Adam Johnson

[G.B]

It's pendatics, I don't think people care to make the distinction. A girl just passed her 15th birthday is a child. To groom a schoolgirl you know is underage for sex is fucking vile and he deserves to have the book thrown at him. Arguing 'well he's not a peadophile because she's too old for that' comes across as sympathizing with Johnson, intended or not

It certainly is vile and he deserves everything he'll get/lose. There's no distinction make however, the word is quite clearly defined and it doesn't fit this case. Trivialising the words actual meaning isn't at all helpful. If people somehow come to the conclusion that people pointing that simple fact out are sympathising with Johnson then I can only assume they're a bit simple. Posts like those from Humongous Fungus (still wondering if he was actually implying I want to bang 15 year olds for pointing out the peadophile tag doesn't fit earlier) show just how utterly fucking stupid people can be with cases like this.

 

[spireite]

Don't you mean semantics?

But no one is defending him. He's a slimy c*** who is a sexual predator and used his power and influence to fuck someone he knew was underage. How many other girls has he been getting up to no good with, underage or otherwise.

Depending on what he's actually found guilty of, he'll go to jail for a long time and come out with no career left (but lots of money, still..) and good riddance.

He's just not a 'paedophile', that's all.

Yea semantics, you pedant . It's just such an emotive subject that arguing what to call him due to her age can easily be read as 'well, 15 is fair game' and people probably shouldn't do it.

 

[Art Morte]

Well, 15 is fair game when both are 15, imo

But it's not on between a 15-year-old and a grown-up.

 

[silkyman]

Not really. It's just distinguishing that the word paedophillia only relates to prepubescent kids. He's a sex abuser.

 

[silkyman]

Well, 15 is fair game when both are 15, imo

But it's not on between a 15-year-old and a grown-up.

That's written into the legal guidelines.

 

[Bilo]

Not a single person has claimed Johnson is the victim. Certain people have pointed out those calling him a peadophile clearly don't know what the word means.

I know. I just think that it's weird going into this thread and thinking that the single most important point to raise is that he's not a pedophile.

It's a twisted debate better saved for another time, in my book.

 

[TheMinsterman]

I know. I just think that it's weird going into this thread and thinking that the single most important point to raise is that he's not a pedophile.

It's a twisted debate better saved for another time, in my book.

No offence intended Bilo, but it's an internet forum, it's intrinsically designed for debate. In this case there is absolutely no disagreement over whether Adam Johnson is a sexual predator, a manipulator and a thoroughly disgraceful person, so people are debating something else. Otherwise it'd just be an echo chamber of "Johnson is a proper paedo LOL", it should really be pretty obvious everyone posting her condones what he did unless they explicitly stated otherwise, discussing what its appropriate to call him is simply an extension of the fact we all more or less agree he's a horrible person and it's a debate to be had.

 

[G.B]

I know. I just think that it's weird going into this thread and thinking that the single most important point to raise is that he's not a pedophile.

It's a twisted debate better saved for another time, in my book.

yeah but the reason it's become an issue is because what i originally said in passing, and others have weighed in on/agreed with, is met with remarks like "you're defending him" or "you're sympathising with him", or in humongous fungus' case accusations of noncing (you cretinous c***), which, aside from being a wee bit offensive, is ofc, if you simply look the definition of the word, a load of shit and an overly emotional response.

 

[Bilo]

No offence intended Bilo, but it's an internet forum, it's intrinsically designed for debate. In this case there is absolutely no disagreement over whether Adam Johnson is a sexual predator, a manipulator and a thoroughly disgraceful person, so people are debating something else. Otherwise it'd just be an echo chamber of "Johnson is a proper paedo LOL", it should really be pretty obvious everyone posting her condones what he did unless they explicitly stated otherwise, discussing what its appropriate to call him is simply an extension of the fact we all more or less agree he's a horrible person and it's a debate to be had.

Well, you're missing my point by a mile.

Your reasoning is based on the assumption that there's only one thing to be discussed, which I don't agree with. One could get into a discussion as to why he did what he did, how it affected others, how it can be stopped in the future. You could discuss the problem of idolization and the problems that come along with that, most of which probably never reach the surface. Some people can't handle the power of the idolization you get as a professional footballer and that is a problem.

All of these things could be discussed, if we cared.

Instead we discuss whether or not he's a pedophile, ultimately resulting people putting his actions into perspective to make a point completely irrelevant (such as "across the canal it'd be legal", etc). Meanwhile remarks about his wife being a mug and a gold digger pass unnoticed, of course. It's the white male who was to be defended here, so that no one would dare to call him a pedophile again.

