This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I hope we're not starting to sentence people based on their status and/or wealth, rather than what they were actually convicted of.
I have a lot of sympathy for the girl, but seems harsh to me.
I have a lot of sympathy for the girl, but seems harsh to me.
10
14
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I don't think it's harsh. He groomed and abused his position of power/fame with a child.
Also, I do wonder if reactions would have been different if it had been a 15 year old awkward boy he'd groomed, instead of an attractive 15 year old girl.
I don't think it's harsh. He groomed and abused his position of power/fame with a child.
Also, I do wonder if reactions would have been different if it had been a 15 year old awkward boy he'd groomed, instead of an attractive 15 year old girl.
Post edited at 23:51
12
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I have no sympathy but as a comparative sentence to other schedule 1 offences it's harsh...
I have no sympathy but as a comparative sentence to other schedule 1 offences it's harsh...
6
4
4
2
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
the usual is parole at half way though he may well have served remand time which will count.
Will probably end up in Hull or Wakefield.
the usual is parole at half way though he may well have served remand time which will count.
Will probably end up in Hull or Wakefield.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Pretty much on the money sentence. Convicted of sexual activity with a child involving penetration following a not guilty plea.
Couple of aggravatiing features around his attempts to cover up - deleting messages and instructing her to do the same, and abuse of a position of trust.
> I hope we're not starting to sentence people based on their status and/or wealth, rather than what they were actually convicted of.
> I have a lot of sympathy for the girl, but seems harsh to me.
Pretty much on the money sentence. Convicted of sexual activity with a child involving penetration following a not guilty plea.
Couple of aggravatiing features around his attempts to cover up - deleting messages and instructing her to do the same, and abuse of a position of trust.
13
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I don't understand why he was given bail before sentencing (after conviction)
I don't understand why he was given bail before sentencing (after conviction)
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Apparently the judge told him to use his bail time to say goodbye to his family especially his daughter? The judge indicated at that point he faced 4 to 10 years inside.
Apparently the judge told him to use his bail time to say goodbye to his family especially his daughter? The judge indicated at that point he faced 4 to 10 years inside.
In reply to alasdair19:
>
Being in Wakey would be sentence enough never mind the prison.
>
> Will probably end up in Hull or Wakefield.
Being in Wakey would be sentence enough never mind the prison.
8
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:
Oi!
> Being in Wakey would be sentence enough never mind the prison.
Oi!
2
In reply to winhill:
From the judges summing up -
There is an abuse of trust, inasmuch as those who enjoy positions of what
today is known as ‘celebrity’ are trusted by their fans and the family of fans to
act in an entirely appropriate manner towards, in particular, young people
who are less able to protect themselves.
In fact, I was wrong the abuse of trust wasn't treated as an aggravating factor, but used when reviewing the totality of the offending.
It assisted in placing the count of sexual activity with a child into the top bracket for sentencing, and it was mentioned when assessing culpability for the offence of grooming.
What I hadn't realised was that he got 5 for penetrative sexual activity with a child, then 1 year consecutive for the overarching and continuous grooming.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-r-v-adam-johnson/
> Can you describe how that operated?
From the judges summing up -
There is an abuse of trust, inasmuch as those who enjoy positions of what
today is known as ‘celebrity’ are trusted by their fans and the family of fans to
act in an entirely appropriate manner towards, in particular, young people
who are less able to protect themselves.
In fact, I was wrong the abuse of trust wasn't treated as an aggravating factor, but used when reviewing the totality of the offending.
It assisted in placing the count of sexual activity with a child into the top bracket for sentencing, and it was mentioned when assessing culpability for the offence of grooming.
What I hadn't realised was that he got 5 for penetrative sexual activity with a child, then 1 year consecutive for the overarching and continuous grooming.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-r-v-adam-johnson/
4
In reply to balmybaldwin:
High profile but in an inferior, lower-class sport, white, British, working class in origin so in Guardianista terms, he has a big round target on his back, everything they loathe and love to sneer at and despise. Also a great opportunity for their beloved displacement activity and false equivalence. This case has received almost as much attention as the industrial-scale child abuse at Rotherham, which clearly had far greater implications and was far worse, but for obvious reasons the Guardianistas are desperate to bury as quickly as possible.
Whether or not this sentence technically complies with sentencing guidelines, it seems clearly excessive compared to a whole series of other cases and very much toward the upper margin on just about every criteria and no account being given to mitigating factors, as though it were a determined effort to give the longest possible sentence while still not obviously breaching the rules. Which is not to say he should not have got a custodial sentence, I think he should.
