Adam Johnson

PJPoolie · **Joined:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 15342

phil wrote:

You're definitely not defending him PJ, and you're not advocating his actions or anything. But you are minimising his actions, just like numerous other comments in this thread. Making comments about how old she looked, whether or not he actually had sex with her, suggesting his actions were not due to an attraction to children or comparing him to other people distracts from the issue at hand and only gives excuses for his actions.

He has exploited a child's vulnerabilities for his own sexual gratification. The age of consent is selected due to evidence that most people under the age of 16's brains have not developed enough to allow them to make decisions that will keep them safe. Sexual exploitation legislation does not only protect people under the age of 16 anyway, it protects anyone who is exploited for sex. There are no ifs or buts about that.

A bunch of psychologists in the trial have said he's not a risk to children, I wonder which solicitor found and paid for them? Actions speak louder than words, he has already put one teenager at risk and he has already proven he thinks he's above the law. His comments in that video linked above suggests he sees himself as the victim in all this, which would make me doubt whether he has really learned his lesson. (By the way, I don't appreciate having to click on two Sun links in one day.)

What is more important now are the assessments and conditions made by probation on his release. They will determine what level of risk he is to the public and what steps services will take to manage that risk.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk

Wrong again, I am not minimising his actions in the slightest I have pretty much posted them in full. I’m just not sensationalising them either like The Sun. I see a marked difference between him and a preditory and compulsive peadophile. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s not someone who hasn’t crossed a very serious line.

Mr Nottingham, I don’t need patronising/educating/lecturing in child protection my wife works in peadiatrics so we’re well aware of what goes on and how children are vulnerable. Each case and life in general isn’t a straight line though or simply black and white.

Not every person who has ever got involved in an under age girl is in my eyes a peadophile. They are undoubtably in the wrong though and deserve to face the consequences for their actions. The age of consent is in place for a very good reason to protect vulnerable children and for the record if I was in charge of a milk float I wouldn’t employ Johnston never mind a football club.

I think the best way to get fair summary of a court case is the judges sentencing remarks so here they are;

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... encing.pdf

Malcolm Dawes Knew My Father · **Joined:** Wed May 11, 2011 4:25 pm **Posts:** 4198

Most of the red tops have picked up this soaraway Sun World Exclusive this morning, and it seems Pools have had to put out a denial.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... k-13294200

I blame Rupert Murdoch - he obviously thinks Jeff had something to do Fox News being outbid for Sky by a lawnmower manufacturer.

pooliecrab · **Joined:** Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:31 pm **Posts:** 6028

Nelly wrote:

Sorry did I just see someone write 'it takes two to tango' in respect of Johnson and a 15 year old girl?

Jesus wept.

And a 15 year old girl may appear to be physically mature, but it's unlikely she was mentally and emotionally mature...because she would still be most definitely in that respect a child.

Seriously, some people need to give their heads a shake.

Thankfully the law doesn't see it that way.

poolieinnottingham · **Posted:** Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:13 am

PJ if your wife works in paediatrics I'm even more staggered by your attitude.

I'm going to wind my neck in now, I've said my bit and you've said yours, please have a read of the Barnardos report though.

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:14 am

PJPoolie wrote:

in charge of a milk float I wouldn’t employ Johnston never mind a football club.

I think the best way to get fair summary of a court case is the judges sentencing remarks so here they are;

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... encing.pdf

Read it.

To sum up, the bloke's balls are too big for his pants, but not satisfied with shagging the whole of Manchester, he sought to take his conquests into forbidden territory. I'm guessing that this for him was just another expansion of his catalogue of weirdo exploits, not something he was planning on becoming a paid member of.
Anyway, he's buggered now innee.

derwent · **Joined:** Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:59 pm **Posts:** 12368

PJPoolie wrote:

phil wrote:

You're definitely not defending him PJ, and you're not advocating his actions or anything. But you are minimising his actions, just like numerous other comments in this thread. Making comments about how old she looked, whether or not he actually had sex with her, suggesting his actions were not due to an attraction to children or comparing him to other people distracts from the issue at hand and only gives excuses for his actions.

