Charlie Endell Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Was gary glitter even known as being a nonce in 2001? I think it was 1999 he made his ill-fated visit to PC World... Edit: 1997 - he was convicted in 1999. Edited March 3, 2015 by Charlie Endell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Is that a hint as to the next celeb to get a chap at the door from the Yewtree boys...? Couldn't possibly comment What is it with folk with knighthoods? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS2014 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 98ish when he was first arrested wasn't it? You seem to know a lt about him. Did you always want to be in his gang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 You're missing the point that he's a Premeirship Footballer and as such would have the pick of a certain type of totty - so he's not your average 27 year old. Having had the pick of the totty he manages to select one who is underage. And he's married with a kid? Doubly smart. Unless its all a big misunderstanding. This is why it looks so bad for him. He'll have had all sorts of media training and would have been warned about the stuff that happens on nights out for footballers. He is either a total moron or a dirty pervert. Either way he's in a lot of trouble, assuming he did sleep with the girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartan Exile Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I completely understand why the female isn't named and agree with that as it would prevent a lot of females coming forward for rape and other sexually motivated attacks, however, I've always had an issue as to why the guy in this type of scenario is allowed to be named and plastered all over the news when at this stage he's not been charged and only "arrested on suspicion of sexual activity with a girl under 16". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibelieve!!! Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I completely understand why the female isn't named and agree with that as it would prevent a lot of females coming forward for rape and other sexually motivated attacks, however, I've always had an issue as to why the guy in this type of scenario is allowed to be named and plastered all over the news when at this stage he's not been charged and only "arrested on suspicion of sexual activity with a girl under 16". Initially the police did just say "a 27 year old male", however with Twitter, press etc a celeb will always end up being named. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartan Exile Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Initially the police did just say "a 27 year old male", however with Twitter, press etc a celeb will always end up being named. Yeah but they are legally not allowed to name the girl - I'm sure they know her name. I think it should be the same for the guy, at least until he has been charged. I think I'm right in saying that if a girl called rape and then later admits that it wasn't, she still can't legally be named yet the guy can, gets his name dragged through the mud with the stigma now attached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 It's not just celebrities, the accused is usually named it seems which doesn't seem fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I started going to pubs/nightclubs at 15. It's not unusual. Are you Tom Jones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louch Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 In all criminal cases all names should be secret until verdict to me. But understand why they are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) The lassie in question.... Edited March 5, 2015 by Mod11 Image removed after reported Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) That's his girlfriend isn't it? @OllieCross93: "She doesn't look 15"...Well, that's because she's the mother of his child, not a 15 year old girl. #AdamJohnson http://t.co/Vq5RxgWgks Edited March 4, 2015 by Maq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 That's his girlfriend isn't it? @OllieCross93: "She doesn't look 15"...Well, that's because she's the mother of his child, not a 15 year old girl. #AdamJohnson http://t.co/Vq5RxgWgks My bad then Maq. Was doing the rounds on twitter that was the lass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I've seen 2 pictures of his girlfriend (some saying it's his wife, but I don't think they're married?). She had dark hair, don't think thats the same girl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ta Ta Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 That is his girlfriend. It is only 5 weeks since she gave birth to their baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 That is his girlfriend. It is only 5 weeks since she gave birth to their baby.Which must make her feel fantastic right now.Unless this story is complete fantasy (which seems unlikely) he really is a dirty wee scrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blantyre_Braveheart Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Yeah but they are legally not allowed to name the girl - I'm sure they know her name. I think it should be the same for the guy, at least until he has been charged. I think I'm right in saying that if a girl called rape and then later admits that it wasn't, she still can't legally be named yet the guy can, gets his name dragged through the mud with the stigma now attached. There was a case recently where a woman cried rape and it turned out she made it up. The guy was named and attacked by a gang while with his pregnant wife and she lost the baby as a result. The woman later recanted her story and faced no jail time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagtag Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Adam Johnson charged with 3 offences of sexual activity with a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Adam Johnson charged with 3 offences of sexual activity with a child.And one offence of grooming a minor. Think that paints a pretty repulsive picture now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagtag Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 And one offence of grooming a minor. Think that paints a pretty repulsive picture now. Certainly does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redstevie007 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Going by the Sky News report I've just read it's 3 charges of sex with an under-16 and one of grooming, and it seems they're all related to the same girl and took place during a narrow period - December to February. So he's met a girl, online or otherwise (grooming) and slept with her 3 times (underage sex). He may be a guilty , in which case he should rot in jail. Or he may have met a girl who confessed her real age after the third time they slept together, he's dumped her and she's decided he's going to suffer. Think I'll reserve judgement on this one until more facts emerge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tam4ritchie Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Going by the Sky News report I've just read it's 3 charges of sex with an under-16 and one of grooming, and it seems they're all related to the same girl and took place during a narrow period - December to February. So he's met a girl, online or otherwise (grooming) and slept with her 3 times (underage sex). He may be a guilty , in which case he should rot in jail. Or he may have met a girl who confessed her real age after the third time they slept together, he's dumped her and she's decided he's going to suffer. Think I'll reserve judgement on this one until more facts emerge. Or he may be not guilty of anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redstevie007 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Or he may be not guilty of anything Doubler Edited April 23, 2015 by redstevie007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redstevie007 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Or he may be not guilty of anything Indeed. Like I say, judgement reserved for the time being. The guy shouldn't even have been named. The complainant is entitled to life-long anonymity according to the Sky report. The accused should also be entitled to anonymity unless proven guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolhibby Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Indeed. Like I say, judgement reserved for the time being. The guy shouldn't even have been named. The complainant is entitled to life-long anonymity according to the Sky report. The accused should also be entitled to anonymity unless proven guilty. But hard when he works for a family club in the public eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.