> My point I guess is that normal or just because he's high profile?
High profile but in an inferior, lower-class sport, white, British, working class in origin so in Guardianista terms, he has a big round target on his back, everything they loathe and love to sneer at and despise. Also a great opportunity for their beloved displacement activity and false equivalence. This case has received almost as much attention as the industrial-scale child abuse at Rotherham, which clearly had far greater implications and was far worse, but for obvious reasons the Guardianistas are desperate to bury as quickly as possible.
Whether or not this sentence technically complies with sentencing guidelines, it seems clearly excessive compared to a whole series of other cases and very much toward the upper margin on just about every criteria and no account being given to mitigating factors, as though it were a determined effort to give the longest possible sentence while still not obviously breaching the rules. Which is not to say he should not have got a custodial sentence, I think he should.
Post edited at 11:51
8
15
In reply to off-duty:
No, you said Abuse of a position of trust.
That's actually a completely different offence, S16, a relationship as described in S21-22.
Nowt to do with this case at all as Johnson wasn't charged under S16.
> From the judges summing up -
No, you said Abuse of a position of trust.
That's actually a completely different offence, S16, a relationship as described in S21-22.
Nowt to do with this case at all as Johnson wasn't charged under S16.
1
In reply to winhill:
I see what you mean. I wasn't concentrating when I typed it and was going off a news report on the sentencing. Clearly Johnson wasn't charged under that specific offence - I think the positions are defined by law and he doesn't occupy one.
> No, you said Abuse of a position of trust.
> That's actually a completely different offence, S16, a relationship as described in S21-22.
> Nowt to do with this case at all as Johnson wasn't charged under S16.
I see what you mean. I wasn't concentrating when I typed it and was going off a news report on the sentencing. Clearly Johnson wasn't charged under that specific offence - I think the positions are defined by law and he doesn't occupy one.
In reply to Simon4:
I think it's a pretty "in the middle" sentence to be honest.
Penetrative sexual activity with a child when convicted at court is serious stuff.
He didn't do himself any favours with his late plea of guilty either.
I think it's a pretty "in the middle" sentence to be honest.
Penetrative sexual activity with a child when convicted at court is serious stuff.
He didn't do himself any favours with his late plea of guilty either.
5
In reply to Simon4:
Not sure I recall the Guardian being consulted on how he was sentenced, but don't let that stop you.
Not sure I recall the Guardian being consulted on how he was sentenced, but don't let that stop you.
12
In reply to off-duty:
'Penetrative sexual activity with a child when convicted at court is serious stuff.'
Of course it is, and rightly so. Except a 15 year old isn't a child, and any law that conflates a 15 year old and, say, a 5 year old is maybe a bit too broad brush. And 'penetrative sexual activity' is equally broad - ranging from serious violation with implements to a pretty common activity that even features in a well known pop song - 'fish and finger pie' in Penny Lane was never something you ate.
'Penetrative sexual activity with a child when convicted at court is serious stuff.'
Of course it is, and rightly so. Except a 15 year old isn't a child, and any law that conflates a 15 year old and, say, a 5 year old is maybe a bit too broad brush. And 'penetrative sexual activity' is equally broad - ranging from serious violation with implements to a pretty common activity that even features in a well known pop song - 'fish and finger pie' in Penny Lane was never something you ate.
3
12
In reply to Simon4:
What the heck are you ranting on about?
You seem to manage to include a dig at Guardianistas in just about anything.
> High profile but in an inferior, lower-class sport, white, British, working class in origin so in Guardianista terms, he has a big round target on his back, everything they loathe and love to sneer at and despise. Also a great opportunity for their beloved displacement activity and false equivalence. This case has received almost as much attention as the industrial-scale child abuse at Rotherham, which clearly had far greater implications and was far worse, but for obvious reasons the Guardianistas are desperate to bury as quickly as possible.
What the heck are you ranting on about?
You seem to manage to include a dig at Guardianistas in just about anything.
Post edited at 19:31
6
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The law differentiates between u16 and u13.
It has to be drawn somewhere - what age would you suggest?
I am quite happy with 16 - you appear to think that 15 year olds are no longer children and worthy of any protection.
The fact it is 16 is no secret - you can Google it just like Johnson did after he made first contact with her and found her age.
Interestingly she was 15 in November and contact was made in December.
The nature of the penetrative activity would have bearing on sentence. It certainly is several steps beyond kissing and was something Johnson took to trial.
