Adam Johnson

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Sad thing is so many lives could get ruined as a result of this, even if he is not guilty, His career, his Girlfriend, the girl, her family, so so sad, really hope its not true but fear so much damage already done.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="PKC"]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.[/quote]Can''t disagree with that in the slightest.

[nutty nigel 7,535]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="PKC"]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.[/quote]Can''t disagree with that in the slightest.[/quote]

 

So you can condemn him for cheating on his longtime partner and family which although morally wrong is not against the law. But you will inundate us with excuses for him if he''s had a sexual relationship with an under age girl which would be against the law.

 

Just explain that to me Indy..

 

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="PKC"]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.[/quote]Can''t disagree with that in the slightest.[/quote]

So you can condemn him for cheating on his longtime partner and family which although morally wrong is not against the law. But you will inundate us with excuses for him if he''s had a sexual relationship with an under age girl which would be against the law.

Just explain that to me Indy..[/quote]

The law is an ass if  it ignores circumstances.  If it is as described, a failure of parental care, failure of night club officials vigilance, a lack of responsibility shown by the 15 year old - and a 27 year old in an environment where everyone is supposed to be over 18, then a person has been caught in a situation that is largely not his fault, other than he wanted to pull a bird - and most blokes at a night club have some idea or wish that  could happen.    As several have said, it is not easy to tell if a girl is 16, 18, even 25 - people are all different and have different looks/levels of maturity that vary consideraby. 

Lynch mob attitude kicks in at the very thought of an older person sleeping with an underage person, but we as a society need to be very careful we don''t go down that route too far, or law and order will be lessened by "moral outrage" which will inevitably lead to miscarriages of justice.   I don''t know if Johnson is guilty of anything or not, but  actually, you are supposed - in the eye of the law - to be innocent until proved guilty.   Circumstances in this cases like this, may change any supposed "guilt" into "innocent but stupid".  They may not, but circumstances surrounding a case are relevant - and those that are taking the moral high ground  should maybe reconsider that a bit more before casting the "broke the law" card.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]So you can condemn him for cheating on his longtime partner and family which although morally wrong is not against the law. But you will inundate us with excuses for him if he''s had a sexual relationship with an under age girl which would be against the law.Just explain that to me Indy..[/quote]Already have numerous times, but you''re either unable or unwilling to actually read what I''m putting so why bother?My argument throughout has been based on Johnson''s level of knowledge or not about the girls true age and the situation which potentially lead to the suggested incident, using a hypothetical nightclub scenario to explain circumstances where I feel a strong charge against Johnson would be unreasonable, and at no point have I justified or excused under-age sex where the party is in full knowledge of the situation or where there''s any reasonable level of ambiguity.What''s more, saying that I think someone who potentially cheats on their partner who''s also recently given birth is an @rse isn''t condemning him as such, simply saying that I don''t agree with people who do that and think they are @rses...

[Snoots 0]

Indy''s post was : "How about we wait for actual facts to be released before getting the pitchforks out and demanding a burning?

For all we know he could have gone to a nightclub, pulled and been totally unaware that the girl in question was underage thanks to a combination of make-up and beer goggles.

If we also consider that ANYONE inside a club is meant to be at least 18, then you should be able to have a degree of confidence that anyone who agrees to consensual sex is also NOT underage to begin with!

It''s getting to a point now where the whole idea of a ''one night stand'' may as well be described as ''opportunity to get a criminal sentence because someone was too drunk, lied about their age or were otherwise unacceptable to be legally accesible for consensual sex''....

I''m glad I''m married with kids and well out of the whole scene to be honest, because it appears to be nothing but a minefield these days, especially for people who in essence have done NOTHING wrong, but still get punished over it!

Obviously, if this is NOT the case and he was fully aware of what he was doing, then I hope they throw the book at him and he spends the next 5-10 years playing for the local prison side..."

I think the above post very reasonably summed up the situation for me and I am surprised that the discussion has continued for another nine pages. Johnson is clearly not a paedophile and, until and unless he is ultimately judged guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of having sex with an under age person (whether 1 day or 350 days under age) I can find it in me to believe that there could have been mitigating circumstances such as those already mentioned. We don''t have ID cards in this country and the civil liberties brigade are passionately against them being introduced. Therefore, if the nightclub concerned didn''t know that the plaintiff was under age, for sex and therefore also for alcohol, why would Johnson ? We don''t know of course, but he may well have asked her age, been told she was, say, 18,19 or older and seen no reason to disbelieve her. As for cheating, we don''t know the nature of his relationship with his longtime partner and it isn''t for us to judge anyway.

