Rocky Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Charged with grooming and three offences of sexual activity with someone under 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 if guilty he is vile scum and deserves to rot, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Wonder how long this thread will last.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 The fact that it's more than one charge is incredibly bad, but the Grooming charge as well, it monstrous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Wonder how long this thread will last.... depends if people post libel stuff or not, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickolas Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Wonder how long this thread will last.... About as long as he will last in prison when a pro footballer charged with this offence i would imagine. Not very. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QA22 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 zzzzzzzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 if guilty he is vile scum and deserves to rot, Agree but lets see what evidence comes out in court first. Wouldn't be the first time nor won't be the last time that a ridiculous prosecution has been brought before a court. He could be bang to rights or it could be a case of "let's see if we can nail a celebrity". We'll all find out in due course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall King Blox Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Wonder how long this thread will last.... Sunderland footballer Adam Johnson faces sex charges 23 April 2015 From the section England Johnson was also charged with one offence of grooming when he answered bail at a police station earlier England and Sunderland footballer Adam Johnson has been charged with three counts of sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl. The 27-year-old, from Castle Eden, County Durham, was initially arrested on 2 March. He was also charged with one offence of grooming when he answered bail at a police station earlier, Durham Police said. He will appear before Peterlee Magistrates' Court on 20 May. Gerry Wareham, from the Crown Prosecution Service, said he had authorised police to charge Johnson under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He said the offences are alleged to have been committed on a single victim between 30 December 2014 to 26 February this year. "May I remind all concerned that the defendant has a right to a fair trial," he said. "It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. "I would also remind people that the complainant in this case is entitled to lifelong anonymity under the law. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further Ten more minutes at a push ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Agree but lets see what evidence comes out in court first. Wouldn't be the first time nor won't be the last time that a ridiculous prosecution has been brought before a court. He could be bang to rights or it could be a case of "let's see if we can nail a celebrity". We'll all find out in due course. yep I agree, hence if guilty, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Sunderland footballer Adam Johnson faces sex charges 23 April 2015 From the section England Johnson was also charged with one offence of grooming when he answered bail at a police station earlier England and Sunderland footballer Adam Johnson has been charged with three counts of sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl. The 27-year-old, from Castle Eden, County Durham, was initially arrested on 2 March. He was also charged with one offence of grooming when he answered bail at a police station earlier, Durham Police said. He will appear before Peterlee Magistrates' Court on 20 May. Gerry Wareham, from the Crown Prosecution Service, said he had authorised police to charge Johnson under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He said the offences are alleged to have been committed on a single victim between 30 December 2014 to 26 February this year. "May I remind all concerned that the defendant has a right to a fair trial," he said. "It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. "I would also remind people that the complainant in this case is entitled to lifelong anonymity under the law. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further Ten more minutes at a push ? A bit heavy maybe but in cases where guilt is proven or where a not guilty verdict is delivered but the judge could rule there was sufficient doubt I can totally understand the lifelong anonymity bit. But if someone was proven in court to have lied or the defence were able to prove that the incident simply couldn't have happened then why should the complainant be entitled to anonymity then? Surely any member of the public would be entitled to protection from someone who makes accusations like that which are proven to be fabrication? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 A bit heavy maybe but in cases where guilt is proven or where a not guilty verdict is delivered but the judge could rule there was sufficient doubt I can totally understand the lifelong anonymity bit. But if someone was proven in court to have lied or the defence were able to prove that the incident simply couldn't have happened then why should the complainant be entitled to anonymity then? Surely any member of the public would be entitled to protection from someone who makes accusations like that which are proven to be fabrication? thats why a prison sentence should be given out to those who cry rape, not that I'm accusing anyone of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall King Blox Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 A bit heavy maybe but in cases where guilt is proven or where a not guilty verdict is delivered but the judge could rule there was sufficient doubt I can totally understand the lifelong anonymity bit. But if someone was proven in court to have lied or the defence were able to prove that the incident simply couldn't have happened then why should the complainant be entitled to anonymity then? Surely any member of the public would be entitled to protection from someone who makes accusations like that which are proven to be fabrication? Just think of the other day when that twelve year old cried rape, luckily the old bill sussed it, if not some poor sod might of been dragged off the street and charged for matching a figment of someones imagination ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 thats why a prison sentence should be given out to those who cry rape, not that I'm accusing anyone of that You would only do that in cases where it is clear to the judge that everyone has been led up the garden path but