim online, but football fans really need to grow up.
I know of a case of a professional footballer who was being "stalked" by a young formal fan. She had already got his autograph and was turning up at the training ground to get his attention. She then turned up on his doorstep asking for an autograph. NLA will be pleased to know Kevin politely told her no and it wasn't appropriate for her to call at his house (his wife wasn't too happy either). Next thing is a complaint to the club's manager from her mother about the way her daughter had been terribly upset and distressed by this arrogant footballer just for asking for an autograph.
Footballers will be tempted all the time, if their brains are mainly in their trousers they will pay the consequences and the conduct of the girl, her sexual experiences and even parental attitude are irrelevant, the adult footballer has no choice in the matter but to do the right thing.
Johnson made the wrong choice and pays the price, end of. Not sure what the debate is about.
Wanna hear a love story NLA. I first met my wife when she was 16 years and 11 months, not that i knew when i asked her out after chatting her up at the Harrow Inn, she was well fit and could have been 19 for all I knew. She had been working since she left school at 15 and was a secretary in the City. I was 18 and just out of school. We arranged a date for the following Friday. She was kept in late by her boss to do an urgent letter and I thought I had been stood up and went home so never got to know her then. We met accidentally a year later she was 18 and I was 20. Married a few years later and celebrate our 44th wedding anniversary today.
i would like to think what you really mean is that it's not healthy for an adult male to seek a relationship with a 16 year old because he lacked the capacity to form a relationship with a mature female and needed to exploit a vulnerable 16 year old.
Please forgive me, because it wouldn't have made any difference to me if we had hitched up on that first date and i found out she was only 16. She was neither vulnerable nor incapable of looking after her own valuables.
I'm afraid your concept of being a "child" between 16 and 18 would have been bizarre. The 60s were about throwing off the idea that you suddenly became like your parents at 18. We were all children determined not to become adults and turn into our parents at 18.
If a girl had been vulnerable at 16, or still at school perhaps, i doubt she would have been out and about and would have been under more parental control than today. If such girls were on your radar then yes i agree with your sentiment, but you can't just apply an age criteria without vulnerability linked to maturity and independence being part of the judgement.
I have three "children" all daughters, i've had run ins with boyfriends when they were in their twenties, nothing magic happens at 18 that stops knob heads trying to prey on your daughters when they are adults.
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
'digital penetration' was the main thing I believe.
If it was that VG, why did he plead not guilty to the second sexual activity count of which he was found guilty which was putting his hands down her pants? Unless I am being very naive here and "digital penetration" was accepted as being achieved without putting his hands inside her pants which he denied?
I think from what I've read, the four charges are: Grooming: Johnson pleaded guilty; Kissing: Johnson pleaded guilty; Touching/digital penetration/fingering: Johnson denied it but is found guilty; Oral sex: Johnson denied it and is found not guilty.
That's what I have read but "kissing" (mouth to mouth) is not sexual activity (as defined in law) - so what did he actually do?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
Sorry guys with respect you may have missed the point. He pleaded guilty (and therefore there was no prosecution or defence made) to an act of sexual activity with a child under 16.
He was then found guilty of a second act (which was reported as putting as putting his hand inside her pants) and not guilty of a third act (which was reported as her giving him oral sex). What I am trying to establish is what was the sexual activity to which he pleaded guilty? The press have reported it as kissing but kissing is not a sexual activity (as defined in Law) unless it involves penetration of the victims body other than her mouth. So what did he do?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
'digital penetration' was the main thing I believe.
If it was that VG, why did he plead not guilty to the second sexual activity count of which he was found guilty which was putting his hands down her pants? Unless I am being very naive here and "digital penetration" was accepted as being achieved without putting his hands inside her pants which he denied?
I think from what I've read, the four charges are: Grooming: Johnson pleaded guilty; Kissing: Johnson pleaded guilty; Touching/digital penetration/fingering: Johnson denied it but is found guilty; Oral sex: Johnson denied it and is found not guilty.
That's what I have read but "kissing" (mouth to mouth) is not sexual activity (as defined in law) - so what did he actually do?
Don't think you're getting an answer, give it up mate...