[BOO 0]

A bit of sanity from Indy and Snoots in amongst a load of reactionary clap trap.

The poster that has 4 daughters summed it up, two are 15 and one is 22 but when they are dressed up and going out you can''t tell which is the oldest. If added to that an underage girl is in an over 18 club where here ID should have been checked, she also says to the guy she is over sixteen and wants to sleep with him, then my God we are becoming a police state if the guy is still seen by many to be guilty.

We perhaps should move in the direction of Maccys post and introduce sharia law while we are at it.

At least give the guy some benefit of the doubt before jumping in with the moralistic sermons!

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Interesting how the nightclub scenario got created. We have no idea of the situation; he might have been helping her with her homework?

[nutty nigel 7,535]

[quote user="Snoots"]Indy''s post was : "How about we wait for actual facts to be released before getting the pitchforks out and demanding a burning?

For all we know he could have gone to a nightclub, pulled and been totally unaware that the girl in question was underage thanks to a combination of make-up and beer goggles.

If we also consider that ANYONE inside a club is meant to be at least 18, then you should be able to have a degree of confidence that anyone who agrees to consensual sex is also NOT underage to begin with!

It''s getting to a point now where the whole idea of a ''one night stand'' may as well be described as ''opportunity to get a criminal sentence because someone was too drunk, lied about their age or were otherwise unacceptable to be legally accesible for consensual sex''....

I''m glad I''m married with kids and well out of the whole scene to be honest, because it appears to be nothing but a minefield these days, especially for people who in essence have done NOTHING wrong, but still get punished over it!

Obviously, if this is NOT the case and he was fully aware of what he was doing, then I hope they throw the book at him and he spends the next 5-10 years playing for the local prison side..."

I think the above post very reasonably summed up the situation for me and I am surprised that the discussion has continued for another nine pages. Johnson is clearly not a paedophile and, until and unless he is ultimately judged guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of having sex with an under age person (whether 1 day or 350 days under age) I can find it in me to believe that there could have been mitigating circumstances such as those already mentioned. We don''t have ID cards in this country and the civil liberties brigade are passionately against them being introduced. Therefore, if the nightclub concerned didn''t know that the plaintiff was under age, for sex and therefore also for alcohol, why would Johnson ? We don''t know of course, but he may well have asked her age, been told she was, say, 18,19 or older and seen no reason to disbelieve her. As for cheating, we don''t know the nature of his relationship with his longtime partner and it isn''t for us to judge anyway.[/quote]

 

Because for 9 pages a wider discussion has opened up. Everyone practically to a man has said we don''t know what happened. The wider discussion was prompted in Indy''s post. If you don''t want a wider discussion then surely there is no point in posting anything but "we don''t know what happened". Unfortunately that wider discussion will include people of different views. And that''s the point of the 9 pages.

[CDMullins 436]

I feel for young lads these days,

It used to be;

Phone

Wallet

Keys.....OUT

Now its;

Phone

Wallet

Keys

Passport Scanner

Breathalyzer

Written consent contract

If shes in a Over 18s Venue, it should be thrown out immediately.

[nutty nigel 7,535]

[quote user="Vanwink"]A bit of sanity from Indy and Snoots in amongst a load of reactionary clap trap.

The poster that has 4 daughters summed it up, two are 15 and one is 22 but when they are dressed up and going out you can''t tell which is the oldest. If added to that an underage girl is in an over 18 club where here ID should have been checked, she also says to the guy she is over sixteen and wants to sleep with him, then my God we are becoming a police state if the guy is still seen by many to be guilty.

We perhaps should move in the direction of Maccys post and introduce sharia law while we are at it.

At least give the guy some benefit of the doubt before jumping in with the moralistic sermons![/quote]

 

Perhaps the reason there are so few places and communities where these discussions can take place are because people like you and Snoots can''t abide different points of view. Indy''s excuses for people breaking the law are just as much reactionary clap trap to some as others views are to you. If the discussion bothers you that much then apply to be a moderator.

 

Nobody knows any facts so it''s all reactionary claptrap or a debate that''s moved on. I believe it''s a debate that''s moved on. And while I don''t agree with Indy I wouldn''t dream of suggesting he should not contribute with his point of view.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,535]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="nutty nigel"]So you can condemn him for cheating on his longtime partner and family which although morally wrong is not against the law. But you will inundate us with excuses for him if he''s had a sexual relationship with an under age girl which would be against the law.Just explain that to me Indy..[/quote]Already have numerous times, but you''re either unable or unwilling to actually read what I''m putting so why bother?My argument throughout has been based on Johnson''s level of knowledge or not about the girls true age and the situation which potentially lead to the suggested incident, using a hypothetical nightclub scenario to explain circumstances where I feel a strong charge against Johnson would be unreasonable, and at no point have I justified or excused under-age sex where the party is in full knowledge of the situation or where there''s any reasonable level of ambiguity.What''s more, saying that I think someone who potentially cheats on their partner who''s also recently given birth is an @rse isn''t condemning him as such, simply saying that I don''t agree with people who do that and think they are @rses...[/quote]

 

Until the laws changed I''m afraid you''re stuck with it Indy. All your excuses or mitigating circumstances do not absolve individuals of responsibility. Somebody else may decide that people shouldn''t be held accountable for drink driving because the beer goggles impaired their judgement of whether to drive. And I''ve read what you''ve said everytime and disagreed with it everytime. Responsibility is the key word for me.

 

It''s not a new problem that''s suddenly arrived on the scene in the past few years as our buddy CD seems to suggest. It''s always been there. Mothers have always warned their sons of such pitfalls. But oneway or another those who fell into the pit have always paid the price. I can see the other point of view here. I can understand what CD and Indy are saying. But if it''s the reality they want then they''d be better campaigning to get the law changed to include the phrase "a minor should not be considered to be under age if they are in an adult venue". Good luck with achieving that one....

 

 

 

 

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

The law is an ass if  it ignores circumstances.  If it is as described, a failure of parental care, failure of night club officials vigilance, a lack of responsibility shown by the 15 year old - and a 27 year old in an environment where everyone is supposed to be over 18, then a person has been caught in a situation that is largely not his fault, other than he wanted to pull a bird - and most blokes at a night club have some idea or wish that  could happen.    As several have said, it is not easy to tell if a girl is 16, 18, even 25 - people are all different and have different looks/levels of maturity that vary consideraby. 

[/quote]has it been reported he met this girl in a night club? NO story has said that.. it''s just assumption.I''m sure there are some will state it as gospel in an attempt to make her and the fictional bouncer Culpable and take the heat off him... we automatically assume he met her in a club.. but what if she''s a neighbor? lets wait until its reported shall we?

[BOO 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Vanwink"]A bit of sanity from Indy and Snoots in amongst a load of reactionary clap trap.

The poster that has 4 daughters summed it up, two are 15 and one is 22 but when they are dressed up and going out you can''t tell which is the oldest. If added to that an underage girl is in an over 18 club where here ID should have been checked, she also says to the guy she is over sixteen and wants to sleep with him, then my God we are becoming a police state if the guy is still seen by many to be guilty.

We perhaps should move in the direction of Maccys post and introduce sharia law while we are at it.

At least give the guy some benefit of the doubt before jumping in with the moralistic sermons![/quote]

 

Perhaps the reason there are so few places and communities where these discussions can take place are because people like you and Snoots can''t abide different points of view. Indy''s excuses for people breaking the law are just as much reactionary clap trap to some as others views are to you. If the discussion bothers you that much then apply to be a moderator.

 

Nobody knows any facts so it''s all reactionary claptrap or a debate that''s moved on. I believe it''s a debate that''s moved on. And while I don''t agree with Indy I wouldn''t dream of suggesting he should not contribute with his point of view.

 

 

[/quote]

"I wouldn''t dream of suggesting he should not contribute with his point of view"

Neither would I.

[? 0]

Well Jiz you were ready to chemically chastrate him earlier! Somlets wait for the facts shall we!

[BOO 0]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Interesting how the nightclub scenario got created. We have no idea of the situation; he might have been helping her with her homework?[/quote]

Correct.

[Monty13 2,234]

Reading this thread makes me glad I neither have any daughters or will ever have a one night stand now I''m married (assuming all goes well!).

The fact that we have no idea how this all took place or even if it took place (he has been arrested on suspicion not charged) makes all these theoreticals pretty pointless, but personally I''m finding some points made on either side pretty ridiculous.

The reason Sunderland have suspended him is quite obvious and has nothing to do with his guilt. With the current climate their supporting him whether guilty or not would probably more detrimental to public opinion of both the club and the player than suspending him while the police conduct their inquiries.

