Adam Johnson Arrested

[Damocles]

I had a little sympathy when I thought Johnson met the girl in a nightclub and was told she was over 18.

The "Grooming" charge indicates he knew exactly how old she was, you can't have any sympathy. The law is the law.

Good football career, multi-millionaire, stunning girlfriend - and Johnson does this?!

It's because this was a story entirely fabricated by apologists on social media, and there was never any evidence at all to suggest he met her in a club.

 

[SWP's back]

I was being sarcastic by the way,i would cut their dicks off if it was down to me

Yeah and for women that cheat, I'd stitch their fannies shut because I'm also mental.

I'd probably just politely ask them to leave,

but each to their own mate.

whoosh.

 

[sir baconface]

[bigimg]http://www.wilko.com/content/ebiz/wilkinsonplus/invt/0288365/0288365_l.jpg[/bigimg]

Lol

Sag Resistant you say? Does it work on tits?

Not on mine, mate, but you might get better results.

 

[Eds]

According to the sexual offences act 2003 'communication with a child under the age of 16 with the intention to meet for a sexual purpose is illegal.' Given that Johnson has been charged with yet does it mean he knew her age or does it mean that even though she may have said she was older as she was under 16 he is charged with grooming even though he didn't realise her age. Any legal bods out there who can answer that?

 

[bitterblue78]

i think grooming is a conversation with a child under 16 which is more then 2 messages. doesnt have to sexual but may be wrong

 

[FanchesterCity]

It means the CPS think he probably knew she was under age and probably arranged to meet her, probably for sexual purposes...

They now have to go about proving it (beyond reasonable doubt).

The CPS have erred many times in the past, particularly with potential sexual offences, as it seems they'd rather lose in court but be seen to have 'acted'.

As things stand, the lad is innocent, and rightly so.

 

[moh]

It means the CPS think he probably knew she was under age and probably arranged to meet her, probably for sexual purposes...

They now have to go about proving it (beyond reasonable doubt).

The CPS have erred many times in the past, particularly with potential sexual offences, as it seems they'd rather lose in court but be seen to have 'acted'.

As things stand, the lad is innocent, and rightly so.

But that said.....

The CPS process dictates that they only put cases forward to trial where they think (all things progressing normally) there would be a conviction

 

[thehydetiger]

I will await the trial and verdict 'til I pass judgement.

 

[ianw16]

I will await the trial and verdict 'til I pass judgement.

Aye, ditto. I had a mate who was arrested for this type of thing. Police rocked up, took all his phones, laptop etc. Kept them for months. Gave them back. No charges. He'd never even met the girl, and she'd always claimed to be 18. Seems they had a falling out online, and she presumably set the cops on him.
Quite why people feel the need to do all this nonsense on the internet is beyond me anyway. What was wrong with the old fashioned way? Go out for a drink, see a nice girl, go over, tell her she's got a lovely arse, and does she fancy a shag. Game's a goodun.

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

I will await the trial and verdict 'til I pass judgement.

Don't talk sense.