Dont know if any of you lads are seeing the live tweets from the trial but so far seems very clear cut and shocking that his girfiend is even sticking by him at the moment..
Got a link longshanks?
follow Josh Halliday on twitter... Damning stuff so far but I suppose we should bear in mind that the defence will put a different slant on the same evidence.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JoshHalliday
I have been following Josh Halliday on twitter, some of it makes grim reading, seemed to know exactly what he was up to.
Jaysus - rough stuff!!!
Quote from: Boycey on February 12, 2016, 02:01:53 PM
follow Josh Halliday on twitter... Damning stuff so far but I suppose we should bear in mind that the defence will put a different slant on the same evidence.
Agree everyone will put their own slant on the evidence but had to look away from the bare facts when you see the texts and his search history...
He was sacked by Sunderland
Looks like he is f...ed
He hasn't a leg to stand on in terms of intent, which is clear. Damage limitation at this stage.
Is it right that that sort of twitter blog should be available to anyone on the Internet?
Quote from: Longshanks on February 12, 2016, 01:54:04 PM
Dont know if any of you lads are seeing the live tweets from the trial but so far seems very clear cut and shocking that his girfiend is even sticking by him at the moment..
The green talks, she obviously loves the mula.
Quote from: No wides on February 12, 2016, 03:09:23 PM
Quote from: Longshanks on February 12, 2016, 01:54:04 PM
Dont know if any of you lads are seeing the live tweets from the trial but so far seems very clear cut and shocking that his girfiend is even sticking by him at the moment..
The green talks, she obviously loves the mula.
Father of her child also.
Surely that would be more reason to ditch the peado?
Quote
Is it right that that sort of twitter blog should be available to anyone on the Internet?
I thought that was what twitter was for ?
Quote from: general_lee on February 12, 2016, 03:13:41 PM
Quote from: No wides on February 12, 2016, 03:09:23 PM
Quote from: Longshanks on February 12, 2016, 01:54:04 PM
Dont know if any of you lads are seeing the live tweets from the trial but so far seems very clear cut and shocking that his girfiend is even sticking by him at the moment..
The green talks, she obviously loves the mula.
Father of her child also.
Might be father of her child but with recent events surely you would want your child and yourself away from him to start afresh..
Quote from: Orior on February 12, 2016, 03:03:34 PM
Is it right that that sort of twitter blog should be available to anyone on the Internet?
He's a journalist from The Guardian reporting pretty much what'll be in the papers tomorrow. Only difference is that with twitter news is now instant
Quote from: Longshanks on February 12, 2016, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: general_lee on February 12, 2016, 03:13:41 PM
Quote from: No wides on February 12, 2016, 03:09:23 PM
Quote from: Longshanks on February 12, 2016, 01:54:04 PM
Dont know if any of you lads are seeing the live tweets from the trial but so far seems very clear cut and shocking that his girfiend is even sticking by him at the moment..
The green talks, she obviously loves the mula.
Father of her child also.
Might be father of her child but with recent events surely you would want your child and yourself away from him to start afresh..
True. But you can't really judge these situations properly until you are in them yourself. Plus I'm sure the money would help.
The Prosecution are laying out the facts as they see them at this stage of proceedings. These are refutable and only one side of the story. I'm not saying he didn't do it but it is only the opening arguments.
Pity the dirt ball wasn't sacked last week before the Liverpool game >:(
Quote from: No wides on February 12, 2016, 03:19:36 PM
Surely that would be more reason to ditch the peado?
She was 15 going on 19.
Quote from: Orior on February 12, 2016, 04:07:39 PM
Quote from: No wides on February 12, 2016, 03:19:36 PM
Surely that would be more reason to ditch the peado?
She was 15 going on 19.
Brilliant so that makes it ok? She looks old enough! She was underage ffs.
Quote from: No wides on February 12, 2016, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 12, 2016, 04:07:39 PM
Quote from: No wides on February 12, 2016, 03:19:36 PM
Surely that would be more reason to ditch the peado?
She was 15 going on 19.
Brilliant so that makes it ok? She looks old enough! She was underage ffs.
At the end of the day he was adult and as such should know better and know the consequences. Doesn't come into it whether she looked older than she was or acted older. FFS he knew what year she was in school!!
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 12, 2016, 03:46:43 PM
The Prosecution are laying out the facts as they see them at this stage of proceedings. These are refutable and only one side of the story. I'm not saying he didn't do it but it is only the opening arguments.
Pity the dirt ball wasn't sacked last week before the Liverpool game >:(
I hear he is particularly upset that he won't get to play v Man Utd this week after hearing they have players Young and Keane...
Already have my coat..
Quote from: Boycey on February 12, 2016, 03:27:18 PM
Quote from: Orior on February 12, 2016, 03:03:34 PM
Is it right that that sort of twitter blog should be available to anyone on the Internet?
He's a journalist from The Guardian reporting pretty much what'll be in the papers tomorrow. Only difference is that with twitter news is now instant
His article was online at 1pm and a much better read than being drip fed little tweets.
Whilst illegal I don't think there are many towns in the land where there isn't a lad in his 20s tackling an underage girl.
John son's woman will disappear now the income stream has come to an end.