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
'digital penetration' was the main thing I believe.
If it was that VG, why did he plead not guilty to the second sexual activity count of which he was found guilty which was putting his hands down her pants? Unless I am being very naive here and "digital penetration" was accepted as being achieved without putting his hands inside her pants which he denied?
I think from what I've read, the four charges are: Grooming: Johnson pleaded guilty; Kissing: Johnson pleaded guilty; Touching/digital penetration/fingering: Johnson denied it but is found guilty; Oral sex: Johnson denied it and is found not guilty.
That's what I have read but "kissing" (mouth to mouth) is not sexual activity (as defined in law) - so what did he actually do?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
Sorry guys with respect you may have missed the point. He pleaded guilty (and therefore there was no prosecution or defence made) to an act of sexual activity with a child under 16.
He was then found guilty of a second act (which was reported as putting as putting his hand inside her pants) and not guilty of a third act (which was reported as her giving him oral sex). What I am trying to establish is what was the sexual activity to which he pleaded guilty? The press have reported it as kissing but kissing is not a sexual activity (as defined in Law) unless it involves penetration of the victims body other than her mouth. So what did he do?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
'digital penetration' was the main thing I believe.
If it was that VG, why did he plead not guilty to the second sexual activity count of which he was found guilty which was putting his hands down her pants? Unless I am being very naive here and "digital penetration" was accepted as being achieved without putting his hands inside her pants which he denied?
I think from what I've read, the four charges are: Grooming: Johnson pleaded guilty; Kissing: Johnson pleaded guilty; Touching/digital penetration/fingering: Johnson denied it but is found guilty; Oral sex: Johnson denied it and is found not guilty.
That's what I have read but "kissing" (mouth to mouth) is not sexual activity (as defined in law) - so what did he actually do?
Don't think you're getting an answer, give it up mate...
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
Those are good points you make and this particular case is screaming out for the grey areas to be black and white.
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
Those are good points you make and this particular case is screaming out for the grey areas to be black and white.
Everyone sees things differently morally but the law has to draw a line somewhere. The line in black and white is 16. Whether that be a day before her 16th birthday or whatever.
Is this not the reason why we have judges, to assess the serious of the crime once committed to pass down a sentence?
I don't care if she was "naive" "leading him on" "misguided" or had the body of Abi Titmuss, she was 15, he knew this and should have run a mile, end of argument, black & white, wrong un.
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
Yes, they are a blunt tool. But there has to be a dividing line somewhere. In the same way that doing 69mph is legal on the motorway but doing 71mph isn't. Humans, like cheese, mature at different ages. Some 15 year olds are very mature some 21 year olds aren't. What do you do? In Europe alone, the age of consent varies between 14 (eg Germany, Italy) through to 18 (eg Malta, Vatican City). Until recently it was 13 in Spain. Unless all adolescents are made to have some form of test with a Psychologist to ascertain whether they are old enough to have sex, and then get a sex licence, much the same as one gets a driving licence, then what would tinkering around with the age of consent actually achieve? That, in itself, would be a blunt tool. 16 seems about right to me. You can get married, join the Army or ride a moped. It would be odd if you couldn't legally have sex too. You have to look at how one piece of legislation fits in with others. But here's the other odd thing : a couple of 16 year olds can get married (without parental consent in Scotland) but as minors they could not sign a contract to buy or rent a house.
Now, if only some two thousand years ago there had been an adequate law to prevent some dodgy old carpenter from slipping a length to a 12 year old village girl in Nazareth and then think up a cunning plan to hide the fact, the world might be a better place.....
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
Sorry guys with respect you may have missed the point. He pleaded guilty (and therefore there was no prosecution or defence made) to an act of sexual activity with a child under 16.
He was then found guilty of a second act (which was reported as putting as putting his hand inside her pants) and not guilty of a third act (which was reported as her giving him oral sex). What I am trying to establish is what was the sexual activity to which he pleaded guilty? The press have reported it as kissing but kissing is not a sexual activity (as defined in Law) unless it involves penetration of the victims body other than her mouth. So what did he do?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
'digital penetration' was the main thing I believe.
