England footballer 'arrested over underage sex allegations"
Discussion
The trial is a good demonstration of how important 'high tech' crime evidence i.e. mobile / social media exchanges, internet searches etc is to a lot of prosecutions.
His family having to sit there and hear his behaviour. I don't think I'd want the mother of my child and father present.
It's interesting those who want full anonymity prior to conviction don't appear in cases like this.
His family having to sit there and hear his behaviour. I don't think I'd want the mother of my child and father present.
It's interesting those who want full anonymity prior to conviction don't appear in cases like this.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
People (certainly on here) do seem to use those sorts of arguments when the sexes are reversed though - it is often commented that the lads in such cases with older women were probably "up for it" or saw it as a "notch on the bed post" etc. If it's true of boys - can it not also be true of girls?
Oh dear.
Court transcript said:
Johnson was on his way to the team hotel before Sunderland’s home game against Burnley when the encounter allegedly took place on 30 January last year. His long-term partner, Stacey Flounders, was pregnant at the time, jurors were told.
Within hours of the pair texting on New Year’s Eve 2014, jurors were told that Johnson asked the girl: “Are you in the last year of school?”
She replied: “Year 10. Will you still send me a signed shirt?”
Johnson then arranged to meet the girl to give her a signed Sunderland shirt, jurors heard, and asked as the conversation went on: “Where do you go out?”
She replied: “I’m not old enough to go out.”
He said: “Yeah but you look old enough. When you 16?”
She answered: “Everyone says that. November.”
On 30 January, the pair met again. After getting into Johnson’s car, the pair spoke about football and the girl is said to have secretly recorded some of their conversation on video messaging app Snapchat to prove to her friends she was in his car.
After a short conversation, Johnson allegedly reminded the girl he had come for his “thank you kiss” for giving her a signed shirt.
Within hours of the pair texting on New Year’s Eve 2014, jurors were told that Johnson asked the girl: “Are you in the last year of school?”
She replied: “Year 10. Will you still send me a signed shirt?”
Johnson then arranged to meet the girl to give her a signed Sunderland shirt, jurors heard, and asked as the conversation went on: “Where do you go out?”
She replied: “I’m not old enough to go out.”
He said: “Yeah but you look old enough. When you 16?”
She answered: “Everyone says that. November.”
On 30 January, the pair met again. After getting into Johnson’s car, the pair spoke about football and the girl is said to have secretly recorded some of their conversation on video messaging app Snapchat to prove to her friends she was in his car.
After a short conversation, Johnson allegedly reminded the girl he had come for his “thank you kiss” for giving her a signed shirt.
Moonhawk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
People (certainly on here) do seem to use those sorts of arguments when the sexes are reversed though - it is often commented that the lads in such cases with older women were probably "up for it" or saw it as a "notch on the bed post" etc. If it's true of boys - can it not also be true of girls?
The fact he knew she was a child appears to be a point beyond dispute, so he doesn't have the defence of reasonably believing she was over 16. The question is, did the acts occur? If they did (and it can be proven) then he's in a fair bit of trouble. Whether she encouraged it or wanted it isn't going to make a difference to that as it's not relevant to the offence.
The acts he is accused of committing fall within this:
SOA said:
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—
(a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,
(b) penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,
(c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or
(d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,
(a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,
(b) penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,
(c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or
(d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,
La Liga said:
Moonhawk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
People (certainly on here) do seem to use those sorts of arguments when the sexes are reversed though - it is often commented that the lads in such cases with older women were probably "up for it" or saw it as a "notch on the bed post" etc. If it's true of boys - can it not also be true of girls?
The fact he knew she was a child appears to be a point beyond dispute, so he doesn't have the defence of reasonably believing she was over 16.
I was commenting on the fact that the defence may imply that even at 15 (or whatever age she was) she was "up for it" - such comment are commonly made in discussions around cases where the sexes are reversed.
I'm pretty sure in a fairly recent case - even the judge commented that the lad 'probably thought all his Christmases had come'.
Here are the sentencing guidelines. From the reporting it looks like at least one of the charges is she gave him oral sex. As you can see, that's the most serious sentencing category.
If it's true of boys - can it not also be true of girls?It could be, but it's not relevant to the offences.
The fact he knew she was a child appears to be a point beyond dispute, so he doesn't have the defence of reasonably believing she was over 16.I never said he had a defence of believing she was over 16 - so i'm not quite sure how you arrived at that from my post.
I was commenting on the fact that the defence may imply that even at 15 (or whatever age she was) she was "up for it" - such comment are commonly made in discussions around cases where the sexes are reversed.
I'm pretty sure in a fairly recent case - even the judge commented that the lad 'probably thought all his Christmases had come'.I was replying to your post and the one you quoted. I was also making some general points. My apologies if that came across as misrepresenting what you wrote.
Moonhawk said:
La Liga said:
Moonhawk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
People (certainly on here) do seem to use those sorts of arguments when the sexes are reversed though - it is often commented that the lads in such cases with older women were probably "up for it" or saw it as a "notch on the bed post" etc. If it's true of boys - can it not also be true of girls?