If he was a player in any major US sport he'd have been fired and erased from his team's history the moment the state filed charges. That Sunderland kept him and played him as recently as last weekend speaks volumes about how blinkered they and football in general is to how this plays to everyone else looking in. Looks disgusting to be frank.
He was an average at best player which makes it more ridiculous that he wasn't gone the moment this stuff came to light, they didn't even have a functional reason to keep him nevermind a moral one.
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 06:13:56 PM
If he was a player in any major US sport he'd have been fired and erased from his team's history the moment the state filed charges. That Sunderland kept him and played him as recently as last weekend speaks volumes about how blinkered they and football in general is to how this plays to everyone else looking in. Looks disgusting to be frank.
He was an average at best player which makes it more ridiculous that he wasn't gone the moment this stuff came to light, they didn't even have a functional reason to keep him nevermind a moral one.
How could they sack him? Sure he was not guilty of anything til yesterday. Suspended him maybe.
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on February 12, 2016, 06:22:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 06:13:56 PM
If he was a player in any major US sport he'd have been fired and erased from his team's history the moment the state filed charges. That Sunderland kept him and played him as recently as last weekend speaks volumes about how blinkered they and football in general is to how this plays to everyone else looking in. Looks disgusting to be frank.
He was an average at best player which makes it more ridiculous that he wasn't gone the moment this stuff came to light, they didn't even have a functional reason to keep him nevermind a moral one.
How could they sack him? Sure he was not guilty of anything til yesterday. Suspended him maybe.
Has he been found guilty yet?
He should have been suspended the minute charges were being pressed by the police. And sacked if he's found guilty, reinstated if he's not
He was sacked when he admitted the charge of grooming the girl.
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on February 12, 2016, 06:22:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 06:13:56 PM
If he was a player in any major US sport he'd have been fired and erased from his team's history the moment the state filed charges. That Sunderland kept him and played him as recently as last weekend speaks volumes about how blinkered they and football in general is to how this plays to everyone else looking in. Looks disgusting to be frank.
He was an average at best player which makes it more ridiculous that he wasn't gone the moment this stuff came to light, they didn't even have a functional reason to keep him nevermind a moral one.
How could they sack him? Sure he was not guilty of anything til yesterday. Suspended him maybe.
There's plenty of clauses in most professional contracts that dictate how their employee can behave. Getting charged with grooming a 15 year-old girl falls very comfortably under bringing your club into disrepute. I don't doubt his contract with Sunderland had behaviourial clauses they could have exercised if they so wished. An employer doesn't need someone to be proven guilty of a crime for them to be fired or suspended, it's all governed by their contract.
At worst he should have been suspended. For the love of Christ even Ken Barlow had to stop working when he was nicked for similar charges.
He was suspended for a while last season when the case was first brought up. Sunderland terminated his contract yesterday.
Quote from: rodney trotter on February 12, 2016, 06:29:59 PM
He was suspended for a while last season when the case was first brought up. Sunderland terminated his contract yesterday.
Which was the most half-hearted concession to public opinion you're likely to ever see.
She had only turned 15 a month before the incidents.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2016, 06:26:37 PM
He was sacked when he admitted the charge of grooming the girl.
Ah, that makes sense.
Seems like Sunderland acted fairly properly here
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 12, 2016, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2016, 06:26:37 PM
He was sacked when he admitted the charge of grooming the girl.
Ah, that makes sense.
Seems like Sunderland acted fairly properly here
Playing a man nearly thirty who the state thought groomed a 15 year-old? Yeeeeeeah..
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 12, 2016, 06:24:42 PM
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on February 12, 2016, 06:22:42 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 06:13:56 PM
If he was a player in any major US sport he'd have been fired and erased from his team's history the moment the state filed charges. That Sunderland kept him and played him as recently as last weekend speaks volumes about how blinkered they and football in general is to how this plays to everyone else looking in. Looks disgusting to be frank.
He was an average at best player which makes it more ridiculous that he wasn't gone the moment this stuff came to light, they didn't even have a functional reason to keep him nevermind a moral one.
How could they sack him? Sure he was not guilty of anything til yesterday. Suspended him maybe.
Has he been found guilty yet?
He should have been suspended the minute charges were being pressed by the police. And sacked if he's found guilty, reinstated if he's not
They could only drop him once he pleaded guilty. If he was innocent they would have to stand by him.
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 12, 2016, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2016, 06:26:37 PM
He was sacked when he admitted the charge of grooming the girl.
Ah, that makes sense.
Seems like Sunderland acted fairly properly here
Playing a man nearly thirty who the state thought groomed a 15 year-old? Yeeeeeeah..
The presumption of innocence remains regardless of the supposed crime
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 12, 2016, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 12, 2016, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2016, 06:26:37 PM
He was sacked when he admitted the charge of grooming the girl.
Ah, that makes sense.
Seems like Sunderland acted fairly properly here
Playing a man nearly thirty who the state thought groomed a 15 year-old? Yeeeeeeah..
The presumption of innocence remains regardless of the supposed crime
You're equating legal innocence with what a limited company can do with their employees when they bring their organisation into disrepute. The contracts players sign give the employer a lot of leeway to suspended or void their contracts in situations like this. I most no-athletes who are also professionals wouldn't be let set foot inside work until something like this is resolved, that is unless they got rid immediately which is also a very likely outcome.
