Off Topic Adam Johnson

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Luther Andros said:
Howay SAFC83, its a bit sick dragging 2 dead fans into all this. Fair enough the Sunderland fans are being unfairly tarnished in your eyes, but its not like a lot of your lot don't jump all over every high profile incident our club is attached to (horses, Bartons etc etc). Nature of the beast so to speak <laugh>
Click to expand...

Bringing John and Liam into an argument about a sick nonce is lower than low.
We thanked SAFC at the time. End of.
Shameful to then try and deflect from their issue by using those lads.
The Mackem lad shows himself up big time again here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Warmir Pouchov and Hung Drawn and Quartered
I fail to see where the bad blood is coming from in this thread.

For a start the supporters of the club, any club, are always the last to know what's going on inside the club. Secondly, the laws of the land generally hold that until proven guilty then one must be judged to be innocent.

In this case Johnson claimed that he was innocent and the fact that he was, at the time, an innocent man should have been accepted. I would doubt that the board of the club would have known the full details including how he would plead. And, again, under the premise of innocent until proven otherwise this should be accepted.

What is wrong, very wrong. Is the accusation that the Sunderland fans were knowingly supporting and cheering a *****phile, this is beyond distasteful and should not be repeated. If a single Sunderland fan then comes out to him then that single individual should be admonished; not the rest of their supporters.

What has happened to Sunderland could happen to any of the 92 clubs in the league, including this one. There is no room for this high and mighty attitude put on by some of the Newcastle supporters here. None at all.

Pack it in. Grow up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximin Effort, E.T. Fairfax, JakartaToon and 4 others
Windy_Mag said:
He's officially a *****phile.
Click to expand...

He had sex with a 15 year old. ****'s do not go after 15 year olds mate. He's committed an act of sex with an underage girl.

*****philes are attracted to pre-pubescent kids.

Putting Adam Johnson in the same category as people who **** 10 year olds is ridiculous.

In a few months time, the girl will be 16, and of legal age.
 
666 Tash 666 said:
He had sex with a 15 year old. ****'s do not go after 15 year olds mate. He's committed an act of sex with an underage girl.

*****philes are attracted to pre-pubescent kids.

Putting Adam Johnson in the same category as people who **** 10 year olds is ridiculous.

In a few months time, the girl will be 16, and of legal age.
Click to expand...

The law is the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Warmir Pouchov and Dispicable_Tel
Adam Johnson broke the law, and should be punished, but calling him a *****phile is what I take issue with.

Is he a ****? Maybe, but you can't decide that based on the fact that he had sex with a 15 year old. If he had sex with a 10 year old, then yeah, but not a 15 year old.
 
666 Tash 666 said:
He had sex with a 15 year old. ****'s do not go after 15 year olds mate. He's committed an act of sex with an underage girl.

*****philes are attracted to pre-pubescent kids.

Putting Adam Johnson in the same category as people who **** 10 year olds is ridiculous.

In a few months time, the girl will be 16, and of legal age.
Click to expand...

What part of *****philesaurus rex do you not understand? <grr>
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSJNUFC, Warmir Pouchov and Dispicable_Tel
Beardsley's Shimmy said:
Tash the law has an age limit of 16 for a reason. There are not degrees of noncing by age bracket. The law is black and white.
Click to expand...

I know the law is the law, but people really need to stop judging this situation as black and white because it's complex.

Are you saying someone who ****s a 15 year old deserves the same punishment as someone who ****s babies?

No. The two are no anywhere near each other. If you **** a toddler, you deserve a life sentence, if you **** a 15 year old, then it's not that serious, in my opinion.
 
TheJudeanPeoplesFront said:
Careful Tash, after we burn the *****s, the bloody Pedantiphiles are next <laugh>
Click to expand...

<laugh>

Don't bring up pedantry. One of the courses I took at uni was ancient Greek, and the pedant in me absolutely detests the way we use the word *****phile. I have to bite my lip every time!

If we used the word correctly then we should all be *****philes as it means loving children - and of all the things that the sick ****ers do who abuse them, loving them is not one of them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearlyDeludedGloryHunter
666 Tash 666 said:
He had sex with a 15 year old. ****'s do not go after 15 year olds mate. He's committed an act of sex with an underage girl.

*****philes are attracted to pre-pubescent kids.

Putting Adam Johnson in the same category as people who **** 10 year olds is ridiculous.

In a few months time, the girl will be 16, and of legal age.
Click to expand...

Legally he is a *****phile. He's committed a child sex offence. By the clinical definition he isn't.
666 Tash 666 said:
He had sex with a 15 year old. ****'s do not go after 15 year olds mate. He's committed an act of sex with an underage girl.

*****philes are attracted to pre-pubescent kids.

Putting Adam Johnson in the same category as people who **** 10 year olds is ridiculous.

In a few months time, the girl will be 16, and of legal age.
Click to expand...

If we want to go with the clinical definition then no he's not. Legally though he has committed a child sex offence. Two branches to that - under 13 or under 16. The former more serious obviously. The age gap makes the latter far more serious and the fact he 'groomed' her first means he knew what he was doing. He pursued a child. I think those he will meet in prison will not care whether she was 15 or under 13. They will class him as a *****phile regardless.
 
666 Tash 666 said:
I know the law is the law, but people really need to stop judging this situation as black and white because it's complex.

Are you saying someone who ****s a 15 year old deserves the same punishment as someone who ****s babies?

No. The two are no anywhere near each other. If you **** a toddler, you deserve a life sentence, if you **** a 15 year old, then it's not that serious, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you're wrong. How many sane people **** babies? The mentally ill do not need prison, they need specialist care.

To me, grooming a kid is an act of glutinous evil, because you know it's wrong and pursue it nonetheless. While you may inherently argue one act is more disturbing and violent, sick as you would say, and you would be right, you cannot in good conscience argue that premeditation is less evil than a disturbed brain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearlyDeludedGloryHunter and Dispicable_Tel
a 15yr old girl is as mature sexually (and probably more mature mentally) as an 18 year old boy,
I don't see many Cougars being arrested or being called *****s, same as I don't see any mingers being arrested and jailed for having sex with drunk blokes, there's certainly a few I wouldn't have touched sober.

Windy_Mag said:
Legally he is a *****phile. He's committed a child sex offence.
Click to expand...
legally no one is a ***** as it's not a legal term, and he isn't being charged with an offence that a ***** would be charged with, so no, he isn't.
 
Windy_Mag said:
Legally he is a *****phile. He's committed a child sex offence. By the clinical definition he isn't.


If we want to go with the clinical definition then no he's not. Legally though he has committed a child sex offence. Two branches to that - under 13 or under 16. The former more serious obviously. The age gap makes the latter far more serious and the fact he 'groomed' her first means he knew what he was doing. He pursued a child. I think those he will meet in prison will not care whether she was 15 or under 13. They will class him as a *****phile regardless.
Click to expand...

They will class him as a ****, but he's not necessarily a ****.

And the age of the child should matter. It should not be the same offensive for every age under 16.

Adam Johnsons position is redeemable. But if he had sex with a 10 year old, his position wouldn't be redeemable, in my eyes.
 
Less Hope Than Neville said:
<laugh>

Don't bring up pedantry. One of the courses I took at uni was ancient Greek, and the pedant in me absolutely detests the way we use the word *****phile. I have to bite my lip every time!

If we used the word correctly then we should all be *****philes as it means loving children - and of all the things that the sick ****ers do who abuse them, loving them is not one of them!
Click to expand...

One of my favourite topics! Let's not start discourse on pederasty and the like, lest we interrupt the bickering <laugh>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back