The fact he knew she was a child appears to be a point beyond dispute, so he doesn't have the defence of reasonably believing she was over 16.
I was commenting on the fact that the defence may imply that even at 15 (or whatever age she was) she was "up for it" - such comment are commonly made in discussions around cases where the sexes are reversed.
I'm pretty sure in a fairly recent case - even the judge commented that the lad 'probably thought all his Christmases had come'.
La Liga said:
Here are the sentencing guidelines. From the reporting it looks like at least one of the charges is she gave him oral sex. As you can see, that's the most serious sentencing category.
If it's true of boys - can it not also be true of girls?It could be, but it's not relevant to the offences.
The fact he knew she was a child appears to be a point beyond dispute, so he doesn't have the defence of reasonably believing she was over 16.I never said he had a defence of believing she was over 16 - so i'm not quite sure how you arrived at that from my post.
I was commenting on the fact that the defence may imply that even at 15 (or whatever age she was) she was "up for it" - such comment are commonly made in discussions around cases where the sexes are reversed.
I'm pretty sure in a fairly recent case - even the judge commented that the lad 'probably thought all his Christmases had come'.I was replying to your post and the one you quoted. I was also making some general points. My apologies if that came across as misrepresenting what you wrote.
As I said below - 4 years is likely sentence. If they had full sex or she gave him a bl0wjob he's looking at six.Moonhawk said:
La Liga said:
Moonhawk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
People (certainly on here) do seem to use those sorts of arguments when the sexes are reversed though - it is often commented that the lads in such cases with older women were probably "up for it" or saw it as a "notch on the bed post" etc. If it's true of boys - can it not also be true of girls?
The fact he knew she was a child appears to be a point beyond dispute, so he doesn't have the defence of reasonably believing she was over 16.
I was commenting on the fact that the defence may imply that even at 15 (or whatever age she was) she was "up for it" - such comment are commonly made in discussions around cases where the sexes are reversed.
I'm pretty sure in a fairly recent case - even the judge commented that the lad 'probably thought all his Christmases had come'.
Challo said:
Guardian Journo tweeting live from the courtroom. Johnson knew she was young and actively pursued it. Also it claims he google the age of consent after engaging in sexual activity. How thick must he be.
https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday?ref_src=twsrc%5Eg...
He's obviously very stupid, but one would assume, having known how old she was from their original encounter, and intending to get intimate, that he'd have checked the age of consent prior to getting intimate. If he checked the age of consent on 3rd Feb, that was after he was alleged to get intimate. He also said after that encounter that he wanted to get her jeans off, indicating that he hadn't managed to on that occasion? https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday?ref_src=twsrc%5Eg...
See first 4 words...Are these the only 2 encounters that they've had?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As I said below - 4 years is likely sentence. If they had full sex or she gave him a bl0wjob he's looking at six.
half a million quid (from his solicitors client account in prior settlement of a claim) says she supports him getting a very short sentence.....She idolised him and he asked her to meet for more than a kiss. He also asked her 'when she was 16' before sticking his hand down her knickers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12157...
He is so f
ked. Silly, silly boy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12157...
He is so f
ked. Silly, silly boy.Mafffew said:
Maybe it has already been asked, but why is his missus still standing next to him while all this is going on? He's admitted to one charge already...
Classles, money grabber comes to mind.
She hasn't turned up at court today according to various reports.Classles, money grabber comes to mind.
Maybe the truth has finally sunk in....
saaby93 said:
Did they just say on the radio news that in the police interview she said was 'well up for it' or very similar.
What's the point of telling the world that?
It's very difficult to legislate for human emotion.
I am starting to feel a modicum of sympathy for him. He's been a dick, but she clearly wasn't a child in this.What's the point of telling the world that?
It's very difficult to legislate for human emotion.
WCZ said:
Mafffew said:
Maybe it has already been asked, but why is his missus still standing next to him while all this is going on? He's admitted to one charge already...
Classles, money grabber comes to mind.
iirc she got pregnant *after* he'd been charged....Classles, money grabber comes to mind.
Classy.
Soov535 said:
saaby93 said:
Did they just say on the radio news that in the police interview she said was 'well up for it' or very similar.
What's the point of telling the world that?
It's very difficult to legislate for human emotion.
I am starting to feel a modicum of sympathy for him. He's been a dick, but she clearly wasn't a child in this.What's the point of telling the world that?
It's very difficult to legislate for human emotion.
He's not going to get an easy time of it in the clink though, nonce millionaire footballer, I doubt it's going to be a Vinnie Jones in Mean Machine type scenario.
WCZ said:
Mafffew said:
Maybe it has already been asked, but why is his missus still standing next to him while all this is going on? He's admitted to one charge already...
Classles, money grabber comes to mind.
iirc she got pregnant *after* he'd been charged....Classles, money grabber comes to mind.
These were apparently the text messages sent within the same minute.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff