dannyboy29
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 1,276
He was stupid and naive to think he wouldn't get caught.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Adam Johnson guilty - 6 year sentence
- Thread starter Prestwich_Blue
- Start date
He was stupid and naive to think he wouldn't get caught.
I think by legal definition it’s paedophilia.
She was under the age of consent at the time and so still classified as a child.
No it's not.
Vienna_70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 36,885
- Location
- 100, 32, 106, +79, 19
- Team supported
- Treble Winners 2022/23.
He's paid a high price alright, but he wasn't stupid or naive, he knew exactly what he was doing, and that she was underage - he specifically referenced it in their conversations. Sometimes people are doing exactly what they want to do.
He might not have been naïve, but he was certainly fucking stupid!
Nebuchadnezzar
Well-Known Member
He's a pervert
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,250
Excellent post mate.I'm with you mate. My definition of monster is far worse than someone who has fingered a fifteen year old girl with consent. I'll save that for blokes (for example) who rape their own six year old daughter, or kidnap people, tie them up and torture them.
As awful as his offence was, it's not even on the scale for crimes of evil and the harm they inflict on others. With sexual offences, people seem compelled to outdo each other to show their revulsion, to show it's something they disapprove of, which means all sense of rational debate goes out of the window.
It's funny how people want to return to what they perceive as the severe punishment of yesteryear, when a generation ago (and certainly two) Johnson wouldn't have even gone to prison for this offence. That was wrong, but in my view, six years was OTT for this offence and driven by a media frenzy. Three years would have been more appropriate imo. People who con old people out of their life savings get less than that (six years), which I consider a far worse crime - perpetrated by people who are more akin to 'monsters' than Johnson.
The problem is, that people are in such a frenzy about this type of offending that I expect I'll get pilloried for expressing this view, mainly by people who want everyone one to know that they are not paedos.
He's done his time and should be allowed to make the most of his life going forward, subject to the appropriate restrictions (around children in particular) that his offending places on him.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
He did this in this country where it's against the law to groom and have sexual contact with a kid under 16,stop making excuses for himIn France it would have been no issue? I remember Benzema and Ribery got away with much MUCH worse. And they are still playing football!
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Rather than making excuses, he's providing context and perspective to someone's (unacceptable) behaviour who has been (absurdly) described as a 'monster'.He did this in this country where it's against the law to groom and have sexual contact with a kid under 16,stop making excuses for him
Some of the responses on this thread merely serve to underline my point about the manifest challenges in engaging in any form of rational debate around this subject.
Last edited:
Indaparkside
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2015
- Messages
- 14,567
He did this in this country where it's against the law to groom and have sexual contact with a kid under 16,stop making excuses for him
Well said
mcfcmatt
Well-Known Member
He did this in this country where it's against the law to groom and have sexual contact with a kid under 16,stop making excuses for him
I'm not making excuses for him the guy is a TWAT of the highest order and that's for sure. However who incited it all? because she was the one waiting for him time and time again until he took the bite like an absolute dickhead.
What Benzema and Ribery were involved in is much much worse however it was just blown over....
goalmole
Well-Known Member
He'd have got about 2 years max if he wasn't who he was.I'm with you mate. My definition of monster is far worse than someone who has fingered a fifteen year old girl with consent. I'll save that for blokes (for example) who rape their own six year old daughter, or kidnap people, tie them up and torture them.
As awful as his offence was, it's not even on the scale for crimes of evil and the harm they inflict on others. With sexual offences, people seem compelled to outdo each other to show their revulsion, to show it's something they disapprove of, which means all sense of rational debate goes out of the window.
It's funny how people want to return to what they perceive as the severe punishment of yesteryear, when a generation ago (and certainly two) Johnson wouldn't have even gone to prison for this offence. That was wrong, but in my view, six years was OTT for this offence and driven by a media frenzy. Three years would have been more appropriate imo. People who con old people out of their life savings get less than that (six years), which I consider a far worse crime - perpetrated by people who are more akin to 'monsters' than Johnson.
The problem is, that people are in such a frenzy about this type of offending that I expect I'll get pilloried for expressing this view, mainly by people who want everyone one to know that they are not paedos.
He's done his time and should be allowed to make the most of his life going forward, subject to the appropriate restrictions (around children in particular) that his offending places on him.