If it was that VG, why did he plead not guilty to the second sexual activity count of which he was found guilty which was putting his hands down her pants? Unless I am being very naive here and "digital penetration" was accepted as being achieved without putting his hands inside her pants which he denied?
I think from what I've read, the four charges are: Grooming: Johnson pleaded guilty; Kissing: Johnson pleaded guilty; Touching/digital penetration/fingering: Johnson denied it but is found guilty; Oral sex: Johnson denied it and is found not guilty.
That's what I have read but "kissing" (mouth to mouth) is not sexual activity (as defined in law) - so what did he actually do?
Don't think you're getting an answer, give it up mate...
A bit creepy constantly asking this. You don't need to know.
Det Insp Aelfwynn Sampson from Durham Police, the lead investigator of the case, said she met Sunderland chief executive Margaret Byrne on 2 March 2015. She told BBC News: "They were given detail that he had met the girl and sexual activity had taken place." She said the club was also told he had exchanged messages with the girl.
Det Insp Sampson had told Adam Johnson's trial she had met Ms Byrne to outline the case.
The Sunderland Echo reported the officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed as Johnson had not been interviewed.
My understanding is that the police have to abide by the same provisions as anyone else. And, to a certain extent more so, when considering whether or not to disclose confidential information regarding an on-going investigation.
I'm having trouble understanding what and why a serving police officer is doing promulgating this information to the Club? Unless, there were some grounds for believing that they might have relevant information that would assist the evidence gathering and therefore needed to be aware of the background to the matter.
But, as it appears they had not yet interviewed Johnson, let alone charged him at that time, I am having trouble understanding quite what they were doing and why.
Maybe something to do with him being around children at Sunderland, they may have had a duty to make the club aware of the situation, just guessing
You're probably right. You can disclose information if it is to assist in investigating a crime or to prevent one. But it seems a little tenuous to me.
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
Yes, they are a blunt tool. But there has to be a dividing line somewhere. In the same way that doing 69mph is legal on the motorway but doing 71mph isn't. Humans, like cheese, mature at different ages. Some 15 year olds are very mature some 21 year olds aren't. What do you do? In Europe alone, the age of consent varies between 14 (eg Germany, Italy) through to 18 (eg Malta, Vatican City). Until recently it was 13 in Spain. Unless all adolescents are made to have some form of test with a Psychologist to ascertain whether they are old enough to have sex, and then get a sex licence, much the same as one gets a driving licence, then what would tinkering around with the age of consent actually achieve? That, in itself, would be a blunt tool. 16 seems about right to me. You can get married, join the Army or ride a moped. It would be odd if you couldn't legally have sex too. You have to look at how one piece of legislation fits in with others. But here's the other odd thing : a couple of 16 year olds can get married (without parental consent in Scotland) but as minors they could not sign a contract to buy or rent a house.
Now, if only some two thousand years ago there had been an adequate law to prevent some dodgy old carpenter from slipping a length to a 12 year old village girl in Nazareth and then think up a cunning plan to hide the fact, the world might be a better place.....
Correctly if I'm wrong but doesn't one get a driving licence by having a practical test of one's ability to drive in various situations with an examiner? What about all those poor young men that fail the test for first twenty times and keep having to take it again?
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
I totally agree with what you say, for instance a 16 yr old is deemed old enough to have intercourse and the possibility of having a baby and bringing a child into the world but is deemed not old enough to drive a car or drink alcohol in a pub which to me is ridiculous, how can you be responsible enough to start a life but too immature to handle a car or your drink. I think personally the whole area needs looking at and brought into line with one age you are ok for everything.
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
Sorry guys with respect you may have missed the point. He pleaded guilty (and therefore there was no prosecution or defence made) to an act of sexual activity with a child under 16.
He was then found guilty of a second act (which was reported as putting as putting his hand inside her pants) and not guilty of a third act (which was reported as her giving him oral sex). What I am trying to establish is what was the sexual activity to which he pleaded guilty? The press have reported it as kissing but kissing is not a sexual activity (as defined in Law) unless it involves penetration of the victims body other than her mouth. So what did he do?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
'digital penetration' was the main thing I believe.
If it was that VG, why did he plead not guilty to the second sexual activity count of which he was found guilty which was putting his hands down her pants? Unless I am being very naive here and "digital penetration" was accepted as being achieved without putting his hands inside her pants which he denied?
I think from what I've read, the four charges are: Grooming: Johnson pleaded guilty; Kissing: Johnson pleaded guilty; Touching/digital penetration/fingering: Johnson denied it but is found guilty; Oral sex: Johnson denied it and is found not guilty.
That's what I have read but "kissing" (mouth to mouth) is not sexual activity (as defined in law) - so what did he actually do?
Don't think you're getting an answer, give it up mate...
A bit creepy constantly asking this. You don't need to know.
Why is he creepy? It's a question that doesn't make sense that no one could give an answer to. This thread has run for 19 pages because people are interested in the trial. Maybe we should tear it down and start again:
"Adam Johnson Court Case Page 1: You don't need to know, stop being so creepy."
I would lower the age of consent for similar aged people to around 15 as it isn't helpful to make victims and villains of young people. But also say, for any below 18, a relationship with a person X years older is illegal. More complicated, but so is the subject. We also have the situation that if Johnson was playing for a German club he wouldn't have broken any law. I think he should be punished, but he isn't in the same league as Huntley and Bellfield as the Sun portrayed this week.
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
I totally agree with what you say, for instance a 16 yr old is deemed old enough to have intercourse and the possibility of having a baby and bringing a child into the world but is deemed not old enough to drive a car or drink alcohol in a pub which to me is ridiculous, how can you be responsible enough to start a life but too immature to handle a car or your drink. I think personally the whole area needs looking at and brought into line with one age you are ok for everything.
The dilemma is that rules (and laws) must be obeyed but the young (including teenagers) will be tempted, and make some of the rules unenforceable.
It wasn't that long ago (all-right it was quite a long time) that sex before marriage was deemed to be unacceptable. These days not only is that acceptable but most people will accept their friend sleeping with someone else's husband/wife and fine it clever/funny/substitute other word. All the while society is going to completely ignore the rules (laws) there will be pressure to change them.
I seriously doubt that the average age that our 'children' first have sex is anywhere near 18. Chances are that there are thousands and thousands of children that have under age sex every year. push the age up and that number will grow. Reduce it and it can have consequences where actions like that of Adam Johnson become 'acceptable'. Controlling minimum ages for driving and drinking are much easier to police. Crikey, we can't even get our children to tidy their rooms when we stand over them what chance we can stop them being curious when they are alone with someone they are attracted to?
Comments
Det Insp Aelfwynn Sampson from Durham Police, the lead investigator of the case, said she met Sunderland chief executive Margaret Byrne on 2 March 2015.
She told BBC News: "They were given detail that he had met the girl and sexual activity had taken place."
She said the club was also told he had exchanged messages with the girl.
Det Insp Sampson had told Adam Johnson's trial she had met Ms Byrne to outline the case.
The Sunderland Echo reported the officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed as Johnson had not been interviewed.
My understanding is that the police have to abide by the same provisions as anyone else. And, to a certain extent more so, when considering whether or not to disclose confidential information regarding an on-going investigation.
I'm having trouble understanding what and why a serving police officer is doing promulgating this information to the Club? Unless, there were some grounds for believing that they might have relevant information that would assist the evidence gathering and therefore needed to be aware of the background to the matter.
But, as it appears they had not yet interviewed Johnson, let alone charged him at that time, I am having trouble understanding quite what they were doing and why.
You'd have thought by the 3rd week of the trial it might have sunk in that this wasn't something trivial that would just go away.
I suspect that he didn't think about what he was going to say but I'm confident that there is no automatic training as a footballer or a manager on how to field questions about one of your colleagues being found guilty of a sexual act on a child. Let's also remember that media trained professionals sometimes say the wrong thing by accident.
For all we know this comment:
"This is a big shock to everyone and also a reminder to everybody to make sure that you don't put yourself in that position or situation."
Could have been in relation to Johnson lying to the club and then, when admitting his guilt, leaving them exposed as not treating it seriously enough.