This is not how things work in the States and for once they've got exactly the right idea.
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 11:17:02 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 12, 2016, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 12, 2016, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2016, 06:26:37 PM
He was sacked when he admitted the charge of grooming the girl.
Ah, that makes sense.
Seems like Sunderland acted fairly properly here
Playing a man nearly thirty who the state thought groomed a 15 year-old? Yeeeeeeah..
The presumption of innocence remains regardless of the supposed crime
You're equating legal innocence with what a limited company can do with their employees when they bring their organisation into disrepute. The contracts players sign give the employer a lot of leeway to suspended or void their contracts in situations like this. I most no-athletes who are also professionals wouldn't be let set foot inside work until something like this is resolved, that is unless they got rid immediately which is also a very likely outcome.
This is not how things work in the States and for once they've got exactly the right idea.
Are you really this dense?
Quote from: DuffleKing on February 12, 2016, 11:54:02 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 11:17:02 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 12, 2016, 08:44:57 PM
Quote from: Syferus on February 12, 2016, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 12, 2016, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 12, 2016, 06:26:37 PM
He was sacked when he admitted the charge of grooming the girl.
Ah, that makes sense.
Seems like Sunderland acted fairly properly here
Playing a man nearly thirty who the state thought groomed a 15 year-old? Yeeeeeeah..
The presumption of innocence remains regardless of the supposed crime
You're equating legal innocence with what a limited company can do with their employees when they bring their organisation into disrepute. The contracts players sign give the employer a lot of leeway to suspended or void their contracts in situations like this. I most no-athletes who are also professionals wouldn't be let set foot inside work until something like this is resolved, that is unless they got rid immediately which is also a very likely outcome.
This is not how things work in the States and for once they've got exactly the right idea.
Are you really this dense?
Harsh.
Is a fair opinion although I kinda disagree with it. However I can see the logic in the argument.
I think we need Stew's opinion on this.
Quote from: ONeill on February 13, 2016, 12:22:30 AM
I think we need Stew's opinion on this.
Bullet in the face.
Ray Rice. Adrian Peterson.
Sacked immediately by their teams?! Spoofer of the highest order.
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 02:15:54 PM
Ray Rice. Adrian Peterson.
Sacked immediately by their teams?! Spoofer of the highest order.
In fairness I wouldn't equate what Peterson did with Johnson. That said I wouldn't think you could sack him as it went through the courts but they could have suspended him.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2016, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 02:15:54 PM
Ray Rice. Adrian Peterson.
Sacked immediately by their teams?! Spoofer of the highest order.
In fairness I wouldn't equate what Peterson did with Johnson. That said I wouldn't think you could sack him as it went through the courts but they could have suspended him.
If you try to claim that American sports will ditch you at the first sign of trouble that could pose problems for the image of the team/club/franchise, it's a valid comparison.
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 06:27:36 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2016, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 02:15:54 PM
Ray Rice. Adrian Peterson.
Sacked immediately by their teams?! Spoofer of the highest order.
In fairness I wouldn't equate what Peterson did with Johnson. That said I wouldn't think you could sack him as it went through the courts but they could have suspended him.
If you try to claim that American sports will ditch you at the first sign of trouble that could pose problems for the image of the team/club/franchise, it's a valid comparison.
The exceptions prove the rule. But the ones you mention prove my point.
Adam Johnson isn't even the the ballpark of importance that AP is to his team and yet he was suspended for a season for a less serious offence. Ray Rice was fired because of a single incident with his wife, just because it took them a few months to cop how seriously they erred doesn't mean a thing - Rice didn't play another down for Baltimore after the incident. And again he was far more important to his team than Adam Johnson.
If a player was charged with being a paedophile the NFL wouldn't let him play again until he was proven innocent, the team wouldn't even have the option of doing what Sunderland did. The tolerance for this stuff is far less in American sport, and rightfully so.
Sticking with Baltimore, Ray Lewis LITERALLY KILLED SOMEONE and played for another decade +
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2016, 08:10:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 06:27:36 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2016, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 02:15:54 PM
Ray Rice. Adrian Peterson.
Sacked immediately by their teams?! Spoofer of the highest order.
In fairness I wouldn't equate what Peterson did with Johnson. That said I wouldn't think you could sack him as it went through the courts but they could have suspended him.
If you try to claim that American sports will ditch you at the first sign of trouble that could pose problems for the image of the team/club/franchise, it's a valid comparison.
The exceptions prove the rule. But the ones you mention prove my point.
Adam Johnson isn't even the the ballpark of importance that AP is to his team and yet he was suspended for a season for a less serious offence. Ray Rice was fired because of a single incident with his wife, just because it took them a few months to cop how seriously they erred doesn't mean a thing - Rice didn't play another down for Baltimore after the incident. And again he was far more important to his team than Adam Johnson.
If a player was charged with being a paedophile the NFL wouldn't let him play again until he was proven innocent, the team wouldn't even have the option of doing what Sunderland did. The tolerance for this stuff is far less in American sport, and rightfully so.
Ray Rices production had fallen off a cliff before that incident, he was pretty much done so it was an easy decision for Baltimore to make.
Also, Rice's contact was terminated in September. It's fairly widely acknowledged that all parties involved had all the videos from day one back in March.
