• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Adam Johnson A Nonce

Status
Not open for further replies.

redhorizon2

Very Active
Member
1:40LAURA HILL
Johnson pleads guilty to two charges
Footballer Adam Johnson admits one count of sexual activity with a child and one count of grooming, involving kissing and touching the victims body in sexual way
 
@Frogfish @Mystic

Still think he's innocent?
Jesus - you really are an overgrown child aren't you. Go back and read whatever thread it was in (I know you will - this seems to be your favourite pastime on here, just so you can drag up some ancient history on this poster or other) - I didn't ever say he was innocent you stupid pillock.
 
Jesus - you really are an overgrown child aren't you. Go back and read whatever thread it was in (I know you will - this seems to be your favourite pastime on here, just so you can drag up some ancient history on this poster or other) - I didn't ever say he was innocent you stupid pillock.

Apologies ,was that where you did an in depth criticism of the age of consent laws and sounded like a paedo ?
 
Last edited:
Apologies ,was that where you did an in depth criticism of the age of consent laws and sounded like a paedo ?

I imagine that's a pretty murky area for anyone to start quacking on about in an online forum. Before you know it, a simple assertion of opinion that there should be different grading of offence that takes into account the age of the victim - 15 for example, vs a toddler aged 3 - and you could have all sorts of accusations levelled at you

Best stay away. If only Adam had heeded that advice
 
Apologies ,was that where you did an in depth criticism of the age of consent laws and sounded like a paedo ?
Don't be a dick, you know full well not everything is black & white.

As Brendan says, it's easy to be labelled a peado for saying that online, but I'd like to think we're capable of having a debate on here.
 
I imagine that's a pretty murky area for anyone to start quacking on about in an online forum. Before you know it, a simple assertion of opinion that there should be different grading of offence that takes into account the age of the victim - 15 for example, vs a toddler aged 3 - and you could have all sorts of accusations levelled at you

Best stay away. If only Adam had heeded that advice

Then you would open the floodgates for every offence. Speeding. Financial Fraud. How good the footballer is at whom you spewed racial or homophobic abuse.... It was only Lucas, what harm was done my Lord?

The girls age will be taken into account as a mitigating factor when the judge decides how long to lock him away for. It's up to his lawyer to advise him whether showing remorse for the crime or trying to say it's not so bad because she was 15 will get him a shorter stay with bubba.
 
Don't be a dick, you know full well not everything is black & white.

As Brendan says, it's easy to be labelled a peado for saying that online, but I'd like to think we're capable of having a debate on here.

You sounded normal in the thread, so relax.

Froggie didn't , and him and Mystic embarked on an innocent until proven guilty argument.
We now know for certain he was guilty but it was easy to infer he was at the time.
 
You sounded normal in the thread, so relax.

Froggie didn't , and him and Mystic embarked on an innocent until proven guilty argument.
We now know for certain he was guilty but it was easy to infer he was at the time.
What a mockery inducing comment for a lawyer to make.
 
I thought we'd done away with that old-fashioned 'innocent before proven guilty' argument? It's so inconvenient to our dear old bobbies.
 
12735740_10207868455501090_462747863_n.jpg
 
Glad his final act as a professional footballer was to score a goal. On us. Of course.

Yes, of course. One might say almost inevitably. Although interestingly, when I brought up this 'why us' phenomenon with my brother at the weekend, listing all of the improbable and unlikely scorers against Liverpool, the players who reserved their best (only) goals for us - Casiraghi, Vardy from outside the box, a fucking beachball, that twat from Fulham with the mask, Forlan, Jagielka, Silvestre, the list is endless - he seemed equally certain that it was an Everton curse, and listed an equally impressive bunch of unlikely non-entities and ill-fortune.

Mind you, they're not called Bitters for nothing
 
Yes, of course. One might say almost inevitably. Although interestingly, when I brought up this 'why us' phenomenon with my brother at the weekend, listing all of the improbable and unlikely scorers against Liverpool, the players who reserved their best (only) goals for us - Casiraghi, Vardy from outside the box, a fucking beachball, that twat from Fulham with the mask, Forlan, Jagielka, Silvestre, the list is endless - he seemed equally certain that it was an Everton curse, and listed an equally impressive bunch of unlikely non-entities and ill-fortune.

Mind you, they're not called Bitters for nothing
When you put it that way, I feel only slightly less put upon by the universe. Schadenfreude can be a good friend.
 
You sounded normal in the thread, so relax.

Froggie didn't , and him and Mystic embarked on an innocent until proven guilty argument.
We now know for certain he was guilty but it was easy to infer he was at the time.

Is there something wrong with that? I mean only an idiot would decide the guilt of a person they know nothing about based upon what they read online, wouldn't they?
 
I think it was obvious there was mobile phone messages of a sexual content that the police had hold of as well as messages arranging to meet. Without that the case wouldn't have progressed. To me it was always highly likely to be a guilty verdict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom