Can't believe what Sky News reporter just said re child sex abuse victim of Adam Johnson

[ofuckit]

Did anybody else see this? I'm horrified and a bit disturbed tbh.

The reporter was talking to an ex footballer about the case and said 'Do you think it's hard for people to understand how hard it is to deal with the temptations put in the way of footballers'.... 😟
The ex footballer responded in agreement with the reporter, saying how oh yes it's very hard for them, etc....

So we can assume from this that these men see children as 'temptations put in their way'?

i feel sick 😞

I don't know, It was an article posted by The Mirror. I'm only going by what I've read in the media, which of course isn't always truthful.

Way to take my post completely out of context though.

Way to take my post completely out of context though.

No. Way to misread a speculative news report and give it damaging spin.

Adam Johnson's victim has secured a criminal conviction against him. That's hard enough, but she's achieved it.

That's all any of us know but many people who don't like the verdict are now saying that she's only in it for the money.

Therefore to even hint that she might be is giving fuel to their flames.

That's what you've done.

This is the Mirror report I imagine you read.

It's clear that they have not spoken to Adam Johnson's victim and therefore have no idea whether she plans to sue.

They have spoken to an unnamed lawyer unconnected with the case who suggests various things he thinks she might be able to do.

Neither of them asked her what she plans to do.

That's bad. But you don't get off by saying it's 'the media, which is of course, isn't always truthful.'

It's there in black and white. You have a brain. Apply it.

If you don't understand, read it again.

If you don't know that she's after money, don't suggest that she is.

That's what you did.

Right, that's me told. I fucked up. I'm sorry.

I was merely trying to point out how the victim in this case, can't seem to win. Regardless of what she may or may not be doing - people are finding a reason to come down on her, I saw that article, read the comments and was annoyed by them. I didn't mean to give anything a 'damaging spin'.

I'm leaving this thread now.

I do agree that victims can't win: if they sue, they made it up for the money, if they don't, it's because they were lying all along.

Limited, she didn't suggest what you have implied.

itsmine I commented. She said I'd it taken out of context. I hadn't and I explained my reasons in full. Brief enough for you?

The longer answer is that is is wrong to even speculate that she may have been seeking money. To do that, is to agree with those people claiming that money was her motivating factor, rather than a desire to see Johnson punished for his crimes.

Limited, for other crimes, someone can be compensated after a guilty verdict without it being seen that money was their motivation.

It's shit that the same isn't true for sexual crime cases.

for other crimes, someone can be compensated after a guilty verdict without it being seen that money was their motivation. It's shit that the same isn't true for sexual crime cases.

That's not true. I'm pleased Shirley Woodman got money from her rapist Iorworth Hoare.

As the unnamed lawyer in the Mirror story says, if Johnson's victim can show she has suffered similar psychological difficulties to Shirley Woodman, then she can make a claim on Johnson.

I am quite sure she has been psychologically damaged and I wouldn't blame her for pursuing it. But whether she wants to do that is up to her. If she wants to do that it will be a long and bruising slog.

It's not fair to speculate on whether she wants to do anything without asking her.

The Mirror didn't ask her. Neither did imwithspud.

She has won a rare victory in a criminal court. It wasn't about money. It's up to her to decide what she does now. Whatever she decides, let's let it be.

Jesus limited I don't think imwithspud 's post warranted quite that reaction. Totally uncalled for.

Personally, I think she ought to be able to successfully sue him for every penny he earned between his suspension being lifted and him being sacked!

Unfortunately the courts are unlikely to agree with me.

The victim has been forced to go through the ordeal of the trial by his refusal to plead guilty.

Now if she wants financial compensation for having her life ruined, she will have to go through another court case with the whole sordid business raked up again, undergo psychiatric examinations etc.
It's so bloody unfair.

"Johnson's denial of the charge meant the young victim was put through two gruelling days of cross-examination last month, during which she regularly broke down in tears."

Why should she have to suffer this again to receive compensation?

"Johnson's denial of the charge meant the young victim was put through two gruelling days of cross-examination last month, during which she regularly broke down in tears."

That will be taken into account when sentencing. It's a sliding scale - time off for pleading guilty, time on for denying it and making the victim give evidence and other aggravating factors - like abusing a child.

She may be entitled to compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and probably won't have to do more than fill in a few forms. She is unlikely to get much, if anything.

If she wants to make a civil financial claim against Johnson she can. But that will be much more involved and time-consuming. As it should be. We can't just award people money, particularly when he has a wife and child to support.

Who knows what she wants to do? IMO she can do whatever she likes and it's none of my business unless she wants to make it so by giving an interview.

This is not about money. She has achieved a criminal conviction against Johnson.

People who don't like the way the verdict have gone want to make it about money to deny her achievement. That's all they have left and they are bitter and spiteful and cannot understand anyone doing anything if there isn't a bob or two in it for them.

I suppose we should feel sorry for them.

IMO that's why it is a mistake to discuss cash. I feel that by doing so, you are getting down in the gutter, scrabbling for soggy banknotes with those people.

IMO that's why it is a mistake to discuss cash. I feel that by doing so, you are getting down in the gutter, scrabbling for soggy banknotes with those people.

Yes, well that may be. I still think your insulting and patronising comments directed at imwithspud were totally OTT and unnecessary.

We are all entitled to our opinions highsteaks

This is not about money. She has achieved a criminal conviction against Johnson.

Sorry, but I don't like the way you put that. The conviction was not her achievement. It was the justice system's duty, not hers, to prosecute him after he broke the law.

Of course we must praise her for having the great courage to stand up to him at the trial. But the guilty verdict will not put her back to the position she was in before she was abused. She will suffer a life sentence of suffering in various ways, and it is for that suffering that she deserves a handsome financial compensation.

Also that financial penalty on top of the jail sentence will be a further disincentive to other 'celebrities' thinking of abusing vulnerable youngsters.

True, the prosecution was the CPS’s and she was their witness. Someone in her position is not treated as a victim, and that is hard enough to watch, so I can only imagine what it is like to live it. Especially when you are a child.

Someone like her is meant to be treated sensitively, but she is still subject to cross examination. That is bruising. The defence barrister did his job and tried to paint her in a poor light and get her to lose her temper and say things that might make her look vindictive against Johnson.

She did this willingly and handled it outstandingly, which is why I say that she deserves the victory as much as the CPS does.

If she wants to pursue financial compensation that will be her decision and that of a civil court judge. Not mine, not anyone elses.

Also that financial penalty on top of the jail sentence will be a further disincentive to other 'celebrities' thinking of abusing vulnerable youngsters.

And I definitely do not agree with this.

It's a serious crime. Money shouldn't come into it.

What do you think of criminal justice systems in other parts of the world where perpetrators of murder or rape can pay blood money and escape with a lesser sentence than if they can't afford it?

What do you say to a victim whose family may be pressuring her to accept it because they want the money?

It's a serious crime. Money shouldn't come into it.
The money is not for the crime. It's to help the victim rebuild her life.

What do you think of criminal justice systems in other parts of the world where perpetrators of murder or rape can pay blood money and escape with a lesser sentence than if they can't afford it?
Irrelevant. Lots of things are wrong in other countries.

What do you say to a victim whose family may be pressuring her to accept it because they want the money?
That's your speculation. And even if it were true it's certainly no excuse for not paying compensation to the victim.

Marin Brunt is a ..... Poor Brenda

Limited, this goes back to my earlier point about it not being seen as any kind of comment on the victim in other crimes if compensation is paid after a conviction. For example, convicting directors of a company of corporate manslaughter then compensation being paid.

Yet for sexual crimes, it somehow is perceived as different by much of society.