Adam Johnson

I'm sure paedophile is defined by an attraction to girls that haven't hit puberty yet. You're looking for Ephebophile.

 

Peadophile is an attraction to children 11 and under.

 

The term "nonce" surely just about covers it all doesn't it?

 

has everyone read the text messages he was sending ? the girl wanted a signed top off her hero and he used that as a way to groom her and then have * way her. That is a sexual predator of the highest order. Its not like the girl tried to message him for * she wanted a signed top ffs because shes a fan. He abused his power as football star also and should never kick a ball for money again

 

It isnt as simple as that mate.16 is an arbitrary age we have decided as a society to make it legal to have *.Other countries have different ages including many where 15 is legal, or less. In other countries it is 18.

Paedos as Mr Fawlty says, prey on children.....prepubescent children, that is.
Not females who are underage legally but physically women.

 

so someone who fancys 12 year olds arent peados

 

Definite pedo. The definition of the word has changed, no point getting bogged down in specifics, it just makes it seem like you're trying to defend a 29 year old man who constantly begged a 15 year old to send him photographs of her exposed 15-year old * and *, and freqeuntly said he wanted to * that 15 year old. Think about it.

 

He did abuse his power, he was a *, but he still didnt kill her or rape her in the woods......the 10 years talked about is mental.
Dont forget, 6 months later, and it would have been completely legal......and it wouldnt have been in court, unless in a divorce proceedings! 6 months in real terms does not make him go from paedo to * alright bloke, and yet that is how he would be perceived if he had waited 6 months.
Lassies in Scotland can marry at 16, and they usually have a wean when they do!!! Are the fathers of their kids paedos?

 

Technically no they aren't. It would be illegal obviously.

 

Ok.

He is still a sick *.

 

Daft * should've just waited 6 months. But seriously he deserves jail time, not just because of his actions but because it has been proven he searched for the age of consent, knew the law full well but still tried to * her. 10 years seems a bit excessive though.

 

or 6 months before she would have been 14 ? which i think was when the grooming started when she was just turning 15

 

Anyway, he knew the law, he acted as he did, and will regret it for the rest of his life.* *.

 

Yup.

 

Even if he had "waited 6 months", he still groomed her when she was 15 (and possibly 14)?

A 29 year old millionaire stuck his tongue down the throat of a 15 year old girl and asked her to send him photos of her * and *. There's just no reason to cut him any slack at all.

 

he pumped her

 

Did he? I thought he just had "sexual contact"?

 

Very naive if you think he would have slept with this girl and just went back to sleeping with girls of the right age.

He actually pursued this girl, knowing full well she was only 15, despite having a kid and a girlfriend, and despite having the choice of any bird he wants due to his money and status. He is quite clearly that way inclined.

If he had got away with this there's little doubt in my mind he would have went on to sleep with and pursue other under age girls, and * knows what his limit would be, I wouldn't be so quick to give him the benefit of doubt.

 

4-10 years for sexual contact ? think about it

 

Aye, what an idiot. For me he shouldnt be given anywhere near that time. 3 years, out in a year with good behaviour and on the sexual register for 5 years or something similar.
* me, some killers get less than 10 years.Actual paedos get minimum sentences, rapists get 8 and stuff.Its a joke and and it wouldnt be anywhere near that if not a public figure involved.