Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    This 'you felt very turned on' text?

    Who said that? :confused:
    Yes. Only in combination with the other evidence of course.

    You implied she shouldn't be believed because she is an "infatuated teenager". But we know she didn't lie about the grooming. We know she didn't lie about the kissing. So there is no reason to think she lied about the fingering. And there is separate evidence that he planned to finger her, and that he says he "felt" how turned on she was. Bingo.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    Yes. Only in combination with the other evidence of course
    = the other text, according to you/as far as we know. Hopefully it occurs to you that, in the context of the burden of proof discussed, this is woefully insufficient and hence, as I said, quite alarming that he should be convicted on this basis

    You implied she shouldn't be believed because she is an "infatuated teenager"
    I clearly stated she was an unreliable witness, not that she shouldn't be believed*

    we know she didn't lie about the grooming. We know she didn't lie about the kissing
    No smoke without fire, right? If you admit to grinding a girl in a club then of course you followed her home and raped her later on that night! :dunce:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    = the other text, according to you/as far as we know. Hopefully it occurs to you that, in the context of the burden of proof discussed, this is woefully insufficient and hence, as I said, quite alarming that he should be convicted on this basis

    I clearly stated she was an unreliable witness, not that she shouldn't be believed*
    It is not insufficient when combined with her evidence. There are two separate sources of evidence, both pointing to the same thing.

    If you did not discard her evidence, you would find him guilty, so your last sentence does not make sense. The jury obviously did not consider her "unreliable".

    No smoke without fire, right? If you admit to grinding a girl in a club then of course you followed her home and raped her later on that night! :dunce
    If he had also expressed intent to rape her, in writing, I would consider it quite likely, yes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    yes of course you are wrong. It would have been legal if she'd been a bit older but he would still have been a sad ****.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    It is not insufficient when combined with her evidence
    I'm afraid it is, otherwise a significant proportion of all texts sent would have to come with lengthy legal disclaimers or else the false rape conviction rate would go through the roof. Either way, that's not a world we want to live in

    If you did not discard her evidence, you would find him guilty
    Not sure you understand the concept of unreliable witnesses. One doesn't discount their testimony completely necessary, but, generally speaking, one cannot base a conviction in large part thereon

    The jury obviously did not consider her "unreliable"
    Who do you think makes up juries and how do you think they are influenced e.g. by judges, the media, superstition and sentimentality? Open your frickin' eyes already!:mute:

    If he had also expressed intent to rape her, in writing, I would consider it quite likely, yes
    Ok, so if you PM'd a girl on TSR telling her that you are just going to take her, no questions asked, and she then deigns to go report that you've raped her to the police you'd feel justice had been done if you got banged up for it? Sure buddy..

    he says he "felt" how turned on she was. Bingo
    You can sense a girl is turned on in any number of ways, and "felt" could be non-sexual physical (pulse/general feel of a girl as you kiss and she's bodily needing to get closer to you) or non-physical (breathing/eye dilation/blush) perception
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    I'm afraid it is, otherwise a significant proportion of all texts sent would have to come with lengthy legal disclaimers or else the false rape conviction rate would go through the roof.

    Ok, so if you PM'd a girl on TSR telling her that you are just going to take her, no questions asked, and she then deigns to go report that you've raped her to the police you'd feel justice had been done if you got banged up for it? Sure buddy.
    Nonsense. You are completely ignoring the context of the case. It is not disputed that they were both in the car and that something happened in the car. It is absolutely clear what he wanted to happen in the car. The victim says this is what happened in the car. Something more than kissing happened in the car ("you felt very turned on" and "that wasn't so bad was it"). The jury considered the witness reliable (whether you personally like that or not). The jury therefore found him guilty of that offence.

    The jury didn't simply fall for a sob story. They did not find him guilty of the other offence, because they could not find a second source of evidence for that offence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why it wrong to have consensual sex with 15 year old?

    He was chaeting on his partner though and I cant stand cheats so **** him. No sympathy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    The jury considered the witness reliable (whether you personally like that or not)
    The jury were soft, and could not, as explained, have put his guilt beyond reasonable doubt

    They did not find him guilty of the other offence, because they could not find a second source of evidence for that offence.
    English Law is not as arbitrary as you appear to believe. 1 piece of evidence = innocent, 2 pieces = guilty? :facepalm2:

    You dodged my question. If you want to split hairs then sure, add that you enter the same vehicle as the false rape accuser: you'd feel justice had been done if you got banged up for it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I feel sorry for the fact he is looking at a 5-10 year sentence when teaching assistants can be found guilty of sleeping with a student and they get a 2 year suspended sentence.
    He does deserved to be punished though
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ehh, I see where your'e coming from, but at the end of the day she is underage. Not only that, he knew her age and carried on grooming her despite the fact that she was 15 and he was in a committed relationship with his pregnant wife. She should have stopped the whole thing immedietly but he was her idol and used his fame for his advantage. So no, I can't say I feel much sympathy for him.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    So you think the law should be changed to be more similar to how it was nearly a century ago?
    I don't know what the law was a century ago so I can't comment on that. But yes, I don't think cheating in a marital (or equivalent) relationship should ever have been made legal.