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 09:22:02 PM
Sticking with Baltimore, Ray Lewis LITERALLY KILLED SOMEONE and played for another decade +
Far, far from being as simple as that but you'd know that well.
Doesn't look good for him at all. He's finished in the UK even if he's found not guilty of the other charges. If for argument sake he gets off on those charges, how likely is he able to play again say in a different country?
Quote from: clarshack on February 13, 2016, 11:33:13 PM
Doesn't look good for him at all. He's finished in the UK even if he's found not guilty of the other charges. If for argument sake he gets off on those charges, how likely is he able to play again say in a different country?
Can't leave the country? Sex offender?
Quote from: NAG1 on February 14, 2016, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: clarshack on February 13, 2016, 11:33:13 PM
Doesn't look good for him at all. He's finished in the UK even if he's found not guilty of the other charges. If for argument sake he gets off on those charges, how likely is he able to play again say in a different country?
Can't leave the country? Sex offender?
did gary glitter not leave the UK?
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2016, 08:10:38 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 06:27:36 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2016, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 02:15:54 PM
Ray Rice. Adrian Peterson.
Sacked immediately by their teams?! Spoofer of the highest order.
In fairness I wouldn't equate what Peterson did with Johnson. That said I wouldn't think you could sack him as it went through the courts but they could have suspended him.
If you try to claim that American sports will ditch you at the first sign of trouble that could pose problems for the image of the team/club/franchise, it's a valid comparison.
The exceptions prove the rule. But the ones you mention prove my point.
Adam Johnson isn't even the the ballpark of importance that AP is to his team and yet he was suspended for a season for a less serious offence. Ray Rice was fired because of a single incident with his wife, just because it took them a few months to cop how seriously they erred doesn't mean a thing - Rice didn't play another down for Baltimore after the incident. And again he was far more important to his team than Adam Johnson.
If a player was charged with being a paedophile the NFL wouldn't let him play again until he was proven innocent, the team wouldn't even have the option of doing what Sunderland did. The tolerance for this stuff is far less in American sport, and rightfully so.
Eh, Floyd Mayweather (on abuse claims)? It is all about the green...
I assume Syferus is on full wind up merchant mode
Quote from: Syferus on February 13, 2016, 11:20:02 PM
Quote from: gallsman on February 13, 2016, 09:22:02 PM
Sticking with Baltimore, Ray Lewis LITERALLY KILLED SOMEONE and played for another decade +
Far, far from being as simple as that but you'd know that well.
Of course it's not, but in case you've forgotten, your claim was that anyone even associated or connected to serious crime would be booted out without proof of criminal responsibility.
There was another case of a footballer with a sexual offence court case. He was also dropped by the club. There is a bit of a thing going on in UCD with a lad culture. Imagine what it is like in English soccer with virtually limitless money
sloshing around.
Jamais Winston? Syferus I think you are a bit Naive here. Sport stars in the states are protected as much or more than anywhere Now if something comes out and public opinion begins to shift, and they think ye might lose money, then yes, they are all over it. Hence the Ray Rice debacle last year and the Adrian Peterson over reaction.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 14, 2016, 08:45:37 AM
Jamais Winston? Syferus I think you are a bit Naive here. Sport stars in the states are protected as much or more than anywhere Now if something comes out and public opinion begins to shift, and they think ye might lose money, then yes, they are all over it. Hence the Ray Rice debacle last year and the Adrian Peterson over reaction.
Particularly if it's a valuable player. Look at Blake Griffin a few weeks ago ffs, the clippers tried to sweep it under the carpet.
Johnson himself in the dock today... Looks like its going to come down to his word against hers on the two charges he's not admitted.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/adam-johnson-scandal-shows-just-7488863#rlabs=5%20rt$category%20p$6
I will accept monetary donations as apologies.
His career is destroyed. So stupid
6years in Prison for Johnson.
Plus his 12 England caps have been wiped from the record
Quote from: Estimator on March 24, 2016, 01:26:58 PM
6years in Prison for Johnson.
Plus his 12 England caps have been wiped from the record
Em. How can you wipe his caps from the record? He played and he knows he played, and so does everyone else.
Ballbag - deserves all he gets!
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 01:28:11 PM
Quote from: Estimator on March 24, 2016, 01:26:58 PM
6years in Prison for Johnson.
Plus his 12 England caps have been wiped from the record
Em. How can you wipe his caps from the record? He played and he knows he played, and so does everyone else.
Nonsense. He's a criminal. How could he have played for Engerland? I think you'll find he didn't. Check the record books.
That's a ludicrous sentence. Rapists get less.
Quote from: haranguerer on March 24, 2016, 01:53:16 PM
That's a ludicrous sentence. Rapists get less.
out in 3 years for good behaviour
Be out in a lot less when he appeals I'd imagine.
Meanwhile, heres a guy potentially out in four
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-35595335
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 01:28:11 PM
Quote from: Estimator on March 24, 2016, 01:26:58 PM
6years in Prison for Johnson.
Plus his 12 England caps have been wiped from the record
Em. How can you wipe his caps from the record? He played and he knows he played, and so does everyone else.
I laughed too when I heard that they were wiping his caps, you can't change the past - it happened.
Quote from: haranguerer on March 24, 2016, 01:53:16 PM
That's a ludicrous sentence. Rapists get less.
