I take you point and agree. So seeing as the girl in the Rix case admitted to lying to him about her age and admitted to willingly having sex with him how does he end up in the nick. saying this maybe a 41 year old should of questioned to himself the situation..
Adam Johnson kissed the girl and put his hands down her pants - 6 years Graham Rix had sexual intercourse with the girl twice and sexually assaulted her - 12 months You're right not every case is the same.
The sentence is likely to do nothing to deter other people from sexually abusing children, in fact it may well have the opposite effect.
Stop been ****. I said, quite clearly, I liked the concept but would reserve judgement until ALL of the facts are issued. I never advocated any hikes. So, an outright lie from you there. Which is not a surprise.
Its his first offence. There is no other evidence of child sexual abuse. No child pornography was found on his phone or computer. He gave her the come on, yes, kissed her, put his hand down her pants and then turned down the opportunity to take it further and have sexual intercourse with her. The judge said he'd be 20 minutes to consider the defence's evidence, he took 7, it appears he'd already sentenced him before hearing all the evidence on sentencing. Even if the court of appeal throws out his appeal against conviction he's likely to get his sentence reduced. The press will then report Johnson's reduction in sentence. It will then appear to the majority of disinterested people that what he did wasn't as serious as it first appeared. The opposite to what happened with Stuart Hall and Graham Rix when their convictions were reviewed.
You say so much, It was on their website, brochures being printed, what were you waiting for? No one made anything up, you just ignored the facts and the genuine concern. You used a **** situation to try and be clever, to belittle folk for being pissed with the owners. It's what an Allam Apologist does, don't ya, Snigger. Happy Easter.
A taster - who told you that? I think most folk took it for what it was, their plan for the future. Public outrage caused the act of review, but they wanted that original plan; hence the brochures. You just keep making it up and defend the indefensible. I think the 'many' you speak of got it bang to rights.
Adam and Chedwyn are doing their best to prove the stereotype that footballers are just a bit thick. Loads of money but the morals an alley cat would be proud of. They both have daughters don't they? I suspect they wouldn't be too happy in about 13 years time if some wealthy ****wit like them touched up their offspring. Sadly they don't see anything wrong in their behaviour.
Okay, I see where you're coming from, but not totally agreeing. I just wonder (I don't really, I think it is probably true) if, had he not have been a high-profile footballer, would this have got the public gaze and indignation it has received. Like I said, the verdict is spot on, but the sentence is out of kilter with the reality of life - for me at least. By the way, it was, I believe, a tad more than just 'a hand down her pants'. As Micky Flanagan says, it is a fading skill.
Your response is the usual ****y bollocks I see. So I didn't support price hikes for kids? So you were lieing? So no apology from you? Just the usual self justifying endless droning from you? You're simply an odious old **** who loves the sound of his own voice.
