Adam Johnson

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]The laws are what they are. You may not agree with them but its each persons responsibility to keep their own actions within the law.[/quote]So, in the nightclub scenario, the girl breaks the law, the bouncer breaks the law, but it''s only the guy at the end of the chain who gets punished - sounds fair...A) If the girl hadn''t illegally entered the club - the offence wouldn''t have taken placeB) If the bouncer had done their job properly - the offence wouldn''t have taken placeC) If the guy had demanded to see ID or erred on the side of caution - the offence wouldn''t have taken placeMy contention here is that A knowingly and willingly broke the law, B broke the law but even sober apparently couldn''t tell she was under-age (so what chance does a slightly inebriated C have?), C also broke the law, but did so unwittingly, when possibly slightly drunk (impairing their judgment) and when both A and B shouldn''t have allowed this to even be able to happen to begin with.This is where I draw my line in the sand and where I think understanding needs to applied. Anything outside of this where it''s far clearer that she was under-age and he went ahead anyway CANNOT be mitigated or excused, but in the above nightlcub example, any possible charges should consider this situtation and judge it far differently than a deliberate and knowing choice to have sex with an under-age girl IMHO.

[Maccys Back 0]

It''s everyone as in everyone else''s fault except the blokes? I get what your saying now indy! But your well wrong and the worst bit is........ you just can''t see it

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Maccys Back"]No indy your diabolical, it doesn''t matter if she''s dolled herself up looking 80years old it''s irrelevant.[/quote]Of course it''s not irrelevant you complete tool, it actually goes right to the heart of the matter and brings to mind an old phrase:"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck", but in your mind "It''s not a duck until you''ve checked it''s ID"...[quote]Do u look for kids dressed as witches on halloween? Cos witches are old arnt they so it should be a nonce paradise right? Cos they looked older!!! Grow the fu*k your an apologist for the worst of the worst.[/quote]Oh grow up you utter pr**k, nobody is talking about kids on Halloween ffs.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

So, a multi-millionaire footballer should be able to have a $hag on the trusted authority of a night club doorman?!

Perhaps the legal age for tattoo''s should be brought down to 16 then he could check those out before he jumps her; in any event under the present law the doorman can use them as a guide for club admission.

For something like this to happen there has to be a perfect storm. If we are choosing a hypothetical nightclub situation then all persons involved have to do the wrong thing for it to come about. Conversely, if one of them alone does the right thing then the crime does not happen so it is no good any party seeking to blame another, all play a part and all had a chance to avoid the outcome. ''An Inspector Calls'' by JB Priestly springs to mind.

[Maccys Back 0]

You are though indy, your talking about kids dolled up to look older! So that''s exactly what your on about ok

[Chip20 69]

I''m reluctant to comment on any aspect of this unfortunate incident, as I know virtually nothing about the allegation or what actually happened. I do, though, find it irksome that some are so adamant that the difference between a girl aged 15 and a girl aged 16 should be blindingly obvious; beer goggles or not. My wife was asked for ID to buy a lottery ticket when she was aged 24. A colleague of mine was recently asked for ID to buy alcohol, despite approaching the age of 30. Both ''incidents'' were in well-lit environments and the error of judgement was made by people who I would hope were both stone cold sober. Neither my wife nor my colleague were deliberately dressed to mislead at the time.

I am also at a loss as to how young men or women are expected to determine beyond any reasonable doubt the age of somebody they are about to engage in sexual congress with. I can''t even envisage how that conversation would go. I don''t image anybody sits down formally to agree what is about to take place and exchange proof of legality prior to getting on with it. I mean, mood-killer or what!!?

That said, sleeping with somebody you have only just met is inherently a risky activity and when you take any kind of risk, you have to be prepared to live with the consequences. It may seem harsh in the cold light of day, but in a court of law ignorance is no defence (and I mean ignorance in the sense of genuinely not being aware rather than the more perjorative meaning).

[nutty nigel 7,506]

So do you not understand the concept that we are all responsible for our own actions Indy? Just because others broke the law it doesnt mean its oOK does it?

In your scenarios the doorman the barman or even the parent didn''t have sex with an underage girl. By your logic it would always be someone else''s fault and nobody would be responsible for their own actions.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Can I just say, though. Apart from one or two on a wind up, this kind of discussion is what is missing in society today.

As I alluded to in my original post there is such a strident protest group against rape that all discussion has gone out of the window so we don''t get the chance to air our views, our faults or our prejudices and learn something from the opinions of others. In other words the subject doesn''t move forwards and no one gets protected.

It is nice to see free speech at work.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

What''s with all the talk of nightclubs? It''s never even been mentioned has it? For all we know, he could have been scouting his local playground as opposed to nightclub or even more surprisingly could have nothing to do with any 15 year old girl! At least wait for more facts to come out instead of making them up.