I reckoned he was looking at definitely 4, probably 5 years. Something he could have considered,as a 27 year old man, when he was grooming her, arranging for meetings in secluded places, deleting messages, and engaging in the sexual activity with someone he unquestionably knew was under age.
> 'Penetrative sexual activity with a child when convicted at court is serious stuff.'
> Of course it is, and rightly so. Except a 15 year old isn't a child, and any law that conflates a 15 year old and, say, a 5 year old is maybe a bit too broad brush. And 'penetrative sexual activity' is equally broad - ranging from serious violation with implements to a pretty common activity that even features in a well known pop song - 'fish and finger pie' in Penny Lane was never something you ate.
The law differentiates between u16 and u13.
It has to be drawn somewhere - what age would you suggest?
I am quite happy with 16 - you appear to think that 15 year olds are no longer children and worthy of any protection.
The fact it is 16 is no secret - you can Google it just like Johnson did after he made first contact with her and found her age.
Interestingly she was 15 in November and contact was made in December.
The nature of the penetrative activity would have bearing on sentence. It certainly is several steps beyond kissing and was something Johnson took to trial.
I reckoned he was looking at definitely 4, probably 5 years. Something he could have considered,as a 27 year old man, when he was grooming her, arranging for meetings in secluded places, deleting messages, and engaging in the sexual activity with someone he unquestionably knew was under age.
11
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I guess it's because the law is made with 15 year olds who are at the least mature end of the spectrum in mind? A 15 year old isn't a child, but depending on the individual, some 15 year olds might still be easily manipulated or groomed where others wouldn't be. A friend in his early 20's at the time went out with a girl who was 15 and a half, and there wasn't any hint of him exploiting her or anything like that, if there had been I wouldn't still be his friend. It didn't last, which might have been due to the age gap, but it wasn't unwholesome either. Having known the daughter of a family friend all of her life who is now at university, I'd probably struggle to tell them apart in terms or maturity, if looking at a snapshot of them both at the different stages in their lives.
> 'Penetrative sexual activity with a child when convicted at court is serious stuff.'
> Of course it is, and rightly so. Except a 15 year old isn't a child, and any law that conflates a 15 year old and, say, a 5 year old is maybe a bit too broad brush. And 'penetrative sexual activity' is equally broad - ranging from serious violation with implements to a pretty common activity that even features in a well known pop song - 'fish and finger pie' in Penny Lane was never something you ate.
I guess it's because the law is made with 15 year olds who are at the least mature end of the spectrum in mind? A 15 year old isn't a child, but depending on the individual, some 15 year olds might still be easily manipulated or groomed where others wouldn't be. A friend in his early 20's at the time went out with a girl who was 15 and a half, and there wasn't any hint of him exploiting her or anything like that, if there had been I wouldn't still be his friend. It didn't last, which might have been due to the age gap, but it wasn't unwholesome either. Having known the daughter of a family friend all of her life who is now at university, I'd probably struggle to tell them apart in terms or maturity, if looking at a snapshot of them both at the different stages in their lives.
Post edited at 19:36
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I really don't know why you are banging this drum again. As per previous threads....the Children's Act states that they are whether you like it or not. The law doesn't conflate, it provides clear guidance and puts a line in the sand. If there are sentencing considerations the judge will consider any mitigation or aggravating circumstances etc.
I really don't get why you keep stating that 15 year olds are not children.
> 'Penetrative sexual activity with a child when convicted at court is serious stuff.'
> Of course it is, and rightly so. Except a 15 year old isn't a child, and any law that conflates a 15 year old....
I really don't know why you are banging this drum again. As per previous threads....the Children's Act states that they are whether you like it or not. The law doesn't conflate, it provides clear guidance and puts a line in the sand. If there are sentencing considerations the judge will consider any mitigation or aggravating circumstances etc.
I really don't get why you keep stating that 15 year olds are not children.
10
In reply to abr1966:
I guess what Rob might have in mind is that the age of consent is different in different countries?
It's grey area, trying to define exactly when people become mature enough to not be exploited, one where vulnerable people need to be protected.
I guess what Rob might have in mind is that the age of consent is different in different countries?
It's grey area, trying to define exactly when people become mature enough to not be exploited, one where vulnerable people need to be protected.
Post edited at 19:41
1
In reply to abr1966:
Do you think they might raise the age of criminal responsibility and medical consent to bring them in line?
Do you think they might raise the age of criminal responsibility and medical consent to bring them in line?
