adam johnson | Vital Football

adam johnson

Lord Ron Saunders

Lord Ron Saunders

Vital 1st Team Regular
sorry mods cant find the other thread, please merge if you can find it.

Well shock , would you believe it. the peado has been found guilty.

I suppose Green Tea will say its a miss carrage of justice. I think its the right verdict. Hope he gets life. :17:
 
http://news.sky.com/story/1652196/adam-johnson-convicted-of-child-sex-charge
 
Said on other thread. He isn't a paedophile. Different sexual preference and I think calling him one gives people the impression that paedos find 15 year olds attractive. They don't. They find prepubescent children attractive. Children generally under 10.
 
He's a paedophile as paedophiles are sexually attracted to children and I believe that a 15 year is considered a minor in a court of law.
 
SKEGGY - 2/3/2016 19:59

He's a paedophile as paedophiles are sexually attracted to children and I believe that a 15 year is considered a minor in a court of law.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct in terms of the literal definition of 'paedophile' - one who is sexually attracted to children.

But ultimately, it's all semantics. Johnson is clearly a vile abuser of both his position, and, in this case, the legal minor involved. But there is and has to be a difference between, say, a 5-year old and a 15-year old.

Someone who habitually takes advantage of, and abuses, a 5-year old is clearly more disgusting and reprehensible that someone who takes advantage of a 'willing' 15-year old participant, and in modern usage, the term 'paedo' will almost always be used in connection with the former.

I fully agree that what Johnson did was disgusting and illegal, but throwing around the catch-all term 'paedophile' doesn't really reflect the full circumstances.
 
I don't think you can really have a points score for perversion. As for willing he admitted to grooming before the trail.
 
Bikini Inspector - 2/3/2016 21:25

Daily star went with the headline : "ADAM NONCE-SON"

Wonder how much they get paid to come up with stuff like that?
Click to expand...
Well he might as well get used to it because thats what he will be known as in nick.
 
What I do find a disgrace is how he's been allowed out till his sentencing later this month Joe Bloggs would have been JR'd.
 
gator - 3/3/2016 05:14

What I do find a disgrace is how he's been allowed out till his sentencing later this month Joe Bloggs would have been JR'd.
Click to expand...


I think what you will find is that the judge will be waiting for reports (now he's been found guilty) and referring back to similar cases to decide what the length of the custodial sentence should be.

But yes, he's guilty, so if he was jailed now, that would be a month off his term..... crazy.........


:21:


 
gator - 2/3/2016 22:14

What I do find a disgrace is how he's been allowed out till his sentencing later this month Joe Bloggs would have been JR'd.
Click to expand...

Think of it as adding more to his sentence as he'll have nothing else to do except think about what life on the nonces' wing is going to be like for a few years.
 
tmg513 - 3/3/2016 08:40

gator - 2/3/2016 22:14

What I do find a disgrace is how he's been allowed out till his sentencing later this month Joe Bloggs would have been JR'd.
Click to expand...

Think of it as adding more to his sentence as he'll have nothing else to do except think about what life on the nonces' wing is going to be like for a few years.
Click to expand...

His life is fcuked! The difference is he wont be broke for life if he has used his money properly.

He comes under the umbrella term of paedophile now: (refer to Lewis post on the actual terms for each category)

Yup tmg he is going to be more than punished locked up with the nonces. What he is done is wrong, disgusting arrogant and pathetic however a stereo type of what 1 classes a paedophile he isn't.

His punishment is complete, even if he wasn't sent down, which he will be.

Ostracised, career over, relationship over, publicly humiliated etc. etc. he hasn't gotten away with it. He has paid the ultimate price for a few minute fumble.

I clicked on a link to this case earlier and was surprised to say other links come up to people like David Bowie, whom the majority of us idolised who also slept with underage girls being around 15. Different times, but it does make you think
 
The Sun went with the cracking front cover of Peado in his speedos
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    105.5 KB · Views: 0
Pride of Lions - 3/3/2016 01:58

gator - 3/3/2016 05:14

What I do find a disgrace is how he's been allowed out till his sentencing later this month Joe Bloggs would have been JR'd.
Click to expand...


I think what you will find is that the judge will be waiting for reports (now he's been found guilty) and referring back to similar cases to decide what the length of the custodial sentence should be.

But yes, he's guilty, so if he was jailed now, that would be a month off his term..... crazy.........


:21:
Click to expand...
No more reports will be needed mate the only thing that needs to be presided over is the length of sentence but even so he's now a convicted criminal of offences that will require a custodial sentences so therefore in any normal circumstances the Judge would have remanded him until his court date.
 
tmg513 - 3/3/2016 08:40

gator - 2/3/2016 22:14

What I do find a disgrace is how he's been allowed out till his sentencing later this month Joe Bloggs would have been JR'd.
Click to expand...

Think of it as adding more to his sentence as he'll have nothing else to do except think about what life on the nonces' wing is going to be like for a few years.
Click to expand...
Your probably right must be a daunting prospect knowing your heading straight for rule 43's good enough for the shit bag.
 
kefkat - 3/3/2016 10:07

tmg513 - 3/3/2016 08:40

gator - 2/3/2016 22:14

What I do find a disgrace is how he's been allowed out till his sentencing later this month Joe Bloggs would have been JR'd.
Click to expand...

Think of it as adding more to his sentence as he'll have nothing else to do except think about what life on the nonces' wing is going to be like for a few years.
Click to expand...

His life is fcuked! The difference is he wont be broke for life if he has used his money properly.

He comes under the umbrella term of paedophile now: (refer to Lewis post on the actual terms for each category)

Yup tmg he is going to be more than punished locked up with the nonces. What he is done is wrong, disgusting arrogant and pathetic however a stereo type of what 1 classes a paedophile he isn't.

His punishment is complete, even if he wasn't sent down, which he will be.

Ostracised, career over, relationship over, publicly humiliated etc. etc. he hasn't gotten away with it. He has paid the ultimate price for a few minute fumble.

I clicked on a link to this case earlier and was surprised to say other links come up to people like David Bowie, whom the majority of us idolised who also slept with underage girls being around 15. Different times, but it does make you think
Click to expand...

Crazy world we live in. It seems a life can be destroyed so cheaply and there is never any grey area, just black and white.

What is also crazy, is how it gets left to the Jury and how that comes down to luck on what types we have sitting on it. If I was there I would guess we would still be in deliberations. There are definitely unanswered questions, lies, exaggerations and missing pieces in this whole case.

Some key areas for me are that the initial contact came from the girl. It was known she was crazy about him. And she basically got what she wanted - In attention, love/passion, gifts. And its funny how the knowledge of such meetings only came out when he refused to meet her for the third time.
 
GT he was found guilty in a court of law , under good old fashioned British justice.

A jury has found him guilty after hearing ALL the evidence, he admitted other charges.

Can you not accept that ?
 
Guilty on the one charge but not the second charge. Which means lies in court have taken place by the prosecution.

And if the prosecution(after the jury have made their conclusion) have lied about the second charge, what credibility does the 1st charge rely on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.