It's all about the media driven society we live in, the poor are ripped off no one gives a shit, a big shot resigns gets headline news, cuts revoked, famous footballer has sexual activities with under age girl, big house, hottie girlfriend front page of the news and headlines on major news stations lets make an example of him. Agree more heinous crimes get less sentencing, fucked up society - he's still a complete balbag though and deserves all he gets.
The law is an ass.
Talk about double standards here's a story from last year
A BOY held back tears yesterday as he told how he was groomed at 15 by a teaching assistant twice his age — and made her pregnant.
He said two months of abuse "scarred him for life" and added: "I'll never forget it."
The boy, who we are calling Jack to protect his identity, told his story after Berriman, 30, walked free from court, despite admitting three charges of sexual activity with a child. Jack, now 17, said the pair did not have sex until five months into their relationship.
But from then on it was regular and "always unprotected".
He said: "The first time it happened I was sat on the couch and she put her arm over me and started kissing me.
"I started kissing her back and it just went on from there.
"It must have happened over 50 times in the space of those few months."
Jack believed he was in love but his world started to unravel when Berriman told him he had got her pregnant.
He said: "Stuff like that has scarred me for life."
The stress of the relationship led him to confide in his older brother. Jack's mum then got wind of it and ordered him to end it or she would call cops.
But when Jack told Berriman his mum knew he said she "flipped" and attacked him.
He said Berriman, who gave him one-to-one tuition in maths and English, began grooming him in January last year after he saw her using Facebook on her phone in class.
That night Jack, who had a huge crush on Berriman, found her profile and made contact.
She was quick to reply and asked him for his mobile number so they could flirt by text.
Soon they were going on long drives into the hills around Manchester and going to her house to talk and watch TV.
He said: "We would call and text each other all the time and it got more and more into a sort of relationship.
"Then she started ringing me on weekends, asking if I was going round to hers. It slowly got more serious."
Berriman introduced Jack to her two-year-old girl.
He said: "It got to a point where her daughter was calling me 'Dad'. I used to say to her 'I'm not, I'm your mum's friend'."
Recalling when Berriman realised their relationship was exposed, Jack said: "Caroline started flipping out, she started hitting me because I had told my mum.
"She was screaming and shouting saying 'Why have you put me in this position? I'm going to lose my daughter.' Blaming everything on me like I was in the wrong."
Jack tried to distance himself from her but Berriman kept texting and calling him. She then rang saying she had borrowed £20,000 from her parents so they could run away together — before turning up on Jack's estate. He said: "She just started crying and punching things in her car, smashing her glasses and just saying 'please please'."She drove the teenager back to her house where she carried on pleading with him.
Jack said: "She was like 'if you don't come it's going to break my daughter's heart, it's going to break my heart, everything that I've risked for you'.
"I said I've been through enough pain and abuse. I want this to end."
He went home and reported the abuse to Childline. She was suspended by her bosses at Abraham Moss Community School in Crumpsall, Gtr Manchester, as soon as they became aware of the allegations and is no longer employed there. Jack has now left school and is looking for a job but is still reeling from the effects of his first real "relationship".
Last week Berriman, of Oldham, got a two-year suspended sentence and 250 hours of community work at Manchester Minshull Street crown court.
She had pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual activity with a child, and a further charge of sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust.
Holding back tears, Jack said: "The sentence was atrocious. If it was a man and a 15-year-old girl I'm sure the prosecution would have been harsher."
Berriman was unavailable for comment last night. Her dad Keith said the charges against her were "a load of b******s".
Some more stuff regarding Johnson is allowed to be reported.
1. Beastiality photos on his laptop
2. Visiting a website called nice young teens
3. Receiving treatment for sexually transmitted infection when he was arrested.
His sentence must have something to do with his lack of remorse as well.
Remember the case from a couple of years ago about the teacher who absconded to France with one of his 15yr old students. He only got 5 and a half years.
Sunderland will have gone through ten managers by the time he's out again
The big factoring in his sentencing was the fact that he fought the case and still shows no remorse. He'll be some shell of a man after being big Jimbo's bitch for 3 years.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/24/adam-johnson-should-be-jailed-for-up-to-10-years-court-told
Chewing gum in the dock, Johnson was told he would be on the sex offender register for the rest of his life and undertake treatment for what one psychologist described as his "hypersexual disorder".
His parents, Sonia and Dave, showed no emotion as he was jailed for six years. He was also ordered to pay £50,000 towards the prosecution's fees – amounting to less than a month's pay on his now-terminated Sunderland football club contract.
Blackwell urged the judge to consider as an aggravating factor that those close to Johnson – including his sister, Faye Johnson – had "openly encouraged and promoted" his supporters to "repeatedly and doggedly" abuse the footballer's victim on social media
Quote from: Hardy on March 24, 2016, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 01:28:11 PM
Quote from: Estimator on March 24, 2016, 01:26:58 PM
6years in Prison for Johnson.
Plus his 12 England caps have been wiped from the record
Em. How can you wipe his caps from the record? He played and he knows he played, and so does everyone else.
Nonsense. He's a criminal. How could he have played for Engerland? I think you'll find he didn't. Check the record books.
Gary Lineker and co be on now saying how they are going to win the euros this year because a few years ago they were playing matches with only 10 players.