I agree that if he had said, specifically, what you assumed he was wrong, but it was, in my view, harsh of you to 'put those words in his mouth' and then say he can "f**k off" and then he can "doubly f**k off".
Johnson took advantage of an underage girl which is sickening.
Why is he even allowed a phone in the dock?
Sunderland AFC are not a victim in this, regardless of what they knew or didn't know.
I guess this is an improvement on Sheffield United fans intimidating a victim online, but football fans really need to grow up.
Footballers will be tempted all the time, if their brains are mainly in their trousers they will pay the consequences and the conduct of the girl, her sexual experiences and even parental attitude are irrelevant, the adult footballer has no choice in the matter but to do the right thing.
Johnson made the wrong choice and pays the price, end of. Not sure what the debate is about.
Wanna hear a love story NLA. I first met my wife when she was 16 years and 11 months, not that i knew when i asked her out after chatting her up at the Harrow Inn, she was well fit and could have been 19 for all I knew. She had been working since she left school at 15 and was a secretary in the City. I was 18 and just out of school. We arranged a date for the following Friday. She was kept in late by her boss to do an urgent letter and I thought I had been stood up and went home so never got to know her then. We met accidentally a year later she was 18 and I was 20. Married a few years later and celebrate our 44th wedding anniversary today.
i would like to think what you really mean is that it's not healthy for an adult male to seek a relationship with a 16 year old because he lacked the capacity to form a relationship with a mature female and needed to exploit a vulnerable 16 year old.
Please forgive me, because it wouldn't have made any difference to me if we had hitched up on that first date and i found out she was only 16. She was neither vulnerable nor incapable of looking after her own valuables.
I'm afraid your concept of being a "child" between 16 and 18 would have been bizarre. The 60s were about throwing off the idea that you suddenly became like your parents at 18. We were all children determined not to become adults and turn into our parents at 18.
If a girl had been vulnerable at 16, or still at school perhaps, i doubt she would have been out and about and would have been under more parental control than today. If such girls were on your radar then yes i agree with your sentiment, but you can't just apply an age criteria without vulnerability linked to maturity and independence being part of the judgement.
I have three "children" all daughters, i've had run ins with boyfriends when they were in their twenties, nothing magic happens at 18 that stops knob heads trying to prey on your daughters when they are adults.
Throw away the key. Feel sorry for his family.
Is this not the reason why we have judges, to assess the serious of the crime once committed to pass down a sentence?
Unless all adolescents are made to have some form of test with a Psychologist to ascertain whether they are old enough to have sex, and then get a sex licence, much the same as one gets a driving licence, then what would tinkering around with the age of consent actually achieve? That, in itself, would be a blunt tool.
16 seems about right to me. You can get married, join the Army or ride a moped. It would be odd if you couldn't legally have sex too. You have to look at how one piece of legislation fits in with others.
But here's the other odd thing : a couple of 16 year olds can get married (without parental consent in Scotland) but as minors they could not sign a contract to buy or rent a house.
Now, if only some two thousand years ago there had been an adequate law to prevent some dodgy old carpenter from slipping a length to a 12 year old village girl in Nazareth and then think up a cunning plan to hide the fact, the world might be a better place.....
;-)
This thread has run for 19 pages because people are interested in the trial. Maybe we should tear it down and start again:
"Adam Johnson Court Case
Page 1: You don't need to know, stop being so creepy."
It wasn't that long ago (all-right it was quite a long time) that sex before marriage was deemed to be unacceptable. These days not only is that acceptable but most people will accept their friend sleeping with someone else's husband/wife and fine it clever/funny/substitute other word. All the while society is going to completely ignore the rules (laws) there will be pressure to change them.
I seriously doubt that the average age that our 'children' first have sex is anywhere near 18. Chances are that there are thousands and thousands of children that have under age sex every year. push the age up and that number will grow. Reduce it and it can have consequences where actions like that of Adam Johnson become 'acceptable'. Controlling minimum ages for driving and drinking are much easier to police. Crikey, we can't even get our children to tidy their rooms when we stand over them what chance we can stop them being curious when they are alone with someone they are attracted to?