Adam Johnson court case

[No wides]

He's not a paedophile, although it makes for a great headline and in this hyperbolic age everyone will jump aboard the bandwagon.

Passing through puberty is the process of reaching sexual maturity. Being sexually attracted to someone post puberty, is entirely different to being attracted to pre-pubescents.

There's such ignorance, hypocrisy, and dishonesty round all this, no doubt due to fear of the lynch mob.

Before you get on your high horse, lets not forget a young childs life has been ruined by an adult abusing his position to gratify his sexual desires, hopefully the porridge won't be easy for him.

[Main Street]

He's not a paedophile, although it makes for a great headline and in this hyperbolic age everyone will jump aboard the bandwagon.

Passing through puberty is the process of reaching sexual maturity. Being sexually attracted to someone post puberty, is entirely different to being attracted to pre-pubescents.

There's such ignorance, hypocrisy, and dishonesty round all this, no doubt due to fear of the lynch mob.

Excellent post. A lot of the reporting and social media discussions about this case would hurt your brain. Ignorance, hypocrisy and dishonesty sums it up perfectly.

I agree but his actions were as morally repugnant as a paedophile, the girl was incapable of emotionally processing or protecting herself from  the experience he inflicted upon her. 
I think one of the witnesses, (a friend)  said it in the way that a teenager can sometimes express things better, from the perspective of a 15 year old.
"Cos he's, however old he is. And why would he? He's a bit of a paedophile if he's going for a 15...kids and that."

[general_lee]

Also he was allowed a few weeks after being found guilty to see his child. What sort judicial system would allow a paedo access to a child?

Are you a feature writer for The S*n as this is the sort of shit the red tops come out with. Embarrassing stuff there.

Good post Haranguerer and bringing a bit of common sense to proceedings.

GL was asking that sarcastically

Aye it was No Wides I needed to reply to. Sorry GL. I'm sure he'll be wrong about something else so we'll leave that one in there 

Yes Tony, there is a lot of faux outrage and hysteria surrounding it. The same sun readers no doubt swoon over the royals and we all know the craic they're at!

[Syferus]

This thread has me very worried about where posters' heads are at with regards this sort of behaviour and people making excuses for it or trying to migrate what happened.

[No wides]

This thread has me very worried about where posters' heads are at with regards this sort of behaviour and people making excuses for it or trying to migrate what happened.

Well said, some sense at last, there appears to be an awful lot of apologists on this thread for the heinous crime that was committed. 

[No wides]

Also he was allowed a few weeks after being found guilty to see his child. What sort judicial system would allow a paedo access to a child?

Are you a feature writer for The S*n as this is the sort of shit the red tops come out with. Embarrassing stuff there.

Good post Haranguerer and bringing a bit of common sense to proceedings.

GL was asking that sarcastically

Aye it was No Wides I needed to reply to. Sorry GL. I'm sure he'll be wrong about something else so we'll leave that one in there 

Yes Tony, there is a lot of faux outrage and hysteria surrounding it. The same sun readers no doubt swoon over the royals and we all know the craic they're at!

So you think people shouldn't be outraged by a professional footballer using his position to sexually abuse a child?

[Tony Baloney]

Also he was allowed a few weeks after being found guilty to see his child. What sort judicial system would allow a paedo access to a child?

Are you a feature writer for The S*n as this is the sort of shit the red tops come out with. Embarrassing stuff there.

Good post Haranguerer and bringing a bit of common sense to proceedings.

GL was asking that sarcastically

Aye it was No Wides I needed to reply to. Sorry GL. I'm sure he'll be wrong about something else so we'll leave that one in there 

Yes Tony, there is a lot of faux outrage and hysteria surrounding it. The same sun readers no doubt swoon over the royals and we all know the craic they're at!

So you think people shouldn't be outraged by a professional footballer using his position to sexually abuse a child?

Why blame footballers? In one of the earlier pages I said that there are ordinary lads up and down the country coorting under age girls. Are they all paedophiles too?

[Syferus]

Also he was allowed a few weeks after being found guilty to see his child. What sort judicial system would allow a paedo access to a child?

Are you a feature writer for The S*n as this is the sort of shit the red tops come out with. Embarrassing stuff there.

Good post Haranguerer and bringing a bit of common sense to proceedings.

GL was asking that sarcastically

Aye it was No Wides I needed to reply to. Sorry GL. I'm sure he'll be wrong about something else so we'll leave that one in there 

Yes Tony, there is a lot of faux outrage and hysteria surrounding it. The same sun readers no doubt swoon over the royals and we all know the craic they're at!

So you think people shouldn't be outraged by a professional footballer using his position to sexually abuse a child?

Why blame footballers? In one of the earlier pages I said that there are ordinary lads up and down the country coorting under age girls. Are they all paedophiles too?

They're dodgy fûckers whatever paint you want to put on the situation.

[longballin]

Also he was allowed a few weeks after being found guilty to see his child. What sort judicial system would allow a paedo access to a child?

Are you a feature writer for The S*n as this is the sort of shit the red tops come out with. Embarrassing stuff there.

Good post Haranguerer and bringing a bit of common sense to proceedings.

GL was asking that sarcastically

Aye it was No Wides I needed to reply to. Sorry GL. I'm sure he'll be wrong about something else so we'll leave that one in there 

Yes Tony, there is a lot of faux outrage and hysteria surrounding it. The same sun readers no doubt swoon over the royals and we all know the craic they're at!

