Adam Johnson

[morty 0]

If she isn''t of the age to give consent could the charge be rape?Or is there a lesser charge that encompasses non consensual sex with a minor?

[stoke canary 0]

Is it just a coincidence that the Adam Johnson post is on top of the Under 18s post ??

[Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . . 0]

So if she''s gone out to a nightclub for over 18''s, met a guy, and willingly gone back to his for sex, she is blameless? By the way if it was my daughter i''d want to kill him. But that''s human nature, i can understand rational thought going out the window for the father. But i like to think if it was my daughter she would also get both barrels for her behaviour.

[Katie Borkins 1]

Under-age sex is statutory rape, though there may be mitigating factors to take into account.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="morty"]If she isn''t of the age to give consent could the charge be rape?Or is there a lesser charge that encompasses non consensual sex with a minor?

[/quote]I think you will find that it would be statutory rape, even with consent.

[Mr Angry 1,561]

No, she''s not blameless, but she isn''t guilty of any offence, he is.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . ."]So if she''s gone out to a nightclub for over 18''s, met a guy, and willingly gone back to his for sex, she is blameless?[/quote]

No, she isn''t blameless.  But neither has she broken the law in any material way. (Getting into a nightclub when underage - Nightclub at fault)

You are also assuming willingness etc etc., none of which is proven.

Lucky they didn''t go to a Holiday Inn where he had some mates coming round later.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . ."]So if she''s gone out to a nightclub for over 18''s, met a guy, and willingly gone back to his for sex, she is blameless? By the way if it was my daughter i''d want to kill him. But that''s human nature, i can understand rational thought going out the window for the father. But i like to think if it was my daughter she would also get both barrels for her behaviour.[/quote]So you''d be happy with your 15 year old daughter going clubbing then?

[Katie Borkins 1]

I suspect Tony''s "daughter" is as real as Tony''s "support of NCFC".

Obvious binner is obvious.

[Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . . 0]

What part of i''d give her both barrels for her behaviour are you having difficulty understanding Morty?

[Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . . 0]

Oh dear Bor. What a sad little individual.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . ."]What part of i''d give her both barrels for her behaviour are you having difficulty understanding Morty?[/quote]What part of "Its probably better knowing what your kids are up to and where they are going, rather than hope for the best and tick them off after the fact" are you having difficulty with?

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . ."]Oh dear Bor. What a sad little individual.[/quote]

That''s rather ironic when it comes from someone who spends hours on the messageboard of a club they don''t even support.

See also: Newton

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Tony Cottee Woz Ere . . ."]So if she''s gone out to a nightclub for over 18''s, met a guy, and willingly gone back to his for sex, she is blameless? By the way if it was my daughter i''d want to kill him. But that''s human nature, i can understand rational thought going out the window for the father. But i like to think if it was my daughter she would also get both barrels for her behaviour.[/quote]So you''d be happy with your 15 year old daughter going clubbing then?[/quote]There''s a reason why the term "jail bait" came into being, Morty.A 27 year old man really should have known better.

[morty 0]

Indeed Ricardo.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Young men have a responsibility to themselves.

Ched Evans has just seen his career ended not simply by what he was convicted for but by the interest group reaction it ignited.

It is not possible at present to have a debate on the subject of rape i.e. whether there are degrees of rape based upon circumstances, mitigation etc. In the view of some powerful opinion ALL rape is the same.

Remember Judy Finnigan expressing a view? She ended up with a backlash which included sick threats towards herself and her daughter.

However, in the courtroom the jurors appear to take a different view thus rape has a low conviction rate and this will also include rapists getting away with it.

The law also permits the accused to be named and so they are thrown into the court of public opinion and this too is hotly debated as to whether or not it should be allowed.

So, add to the above the fact you are a high profile sportsman and you become front page news.

As I said at the start, young men have a responsibility to themselves.

But, it''s more than that. The police and CPS will take a proactive attitude to complaints as not to do so is political suicide. You will, therefore be investigated and the case will go before a court on a lower threshold of evidence.

We are now seeing prosecutions or trials of celebrities from the 1970''s. Then as now celebrity attracted immature or ambitious attention. Back then it wasn''t much to worry about, soon glossed over. In fact, it is as old as the hills, for example Mickey Rooney''s studio employed someone to clear up his mess and protect his squeaky clean screen image from underage sex allegations. However, in today''s world complainants feel inclined to come forward and certain infamous sex offenders have finally had their come-uppance while others cry ''witch hunt!''

Finally, the law has changed. The offender can''t just say he thought the victim consented they have to know the other party consents.

Thus Evans was convicted because his victim was so drunk he could not have believed she gave informed consent (although she gave it earlier when less drunk).

The offender being drunk doesn''t negate this.

What it all boils down to is individuals taking greater personal responsibility. Evans had his career ruined but his victim has had her life ruined too.

Adam Johnson is up against more than the law.

[stoke canary 0]

Bor Bor Bor is your avatar Gorden Alcock ?? This is a serious question mate.