He has exploited a child's vulnerabilities for his own sexual gratification. The age of consent is selected due to evidence that most people under the age of 16's brains have not developed enough to allow them to make decisions that will keep them safe. Sexual exploitation legislation does not only protect people under the age of 16 anyway, it protects anyone who is exploited for sex. There are no ifs or buts about that.

A bunch of psychologists in the trial have said he's not a risk to children, I wonder which solicitor found and paid for them? Actions speak louder than words, he has already put one teenager at risk and he has already proven he thinks he's above the law. His comments in that video linked above suggests he sees himself as the victim in all this, which would make me doubt whether he has really learned his lesson. (By the way, I don't appreciate having to click on two Sun links in one day.)

What is more important now are the assessments and conditions made by probation on his release. They will determine what level of risk he is to the public and what steps services will take to manage that risk.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk

Wrong again, I am not minimising his actions in the slightest I have pretty much posted them in full. I’m just not sensationalising them either like The Sun. I see a marked difference between him and a preditory and compulsive peadophile. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s not someone who hasn’t crossed a very serious line.

Mr Nottingham, I don’t need patronising/educating/lecturing in child protection my wife works in peadiatrics so we’re well aware of what goes on and how children are vulnerable. Each case and life in general isn’t a straight line though or simply black and white.

Not every person who has ever got involved in an under age girl is in my eyes a peadophile. They are undoubtably in the wrong though and deserve to face the consequences for their actions. The age of consent is in place for a very good reason to protect vulnerable children and for the record if I was in charge of a milk float I wouldn’t employ Johnston never mind a football club.

I think the best way to get fair summary of a court case is the judges sentencing remarks so here they are;

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... encing.pdf

I have read all of this thread and the summing up and sentencing and my reaction is one of absolute disgust and contempt for Johnston.
Whereas I fully accept that the law has taken it's course and that Johnston has served his sentence according to the law, I really do not want to see him playing in a Pools shirt.
My stance is purely one of a father of girls and would not want to contribute to the general discussion in this thread as to how Johnston should be classified. Suffice to say I would not want him near anyone else's children, never mind my own. As for Pools, how could any of us sit easy with him wearing the shirt.
It is encumbant upon all of us to protect our children, whether we know them or not and, I for one, take that very seriously.
It's a definite no from me.

Wommers · **Posted:** Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:03 pm

St Cuthbert · **Posted:** Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:31 pm

There is no debate to be had, as to whether he is a paedophile or not. He's a paedophile, full stop. The law dictates that, whether you like it or not. There are many different types of paedophile, with many different preferences. He's one of the types, it doesnt matter whether they had sex or not. And given he's used his footballing status to groom an underage girl, he should never be allowed to play professional football again. It was a vital part of his grooming.

PJPoolie · **Joined:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 15342

Your lot are in no position to talk

pooliecrab · **Joined:** Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:31 pm **Posts:** 6028

Think enough has been said to be fair, everyone except PJ is happy to call a nonce and nonce and would be unhappy, to say the least, to see one turn out for Pools.

PJPoolie · **Joined:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 15342

Enough has been said and I’d happily call him a nonce, because he behaved like a nonce. Misinterpreting what I have actually said to that degree isn’t really on but let’s draw a line under and move on as it was a non story to start with and I don’t think anyone has said they’d be happy to see him playing for Pools or for anyone.

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

PJ would he get stoned if he did this over there in Dubai?

Smithy1 · **Joined:** Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:33 pm **Posts:** 570

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER wrote:

PJ would he get stoned if he did this over there in Dubai?

Hahahahahh I've been waiting for a comment like this.

