Adam Johnson: An unlikely Men’s & Father’s Rights martyr

Former England footballer Adam Johnson has been found guilty of sex with a teenage girl. He might have been just another life destroyed in the sea of suffering inflicted by the feminists. But there’s a reason why I think he should be held up as a martyr by even the traditional “Father’s Rights” branch of the Men’s Rights Movement.

What’s the reason? Something the Judge said to him when he was found guilty. The Judge, Jonathan Rose, said:

You can say goodbye to your daughter. A prison sentence will mean you will not see her for some time.

That statement is profound. For one it should enrage father’s rights activists. How can a Judge imply it is OK and good that a man is deprived of his relationship with his daughter? And secondly, it should show up the feminist Judge’s hypocrisy. He claims to be “working in the interests of the child” yet he is more than happy to deprive a young girl of her father.

There’s also another reason why Fathers Rights activists shouldn’t feel ashamed of being enraged at this case. Whilst it was widely reported in the media as though Adam Johnson was unquestionably guilty in between the lines you find that of the four offences he was accused of two of them he pleaded guilty to. That left two that were tried by Jury. However, of those one of them resulted in him being found not guilty and the second the Jury actually couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict on. So the Judge sent the Jury back to reach only a majority guilty verdict (i.e. not unanimous).

This is interesting. Whilst the media, politicians, police, prosecutors, judges, vigilantes and feminists – all of whom profit personally from the current dystopian state of affairs – might portray an image of a society that utterly despises “paedophiles” we are finding that Jurors are becoming apprehensive to convict. Infact this was also very apparent in the way that the former Dragon Den star, Doug Richard was recently acquitted of having sex with an underage girl even though he admitted having done it but argued he didn’t know her age.

Is this witch hunt on its last legs? We can only hope. But this requires Men’s Rights Activists to call for change. Enough is enough!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Adam Johnson: An unlikely Men’s & Father’s Rights martyr

  1. pat says:

    This was my contribution on another forum, I admit I didn’t go into detail about all the statutory rape cases in Rotherham — I just used the more extreme examples the media have been clinging to.

    This is just a witch hunt, and people comparing this to Rotherham is fallacious — He didn’t pimp her, drug her, get her comatose with alcohol, or seduce her under false pretences. He just offended against a social norm, having sex under the age of consent (statutory rape) which is often far from actual rape; So those calling for him to go to jail — Or worse, are just fascists in the making”

  2. Alan Vaughn says:

    Is this witch hunt on its last legs? We can only hope. But this requires Men’s Rights Activists to call for change. Enough is enough!

    We can only hope, but after reading many readers comments of the (normally conservative) and feminist friendly online tabloid: Daily Mail’s account of the same story, who also took the judges comments to task in the way you suggest Men’s and Father’s Rights Activists should, it would certainly appear that the tide might be turning (against feminist dogma).

    There were also in the same DM story, a surprisingly large number of comments questioning the ‘paedophile’ aspect of this paedohysterical media feeding frenzy case, where even though feminist based male hate law defines a 15 year old as a ‘child’, many now dismiss this as a nonsense; especially after highlighting the fact that since she initiated the liaison, she IS therefore mature enough and responsible enough to know the consequences of her own actions. I.e. many commentators stated or implied that the 15 year old girl with whom Johnson became emotionally and sexually involved, is NOT the innocent or naive little child victim of a ‘predatory’ male paedophile; or that any other 15 year old is the ‘child victim’ model that feminists want everyone to perceive every female below the (ever increasing) age of consent as.

  3. holocaust21 says:

    More evidence tide is turning and men are angry:

    Premier League footballer suspended by club after ranting about Adam Johnson sex case victim

    He clearly decided it was worth making politically incorrect tweets in an attempt to fight against the cult of victimhood. Suspended for tweeting the truth! Only a matter of time until the feminazis can no longer arrest/lynch their way out of this “problem”.

  4. holocaust21 says:

    Wow! Looks like it might be game over for the paedophile witch hunt. Katie Hopkins absolutely beats the s**t out of the feminazis in her Daily Mail Article:

    “Put away the rope, Adam Johnson broke the law – with a girl who knew EXACTLY what she was doing – but he’s not a paedophile and he doesn’t deserve prison and a Twitter lynching”

  5. Alan Vaughn says:

    “Put away the rope, Adam Johnson broke the law – with a girl who knew EXACTLY what she was doing – but he’s not a paedophile and he doesn’t deserve prison and a Twitter lynching”

    LOL! I wonder… O.k, my comment about this paedohysterical media feeding frenzy led by the Daily Mail, which you can read here wasn’t published, but I just wonder: if Daily Mail reporter Katie Hopkins read it (and maybe many others like it, that were also moderated and not published) and they inspired her, giving her the impetus (guts) needed to go ahead and write that story. I hope so! I also hope she had a very heated argument with the Mail’s pro-feminist Editor, which she finally won and was allowed to publish it, albeit perhaps only after some very heavy-handed editing…
    It does indeed appear that the tide might be turning.
    However, I wouldn’t be too surprised if we soon learn that Katie is ‘all of a sudden’ either reporting for another MSM organization, or even read about her being SACKED, following this blatant rebuke of feminist propaganda, especially via the most feminist MSM resource in the UK, besides the BBC…

    • holocaust21 says:

      Usually when one breaks a taboo to such a wide audience as Daily Mail readership then one of two things happen either:

      1) The individual concerned somewhat “mistakingly” broke the taboo and didn’t realise the “outcry” it would cause and they thus make a grovelling apology (example: John Grisham)

      2) The individual concerned knew what they were doing. They knew the amount of hate & rage that would be created amongst the mob. They stand to their guns afterwards and the ideological “system” takes a massive beating.

      I think in Katie Hopkins case 2) is basically certain. She’s not the sort of person to back down and make a grovelling apology. And she has got a surprising amount of support. So I think the paedohysterical system is going to take a beating. Whether it’s enough to take it down or not though I don’t know. David Nutt pissed them all off with his views on drugs yet the drug war is still going strong (somewhat shockingly…)

      Edit: Should add for clarity that I think if they *did* decide to sack her then due to the fact she both refuses to apologise AND she has made her views known very publically then it would be the Daily Mail or the twat who sacks her who will lose face and anti-paedohysteria views will go even more mainstream. Basically, police officers/cops/judges/feminists/prosecutors/politicians thrive in secrecy. They don’t like it when they get fairly debated in public. They much prefer, for example, a court injunction to stop a parent of a child kidnapped by social services from even publically saying their kid has been kidnapped (!) (then they can of course falsely claim they saved a child etc etc).

  6. Alan Vaughn says:

    I posted at least 15 comments on there yesterday… So far, 3 of them have been published and all of those were only replies to some hysterical feminist ewes* that posted the question: ‘What if it was her daughter’? I simply pointed out that had they bothered to read the article, before blindly posting their hysterical comments, they would know the answer then would have of course, been even more disappointed and more angry, as Katie Hopkins stated quite clearly that she would have no sympathy for her own daughter n the same situation….
    All of my other comments which basically criticised feminism and / or paedohysteria and a couple I posted to some very ‘loud’ card-carrying paedocrites – explaining what they are (and WHY they are ‘paedocrites’), were not published.
    However, one thing I very consciously noticed throughout reading the numerous posts, was the overwhelming number of UP-votes in support of Katie Hopkins and a similarly large amount of DOWN-votes awarded to the paedohysterical comments that criticised her.

    I think we urgently need more stories like this, especially in the Daily Mail. You can of course see better anti-paedohysteria stories in MSM publications such as Spiked Online, but let’s be honest here: its readership is mainly people like us – not that many and of course we already agree: we don’t need the ‘re-programming’ that the paedohysterical feminist indoctrinated sheeple^ of the UK desperately need before things turn really ugly. After what I read among those many comments yesterday, I’m afraid that anarchy is now clearly on the horizon. There are a lot of DANGEROUSLY stupid and hysterical people out there…. The Daily Mail reaches not only a massively larger audience, it reaches the very (hysterical and brainwashed) audience that needs to be told the TRUTH.