yes, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoldenBall Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 This post will be deleted in 3..2...1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Batman Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 A bit heavy maybe but in cases where guilt is proven or where a not guilty verdict is delivered but the judge could rule there was sufficient doubt I can totally understand the lifelong anonymity bit. But if someone was proven in court to have lied or the defence were able to prove that the incident simply couldn't have happened then why should the complainant be entitled to anonymity then? Surely any member of the public would be entitled to protection from someone who makes accusations like that which are proven to be fabrication? Twitter meltdown. They can throw the anonymity card all they want. Twitter is a US company and falls outside the jurisdiction of the British courts. Would not be surprised if her name is all over it by this evening. I've always been an advocate of both parties being anonymous until after the courts made the decision, unless they both agree to not be anonymous. Therefore, if the accused is guilty, they can release their name. If the accused is non guilty, they remain anonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 A bit heavy maybe but in cases where guilt is proven or where a not guilty verdict is delivered but the judge could rule there was sufficient doubt I can totally understand the lifelong anonymity bit. But if someone was proven in court to have lied or the defence were able to prove that the incident simply couldn't have happened then why should the complainant be entitled to anonymity then? Surely any member of the public would be entitled to protection from someone who makes accusations like that which are proven to be fabrication? Convictions in cases involving sexual offences are very rare. It is extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt because in almost all cases it is one word against another with very little else or objective evidence to go on. The reason for anonymity then is almost akin to an acknowledgement that a not guilty verdict does not really represent innocence as much as it might represent a failure on the crown to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (That is very controversial and only really mentioned and acknowledged in academic papers etc). The anonymity therefore serves to encourage reporting of innocent people. Given the abject failure in this country to obtain convictions in sexual offences cases (in my opinion) anonymity is a small price to pay for encouraging reporting of offences. The chances of a case proceeding to court with a total fabrication is highly unlikely. There will have been a police investigation, there will have been evidence collected and then there will be a submission to the Crown Prosecution Service who will take a decision as to whether there is likely evidence to obtain a conviction. Whilst one or two incidents may slip through the net, it would take a brave judge to decide that all these people were wrong in considering there was a case to answer, particularly as the Crown Prosecution Service will not proceed lightly. If the whole case does collapse after having proceeded to court then the false claimant may (- in reality, will) have committed other offences - perjury, wasting police time etc. They can still be convicted for that. As for anonymity for the accused I have mixed feelings and think a strong argument can be made on both sides. However, one of the biggest facets of our judicial system is 'justice must be seen to be done' (you each may have your own opinion as to how close we are to that), and that is practically sacrosanct but for instances of children or public interest. That includes a public trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 thats why a prison sentence should be given out to those who cry rape, not that I'm accusing anyone of that And it can be. But like I said almost impossible to find an instance of pure fabrication or where that can be proven 100%. The difference is these offences are rarely reported so it appears as if the cards are all stacked in the victim's favour, which is simply not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Convictions in cases involving sexual offences are very rare. It is extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt because in almost all cases it is one word against another with very little else or objective evidence to go on. The reason for anonymity then is almost akin to an acknowledgement that a not guilty verdict does not really represent innocence as much as it might represent a failure on the crown to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (That is very controversial and only really mentioned and acknowledged in academic papers etc). The anonymity therefore serves to encourage reporting of innocent people. Given the abject failure in this country to obtain convictions in sexual offences cases (in my opinion) anonymity is a small price to pay for encouraging reporting of offences. The chances of a case proceeding to court with a total fabrication is highly unlikely. There will have been a police investigation, there will have been evidence collected and then there will be a submission to the Crown Prosecution Service who will take a decision as to whether there is likely evidence to obtain a conviction. Whilst one or two incidents may slip through the net, it would take a brave judge to decide that all these people were wrong in considering there was a case to answer, particularly as the Crown Prosecution Service will not proceed lightly. If the whole case does collapse after having proceeded to court then the false claimant may (- in reality, will) have committed other offences - perjury, wasting police time etc. They can still be convicted for that. I accept what you say about the doubt factor in many of these cases and I agree that 99%+ of cases would lead to the complainant maintaining their anonymity. Look at the Ched Evans case for a start where Clayton MacDonald was found not guilty and Evans guilty. But where a case collapses due to fabrication of evidence or just downright lying that the Police fell for then the other offences should be brought to court against the complainant. And in very rare cases the Police and CPS are "under pressure" to "obtain" a conviction - not a sexual case obviously but the Birmingham Pub bombings spring to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I accept what you say about the doubt factor in many of these cases and I agree that 99%+ of cases would lead to the complainant maintaining their anonymity. Look at the Ched Evans case for a start where Clayton MacDonald was found not guilty