Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Football 2015/16


TheGayTent

Recommended Posts

  • Admin
29 minutes ago, zahidf said:

adam johnson has pleaded guilty for the paedo charges.

wow, despite there being a strong suggestion there was something to it at the time, I'd come to the conclusion that there probably wasn't as it had gone on so long.

That's him done then, I guess. ;)

Edit: 'paedo' is perhaps a bit strong given that he supposedly met her in a club, where it can be a reasonable presumption she's 18 or older.

 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin
1 minute ago, mrtourette said:

Yeah it would be best to wait for further details before using such accusational terms, although also admitting a charge of grooming isn't going to help.

yep, tho I think I'm right in saying that 'grooming' in legal terms can mean all sorts of different things, from going out of your way to entice a child towards you, to 'going along with' the approaches that might have come from a 15 year old who is pretending to be older (tho, I'd guess, for the charge to stick, he'd have to have become aware she was underage at some point in the communications).

The point is, there's a big difference in motivations between something that's purely predatory in entrapping someone underage, and going along with the approaches that might all be driven from the side of that underage someone.

And when that underage someone is someone who can (supposedly) easily get into a nightclub, it starts to look like nothing about "sex with a child", but about just about sex.

I'm not trying to defend any knowing-wrongness in his actions, but 'sex with a child' isn't always the same purely evil thing those words conjure up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

the story on the guardian has been updated with a bit more info.

It's implying that the 'sexual activity' was a kiss, and nothing more - tho reading between the lines it's suggesting he might have been after more.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/footballer-adam-johnson-pleads-guilty-to-sexual-activity-with-15-year-old-girl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I guess from a financial perspective it was worth his while to drag it out as long as possible.

Hmmm, not sure.

You know how the police/CPS wouldn't want to pursue a 16 year guy with a 15 y.o girlfriend for breaking the law if they have sex? Maybe there's a version of the same thing been going on around this.

I think I remember reading something a while back, about the girl's dad being insistent on pursuing Johnson, when the decision of the police might not have been to pursue him.

So perhaps the delay in getting things to court have been squabbles around that, where the police and CPS have been trying to persuade the family (perhaps just the dad) to drop it, but they (he) wouldn't?

After all, if the 'sexual activity' is just a kiss, while Johnson definitely hasn't been a good guy, does it need to be pursued 'in the public interest'? I don't think (if it's just that) there's a wider lesson for society in prosecution, tho there's a big lesson to be learnt by Johnson - and I'd guess he's already learnt that by the fuss so far.

So while you might be right about a financial aspect to it, it might be that it's the other way around, that someone has designs on Johnson's cash.

Above is just speculation really, tho it does seem pretty certain from what's been reported over the last year that he met her in a club - which isn't where you go to find a 'child'. I'm thinking there's probably something quite pertinent towards what happened within that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

the story on the guardian has been updated with a bit more info.

It's implying that the 'sexual activity' was a kiss, and nothing more - tho reading between the lines it's suggesting he might have been after more.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/footballer-adam-johnson-pleads-guilty-to-sexual-activity-with-15-year-old-girl

Yeah, he's pleaded guilty to one charge regarding 'kissing and touching' but not guilty to two others - maybe those two were to do with sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yep, tho I think I'm right in saying that 'grooming' in legal terms can mean all sorts of different things, from going out of your way to entice a child towards you, to 'going along with' the approaches that might have come from a 15 year old who is pretending to be older (tho, I'd guess, for the charge to stick, he'd have to have become aware she was underage at some point in the communications).

That was what I was thinking, to plead guilty to grooming he must have been aware that she was underage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
18 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

That was what I was thinking, to plead guilty to grooming he must have been aware that she was underage.

Yep. That part makes it undoubtedly wrong.

But, perhaps, a 14 year old girl who looked older hassling him cos he's famous is at one extreme of what 'grooming' might be here, and it's something very different to someone actively pursuing children which is what the word is most likely to conjure up.

(Note 'different'. Ultimately they end up as equally wrong as each other, but there's different reasons for how someone gets there, and any wider risks they might pose.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the mists of time (arguably when we knew no better) bands had to fight off groupies - though they didn't always put up much of a fight.

The world has moved on and people should know better.

But we'll have to leave it up to a judge and jury who will hear the evidence in full to reach a verdict

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
9 minutes ago, grumpyhack said:

The world has moved on and people should know better.

Absolutely.