They'll do worse than that like, I wouldn't be surprised if they hanged him from a tree from his dick.

accrington fan · **Joined:** Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:22 pm **Posts:** 19819

poolieinnottingham wrote:

accrington fan wrote:

know it was a different world back in the early 60,s but i know of one woman who was 15 when she met her future husband who was 14 years her senior and had nearly 50 years happy marriage before he died. the whole johnson thing is certainly not all black or white for me.

Do you have any daughters Mr Accrington?

If so would you be happy to find out a bloke had been grooming then bucking her?

no daughters only a son. think where your own family are concerned you do have a downer on any of their partners whoever they are . need to look at cases without involving family to get a better view on any subject.

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:19 pm

St Cuthbert wrote:

There is no debate to be had, as to whether he is a paedophile or not. He's a paedophile, full stop. The law dictates that, whether you like it or not.

The law dictates nothing of the sort. A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, which is not a crime but a disorder, or at least it is in terms of modern societal norms.
The law deals with sexual crimes against children, not preferences. He is definitely a sexual offender, but only he knows for sure whether he actually prefers children.

horden · **Posted:** Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:22 am

poolieinnottingham wrote:

PJ stop digging man, he was found guilty of grooming and sexual activity with a child.

I wouldn't call myself an expert but through my job I know a lot about the consequences of child sexual exploitation and grooming and they are catastrophic.

This isn't some bewer he picked up on a night out, it's someone who he targeted and went out of his way to groom.

You've really surprised me on this one.

"Some bewer he picked up on a night out" oh the irony ! :laugh:

St Cuthbert · **Posted:** Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:18 pm

Montpoolier wrote:

St Cuthbert wrote:

There is no debate to be had, as to whether he is a paedophile or not. He's a paedophile, full stop. The law dictates that, whether you like it or not.

The law dictates nothing of the sort. A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, which is not a crime but a disorder, or at least it is in terms of modern societal norms.
The law deals with sexual crimes against children, not preferences. He is definitely a sexual offender, but only he knows for sure whether he actually prefers children.

Yes, Montpoolier, you are right there, I apologise - being a paedophile is not a crime in itself, only acting upon it.
As for only Johnson knowing whether he prefers children or not, I disagree. He knew she was fifteen years old, he continued grooming. A fifteen year old is a child. Again, there are different ages of childhood and the law breaks sexual offending down into different categories of age. He's a paedophile, he was convicted of it. He wanted to have sex with an underage child. He should never play professional football again.

Smithy1 · **Joined:** Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:33 pm **Posts:** 570

St Cuthbert wrote:

Montpoolier wrote:

St Cuthbert wrote:

There is no debate to be had, as to whether he is a paedophile or not. He's a paedophile, full stop. The law dictates that, whether you like it or not.

The law dictates nothing of the sort. A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, which is not a crime but a disorder, or at least it is in terms of modern societal norms.
The law deals with sexual crimes against children, not preferences. He is definitely a sexual offender, but only he knows for sure whether he actually prefers children.

Yes, Montpoolier, you are right there, I apologise - being a paedophile is not a crime in itself, only acting upon it.
As for only Johnson knowing whether he prefers children or not, I disagree. He knew she was fifteen years old, he continued grooming. A fifteen year old is a child. Again, there are different ages of childhood and the law breaks sexual offending down into different categories of age. He's a paedophile, he was convicted of it. He wanted to have sex with an underage child. He should never play professional football again.

Certainly right that he is a paedophile and he certainly knew what he was doing and knew fine we'll she was 15 and it was wrong, All the lasses he could pursue with him having the success and money and everything he had and he chooses to go for a 15 year old, In my opinion I think he thought he was above the law and could get into a 15 year old and not get caught, Also to shit on his own doorstep and do it while his missus is pregnant with his child, Plus didn't the police find loads off more other crude shit on his laptops and phones off animals and what not, That's sick in itself, There's no cure for fuckers like him.

Adam Johnson

Gadgies online