and Evans guilty. But where a case collapses due to fabrication of evidence or just downright lying that the Police fell for then the other offences should be brought to court against the complainant. And in very rare cases the Police and CPS are "under pressure" to "obtain" a conviction - not a sexual case obviously but the Birmingham Pub bombings spring to mind. I acknowledge the point but I would suggest instances of this happening (fabrication through to charge and conviction and ability to demonstrate fabrication) are overwhelmingly unlikely, so much so I do not believe threats to continued anonymity would be at all justified for such few cases. Where there is complete fabrication there are repurcussions: perjury, wasting police time etc. The law is not on the side of liars. The only other comment I would have is whilst I appreciate the reference to CPS pressure actually it works in the opposite direction in sexual offences cases. Cost cutting, damage to reputation and livelihood, consistent failures to achieve convictions all serve to mean that significantly less cases are put forward than one would imagine and significantly, and disproportionately, less than for other offences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Agree but lets see what evidence comes out in court first. Wouldn't be the first time nor won't be the last time that a ridiculous prosecution has been brought before a court. He could be bang to rights or it could be a case of "let's see if we can nail a celebrity". We'll all find out in due course. Yea, there's been another high profile case of that involving a footballer lately... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I accept what you say about the doubt factor in many of these cases and I agree that 99%+ of cases would lead to the complainant maintaining their anonymity. Look at the Ched Evans case for a start where Clayton MacDonald was found not guilty and Evans guilty. But where a case collapses due to fabrication of evidence or just downright lying that the Police fell for then the other offences should be brought to court against the complainant. And in very rare cases the Police and CPS are "under pressure" to "obtain" a conviction - not a sexual case obviously but the Birmingham Pub bombings spring to mind. Wow that was back in the stone age mate, a time when police evidence was believed by courts, nowadays a little thing called evidence is required the PACE act + tape recorded interviews + video interviews + DNA + mobile phone records + computer evidence + in such cases the similar testimony of unrelated victims giving very similar evidence of little nuances that the defendant might say or do etc, etc, etc and so forth, really a poor comparison and why exactly would the police and CPS even be under any pressure whatsoever?, this isn't violent rape or murder, it's acting on complaints that only hit the headlines on the day of his arrest and I suspect the arrest came after weeks of the police gathering evidence on him, they haven't just put his picture along with others on a dart board and taken pot luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Thank goodness, no need for a trial now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Yea, there's been another high profile case of that involving a footballer lately... Either I'm asking a stupid question or I'll get a stupid answer, but who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numero Uno Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Wow that was back in the stone age mate, a time when police evidence was believed by courts, nowadays a little thing called evidence is required the PACE act + tape recorded interviews + video interviews + DNA + mobile phone records + computer evidence + in such cases the similar testimony of unrelated victims giving very similar evidence of little nuances that the defendant might say or do etc, etc, etc and so forth, really a poor comparison and why exactly would the police and CPS even be under any pressure whatsoever?, this isn't violent rape or murder, it's acting on complaints that only hit the headlines on the day of his arrest and I suspect the arrest came after weeks of the police gathering evidence on him, they haven't just put his picture along with others on a dart board and taken pot luck. All fair comments. Johnson could be guilty as sin for all I know. But it is possible to be charged and be completely and utterly innocent of the offence also. All I find strange is the GUARANTEED anonymity for the complainant regardless of the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Either I'm asking a stupid question or I'll get a stupid answer, but who? I may be wrong but I think that's his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Your username is very misleading if you think that's funny. Part of it's right though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 All fair comments. Johnson could be guilty as sin for all I know. But it is possible to be charged and be completely and utterly innocent of the offence also. All I find strange is the GUARANTEED anonymity for the complainant regardless of the circumstances. it's great having all these objections but I haven't seen or heard one solution. You have to bear in mind 29AR's theme, just because people are found not guilty it doesn't mean that they are innocent, it means that there wasn't enough evidence or the defence has managed to suppress the damning part of evidence, usually if it's obvious that the guy is totally innocent it will become clear to the judge and the case dropped and a judge will say that there is no evidence and the case should never have been brought in the first place, if the case goes to it's conclusion for a jury to decide that is the whole point of the British judicial system, let the jury decide, again what would you rather have 12 people you don't know and who chances are haven't seen every shred of evidence or 2 judges who have seen every single shred of evidence?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 I may be wrong but I think that's his point. Ah, ok. For a moment I was worried he was referring to Ched Evans as a ridiculous prosecution. Phew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 All fair comments. Johnson could be guilty as sin for all I know. But it is possible to be charged and be completely and utterly innocent of the offence also. All I find strange is the GUARANTEED anonymity for the complainant regardless of the circumstances. It is not guaranteed Numero Uno. That is just a comment without context to be honest with you. If it is demonstrable that someone has lied they will have committed an offence and criminal proceedings against them in that regard will not be in secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.