Adam Johnson

karlypants wrote:

Breadman wrote:There are some troubling comments coming out on this thread.

The facts are:

He knowingly had a sexual encounter with a girl who was under the age of legal consent.

He initiated the sexual encounter, not her.

He "groomed" her by exploiting her idolisation of him.

He traded a signed football shirt for sexual favours.

He researched the legal age of consent online and then went ahead with his plan, despite knowing that he was committing a crime.

That is predatory behaviour and he is a paedophile.

We sneer at "under-developed cultures" where sex and marriage between older men and young girls are commonplace and praise our legal system and values for being superior.

Why?

Because they protect vulnerable children from people like Adam Johnson.

 Well said!

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Chances are she had already had sex with somebody from school or the local park or something. I mean it's probably not like he has stolen this girl's innocence.

You utter, utter bellend. What a ridiculous statement.

You should start a peedo sympathy thread with Hipster.

MartinBWFC wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:Chances are she had already had sex with somebody from school or the local park or something. I mean it's probably not like he has stolen this girl's innocence.

You utter, utter bellend. What a ridiculous statement.

You should start a peedo sympathy thread with Hipster.

Am I right in thinking that you got jiggy as a 15 year old with one of your teachers? but was that ok because you'd already had your cherry popped by some scruffy nerd behind the bank in Little Lever?

doffcocker wrote:
It's not that long ago she was on here defending that teacher who shagged and ran off to France with his 15 year old pupil.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

doffcocker wrote:
It's not that long ago she was on here defending that teacher who shagged and ran off to France with his 15 year old pupil.

You just made that up you fat gobshite.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I'm clearly arguing the law is an ass in that thread - a teacher runs off with an almost 16 year old pupil and gets 5 years - a bloke who kills someone in a fight over cheesy chips gets less.

doffcocker wrote:

Do Johnson and the teacher deserve equal punishment?

Natasha Whittam wrote:Guilty.

Judge has told him to pack a bag for a long stay.

Overpaid nonce.

wanderlust wrote:It troubles me to think that there are "degrees" of sex monster. Whilst I've been here in SA I've heard stories of a rumour going round the townships. that men with AIDS can cure themselves by having unprotected sex with young girls - the younger the better - prompting a spate of rapes of of babies.
In a country where the president himself perpetuates tribal myths to win votes it isunsurprising.
Google Zuma / shower / rape trial
Back tomorrow.

y2johnny wrote:

wanderlust wrote:It troubles me to think that there are "degrees" of sex monster. Whilst I've been here in SA I've heard stories of a rumour going round the townships. that men with AIDS can cure themselves by having unprotected sex with young girls - the younger the better - prompting a spate of rapes of of babies.
In a country where the president himself perpetuates tribal myths to win votes it isunsurprising.
Google Zuma / shower / rape trial
Back tomorrow.

Fook that.  Someone told me about a new breakfast they had and told me to google it.  Since then i never google anything people tell me.  Blue waffle.  Ffs

Breadman wrote:Someone once told me that googling "two girls, one cup" would bring up pictures of a couple of  gorgeous Page 3 stunners in bikinis doing some promo stuff for the FA round Cup Final time.

It didn't.....

Breadman wrote:Doff, it doesn't matter what she did - it's all about Johnson and his actions.

We have the age of consent set at 16 for a reason.

I'm not naive enough to think that kids religiously wait until they're 16 to start banging each other because they probably never have and never will.

But we do need a legal cut off point where it becomes illegal for someone older to have sex with kids below that age.

Because whilst 15 year olds may think they know best, they don't - they're kids.

The law's there to protect stupid kids from being exploited.

Johnson knows this and ignored it.

He is a predatory paedophile however you spin it and whatever the girl may or may not have done is irrelevant.