But I'm thinking there's probably not going to be a time when some men aren't misled by their dicks to do wrong things.

Which sounds more likely to be the case here than the out and out very nasty child abuse that some of the language inevitably used suggests.

That's not to excuse it, but it is a different thing, and with the amount of hysteria around some cases that distinction can get lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Absolutely.

But I'm thinking there's probably not going to be a time when some men aren't misled by their dicks to do wrong things.

Which sounds more likely to be the case here than the out and out very nasty child abuse that some of the language inevitably used suggests.

That's not to excuse it, but it is a different thing, and with the amount of hysteria around some cases that distinction can get lost.

Its funny when I was in my mid 20s and going to night club(only 10 years ago) there seemed to be a very different attitude to sex with a 15 year old.  It was very much a case of the bouncers have let them in, so there is the excuse.  I don't think anybody ever considered the chance of prosecution and I suspect I have friends who could have criminal records today.  It has to be considered a positive thing that societies views are changing. Is this something that is being prosecuted regularly, or does Johnson profile mean that he is more likely to be prosecuted. In my view the wealth and profile that  a premiership footballer has should come with extra responsibility, so I have little sympathy.

On another subject congratulations to the Liverpool fans who took part in the walkout. Proof that fanpower can work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
9 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Is this something that is being prosecuted regularly, or does Johnson profile mean that he is more likely to be prosecuted.

As I mentioned above, there's what the law says, and then there's the decision to prosecute "in the public interest".

But, because of what the law says, an individual (a parent) can force the CPS into taking action when the CPS's own decision might be to not-prosecute.

So there's all sorts of different reasons why someone might be prosecuted, not necessarily related to the severity of any offence.

9 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

On another subject congratulations to the Liverpool fans who took part in the walkout. Proof that fanpower can work. 

Yep, a job very well done. :)

The most interesting thing here is the precedent it sets for this, so it'll be interesting to see what happened in the future both with Liverpool and fort other clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Gutted for Samuelson last night - thought he was in the running for man of the match. A cracking cup tie. 

Very good player, looks like he could be a star. 

Speaking of your academy products, what's happened with Reece Oxford? Had a cracking first game of the season, but noticed he played against our u21s last night?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's still highly thought of but down the pecking order, and only 17 years old. 

In front of him and vying for the same positions are Noble, Kouyate, Song, and Obiang (who I'm amazed hasn't been spoken about more)

Oxford's time will come. I think Burke (currently on loan at Bradford) has a good chance of making the grade too. 

Edited by TheGayTent
Got his age wrong!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

he was on the bench for the Liverpool match the night before (as long as the TV didn't lie).

 

He was - because Song was rested (Liverpool weren't the only team rotating...)

As were two other academy players - Cullen (another midfielder) and Parfitt-Williams (striker). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

On another subject congratulations to the Liverpool fans who took part in the walkout. Proof that fanpower can work. 

Absolutely, also kudos to whoever in the club realised that the reaction meant something and prompted the turnaround. There are plenty of other high-profile (yes I originally wrote and then deleted 'big') clubs that would remain blinkered and follow through with similar plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
Just now, mrtourette said:

Absolutely, also kudos to whoever in the club realised that the reaction meant something and prompted the turnaround. There are plenty of other high-profile (yes I originally wrote and then deleted 'big') clubs that would remain blinkered and follow through with similar plans.

Hmmm, I'm not sure.

Walking out makes clear you're prepared to miss the game, and it showed that it worked.

Compare and contrast with wearing Norwich scarves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
Just now, mrtourette said:

I have no idea what that means. I doubt very much if Chelsea or Man Utd fans pulled a similar stunt that the turnaround would be so swift.

Who knows?

I was pointing to the fact that Man Utd fans weren't prepared to do that when they were making their own protest about prices.

Perhaps if they had done they might have been successful.

Before last weekend I was thinking far fewer would be prepared to walk at Liverpool than did walk. I reckon the fact it was such a sizable number showing they were prepared to miss the game played a big part in Liverpool's quick change of heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What did you think of Stewart the other night, just out of interest?

Not sure what the fuss is about really. He kept possession well and got about the pitch, but nothing more. Like most Tottenham players he's a bit of a dirty fucker and fully deserved his booking. 

At 22 it's hard to see him pulling up too many trees. I'd say he's far more likely to be a David Thompson than a Steven Gerrard. Heck, Mark Noble had 100 top flight appearances by the time he was Stewart's age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...