Soccer is a dirty game ran by dirty people followed by thugs and eejots and certainly supports a lifestyle not good for any young lad to go into.
You would have to feel sorry for his gf. He has a hypersexual aspect. Imagine finding that out.
Quote from: seafoid on March 25, 2016, 09:36:10 AM
You would have to feel sorry for his gf. He has a hypersexual aspect. Imagine finding that out.
I would have thought finding out he was a paedophile would have done the trick.
Their child too when the child is old enough to comprehend.
Quote from: seafoid on March 25, 2016, 09:36:10 AM
You would have to feel sorry for his gf. He has a hypersexual aspect. Imagine finding that out.
Would you be able to see it past the 60 grand a week and 1.8 million house?
Is he a paedophile though?
Yes...
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
If you had sex with a girl the night before her 16th birthday according to the law you probably are.
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
If you had sex with a girl the night before her 16th birthday according to the law you probably are.
Lawfully in this country then he is? But surely being paedophile isn't something that you are in once country and not in another - you either are or you aren't. Its a condition that shouldn't be determined by the law.
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
wouldn't say so. 15 isn't that far from 16.
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:19:56 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
If you had sex with a girl the night before her 16th birthday according to the law you probably are.
Lawfully in this country then he is? But surely being paedophile isn't something that you are in once country and not in another - you either are or you aren't. Its a condition that shouldn't be determined by the law.
What would your definition be then?
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:39:01 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:19:56 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
If you had sex with a girl the night before her 16th birthday according to the law you probably are.
Lawfully in this country then he is? But surely being paedophile isn't something that you are in once country and not in another - you either are or you aren't. Its a condition that shouldn't be determined by the law.
What would your definition be then?
I'm sure you can find the definition of the term somewhere if you look, but it's not something I imagine that can be subjective depending on what country you live in.
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:39:01 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:19:56 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
If you had sex with a girl the night before her 16th birthday according to the law you probably are.
Lawfully in this country then he is? But surely being paedophile isn't something that you are in once country and not in another - you either are or you aren't. Its a condition that shouldn't be determined by the law.
What would your definition be then?
I'm sure you can find the definition of the term somewhere if you look, but it's not something I imagine that can be subjective depending on what country you live in.
But there has to be an age determined by law to protect the rights of children, if you are saying that is incorrect I am asking you what is your definition?
Quote from: Estimator on March 24, 2016, 05:00:30 PM
Remember the case from a couple of years ago about the teacher who absconded to France with one of his 15yr old students. He only got 5 and a half years.
It was reported at the time of the above incident that they went to France partly due to the reason that the age of consent was 15. So that they wouldn't be doing anything illegal. It doesn't make it any less wrong
The sister hounding the girl on social media was particularly classy
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:59:04 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:39:01 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:19:56 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
If you had sex with a girl the night before her 16th birthday according to the law you probably are.
Lawfully in this country then he is? But surely being paedophile isn't something that you are in once country and not in another - you either are or you aren't. Its a condition that shouldn't be determined by the law.
What would your definition be then?
I'm sure you can find the definition of the term somewhere if you look, but it's not something I imagine that can be subjective depending on what country you live in.
But there has to be an age determined by law to protect the rights of children, if you are saying that is incorrect I am asking you what is your definition?
I am not saying the law is incorrect, but he wasn't charged with being a paedophile - he was charged with an offence and rightly so (in line with UK law) got convicted. It's the brandishing him of being a paedophile that I think is incorrect.
Being a paedophile is not illegal - and nor should it be.
Why should the "law" define a "condition"?
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:06:11 PM
Being a paedophile is not illegal - and nor should it be.
Why should the "law" define a "condition"?
You are deliberately splitting hairs. Paedophilia is a crime, in other words acting out the compulsion is illegal, even if the condition itself is not.
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:59:04 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:39:01 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:19:56 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
If you had sex with a girl the night before her 16th birthday according to the law you probably are.
Lawfully in this country then he is? But surely being paedophile isn't something that you are in once country and not in another - you either are or you aren't. Its a condition that shouldn't be determined by the law.
What would your definition be then?
I'm sure you can find the definition of the term somewhere if you look, but it's not something I imagine that can be subjective depending on what country you live in.
But there has to be an age determined by law to protect the rights of children, if you are saying that is incorrect I am asking you what is your definition?
I am not saying the law is incorrect, but he wasn't charged with being a paedophile - he was charged with an offence and rightly so (in line with UK law) got convicted. It's the brandishing him of being a paedophile that I think is incorrect.
He is an adult who groomed and engaged in sexual intercourse with a child, the term sits correctly with this individual.
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 25, 2016, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:06:11 PM
Being a paedophile is not illegal - and nor should it be.
Why should the "law" define a "condition"?
You are deliberately splitting hairs. Paedophilia is a crime, in other words acting out the compulsion is illegal, even if the condition itself is not.
I am not splitting hairs. I am being accurate
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:06:11 PM
Being a paedophile is not illegal - and nor should it be.
Why should the "law" define a "condition"?
incest is also illegal
OK, Pedantic then :). Are paedophile acts illegal?
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 01:08:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:59:04 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:39:01 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:19:56 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
If you had sex with a girl the night before her 16th birthday according to the law you probably are.