    A few more articles like it coupled with a documentary or two on TV, would probably pave the way towards the new road that would bury forever, the entire hateful ideology.
    What needs to be made very clear is that they’re all behaving (in 2016), worse than their superstitious and ignorant pitch-fork wielding ancestors were during the great Inquisition of the 15th / 16th centuries and over something far less threatening than what those ancestors probably had reason to believe was a real threat. (Because nobody at the time had the knowledge that science has long since explained).

    * For those who don’t know: ‘Ewe’: Female sheep. And Sheep always follow other sheep blindly.
    ^ ‘Sheeple’: People behaving like sheep.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Well done with getting even just 3 comments through! Lots of good points there, though speaking of Spiked Online the world seems to be turning upside down… Look at their disgraceful article on Adam Johnson:

      It’s basically vilifying him and saying what he did is wrong and the feminists are to blame for his crimes (wtf? sounds like avfm). We are now living in a world where the Daily Mail is the voice of reason and compassion (!). I’m starting to lose hope in Spiked’s writers. Barbara Hewson blocking me on twitter for being too unPC doesn’t help my confidence in them either. Urgh… And just when I was getting optimistic about a sea change. For fucksake!

      • Alan Vaughn says:

        It’s basically vilifying him and saying what he did is wrong and the feminists are to blame for his crimes (wtf? sounds like avfm).

        Indeed. In fact I was feeling progressively more and more frustrated as I read through the whole feminist driven drivel! Gittos at least, can’t seem to see the huge elephant in the room:

        The fact is that Johnson made a moral decision to do what he did. He became involved with a girl who he knew was below the age of consent. He was not driven mad by a chauvinist culture within his profession. He was not developmentally retarded to such an extent that he did not appreciate the gravity of the crime he was committing. He was not facilitated in his actions by anyone other than himself. He decided to break the law. But the rape-culture argument provides men like Johnson with a means of diluting their personal responsibility for their actions.

        Makes Adam Johnson out to be a predatory rapist, or at the very least: a violent criminal and a thug.
        Why doesn’t he have the gumption to point out that this whole paedohysterical media feeding frenzy would never even have occurred if it wasn’t for feminists making the whole non-event a ‘crime’ in the first place? He was right to blame feminists, but for the completely wrong thing!
        He should have written a story about the fact, or rather the question: Why is this even a ‘crime’ at all? What possible ‘harm’ can anyone possibly suffer (apart from the intense rage suffered by bitterly jealous old hags), when two individuals enjoy a completely consenting and PRIVATE sexual relationship, regardless of the age, or social status of the individuals concerned?
        After reading that pathetic piece of PC journalism, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Luke Gittos write as a ‘Special Guest’ writer at A Voice for Manginas before too long…

        Less than 30 years ago, this (fully consensual) liaison would not even have involved the police, let alone become anything like the hysterical media circus it and many similar non-events became in recent years. Non-events: harmless and private relationships between consenting heterosexual couples, that are now treated as heinous crimes by the judiciary and the British lynch mob public that endorse the barbaric and pointless, laws (that were only mandated after persistent lobbying by sexually frustrated and bitterly jealous feminists), which do nothing other than destroy the lives of innocent men, by targeting and criminalizing their totally natural and normal sexuality…

  7. gergegege says:

    A text about CP. It’s encoded with rot13.

    • Alan Vaughn says:

      I think this could be very dangerous… Entrapment attempt?

      • holocaust21 says:

        A bit odd that it’s encoded with rot13, however googling for a rot13 converter it seems to have some interesting content. I haven’t read it thoroughly and I’m not sure if some links are dodgy, seems to imply they’re legal but who knows these days, thus I wouldn’t recommend following the more dodgy sounding ones (I didn’t).

        There is a couple of REALLY INTERESTING youtube videos linked to by that article though about US “child porn victims” who are saying they aren’t victims and campaigning to get their “abuser” released:

        Also under the videos it seemed to have one of the lowest proportion of paedocrite comments I’ve ever seen for a mainstream site (most of the comments were attacking the US for locking up too many people, attacking why consensual sex is illegal etc. They are the sort of views that only existed pre-millenium!).

