Adam Johnson

[Maccys Back 0]

Also I''m aware that 16 is the age of consent but a 27year old MAN sniffing round a 16year old is just a "legal nonce" it''s hardly greater than being just a plain nonce in my eyes. Also if he did it, I hope he gets put in with real men in jail and not in one of these f#cking sex offender jails where they can jerk off over each other stories all night. These motherless f*ck make me sick. Hanging is the only the only answer. You can''t put a nonce in jail to rehabilitate them. Its like putting a homosexual in jail and hoping in 3 years they are straight. Hang the lot and donate their organs to any poor sod who needs them. At least then they will have finally become a productive member of society in a round about way!

[Syteanric 1]

i can''t believe that some on here think the "she told me she was 16 officer!" point of view is right...

what if it was your daughter....

heres to chemical castration... Johnson should be first to trial it.

[Paul101 93]

lets not judge him yet

hell kevin from cory was destroyed online and it turned out to be made up tosh

[nutty nigel 7,533]

I''m only judging those who would excuse people who were guilty.I''m not judging Johnson.

[Indy_Bones 441]

Nutty,I did NOT say that ''Beer Goggles'' were a perfectly acceptable excuse, but at the same time, having a few drinks IS likely to impair your judgment (even if it''s to a minor degree), and I find it completely easy to see how a 15yr old can dress and act in such a way as to appear 18 or over, but if you''re in a club where you HAVE to be 18 to get in, why the hell should ANY customer expect people well under that age to have been admitted?Lets face it, in the hypothetical nightclub situation, the bouncers weren''t wearing those ''Beer Goggles'', and they still allowed an under-age girl in, so apparently they couldn''t see she wasn''t old enough either, so what chance has someone who''s had a few pints got?All that aside, it''s now a situation where it appears that you are now expected to be an expert in judging age (despite a girl potentially deliberately dressing, acting and getting made up to look older), be expected to clearly and fully judge if a girl has had too much to drink to make a consensual choice, are expected to demand to see a copy of a passport or driving licence and maybe even perform a short pop quiz with questions only an over 18 would be expected to answer before you even THINK about going anywhere near a girl for anything sexually related - all getting a bit ridiculous IMHO.I will NEVER condone rape, or underage sex, but there are genuine situations where I think too much is being expected of people.

[93vintage 16]

I think situations like this could be avoided by a lower age of consent. In the real world a lot of under 16s are sexually active and girls, who on average mature earlier than boys, often go for older men. There are lots of relationships between girls of 13-15 and older men aged from 18 to their late twenties which go on amiably without problem.The police should be focusing on things like underage prostitution, paedophile rings and perhaps actually enforcing the licensing laws so that intoxicated people aren''t served alcohol.

[Maccys Back 0]

As an adult, I know like "most" other adults that occasionally underage people get into nightclubs. So that means I don''t have carte blanche to go round the club, sleep with some "young" looking bird with impunity. Christ tell me someone who didn''t get into a pub, club underage? Also I.B where does it stop..... "oh your honour she was smoking so I presumed she would be 16". But it turns out someone else brought the fags and now your doing 7 years!

[Maccys Back 0]

I thought the otherday you may be a Binner 93vintage, NOW I KNOW IT BINNER

[The Butler 0]

I assume maccy that you will be popping over to Syria to arrest those nice IS Guys over the three 15 year olds who are now probably BRIDES!

[SwindonCanary 455]

Seem he did it in the wrong country !http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-age-consent-around-world-2802173

[nutty nigel 7,533]

First of all my post replying to the one about judgeing Adam Johnson was wrongly worded. I and I think most others on this thread did make it plain they were not judgeing him. We''re not judgeing eachother either. Just commenting.

Indy, you are using beer goggles as an excuse. And all the other things that you believe mitigate a crime. The bouncer has broken the law. Being found out may or may not cost him his job. Probably not. However having under age sex would be a far more serious offence and would most certainly have much greater consequence. Parents of children have a right to expect other adults to act responsibly in these situations and beer goggles is no excuse to absolve such responsibility.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Maccys Back"]As an adult, I know like "most" other adults that occasionally underage people get into nightclubs. So that means I don''t have carte blanche to go round the club, sleep with some "young" looking bird with impunity. Christ tell me someone who didn''t get into a pub, club underage? Also I.B where does it stop..... "oh your honour she was smoking so I presumed she would be 16". But it turns out someone else brought the fags and now your doing 7 years![/quote]Talk about dual standards...Why should a ''youth'' have the apparent impunity to break the law and go out drinking under-age, yet young blokes in clubs apparently have to perform the equivalent of a CRB check before they even think about going home with someone?Young people will inevitably try to play the system, slip past bouncers and go clubbing, but at the same time, it shouldn''t be up to the other people in the club to work out whether or not they''re actually old enough to be there having a drink - never mind old enough to have consensual sex with them if offered! As already said earlier in the thread, it''s one thing to stand outside school gates looking to pickup an under-age girl as part of some sick fantasy, it''s completely different to go to a club, see a girl that looks old enough, acts old enough, and has been passed by the bouncers, for you to then not have to demand to see photo ID if you want more than a kiss!!!The sad truth is that as a parent myself, these are the issues I may well have to be dealing with in another 6-7 years time when my own daughter hits 14/15, so I''m not talking from inside a vacuum or with lack of perspective here, but I do think it''s become a complete and utter minefield out there these days for young blokes, making ''one-night stands'' little more than an invitation to prison if things go badly, when in actual fact all they may have done is gone out for a drink, ''pulled'' a girl who as far as they knew was old enough, and not too drunk to make a decision and instead they end up doing 5 years at HM''s pleasure....

