Don't ask me for sources but I understood that he'd never denied having sex with the girl, he just didn't know she was underage.

Yeah, these are my thoughts. When you're in a dark nightclub, have had a few beers and a dolled up girl tries it on you go there without hesitation. It's the way it is. What are we supposed to do now? ID check people before we have sex with them? Even if he had done that, he'd have been shown the fake she obviously used to get this, which trained and sober bouncers didn't spot.

He's only pleaded guilty to 2 out of 4 charges if I'm correct.

For example, if it was 1. Sleeping with a girl he met in a night club who he thought was over 18 and 2. Texting her the next day not knowing were the ones he plead "guilty" to but the ones about knowingly pursuing an underage girl were the ones he plead not-guilty to, you'd think he won't face any time.

It must be a lot more complex than the story suggests but it still essentially is he was a drunk millionaire in a nightclub and slept with someone in there. You'd have the right to believe the bouncers had checked ID's and she was probably carrying a fake one would you not?

Surely this isn't open and shut he should be banged up yet. Otherwise it'd of happened.

Yeah, these are my thoughts. When you're in a dark nightclub, have had a few beers and a dolled up girl tries it on you go there without hesitation. It's the way it is. What are we supposed to do now? ID check people before we have sex with them? Even if he had done that, he'd have been shown the fake she obviously used to get this, which trained and sober bouncers didn't spot.

He probably is claiming he was mislead. I don't know the ins and outs of grooming laws you'll be reassured to know, but as leejaneagles said texting some bird you met in a club might constitute grooming if she turned out to be underage. In which case better to admit it, but with the claim you were mislead and hope the judge is understanding. I don't know the letter of the law and can't really be arsed to find out either but this seems a logical approach to me.

EDIT:

Johnson is accused of grooming the teenager between 30 December 2014 and 26 February 2015 and having met with her to carry out sexual activity knowing that she was under 16, the age of consent. Standing in the dock, Johnson answered “guilty”.

In a second count, Johnson is charged with intentionally touching the complainant in a sexual way knowing that she was under 16. He briefly consulted his legal team before answering “guilty, yeah”.

Dirty paedo

Edited by Frickin Saweet (10 Feb 2016 5.25pm)