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/3398/fish-and-finger-pie
Get the kids involved in making this veg filled fish pie. A healthy treat for all the family
Have they learnt nothing?
> a pretty common activity that even features in a well known pop song - 'fish and finger pie' in Penny Lane was never something you ate.
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/3398/fish-and-finger-pie
Get the kids involved in making this veg filled fish pie. A healthy treat for all the family
Have they learnt nothing?
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I think the criminal responsibility age here is too low....
Consent for medical intervention in practice requires the child to consent if they are considered to have capacity and are Frazer competent...
I think the criminal responsibility age here is too low....
Consent for medical intervention in practice requires the child to consent if they are considered to have capacity and are Frazer competent...
In reply to abr1966:
I just find it to be a little inconsistent. A child from the age of 10 is held to be totally responsible for their criminal actions (rightly or wrongly; too low in my opinion), a child from the age of about 12 can have an input on medical consent dependant on their competence, but they have no deemed competence to consent to have sex.
I just find it to be a little inconsistent. A child from the age of 10 is held to be totally responsible for their criminal actions (rightly or wrongly; too low in my opinion), a child from the age of about 12 can have an input on medical consent dependant on their competence, but they have no deemed competence to consent to have sex.
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
They do have consent in practice....2 fifteen year olds or 15&16/17 wouldn't be an issue for anyone if it is consensual but significant age gaps are with a minor...
They do have consent in practice....2 fifteen year olds or 15&16/17 wouldn't be an issue for anyone if it is consensual but significant age gaps are with a minor...
In reply to off-duty:
But he was found Not Guilty of one offence.
The responsibility there lies purely with the CPS for bringing a charge it couldn't make stick, the Law really can't hold it against people for being not guilty, shocking that's it's enforcers think it should.
> He didn't do himself any favours with his late plea of guilty either.
But he was found Not Guilty of one offence.
The responsibility there lies purely with the CPS for bringing a charge it couldn't make stick, the Law really can't hold it against people for being not guilty, shocking that's it's enforcers think it should.
2
In reply to winhill:
Not sure what you mean. I'm fully aware he was found not guilty on one count. I've never suggested he be punished for being not guilty.
By "couldn't make stick" I'm presuming you mean "were unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt ". The CPS have a responsibility to prosecute if they believe there is a realistic prospect of conviction. They were clearly bang on the money with the two charges he pled guilty to, and also correct on the charge he was convicted for.
Quite rightly the burden of proof is high - as a result he was acquitted of the final charge. Are you suggesting it shouldn't have been brought?
My comments on his late guilty plea are because, in my opinion, they were a pretty cynical attempt to continue to earn money, to test if the victim would actually attend court, and to see if they could plea bargain partial guilty pleas to drop the other charges. The weight of evidence against him in those charges was overwhelming - largely due to the messages - and its difficult to think of an explanation, in this case, that would indicate why he didn't know he was guilty at the first opportunity.
As indicated when he left police custody following his initial arrest and told his girlfriend he had kissed her - admitting his guilt to her, if no-one else.
> But he was found Not Guilty of one offence.
> The responsibility there lies purely with the CPS for bringing a charge it couldn't make stick, the Law really can't hold it against people for being not guilty, shocking that's it's enforcers think it should.
Not sure what you mean. I'm fully aware he was found not guilty on one count. I've never suggested he be punished for being not guilty.
By "couldn't make stick" I'm presuming you mean "were unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt ". The CPS have a responsibility to prosecute if they believe there is a realistic prospect of conviction. They were clearly bang on the money with the two charges he pled guilty to, and also correct on the charge he was convicted for.
Quite rightly the burden of proof is high - as a result he was acquitted of the final charge. Are you suggesting it shouldn't have been brought?
My comments on his late guilty plea are because, in my opinion, they were a pretty cynical attempt to continue to earn money, to test if the victim would actually attend court, and to see if they could plea bargain partial guilty pleas to drop the other charges. The weight of evidence against him in those charges was overwhelming - largely due to the messages - and its difficult to think of an explanation, in this case, that would indicate why he didn't know he was guilty at the first opportunity.
As indicated when he left police custody following his initial arrest and told his girlfriend he had kissed her - admitting his guilt to her, if no-one else.
5
In reply to off-duty:
Other explanations are available.
Other explanations are available.
1
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I'm sure there are. What do you think his reasoning was?
> Other explanations are available.
I'm sure there are. What do you think his reasoning was?
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...