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]First of all my post replying to the one about judgeing Adam Johnson was wrongly worded. I and I think most others on this thread did make it plain they were not judgeing him. We''re not judgeing eachother either. Just commenting.

Indy, you are using beer goggles as an excuse. And all the other things that you believe mitigate a crime. The bouncer has broken the law. Being found out may or may not cost him his job. Probably not. However having under age sex would be a far more serious offence and would most certainly have much greater consequence. Parents of children have a right to expect other adults to act responsibly in these situations and beer goggles is no excuse to absolve such responsibility.[/quote]

How about the parent(s) acting responsibly and not letting a 15year old out late at night on her own.

This hypothetical argument could go round all sorts of houses.

[NCFCgardener 0]

I am of the opinion that identities should be kept confidential until a verdict has been reached.

Sadly, regardless of whether he is guilty or not, his career in the game is ruined by the association with this alleged incident.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

If you honestly believe any of those things absolve someone breaking the law then I hope you don''t get on any jury Butler.

Hell, a drunk driver probably wouldn''t choose to drink drive if he was sober when drunk....

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Indy, you are using beer goggles as an excuse. And all the other things that you believe mitigate a crime. The bouncer has broken the law. Being found out may or may not cost him his job. Probably not. However having under age sex would be a far more serious offence and would most certainly have much greater consequence. Parents of children have a right to expect other adults to act responsibly in these situations and beer goggles is no excuse to absolve such responsibility.[/quote]I''ll say this again NN, maybe you''ll listen this time - I DO NOT USE BEER GOGGLES AS AN EXCUSE, but they DO make it more likely for a person to not be able to look through all the make-up in a darkened night club when aroused to see that someone is under-age and shouldn''t be there.As you say, the bouncer has broken the law, and by his actions he''s then allowed a situation to occur where a much more serious offence can unwittingly taken place, but chances are that jack all would happen to him criminally, at worst he''d lose his job and probably be back on another door a week or so later...''Parents have a right to expect other adults to act responsibly'' - yes, to a certain extent, but it''s not my job as a perfectly legal, drinking adult in a club, to also then do your job as a parent, which is to prevent your children from illegally gaining entry to a club and then choosing to sleep with someone who''s possibly had a couple too many lagers.If someone has let their 15 year old girl go out slapped up to the nines and wearing clothes that make them easily look over 18, especially without having any idea where they are going, then the PARENT has failed in their duty - NOT the guy in the club who''s had a few drinks.Anyway, this is all idle conjecture at this stage, because we have ZERO idea what''s actually happened and the circumstances around it, but if it''s anything like the hypothetical nightclub scenario I''ve suggested, then it''s a totally different kettle of fish to a knowing and deliberate attempt to sleep with an under-age girl.

[Maccys Back 0]

"How about the parent(s) acting responsibly and not letting a 15year old out late at night on her own"

Yeah those pesky kids! Keep em locked up forever!!!

Also I won''t be going to syria, the longer these pr1cks stay there with bombs raining on them tghe better. However I have 12 medals on my wall from 3 of my family members who have fought in the 1st gulf war, Falklands, Ireland, an Africa star ww2, the Italy star ww2, the ''39-''45 star,the war medal 39-45, and a defence medal. So how''s about you and yours go fight for a change?

[Maccys Back 0]

I''ll say this again NN, maybe you''ll listen this time - I DO NOT USE BEER GOGGLES AS AN EXCUSE, but

Note the "but" that''s the precursor to an excuse

[nutty nigel 7,533]

You don''t use beer goggles as an excuse just include them in mitigating circumstances about a serious breach of the law. Is that right Indy?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]If you honestly believe any of those things absolve someone breaking the law then I hope you don''t get on any jury Butler.

Hell, a drunk driver probably wouldn''t choose to drink drive if he was sober when drunk....[/quote]

We don''t know the circumstances AT ALL yet. It is very easy to condemn without facts.

Someone who drinks and drives knows when they set out what they should and should not do.

This is slightly different as the 2 people in question are, at this time, the only ones to know the facts.

My statement was based on "why the hell was a 15 year old out on her own late at night( if this was the case).

It seems some parents like to abdicate responsibility then blame others when things go wrong.