Lawfully in this country then he is? But surely being paedophile isn't something that you are in once country and not in another - you either are or you aren't. Its a condition that shouldn't be determined by the law.
What would your definition be then?
I'm sure you can find the definition of the term somewhere if you look, but it's not something I imagine that can be subjective depending on what country you live in.
But there has to be an age determined by law to protect the rights of children, if you are saying that is incorrect I am asking you what is your definition?
I am not saying the law is incorrect, but he wasn't charged with being a paedophile - he was charged with an offence and rightly so (in line with UK law) got convicted. It's the brandishing him of being a paedophile that I think is incorrect.
He is an adult who groomed and engaged in sexual intercourse with a child, the term sits correctly with this individual.
He may or may not be a paedophile and I very much doubt if anybody here knows if he is.
He groomed a 15 year old. Did he do so because she was below the age of consent? Was that his motiavation?
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 25, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
OK, Pedantic then :). Are paedophile acts illegal?
Well abusing a child, viewing images of child abuse etc are all illegal. Did you need me to point this out?
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:11:19 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 01:08:33 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:59:04 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:39:01 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:19:56 AM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 25, 2016, 11:11:14 AM
Is he a paedophile though?
If you had sex with a girl the night before her 16th birthday according to the law you probably are.
Lawfully in this country then he is? But surely being paedophile isn't something that you are in once country and not in another - you either are or you aren't. Its a condition that shouldn't be determined by the law.
What would your definition be then?
I'm sure you can find the definition of the term somewhere if you look, but it's not something I imagine that can be subjective depending on what country you live in.
But there has to be an age determined by law to protect the rights of children, if you are saying that is incorrect I am asking you what is your definition?
I am not saying the law is incorrect, but he wasn't charged with being a paedophile - he was charged with an offence and rightly so (in line with UK law) got convicted. It's the brandishing him of being a paedophile that I think is incorrect.
He is an adult who groomed and engaged in sexual intercourse with a child, the term sits correctly with this individual.
He may or may not be a paedophile and I very much doubt if anybody here knows if he is.
He groomed a 15 year old. Did he do so because she was below the age of consent? Was that his motiavation?
He seemed to spend a lot of time googling the age of consent, he's a predator and deserves all he gets, what he did constitutes him being correctly branded a paedophile.
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 25, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
OK, Pedantic then :). Are paedophile acts illegal?
Well abusing a child, viewing images of child abuse etc are all illegal. Did you need me to point this out?
And what term would you use to describe this people?
Not at all. I just find it interesting that you are so adamant that being a paedophile is not illegal, when you know full well people are talking about the acts, rather than the condition. But sure work away, you're 100% right, and I'm not arguing with you.
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 01:14:21 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 25, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
OK, Pedantic then :). Are paedophile acts illegal?
Well abusing a child, viewing images of child abuse etc are all illegal. Did you need me to point this out?
And what term would you use to describe this people?
Child abusers
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:17:06 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 01:14:21 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 25, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
OK, Pedantic then :). Are paedophile acts illegal?
Well abusing a child, viewing images of child abuse etc are all illegal. Did you need me to point this out?
And what term would you use to describe this people?
Child abusers
Paedophile also fits, I'll stick to that as will the majority of right thinking individuals, you try and play semantics if that is what gets you off.
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 01:13:45 PM
He seemed to spend a lot of time googling the age of consent, he's a predator and deserves all he gets, what he did constitutes him being correctly branded a paedophile.
I dunno why I bother.....
The law doesn't distinguish between prepubescent, pubescent or post pubescent when determining abuse of minors. In the uk, 16 is legal age of consent hense the girl was a minor.
Without knowing the facts of the case and only taking the sex with the minor into consideration; from a medical point of view he's not a paedophile. The accepted definition of it would be a sexual atraction to prepubescent or very early pubescent children which the girl is clearly not.
He may very well have paedophillic tendencies but there has been zero evidence to indicate he acted upon them.
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 01:20:01 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:17:06 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 01:14:21 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on March 25, 2016, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 25, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
OK, Pedantic then :). Are paedophile acts illegal?
Well abusing a child, viewing images of child abuse etc are all illegal. Did you need me to point this out?
And what term would you use to describe this people?
Child abusers
Paedophile also fits, I'll stick to that as will the majority of right thinking individuals, you try and play semantics if that is what gets you off.
Paedophilia is a sexual preference. Anybody with that preference but does not act on it is not a criminal.
If an adult male raped an adult female would you desribe their crime as hetrosexuality? Or are you inconsistent on this point?
It shines a bad light on English soccer culture. 3m a year and no respect for women. The arrogance and sense of entitlement plus the lack of remorse and the immaturity.
A paedophile is someone attracted to pre-pubescent children. I think the correct term is ephebofile
You can give all the "medical terms" you wish - the fact is a paedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children - a 15 year old girl is a child and a 28 year old man grooming her and getting her to perform sexual acts is a paedophile.
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 02:16:05 PM
You can give all the "medical terms" you wish - the fact is a paedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children - a 15 year old girl is a child and a 28 year old man grooming her and getting her to perform sexual acts is a paedophile.
So in continental Europe, where ages of consent vary: are those people paedophiles just because they are breaking UK law, even though what they are doing is legal in that country? Because I'm led to believe it could have happened in any number of countries and he'd not have been arrested.