It's a fair discussion to be had really. Some other time. Some other place. That's my opinion.

yeah but the reason it's become an issue is because what i originally said in passing, and others have weighed in on/agreed with, is met with remarks like "you're defending him" or "you're sympathising with him", or in humongous fungus' case accusations of noncing (you cretinous c***), which, aside from being a wee bit offensive, is ofc, if you simply look the definition of the word, a load of shit and an overly emotional response.

Well to be honest with you G.B, I don't think it's an issue if a fella who blatantly took advantage of a 15 year old is called a pedophile.

 

[GodsGift]

Come on guys, it's spelt paedophile.

 

[Bilo]

I am a slave to my mac's spell check sorry mate.

 

[G.B]

Well to be honest with you G.B, I don't think it's an issue if a fella who blatantly took advantage of a 15 year old is called a pedophile.

I literally just explained why that's not the issue. The issue was the response(s) anyone who pointed it out received. Which then of course lead to an explanation on why labeling him that is incorrect. And so the discussion was born, as was your weird assertion that that somehow meant people viewed Johnson as a victim (which you seem to be carrying on with great zest).

As for your canal reference. It was a comment made to emphasise the difference between Johnson's abhorrent actions and what paedophilia actually is. And off you go with the implication that he's being defended again, despite unanimous condemnation of his actions. You even went with the "white male" angle . Crack on mate.

Anyway, I think I'm out.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Well, you're missing my point by a mile.

Your reasoning is based on the assumption that there's only one thing to be discussed, which I don't agree with. One could get into a discussion as to why he did what he did, how it affected others, how it can be stopped in the future. You could discuss the problem of idolization and the problems that come along with that, most of which probably never reach the surface. Some people can't handle the power of the idolization you get as a professional footballer and that is a problem.

All of these things could be discussed, if we cared.

Instead we discuss whether or not he's a pedophile, ultimately resulting people putting his actions into perspective to make a point completely irrelevant (such as "across the canal it'd be legal", etc). Meanwhile remarks about his wife being a mug and a gold digger pass unnoticed, of course. It's the white male who was to be defended here, so that no one would dare to call him a pedophile again.

It's a fair discussion to be had really. Some other time. Some other place. That's my opinion.

Well to be honest with you G.B, I don't think it's an issue if a fella who blatantly took advantage of a 15 year old is called a pedophile.

Are you really going to try and suggest that people saying that, instead of being a paedophile, Adam Johnson is in fact a manipulative sexual predator who deserves to be locked up for grooming somebody and abusing his power is indicative of people leaping to his defence because of "white male privilege" and a sense of comradery? If suggesting that actually Johnson isn't dog shit, he's cow shit instead is somehow seen as defending him and viewing him in a positive light because he's a white dude then sure.

The other comments haven't gone "unnoticed", people have responded to suggestions his wife is a "mug" and condemned them, or do we also need to now individually refute every ridiculous notion lest we be assumed to condone or support said views instead of working on the assumption we don't unless we directly stipulate we do.

And where is this other place? Do we really need to open up a new caveat related thread in the politics section every time a thread evolves beyond the initial preconceived scope of the topic but still remains within context?

 

[spireite]

I think we all agree that Adam Johnson is a c*** taking advantage of his position to exploit a child. I don't think we're far away from all thinking the same thing, but are arguing for the sake of arguing. The Internet is a funny thing!

 

[Stevencc]

Arguing for the sake of arguing is what tends to happen when Bilo makes one of his many returns to the forum.

 

[Bilo]

I literally just explained why that's not the issue. The issue was the response(s) anyone who pointed it out received. Which then of course lead to an explanation on why labeling him that is incorrect. And so the discussion was born, as was your weird assertion that that somehow meant people viewed Johnson as a victim (which you seem to be carrying on with great zest).

As for your canal reference. It was a comment made to emphasise the difference between Johnson's abhorrent actions and what paedophilia actually is. And off you go with the implication that he's being defended again, despite unanimous condemnation of his actions. You even went with the "white male" angle . Crack on mate.

Anyway, I think I'm out.

Maybe I misunderstood your post because you sometimes just remove all punctuation. For someone with english as a second language, it actually complicates things a bit.

I didn't say he was being defended in the post you quoted, I said it was putting into context. Is it not? And putting his actions into context is certainly a way of indirectly defending him, albeit unknowingly. And you of course think the white male angle is completely irrelevant but here's the thing:

When this whole thing started, when we all knew fuck all, the rumors around were that he met her in a night club. Obviously that wasn't true, it was made up, but most of us chose to believe it, if we believed anything. In this very thread it's mentioned, even. So why do we chose to believe the scenario where AJ is the victim, and the girl the one in the wrong?

Then when it's clear that AJ isn't the victim, and the girl isn't the one in the wrong, we take a step back and say "well at least he's not a pedophile". Even though we condemn him, that exact discussion leads to the same people condemning him trying to put his actions into context, trying to point out that it's not that bad. It's horrible, but it's not pedophilia, right.