A jury should way up the FACTS as they are presented, then make a decision, no facts available at present.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]If you honestly believe any of those things absolve someone breaking the law then I hope you don''t get on any jury Butler.[/quote]The girl illegally enters a nightclub with the intention of drinking and possibly having sex - would she get a criminal charge for this - not likelyThe completely sober bouncer whose job as a professional doorman is to ensure under-age children do not enter the club has failed to do his job and broken the law by allowing an under-age child in - would he get a criminal charge for this - not likelyThe guy who has not broken any law by going into a club at an appropriate age, having a few drinks and then gets chatted up by an attractive girl that to all intents and purposes should be old enough and sober enough to make a conscious choice about having sex with him, then apparently should get the book thrown at him despite that fact that it''s the other 2 people breaking the law initially that even allowed this situation to transpire, never mind the fact that short of demanding to see a passport or similar ID, the guy could have f**k all way of knowing the girl was under-age to begin with!What sort of f**ked up justice do you support here NN???

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"]First of all my post replying to the one about judgeing Adam Johnson was wrongly worded. I and I think most others on this thread did make it plain they were not judgeing him. We''re not judgeing eachother either. Just commenting.

Indy, you are using beer goggles as an excuse. And all the other things that you believe mitigate a crime. The bouncer has broken the law. Being found out may or may not cost him his job. Probably not. However having under age sex would be a far more serious offence and would most certainly have much greater consequence. Parents of children have a right to expect other adults to act responsibly in these situations and beer goggles is no excuse to absolve such responsibility.[/quote] How about the parent(s) acting responsibly and not letting a 15year old out late at night on her own.

This hypothetical argument could go round all sorts of houses.[/quote]

Its a combination of parental lack of control/lax night club officials and the girl''s own common sense - and yes, I believe teenage kids have some responsibilities in these situations.  Add to that the hormonal instincts of both males and females and the copious amounts of alcochol  drunk in clubs - and you get the kinds of incident that happened here.  The "Is she over 16"  question would be a difficult one in the circumstances - as despite what some seem to think, the difference can be hard to tell, as it is possible for 13/14 year olds to look over 16, as much as it is possible for 17/18 year olds to look under 16.  People come in all shapes and sizes and states of maturity. Its a minefield.  The only accuation I would put at Johnson - if this incident  has happened as reported - is that of being stupid. 

[morty 0]

Seriously Indy?

If there was absolutely no doubt in this 27 years olds mind that the girl could be underage then he is either incredibly naive, or he shouldn''t be let out on his own.

Personally, in cases like this, it is better to err on the side of caution.

Or maybe he is an ad$ehole, who knows?

[Indy_Bones 441]

Also makes me laugh how supposedly the guy inside the club is expected to ID any young girl who shows an interest, but the guy on the front door who is PAID to do this can get away with not bothering pretty much scot free!What a world we live in these days...

[Maccys Back 0]

If anyone wonders why there''s so many perverted sex offenders out there, they should read this thread. Its diabolical. I just hope some on here have wives at home "raising" their kids for them!!

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="morty"]If there was absolutely no doubt in this 27 years olds mind that the girl could be underage then he is either incredibly naive, or he shouldn''t be let out on his own.

Personally, in cases like this, it is better to err on the side of caution.

Or maybe he is an ad$ehole, who knows?[/quote]I''ve not seen the girl in question as yet Morty, nor I do know the circumstances around the whole situation, but if Johnson has had a few pints and she''s dolled up and clearly looking older than her actual age, then I can completely see how the mistake could be made, anything less ambiguous than this or where it was MUCH clearer that she was under-age and he doesn''t have a leg to stand on and deserves everything that gets thrown at him.That being said, you''re right to say that it''s better to err on the side of caution and there really is no argument against that, but it certainly causes a clash with the current ''binge drinking'' culture we have these days as to how often that caution will be applied!

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Maccys Back"]If anyone wonders why there''s so many perverted sex offenders out there, they should read this thread. Its diabolical. I just hope some on here have wives at home "raising" their kids for them!![/quote]Sorry Maccy, but I think this response is what''s diabolical.You''re supporting a view that absolves both parents and children of any and all responsibility to follow the law and act correctly, and then referring to people who simply don''t realise that a dolled up 15 year old who looks 18 is actually under-age as being sex offenders!Just WTF????

[93vintage 16]

I think some people are a bit prudish when it comes to the idea of girls who are under 16 having sex. If it''s consensual then at worse it should be treated like a parking ticket offence rather than having a Spanish Inquisition and the equivalent of a public flogging.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

Indy, so now you admit beer goggles are a mitigating circumstance. That''s progress. I guess we only differ between the defininitions of mitigating circumstances and excuses.

I haven''t heard you talk about responsibility yet. The responsibility any 27 year old should have towards someone at least 10 years younger. That responsibility shouldn''t include winging it and hoping for the best. 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.

[Maccys Back 0]

No indy your diabolical, it doesn''t matter if she''s dolled herself up looking 80years old it''s irrelevant. 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.