Adam Johnson
Comments
-
How do you walk backwards into a lamppost and do your teeth in?SE10Addick said:dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/436645/The-Jeremy-Kyle-Show-Gemma-Swift-new-teeth
She's got new teeth...
Impressive...2 -
She sneezed too hard.Addickted2TheReds said:
How do you walk backwards into a lamppost and do your teeth in?SE10Addick said:dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/436645/The-Jeremy-Kyle-Show-Gemma-Swift-new-teeth
She's got new teeth...
Impressive...0 -
She's still got a face like a welders bench.SE10Addick said:dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/436645/The-Jeremy-Kyle-Show-Gemma-Swift-new-teeth
She's got new teeth...9 -
Can you stop derailing this thread please?Miserableoldgit said:
8 -
-
Adam Johnson --> Mrs Johnson --> Woman on Jeremy Kyle --> Eidur Gudjohnson
For threads that fail to remain on topic this seriously has got to be up there with the best of them!!3 -
ffs, no need.Rizzo said:3 -
have not read this anywhere else, not that I've looked extensively, but the Metro reported this morning that the young girl contacted Conor Wickham on social media and he reported it to the Police. Now, I don't know if he reported Johnson, or maybe just that this girl had contacted him inappropriately, but either way he did the right thing in informing the Police of his concerns. Shame Johnson wasn't as sensible.
3 -
Eidur Gudjohnsen, now there was a player0
- Sponsored links:
-
Playa or player?0
-
According to the girl's dad she wanted to "kill herself" according to the stories today.0
-
Still playing for Iceland this summer!Garrymanilow said:Eidur Gudjohnsen, now there was a player
0 -
'Angings too good fer im!colthe3rd said:
You sick fuck.Powell Is Pleasant said:Only just caught up with this thread.
Can I quickly clarify:
When I got together with my now wife, I was 18 and she was 17 (only 5 months between us).
We've been married for nearly 8 years.
Should I be killed or not? Just want to make provisions while I can, before I turn myself over to the death penalty.0 -
Today is meant to be the last day of the prosecution's evidence so next week it wll be the defence and probably in the early part of next Adam will presumably go into the witness box to give his version of events and I'm intrigued to hear what they are.0
-
I've not been following any of the details of the case but anyone able to tell me the basic grounds for AJs defence? Is he saying the events didn't happen or that it was the girls fault?0
-
He probably doesn't have one but that said the prosecution evidence always sounds bad. Once we have heard the defence we will have a clearer picture. My guess is that Adam's evidence probably won't add up but we know till we've heard it. A jury can't make its decision based on prosecution.Rizzo said:I've not been following any of the details of the case but anyone able to tell me the basic grounds for AJs defence? Is he saying the events didn't happen or that it was the girls fault?
0 -
I think that it would be a case of talking down the amount of grooming that he actually did, paint her out to be more of an obsessed 'stalker' type fan rather than a victim and to talk down the actual acts he's accused of engaging in with her (could get a bit grim here).Rizzo said:I've not been following any of the details of the case but anyone able to tell me the basic grounds for AJs defence? Is he saying the events didn't happen or that it was the girls fault?
That's based upon the fact that he's pleaded guilty to a couple of the charges, although admittedly I don't remember which ones.0 -
He's owned up to grooming and to a one comparatively minor charge of sexual activity with a child - not sure exactly what, but from what I've read I presume it means a bit of snogging and nothing below the waist - carrying a maximum sentence of two and a half years.Rizzo said:I've not been following any of the details of the case but anyone able to tell me the basic grounds for AJs defence? Is he saying the events didn't happen or that it was the girls fault?
He has pleaded not guilty to two more serious charges of sexual activity with a child, which I think carry a maximum sentence of 14 years - dunno exactly what, lets just say below the waist. His defence is basically that she has made up/exaggerated some of what happened. For example, she said that he undid his trousers and pushed her hand towards his todger, the Defence QC says that he was wearing a cast on his wrist at the time, so how could he have.0 -
Thanks guys0
- Sponsored links:
-
All classic offending behaviour - Deny, minimise and blame shift.MrLargo said:
He's owned up to grooming and to a one comparatively minor charge of sexual activity with a child - not sure exactly what, but from what I've read I presume it means a bit of snogging and nothing below the waist - carrying a maximum sentence of two and a half years.Rizzo said:I've not been following any of the details of the case but anyone able to tell me the basic grounds for AJs defence? Is he saying the events didn't happen or that it was the girls fault?