  8. Alan Vaughn says:

    Yes, I’m glad you brought those excellent videos out of the attic and into the light of day again – I saw them a couple of years ago after Brian Rothery linked to them at his Inquistion21 site.
    The two videos above and others like them are just part of a huge cartel of proof (which the state opts to completely and dogmatically ignore and tries to sweep under the rug), that nearly all ‘children’ they deem to be ‘victims’ of perverts, ‘groomed’ by ‘sexaul deviants’, ‘predators’ etc. etc., do not and never would, consider themselves as such victims and as the girls in the above videos strongly asserted: they are ONLY victims of the totalitarian state and the FBI that enforces the ridiculous thought crime law. NOT of perverts, child pornographers and most of all: their own fathers, who are now in prison for NO REASON!

    Not surprisingly, most of these supposed ‘victims’ vehemently dismiss such claims as utter nonsense, except of course when the lure of large amounts of money are involved (and even then: not always: the power of love sometimes overrides the temptation of money). I.e. the topic of this post: Adam Johnson. His 15 year old ‘child victim’ who is even referred to by many MSM reports as a ‘survivor’ (how fucking sickening that abuse of English is), in fact initiated contact with the him – the man accused (by the feminist totalitarian state’s Paedofinder General), of ‘grooming’ her, suddenly decided she was a ‘victim’, only after finding out how much she would be awarded (well, her parents would be awarded actually), in ‘victim’s’ compensation.

    What an abomination of justice it all is and all at the expense of totally harmless and innocent men, but worse is that nobody seems to care, or even wants to talk about it.

  9. holocaust21 says:

    Two opinion pieces vilifying Adam Johnson written in the telegraph:

    One by Jim White who seems to be a closet paedophile in self-denial:

    The other by radical feminazi Radhika Sanghani. Judging by her name, as well as previous articles she’s written (e.g. I can’t help but wonder if she comes from an Islamic background? In which case it is an irony that she bashes Adam Johnson but fails to criticise her prophet who banged a 9yo.

  10. Alan Vaughn says:

    One by Jim White who seems to be a closet paedophile in self-denial:

    My God, what a fucking JEALOUS paedocrite that one is! I love his concluding paragraph:

    Why is it that the overwhelming majority of footballers are not trawling the playgrounds of Britain as we speak? Because they are decent human beings in possession of a fully functioning moral compass…

    LOL 😀
    No Jim, that is not the reason at all. The overwhelming majority of footballers know that they’re not likely to find too many teenage hotties in local playgrounds. 15+ year old girls are well past the phase of entertaining themselves in playgrounds! Despite what feminists have told you and your paedohysterical readers to believe: 15 year old girls are NOT children, therefore they are too old to visit playgrounds and are in fact, probably not permitted by local by-laws to even use the equipment, which is normally restricted for the use of children aged 12 years old and UNDER.

    Hmmmm… On the other hand, just maybe…

    WHOA! Hang-on a sec… Of course… I think I might owe Mr White an apology: what Jim was probably thinking when he wrote that paragraph, is that there could be 14, 15 and 16 year old girls, i.e. young mums, visiting playgrounds with their own toddler children, thus what he meant was the ‘overwhelming majority of footballers are not trawling the playgrounds of Britain as we speak’ because they are decent human beings, possessing fully functional moral compasses, thus would not dream of trying to seduce such unfortunate young, innocent and vulnerable teenage mothers who frequently visit many local playgrounds with their kids…

    Hmmm… However, I don’t think Jim White was really thinking anything like that. He is clearly a very JEALOUS paedocrite who would do almost anything for the chance to slip his dick into a teenage hotty, if he knew he could get away with it.

    How much more absurd does this obsession with paedophiles have to become, before EVERY male from 0 to 120 years old is defined as a ‘paedophile’ and ALL females under 55 years old become innocent and naive little ‘children’?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.