[Syteanric 1]

it''s not been mentioned he was in a night club when he met this girl...the moral high ground is going to be taken pretty quickly by those defending him on here if it turns out he''s the next Jimmy SAville isn''t it!?

[Chip20 69]

Jimmy Smith is right. There''s a lot of jumping to conclusions going on here. I agree with Rudolph that it is good to see some constructive discussion about the potential issues involved (and a reminder how lucky we are to be free to do so), but so far almost everything discussed about this particular case is based on preconceptions and conjecture.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Not defending him, i''ve found the odd joke about it quite witty. Just saying be careful what you say.

[Chip20 69]

No, Jas; I think the high ground will be LOST by those defending him on here if he proves to be anything like JS.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

At worst, there is a massive difference between what Adam Johnson could have done and what Saville did.

[Chip20 69]

Indeed, Jimmy. I have a feeling that may be what Indy is trying to get at. As soon as some bare allegations are reported some people seem prepared to demonise somebody as an evil kiddie fiddler who should rot in Hell before any details or known or confirmed. The bottom line is that, if AJ did engage in sexual activity with a minor, wittingly or otherwise, then he has broken the law and should face the consequences. I think some would argue, though, that those consequences should not necessarily be as bad as those reserved for a Jimmy Saville or monsters of his ilk.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Can I just say, though. Apart from one or two on a wind up, this kind of discussion is what is missing in society today.

As I alluded to in my original post there is such a strident protest group against rape that all discussion has gone out of the window so we don''t get the chance to air our views, our faults or our prejudices and learn something from the opinions of others. In other words the subject doesn''t move forwards and no one gets protected.

It is nice to see free speech at work.[/quote]

 

Spot on Rudolph. There''s a lot of sense comes out of communities speaking

freely together and it shouldn''t be discouraged.

 

As for you people who say folk are jumping to conclusions, they''re not. Read

the thread. A wider discussion has been opened up and some good points made.

 

[Horse Renoir 1]

I get what Indy is saying on the first page, but Johnson is in his late 20''s. Even if she looked with make up 18-20 he shouldn''t be going for naive young girls that age anyway.

I have some sympathy for lads aged 18 ish who accidental get caught out by a younger girl who shouldn''t be allowed in a club/bar by those absolute t055ers who run the doors but there are no mitigating circumstances here! If guilty Johnson should get the book thrown at him!

[93vintage 16]

It would normally be the girl making a complaint for the police to be involved. So if it''s a 15 year old girl deliberately looking to entrap an older man then questions are going to be raised about whether the girl in question is a gold digger.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Darth BOOOOOOOOOO"]I get what Indy is saying on the first page, but Johnson is in his late 20''s. Even if she looked with make up 18-20 he shouldn''t be going for naive young girls that age anyway.[/quote]Why not?It''s only the view of a modern society that frowns up this, whereas very few would complain about a 27yr old woman getting her hands on an 18-20 yr old lad, in fact it would be viewed as an acheivement by most of his mates most likely!If the girl is old enough and clearly then of consensual age, then there is absolutely NO reason why Johnson shouldn''t take an interest, even if it''s not going to lead anywhere long term.The only point at which he should get the book thrown at him is if he knowingly and willfully had sex with an under-age girl despite being fully aware of this fact, at that point I''ll join the rest in getting my pitchfork and hoping he burns for his crimes, but there''s a hell of a lot of grey areas in between that this could fall in as well, meaning any possible sentence could be anywhere from 2 years if he''s found totally guilty, to basically a slap on the wrist (e.g. 3 month community service etc) for not demanding ID first.

[Horse Renoir 1]

You can''t call a 15 year old a gold digger! I had no maturity level whatsoever at that age and most people don''t until they hit 18-20ish. Hell, I''m 22 and I still kind of act like a kid and do stupid things I regret without thinking. This case, if he''s found guilty is 100% his fault

[Horse Renoir 1]

Because it''s a scummy thing to do Indy. Just like men go all gooey eyed and lose their cool around a stunning girl, women for whatever reason seem to lose all self control around men who are rich/famous etc

I believe it''s taking advantage, sod what the law says. It''s decided by the insular political class that have no idea at all about how people and the world works outside of their little bubble.

I agree it''s not fair that when an older woman goes for a young guy it''s seen as fine, but the reason a distinction has to be made is because society treats womens sexual behaviour different to mens. You can bet this girl will be called every variation of the word erm... ''easy'' for this whereas a man wouldn''t, rightly or wrongly. You can''t change social attitudes just like that so you have to offer women a little more protection.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="Darth BOOOOOOOOOO"]You can''t call a 15 year old a gold digger! I had no maturity level whatsoever at that age and most people don''t until they hit 18-20ish. Hell, I''m 22 and I still kind of act like a kid and do stupid things I regret without thinking. This case, if he''s found guilty is 100% his fault[/quote]If they''re trying to entice a man with the express intention of going to the old bill, then what would you call it? Age wouldn''t be an excuse from a moral point of view.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

I know 15 year olds more mature than me but also people double that age less mature. I guess it depends on the person but 16 is a good line to draw with it in my opinion.