You either see a pattern or you don't.

Are you really going to try and suggest that people saying that, instead of being a paedophile, Adam Johnson is in fact a manipulative sexual predator who deserves to be locked up for grooming somebody and abusing his power is indicative of people leaping to his defence because of "white male privilege" and a sense of comradery? If suggesting that actually Johnson isn't dog shit, he's cow shit instead is somehow seen as defending him and viewing him in a positive light because he's a white dude then sure.

The other comments haven't gone "unnoticed", people have responded to suggestions his wife is a "mug" and condemned them, or do we also need to now individually refute every ridiculous notion lest we be assumed to condone or support said views instead of working on the assumption we don't unless we directly stipulate we do.

And where is this other place? Do we really need to open up a new caveat related thread in the politics section every time a thread evolves beyond the initial preconceived scope of the topic but still remains within context?

The first part of your post I genuinely don't understand.

No, people didn't condemn the suggestion that his wife was a mug. I did, and maybe Abertawe depending on if he was serious or not, but it certainly passed unnoticed in the grand scheme of things. Especially in comparison to the rage caused by calling AJ a pedophile.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I don't see anyone enraged about that, people were calmly corrected, as it's a matter of fact not opinion, unlike the 'mug' comments.

 

[TheMinsterman]

The first part of your post I genuinely don't understand.

No, people didn't condemn the suggestion that his wife was a mug. I did, and maybe Abertawe depending on if he was serious or not, but it certainly passed unnoticed in the grand scheme of things. Especially in comparison to the rage caused by calling AJ a pedophile.

You insinuated people were leaping to his defence because he was white and male, I point out that calling him vermin instead of scum doesn't amount to viewing him in a positive light because he was white and male. If that wasn't your intention why bring up his race and gender?

Doesn't really matter if only you condemned it, somebody still did, if everybody leaps in to call somebody a tosser the thread will get de-railed and closed far quicker than people discussing correct terminology within context of the criminal act perpetrated. Nobody is "enraged" that people are calling him a paedo, they merely pointed out that, actually, he isn't, if that constitutes rage to you then sure, we're hammering our keyboards in a frothing fit of anger.

 

[Bilo]

Yeah, let's agree to disagree.

 

[Blitzballer]

SunderlandEchoVerified account‏@SunderlandEcho
"He undid the button on my trousers, then he undid the zip - it took him quite a while to do that." #AdamJohnson http://trib.al/Cetsiee

Josh Halliday

✔@JoshHalliday
The 15-year-old told police she felt "compelled" to perform a sex act on Johnson because he kept putting her hand on his penis, jurors heard

Josh HallidayVerified account‏@JoshHalliday
Asked why she performed a sex act on the footballer, she told officers: "because I didn't know what his reaction would be if I didn't"

Josh HallidayVerified account‏@JoshHalliday
The girl told officers the sex act was Johnson's idea: "He put his hand on my back not forcing but gradually pushing" towards his penis

Josh HallidayVerified account‏@JoshHalliday
A 15-year-old schoolgirl has told how she felt “shocked” and worried” after allegedly being groped by the footballer Adam Johnson
Adam Johnson trial- Girl: "I didn't want anything to be done about it – I just wanted to drop it but my mum said what he's done is wrong"

 

[johnnytodd]

 

[Blitzballer]

Fuckin nonce

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=686586978150298

 

[JoshBCFC]

Fuckin nonce

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=686586978150298

Video no longer exists. What happened in it?

 

[claret50]

Video no longer exists. What happened in it?

The video is still there but you have to login to facebook to view.

 

[GodsGift]

Private agreements he has with his solicitors, which may or may not have changed depending on the potential evidence being presented by the prosecution, are not exactly something he is obliged to share with Sunderland. They may have made him aware that if he plead guilty or was sentenced his contract would be terminated, he may or may not have told them months ago what his plans were.

Court hears that Sunderland AFC chief exec Margaret Byrne had copies of Johnson and alleged victim's police interviews on 4 May 2015

Sunderland AFC chief Margaret Byrne also had full copies of Johnson's Whatsapp exchanges with schoolgirl on 4 May 2015, court hears

 

[TheMinsterman]

Well, I did specify he may or may not have, no details were around at the time so either suggestion was purely speculatory.

Byrne was wrong to continue employing him, and I assume keeping people in dark about it because I doubt his team mates would have stood for it.

 

[GodsGift]

And my original point, that it's very naive to think Sunderland weren't aware from the start, still stands.

 

[silkyman]

Not guilty on one count.

 

[Stevencc]

*High fives Silkyman on hearing news of ex-City player being found not guilty of having sexual intercourse with a 15 year old girl*

 

[Blitzballer]

guilty of sexual activity.