He has pleaded not guilty to two more serious charges of sexual activity with a child, which I think carry a maximum sentence of 14 years - dunno exactly what, lets just say below the waist. His defence is basically that she has made up/exaggerated some of what happened. For example, she said that he undid his trousers and pushed her hand towards his todger, the Defence QC says that he was wearing a cast on his wrist at the time, so how could he have.
Nasty man - hope they throw the book at him.2 -
'For example, she said that he undid his trousers and pushed her hand towards his todger, the Defence QC says that he was wearing a cast on his wrist at the time, so how could he have.'
thought these incidents took place in his car so he was able to drive with this cast then?3 -
I think he is grasping at the idea that whilst you can do a lot wearing a cast you could hardly force someone to do something with their hands.0
-
-
Oh_Yoni_Boy said:
I think that it would be a case of talking down the amount of grooming that he actually did, paint her out to be more of an obsessed 'stalker' type fan rather than a victim and to talk down the actual acts he's accused of engaging in with her (could get a bit grim here).Rizzo said:I've not been following any of the details of the case but anyone able to tell me the basic grounds for AJs defence? Is he saying the events didn't happen or that it was the girls fault?
That's based upon the fact that he's pleaded guilty to a couple of the charges, although admittedly I don't remember which ones.
He's put his hands up to kissing the girl.
He'll deny the oral sex bit. The prosecution haven't done much other than the girl saying it happened. So that aspect could be one word against the other.0 -
Sorry, are you saying that 'snogging' a fifteen year old can mean a custodial sentence of two and a half years.MrLargo said:
He's owned up to grooming and to a one comparatively minor charge of sexual activity with a child - not sure exactly what, but from what I've read I presume it means a bit of snogging and nothing below the waist - carrying a maximum sentence of two and a half years.Rizzo said:I've not been following any of the details of the case but anyone able to tell me the basic grounds for AJs defence? Is he saying the events didn't happen or that it was the girls fault?
He has pleaded not guilty to two more serious charges of sexual activity with a child, which I think carry a maximum sentence of 14 years - dunno exactly what, lets just say below the waist. His defence is basically that she has made up/exaggerated some of what happened. For example, she said that he undid his trousers and pushed her hand towards his todger, the Defence QC says that he was wearing a cast on his wrist at the time, so how could he have.0 -
It's the grooming part which will be frowned upon - shows a degree of premeditation.kings hill addick said:
Sorry, are you saying that 'snogging' a fifteen year old can mean a custodial sentence of two and a half years.MrLargo said:
He's owned up to grooming and to a one comparatively minor charge of sexual activity with a child - not sure exactly what, but from what I've read I presume it means a bit of snogging and nothing below the waist - carrying a maximum sentence of two and a half years.Rizzo said:I've not been following any of the details of the case but anyone able to tell me the basic grounds for AJs defence? Is he saying the events didn't happen or that it was the girls fault?
He has pleaded not guilty to two more serious charges of sexual activity with a child, which I think carry a maximum sentence of 14 years - dunno exactly what, lets just say below the waist. His defence is basically that she has made up/exaggerated some of what happened. For example, she said that he undid his trousers and pushed her hand towards his todger, the Defence QC says that he was wearing a cast on his wrist at the time, so how could he have.0 -
Would this have got court if he wasn't a Prem footballer?0
-
Yes. Wouldn't have got the publicity of course not but regardless of whether he is on 50k a week or he's unemployed, what he has done and admitted to is simply illegal and quite disturbing.Riviera said:Would this have got court if he wasn't a Prem footballer?
10 -
The whole "she wanted to kill herself" all sounds a bit like someone putting words into her mouth imo
What Johnson has apparently done is wrong on many levels but I don't think the 15 year old girl is as naive as is being portrayed in the press so far.5