So you think people shouldn't be outraged by a professional footballer using his position to sexually abuse a child?

Why blame footballers? In one of the earlier pages I said that there are ordinary lads up and down the country coorting under age girls. Are they all paedophiles too?

depends what you mean by 'coorting' (like two young teens under snoging and fumbling is normal) ... if you mean an adult having sex or molesting an underage girl that's a paedo in my book... why are you justifying this? 

[general_lee]

Also he was allowed a few weeks after being found guilty to see his child. What sort judicial system would allow a paedo access to a child?

Are you a feature writer for The S*n as this is the sort of shit the red tops come out with. Embarrassing stuff there.

Good post Haranguerer and bringing a bit of common sense to proceedings.

GL was asking that sarcastically

Aye it was No Wides I needed to reply to. Sorry GL. I'm sure he'll be wrong about something else so we'll leave that one in there 

Yes Tony, there is a lot of faux outrage and hysteria surrounding it. The same sun readers no doubt swoon over the royals and we all know the craic they're at!

So you think people shouldn't be outraged by a professional footballer using his position to sexually abuse a child?

Be outraged all you want. Im certainly not condoning it, it's criminal behaviour and deserves punishment. But a lot worse goes on with lesser punishment. And there is nothing wrong with questioning the sentencing in this regard. It's just frustrating that the same media outlets that jump all over this will be w**king over the royal family for the Queen's 190th, a monarch who arguably was groomed as a fourteen year old by that fossil she's married to.

[dferg]

Also he was allowed a few weeks after being found guilty to see his child. What sort judicial system would allow a paedo access to a child?

Are you a feature writer for The S*n as this is the sort of shit the red tops come out with. Embarrassing stuff there.

Good post Haranguerer and bringing a bit of common sense to proceedings.

GL was asking that sarcastically

Aye it was No Wides I needed to reply to. Sorry GL. I'm sure he'll be wrong about something else so we'll leave that one in there 

Yes Tony, there is a lot of faux outrage and hysteria surrounding it. The same sun readers no doubt swoon over the royals and we all know the craic they're at!

So you think people shouldn't be outraged by a professional footballer using his position to sexually abuse a child?

Be outraged all you want. Im certainly not condoning it, it's criminal behaviour and deserves punishment. But a lot worse goes on with lesser punishment. And there is nothing wrong with questioning the sentencing in this regard. It's just frustrating that the same media outlets that jump all over this will be w**king over the royal family for the Queen's 190th, a monarch who arguably was groomed as a fourteen year old by that fossil she's married to.

She was a 15 year old fan who wanted her shirt signed.  She wasn't in a nightclub with too much make up on pretending to be 18.  What he did was wrong, whatabout the monarchy or whatever is irrelevant.

[general_lee]

Also he was allowed a few weeks after being found guilty to see his child. What sort judicial system would allow a paedo access to a child?

Are you a feature writer for The S*n as this is the sort of shit the red tops come out with. Embarrassing stuff there.

Good post Haranguerer and bringing a bit of common sense to proceedings.

GL was asking that sarcastically

Aye it was No Wides I needed to reply to. Sorry GL. I'm sure he'll be wrong about something else so we'll leave that one in there 

Yes Tony, there is a lot of faux outrage and hysteria surrounding it. The same sun readers no doubt swoon over the royals and we all know the craic they're at!

So you think people shouldn't be outraged by a professional footballer using his position to sexually abuse a child?

Be outraged all you want. Im certainly not condoning it, it's criminal behaviour and deserves punishment. But a lot worse goes on with lesser punishment. And there is nothing wrong with questioning the sentencing in this regard. It's just frustrating that the same media outlets that jump all over this will be w**king over the royal family for the Queen's 190th, a monarch who arguably was groomed as a fourteen year old by that fossil she's married to.

She was a 15 year old fan who wanted her shirt signed.  She wasn't in a nightclub with too much make up on pretending to be 18.  What he did was wrong, whatabout the monarchy or whatever is irrelevant.

"Criminal behaviour and deserves punishment"

[andoireabu]

Apologies if this has been asked already but if you are considered a minor (therefore child?) until the age of 18 then why is the age of consent 16?

[No wides]

Also he was allowed a few weeks after being found guilty to see his child. What sort judicial system would allow a paedo access to a child?

Are you a feature writer for The S*n as this is the sort of shit the red tops come out with. Embarrassing stuff there.

Good post Haranguerer and bringing a bit of common sense to proceedings.

GL was asking that sarcastically

Aye it was No Wides I needed to reply to. Sorry GL. I'm sure he'll be wrong about something else so we'll leave that one in there 

Yes Tony, there is a lot of faux outrage and hysteria surrounding it. The same sun readers no doubt swoon over the royals and we all know the craic they're at!

So you think people shouldn't be outraged by a professional footballer using his position to sexually abuse a child?

Why blame footballers? In one of the earlier pages I said that there are ordinary lads up and down the country coorting under age girls. Are they all paedophiles too?

This case is about a footballer sexually abusing a child so what is your point exactly?

[Main Street]

Apologies if this has been asked already but if you are considered a minor (therefore child?) until the age of 18 then why is the age of consent 16?

Child < 16  Minor <18