jsslatic Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) Edit - can't be arsed. He's clearly beyond the pale for what he's pleaded guilty to. There is no justification for it and anybody even remotely justifying it or finding an excuse needs their head checking. All I'm saying is that the evidence reported by the press today was the prosecution's case. As a Defendant in a criminal case in a country with a modicum of human decency, he is entitled to address those allegations over the next tw weeks. I don't think that's a controversial view, but alas. Edited February 12, 2016 by jsslatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) .Did you read my post? Yes Did you read mine Edited February 12, 2016 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1onheartNew Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Can we deal with all of this moral Compassing and who read what if and when we try to sign him in a couple of years please? I am not insensitive to any of it, but may I remind you that we are in a relegation battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Surely this topic should be debated in the general football and all sports forum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Surely this topic should be debated in the general football and all sports forum! With the likelihood of us trying to sign him at some point I disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Surely this topic should be debated in the general football and all sports forum! While you're technically right, why does it matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeP Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 While you're technically right, why does it matter? Discussing it in this forum implies it's something to do with us, when it isn't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Does the fact he had a pregnant girlfriend at the time shame the bastard entirely ? Having now read the evidence submitted in court which is irrefutable as its the actual text messages between Johnson and the girl plus Johnson and his wife, the lads moral compass is off the scale. He's screwed on the damning evidence and it's clear that he wanted more than just the kiss that took place. What's worse is that his girlfriend had just given birth and wanted love and support, texting him to reconcile their relationship whilst he as grooming this minor. Disgusting. I also can't believe he googled the legal age of consent afterwards apparently unaware that 15 was underage and thinking kissing with tongues and unbuttoning the girls jeans wasn't of a sexual nature or motive. The intelligence of some footballers is questionable but I rest my case m'lud on this lad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Discussing it in this forum implies it's something to do with us, when it isn't... But, again, why does it matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 But, again, why does it matter? It doesn't. In fact, pointing out the correct location for this topic shouldn't have been talked about, and the fact that it already has speaks for itself. I dread to think what reception gamergate would get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardie Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Having read the tweets from court it seems it'd be more fitting for him to sign for Rochdale than us. Proper padeo gear, allegedly. Here are some dictionary definitions for you to swot-up on. Paedophilia is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger. Hebephilia is the strong and persistent adult sexual interest in pubescent (early adolescent) individuals, typically ages 11–14 Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. Once again, media-fuelled misconceptions make people spout verbal diarrhoea. I do not condone the stupid misuse of his position of power and influence over the girl but he should not be tarred as a "Paedophile" by people like you who probably put more faith in what the 'Sun' and the' Daily Mail' tell you, rather than the facts. He's been charged with fiddling kids. I'd imagine he'll be captain of Rochdale within a month of release. He hasn't been charged with anything, yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 He hasn't been charged with anything, yet. Eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 he should not be tarred as a "Paedophile" by people like you who probably put more faith in what the 'Sun' and the' Daily Mail' tell you, rather than the facts. I think it's a colloquial catch-all, nothing more - and to be fair, the last bit is a straw man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super_blue Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 [He hasn't been charged with anything, yet. Hmmmm he wouldn't be in court if he hadn't been charged if I'm not mistaken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 As I love stirring the pot... He has been described as "disgusting" pretty regularly on here. However she was 15, which a few hundred years ago would have been an age which would have seen her having kids. It is only 1885 that the UK raised the age of consent to 16. Playing devil's advocate, could it not be argued that what he did is socially unacceptable, but actually pretty standard human behaviour? Leaving aside the morality of his having a missus and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardie Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) I think it's a colloquial catch-all, nothing more - and to be fair, the last bit is a straw man. Fair enough, I suppose. [He hasn't been charged with anything, yet. Hmmmm he wouldn't be in court if he hadn't been charged if I'm not mistaken True. I should have said that he hasn't been found guilty yet. Edited February 13, 2016 by Wardie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 As I love stirring the pot... He has been described as "disgusting" pretty regularly on here. However she was 15, which a few hundred years ago would have been an age which would have seen her having kids. It is only 1885 that the UK raised the age of consent to 16. Playing devil's advocate, could it not be argued that what he did is socially unacceptable, but actually pretty standard human behaviour? Leaving aside the morality of his having a missus and all that. Oh my giddy aunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Oh my giddy aunt What's wrong with asking a question? I'm interested to hear the opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 What's wrong with asking a question? I'm interested to hear the opinions. Well on your basis, slavery, sticking kids up chimneys, droit de seigneur, denying women the vote and serfdom could all be perfectly reasonable. As you say yourself, you are just stirring the pot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Well on your basis, slavery, sticking kids up chimneys, droit de seigneur, denying women the vote and serfdom could all be perfectly reasonable. As you say yourself, you are just stirring the pot. Well what I am really trying to understand is the definition of "disgusting". By the definition of the law that was posted earlier it seems that there is a distinction between 13, where girls are presumably considered to be physically immature, and 14-15 where I would guess the distinction is that they are emotionally too immature. Given that in the past girls were routinely married off as soon as they reached sexual maturity, and there is evidence that men are wired to chase younger women as being capable of carrying their children and hence perpetuating the man's genetic legacy... does that mean that Adam Johnson is a reprehensible little :censored:, or is he a "disgusting" sexual deviant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 P.s. I am officially against slavery and child-labour, just to confirm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Slavery and women's emancipation I could take or leave. (p.s. This is not meant to be taken literally). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardie Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Well what I am really trying to understand is the definition of "disgusting".By the definition of the law that was posted earlier it seems that there is a distinction between 13, where girls are presumably considered to be physically immature, and 14-15 where I would guess the distinction is that they are emotionally too immature.Given that in the past girls were routinely married off as soon as they reached sexual maturity, and there is evidence that men are wired to chase younger women as being capable of carrying their children and hence perpetuating the man's genetic legacy... does that mean that Adam Johnson is a reprehensible little :censored:, or is he a "disgusting" sexual deviant? To be fair, there is a line drawn at 16 years of age, he has breached that line (should he be found guilty) and deserves the punishment he gets, Whether or not other factors are considered, I have no idea.Having raised two daughter who are close in age, I could see the differences between the two in reaching physical and emotional maturity. The trouble we had with one was balanced out by the relative ease of passage with the other. My eldest and her friends always went pitch-side at the games as the players were warming-up, desperately seeking attention and I did overhear conversations between themselves that were not meant for my ears. This started at the ages of 14 and continued until she left for college.My youngest also loved football and had her favourites but never pushed it any further than posters on the wall and a name on the back of her replica shirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 P.s. I am officially against slavery and child-labour, just to confirm. Well, that's good to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De_La_Vega Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Well, that's good to hear. I did think it'd set your mind at rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.