There was talk of that girl involved with that teacher Jeremy Forest i think he was called being very mature for her age (15) and being the one who lead him on etc. Problem for him is that as he was 30 odd, he knew the consequences so you can''t have too much sympathy for him. He should have resisted temptation.

I guess it''s comparable to adultery really. You know you shouldn''t do it as the consequences could be terrible but other women don''t just turn ugly overnight when you get hitched. Everyone will be tempted to sin/ break the law but if you act on that sin that''s when you face the consequences.

15 year olds aren''t completely naive to the whole sex thing but in my opinion they should be protected by law until at least 16.

[Murphy and the Bricks 0]

I don''t believe its as cut & dried as some are making out, I am a parent to four daughters two are 15 one is 17 & the eldest is nearly 22. when all four of them are dressed up etc anyone would have great difficulty in telling their ages apart. I don''t condone what he has done but there has to be some mitigation if the 15 year old girl was indeed in a club, its not always the fault of the parent we are told one thing & our children do another its how its always been plus they are a lot more mature these days than we ever were. I draw on my own experience too 20 years ado in my mid 20''s I chatted up a girl in a bar luckily nothing happened as I found out a day or two later she was only 15...as I say its not as cut & dried as some would have you believe.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

I get the odd sixty year old making a play for me, I never go out to deliberately intice them, it''s just natural charm.😊

[Horse Renoir 1]

Every single time I''ve met a girl (luckily for me it''s been a lot!!) at some point in the conversation I''ve just innocently gone ''so how old are you anyway''. It covers your arse and shows you''re taking an interest in them!

It''s not a probing, personal question to ask an obviously young girl and I can''t believe others don''t ask it, if anything just to get to know the girl more. Unless somehow you meet a girl on the dancefloor and between then and when they decide to have sex the two don''t speak to each other I can''t understand how the question wouldn''t come up!

Just a few weeks ago I was at a bar in Devon, I smashed the karaoke and a girl came and sat with me, she looked very young but after talking for a while I asked how old she was, turned out she was a year older than me so it was all okay, if I hadn''t asked and it turned out she was underage I could''ve been caught out and be in a whole heap of sh!t right now.

Just ask their age and the whole political minefield disappears! If they lied, a polygraph test can show they lied to you and you''re off the hook, this isn''t difficult!

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]There was talk of that girl involved with that teacher Jeremy Forest i think he was called being very mature for her age (15) and being the one who lead him on etc. Problem for him is that as he was 30 odd, he knew the consequences so you can''t have too much sympathy for him. He should have resisted temptation.[/quote]The Forest case was mainly about him being in a position of trust and it escalated as a consequence of it being hushed up. A lot of institutional abuse (schools, hospitals etc) is covered up successfully because there''s no legal duty to report it.My point is that there are more serious and pressing issues when it comes to sexual offences than cases where a consenting girl is under 16.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Darth BOOOOOOOOOO"]Just ask their age and the whole political minefield disappears! If they lied, a polygraph test can show they lied to you and you''re off the hook, this isn''t difficult![/quote]Sounds great in theory, but what about in practice?AFAIK, a polygraph test is still inadmissible in court, which then makes it come down to a case of who do you believe?I''ve heard about a few cases where guys have asked for girls ages, asked for and then gained consent for sex and despite this have still been charged for having sex with a minor even though they did everything sensible to prevent an issue occuring!Put it this way, say the girl approaches Johnson in a bar, they get chatting, and just like you do Darth, Johnson asks her how old she is - "19" is the reply he gets, so would you expect him to accept this (just like you did in your example), or should he be then demanding to see ID to back up this claim? Even worse is that when asked at a later point about this conversation - she denies ever having said she was 19,  and it''s then down to a jury to make a decision even though Johnson is telling the complete truth!Everything sounds so easy when you initially think about it, but start to delve deeper and you find that there''s often a hell of a lot of complications in even ''simple'' cases, which completely changes the aspect from a clear black and white picture into a messy muddle of grey''s which even legal professionals can completely disagree on!

[Maccys Back 0]

"If they lied, a polygraph test can show they lied to you and you''re off the hook, this isn''t difficult!"

Wtf! Just so you don''t get into trouble, what court have you ever been to where a polygraph was used as evidence? Court isn''t like jeremy kyle for the avoidance of doubt.

[PKC 0]

Of course the fact that he has a long term partner who he has had a child with in January means that if he did have sex with an underage girl, even if it was not knowing she was underage, shows him to be an @rse.