[morty 0]

Good post Rudolph, and picking up on your point about historical convictions, this reminds me of a documentary I saw about the late Mr Saville.People interviewed about his time running a nightclub ( I think in the 60''s) said "Yeah well (shrug of shoulders) everyone kind of knew Jimmy liked them young"And I see folks saying "Well she was in a nightclub, she was in a sexy dress and wearing makeup" as virtually the same excuse.I think Adam Johnson has blown it bigstyle.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Didn''t ex-England international Graham Rix get a 12 month sentence for a similar offence?

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="stoke canary"]Bor Bor Bor is your avatar Gorden Alcock ?? This is a serious question mate.[/quote]

Kurt Vonnegut

[stoke canary 0]

[quote user="Bor Bor Bor"][quote user="stoke canary"]Bor Bor Bor is your avatar Gorden Alcock ?? This is a serious question mate.[/quote]

Kurt Vonnegut

[/quote] Thanks,it just looked like Gorden a old actor who was from Stoke,just thought you might have some connections.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Thanks for that post Rudolph, you appear to know what you are talking about. The point you make about the change in the law from what I suppose was deemed consent to a requirement for actual consent before intercourse is an interesting one relating to rape cases.

As far as this case is concerned I think the principle has to be that a mature man, particularly one in his position, has to be sure and not take risks. I believe there is an FA training program where they talk to Professional Footballers and educate them to try and prevent this sort of thing happening.

[Rivvo 257]

[quote user="ricardo"]In law, under 16''s cannot give consent so he would be on dodgy ground trying to use that as a defence.What a court will take into consideration however is the respective age of the two people. If the girl is 15 and the guy is 16 or 17 it''s far less serious than if the guy is 27, as in this case.None of us know the circumstances but on the facts reported I would think Adam Johnson is skating on very thin ice.[/quote]

Actually Ricardo there is no difference in Law (not moral perspective) there used to be a defence available if the nan was aged under 23 he could claim that the girl looked over 16 and he had no reason not to believe otherwise, but that us no longer the case, it would have to be argued as a defence on the individual circumstances.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Rivvo"][quote user="ricardo"]In law, under 16''s cannot give consent so he would be on dodgy ground trying to use that as a defence.What a court will take into consideration however is the respective age of the two people. If the girl is 15 and the guy is 16 or 17 it''s far less serious than if the guy is 27, as in this case.None of us know the circumstances but on the facts reported I would think Adam Johnson is skating on very thin ice.[/quote]

Actually Ricardo there is no difference in Law (not moral perspective) there used to be a defence available if the nan was aged under 23 he could claim that the girl looked over 16 and he had no reason not to believe otherwise, but that us no longer the case, it would have to be argued as a defence on the individual circumstances.[/quote]There is a difference in outcome Rivvo. A young man of 17 or 18 with a 15 year old girlfriend who overstepped the mark would not receive the same sentence as a 27 year old man and a 15 year old girl.

[iron_stan 0]

lots of jumping to conclusions with this

the definition of the law is one thing, his ''celebrity'' and the circumstances will determine the outcome if hes charged

one thing i will say, if this goes to trial and hes found innocent the press are absolutely phukkked, hes going to be able to take them to the cleaners

[Lessingham Canary 99]

apparently it was Durham police who gave out so much information that it was obvious it was him, Sunderland then announced they had suspended him, so press / media will feel justified in reporting the story.

[Maccys Back 0]

Lessingham canary is right, if you have daughter of which I have 3 young ones, then some may view the situation differently and thought of some pr1ck trying to absolve himself of blame by saying " she was in a club and looked over 18 and I had my beer goggles on" is outrageous. I''d and I wouldn''t want the nonce locked up where he couldn''t be reached. On the same hand I do agree that it is a minefield these days in SOME cases and the laws need setting in stone. Cases like with ched evan''s are a different kettle of fish to this though as this girl was underage and that''s that. I think most "normal" blokes can spot the difference between a giggly 15 year old and an 18 year old surely

[lake district canary 4,531]

The only solution for a bloke is to keep your d*ck in your trousers, get a real relationship before jumping in bed with a female and then things wouldn''t have so much risk of anything being misconstrued or misunderstood.   One night stands are just that and have all the inherent health and safety risks that go with it and that goes for both sexes.  If you take the risk you have to put up with the consequences if it goes wrong. 

Not judging Johnson on this though.  The facts are not known.  And as for "the difference between giggly 15 year olds and 18 year olds", that is just naive imo. There are plenty of  13/14/15 year olds who know how to behave as if they are older.  Its a minefield and dodgy ground for a bloke. Best just keep it zipped until a proper relationship comes along.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Well that or have a few beers and hide behind those goggles Lakey.

Actually, I don''t think beer goggles age people. Do you?

[Maccys Back 0]

Wtf are you for real ldc? If you can''t tell the difference between an 13,14,15year old and an 18year old then I''d suggest your more retarded than even I would give you credit for