    Also you don't know him and he isn't a free man. He is on the sex offender's register for life and can never play football again.
    I know he's not a free man, is on the sex offender's register for life and can't play football again. I'm saying that's a good thing, and I don't feel sorry for him. Although most people who cheat don't get these sorts of punishments, that is what such people deserve. So it's good that at least in this case, he got it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Of course in my view, he'd ideally be getting punished for his infidelity (along with everyone else who is unfaithful) rather than because of the girl's age.
    Do you think people who cheat deserve to be killed?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I feel sorry for the fact he is looking at a 5-10 year sentence when teaching assistants can be found guilty of sleeping with a student and they get a 2 year suspended sentence.
    He does deserved to be punished though
    The 5-10 thing is more than likely not even true considering what they give full on rapists,you know how soft british courts are
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The sad part about all this is that the most traumatic thing for the girl won't be the contact she had with Adam Johnson but the trial and media attention surrounding it.

    I don't feel sorry for Adam, he knew he was breaking the law and this is one law that you should go out of your way to not break regardless of your opinion on whether it's a good law. The way I see it, the worst thing he did was cheat on his pregnant girlfriend, but lucky for him that is completely legal. I do however have concerns for his safety should he do time in prison.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Agreed on the point that she might've known what was happening (although grooming is essentially manipulated, and I had no idea I was being manipulated until after the fact so it's possible she might not've), but whether she knew or not is irrelevant. He's the adult, he's the one sleeping with an underage girl, he's the one who had the more power/influence in that situation. So the self-righteousness, as you put it, is totally deserved imo. Whether she was aware or not is irrelevant on the charge of sexual activity with a child; her knowing does not diminish his responsibility.
    Completely missed the point of my post and sort of proved it correct at the same time, so cheers.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    I mean, if she was less than one year older this wouldn't even be a legal issue?
    The difference between when the incident happened, and a few months down the line draws the difference between a child too young for sex, and a woman, who to have sex with would be completely legal?

    I know there needs to be a legal definition, a line to draw. But it just makes me feel uncomfortable somehow.
    Yes. He's a 28year-old multi-millionaire with a luxurious lifestyle who can pretty much have anyone he likes, yet he chooses to groom a fifteen year old who he met over the internet, who he knew was underage.

    It's one thing if it's a one night stand with a girl who you met in a club and later find out is 15, but it's another to meet and pursue sexual activity with a girl who you know is underage.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    I agree with Ladymusiclover but just to add also:

    Adam Johnson is 28 years of age and he was soliciting sexual activity from someone who was 15. Even if she was 16, would you honestly still not find that odd? She hasn't even finished growing and developing, mentally or physically.

    Why on God's earth was he remotely interested in some young girl when as a footballer, people would be flocking to him and he had a girlfriend who had just given birth to his daughter? Because she was impressionable and he could exploit her easily and he did.

    I think she herself as a young adult must take some responsibility as she was consenting and provocative but he should have known better. Much better.

    So, no, I wouldn't feel sorry for him at all and I don't know why you do.
    I agree. It's one thing if it's a 17 year old and 15 year old, but he was a 28 year old man.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Presumption of guilt is not how we operate a legal system nestled within a modern Democracy amigo. 'Innocent until proven guilty'

    Sexual activity with a minor, is the charge to which I was referring
    'innocent until proven guilty' is a wonderful romantic way of viewing our justice system. But to anyone who's worked in it, it simply is not the case. Quite often even judges go in with a mentality of 'probably guilty' until proven innocent.

    I know we often nostalgically and proudly talk of our justice system, but like every other the reality does not match the theory.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Quite often even judges go in with a mentality of 'probably guilty' until proven innocent
    Indeed so, a la stereotypes and arbitrary prejudice, such is the human condition. Decent defence barristers + appeal courts ftw
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I agree. It's one thing if it's a 17 year old and 15 year old, but he was a 28 year old man.
    Yeah. A 17 year old and 15 year old is a bit weird but understandable. If the guy was 18 and girl was 16 nobody would bat an eyelid so it's a bit unfair in that situation to put a guy in jail but Adam Johnson is nearly double her age.

    It's also funny that Adam Johnson having sex with a 16 year old would not get him jail time but a 18 year old with a 15 year old could possibly land a person in jail time? I think it's clear which one is more messed up in a social level.

    Like this would have all been avoided if he waited until she was 16 ffs. Not to defend the actions but he's just stupid as hell.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.