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 02:54:04 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 25, 2016, 02:16:05 PM
You can give all the "medical terms" you wish - the fact is a paedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children - a 15 year old girl is a child and a 28 year old man grooming her and getting her to perform sexual acts is a paedophile.
So in continental Europe, where ages of consent vary: are those people paedophiles just because they are breaking UK law, even though what they are doing is legal in that country? Because I'm led to believe it could have happened in any number of countries and he'd not have been arrested.
Thats a great point GL, no doubt he deserves his jail time but its valid point regarding age of consent in various countries, surely it should be all the same?
Its like you can drink her at 18 but in america you COULD be fined etc.. as you have to be 21
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?
In the US it would be statutory rape.
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.
Quote from: haranguerer on March 26, 2016, 06:12:45 AM
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.
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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 ;)
Quote from: haranguerer on March 26, 2016, 06:12:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 26, 2016, 10:06:48 AM
Quote from: haranguerer on March 26, 2016, 06:12:45 AM
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."
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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!
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.
Quote from: Syferus on March 26, 2016, 01:22:55 PM
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.
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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?
Quote from: No wides on March 26, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 02:44:30 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 26, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 02:44:30 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 26, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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?
Quote from: No wides on March 26, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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.
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 26, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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.
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7389865.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Mock-up-of-Whatsapp-messages-between-Adam-Johnson-and-15-year-old-girl-1.jpg)(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7389866.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Mock-up-of-Whatsapp-messages-between-Adam-Johnson-and-15-year-old-girl-2.jpg)(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7389867.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Mock-up-of-Whatsapp-messages-between-Adam-Johnson-and-15-year-old-girl-3.jpg)
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.
Quote from: dferg on March 26, 2016, 06:35:36 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 26, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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.
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7389865.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Mock-up-of-Whatsapp-messages-between-Adam-Johnson-and-15-year-old-girl-1.jpg)(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7389866.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Mock-up-of-Whatsapp-messages-between-Adam-Johnson-and-15-year-old-girl-2.jpg)(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7389867.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Mock-up-of-Whatsapp-messages-between-Adam-Johnson-and-15-year-old-girl-3.jpg)
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"
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?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 02:44:30 PM
Quote from: No wides on March 26, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 26, 2016, 01:12:47 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2016, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 26, 2016, 10:37:21 AM
Quote from: general_lee on March 25, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
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?
Quote from: andoireabu on March 27, 2016, 07:39:56 AM
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
Quote from: Main Street on March 27, 2016, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on March 27, 2016, 07:39:56 AM
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
Thanks for the clarification. Seems odd they wouldnt make them both 18
Quote from: andoireabu on March 27, 2016, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 27, 2016, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on March 27, 2016, 07:39:56 AM
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
Thanks for the clarification. Seems odd they wouldnt make them both 18
There are a lot of oddities in the world,
eg in the USA, old enough to die but not old enough to drink.
Quote from: Main Street on March 27, 2016, 11:38:27 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on March 27, 2016, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 27, 2016, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on March 27, 2016, 07:39:56 AM
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
Thanks for the clarification. Seems odd they wouldnt make them both 18
There are a lot of oddities in the world,
eg in the USA, old enough to die but not old enough to drink.
Yeah you can shoots live gun as a child under parental supervision but the FDA will not approve Kinder eggs due to the chance of a child choking on it!!!!
Anything with a pulse seems to have been Johnson's problem
Quote from: seafoid on March 28, 2016, 01:15:48 PM
Anything with a pulse seems to have been Johnson's problem
Are you also denying the veracity of evidence (WhatsApp messages) that the prosecution entered uncontested into the court and was accepted as fact.
Quote from: Main Street on March 28, 2016, 06:13:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 28, 2016, 01:15:48 PM
Anything with a pulse seems to have been Johnson's problem
Are you also denying the veracity of evidence (WhatsApp messages) that the prosecution entered uncontested into the court and was accepted as fact.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion based on what he said?
Quote from: screenexile on March 28, 2016, 11:01:08 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 27, 2016, 11:38:27 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on March 27, 2016, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 27, 2016, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: andoireabu on March 27, 2016, 07:39:56 AM
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
Thanks for the clarification. Seems odd they wouldnt make them both 18
There are a lot of oddities in the world,
eg in the USA, old enough to die but not old enough to drink.
Yeah you can shoots live gun as a child under parental supervision but the FDA will not approve Kinder eggs due to the chance of a child choking on it!!!!
Old enough to have sex, not old enough to log in to a website to practice.
Quote from: Main Street on March 28, 2016, 06:13:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 28, 2016, 01:15:48 PM
Anything with a pulse seems to have been Johnson's problem
Are you also denying the veracity of evidence (WhatsApp messages) that the prosecution entered uncontested into the court and was accepted as fact.
Monaghan need at least 2 more forwards. What was your point again ?
Quote from: Main Street on March 28, 2016, 06:13:35 PM
Quote from: seafoid on March 28, 2016, 01:15:48 PM
Anything with a pulse seems to have been Johnson's problem
Are you also denying the veracity of evidence (WhatsApp messages) that the prosecution entered uncontested into the court and was accepted as fact.
You may have misread that.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tees-47666849