If he has had sexual activity with an underage girl he is and will be found guilty of statutory rape. No mitigation will stop that from happening, nor should it. He has broken the law whether he meant to or not.

At same the time it is perfectly legal for a man of any age to have sex with a girl of 16 years or older no matter each of our moral opinions on the subject. To suggest otherwise is factually inaccurate.

I''m pretty stunned that there seems to be some sort of denial of the sexualisation of teenage girls. It has been particularly prominent over the last 10-15 years driven by media and I fail to see how those with said teenage daughters can have failed to notice? seriously just google and there are studies on it.

However does that provide some sort of excuse if the scenario of the night club that has been put forward turns out to be the case? Unfortunately not in the eyes of the law. It then becomes your own viewpoint of whether he is an unlucky victim of circumstances or someone who should have known better drunk or not.

[nutty nigel 7,535]

Good points and nice to see you posting on the Pink Un again Monty13.

 

 

[ca 1]

Just caught up with this , we don''t have any of the facts yet so we cant make a judgement.

What disturbs me is why did her parents let a schoolgirl of 15 go out clubbing late at night and how did she get into a nightclub where the minimum age of entrance is 18

Guess if she hadn''t have posted on her facebook account about her liason with a famous footballer and Dad hadn''t seen it no-one would be any wiser?

You have to feel sorry for Stacey Flounders his girlfriend who had their baby daughter just 7 weeks ago, whether its true or fabricated it will hit her hard.

Also don''t think people should be named until they are charged with anything, even if he is innocent the papers will have made mincemeat of him by then.

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Interesting how the nightclub scenario got created. We have no idea of the situation; he might have been helping her with her homework?[/quote]

Good call. It''s common knowledge that many footballers are known to be pretty clued up on human biology !

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

It''s threads like this that make those without daughters breathe one b*oody huge sigh of relief.....

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Monty13"]If he has had sexual activity with an underage girl he is and will be found guilty of statutory rape. No mitigation will stop that from happening, nor should it. He has broken the law whether he meant to or not. [/quote]

In which case the law need to be changed.  It is quite possible for a man to be duped into thinking  girl is older than 16 under circumstances that have been mentioned on this thread - circumstances that would absolve him of guilt.  Short of asking for an ID card with DOB on it, what is a bloke supposed to do? Age is not as obvious as some would have you believe.   Statutory rape is a very harsh description of someone who has misunderstood or been misled into a situation and will have a life long stigma which may be unfair, given circumstances.   If anyone knowingly does it, agreed, statutory rape, but given some circumstances that may occur as described on here, then maybe the law could be changed to accomodate that.

[Maccys Back 0]

Changing?? No its fine as it is dumbass, is she 16? No then off to jail you go! Its as simple as it gets. You can''t go drink driving and say "well I wasn''t speeding" can you. I can''t believe how difficult some find this law.

[Monty13 2,234]

"It is quite possible for a man to be duped into thinking girl is older than 16 under circumstances that have been mentioned on this thread - circumstances that would absolve him of guilt."

Morally absolve maybe, but not within law, the only way to get around it presently would be to reduce age of consent.

It''s why statutory rape exists. The word statutory is there to differentiate it from more serious crimes.

Maybe a name change is actually what your asking for?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Maccys Back"]Changing?? No its fine as it is dumbass, is she 16? No then off to jail you go! Its as simple as it gets. You can''t go drink driving and say "well I wasn''t speeding" can you. I can''t believe how difficult some find this law.[/quote]

Mitigating circumstances can be real and meaningful in all sorts of situations. Drink driving and speeding are two of them. I got stopped last year on the way to the vets with my dog who had cut her paw and I was hurrying, not drastically, but over the speed limit. Far from getting a ticket, I got a police escort to the vets.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Monty13"]"It is quite possible for a man to be duped into thinking girl is older than 16 under circumstances that have been mentioned on this thread - circumstances that would absolve him of guilt."

Morally absolve maybe, but not within law, the only way to get around it presently would be to reduce age of consent.

It''s why statutory rape exists. The word statutory is there to differentiate it from more serious crimes.

Maybe a name change is actually what your asking for?[/quote]

[Y] Probably, although its such a difficult area to deal with for all the reasons mentioned so far. 

[Maccys Back 0]

An escort for a dog? Wow nice to know where my tax money goes, I must remember that enlightening story next time the police are moaning about the force being cut in half under this tory government

[Monty13 2,234]

"The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex.

The problem is LDC that while some 15 year old girls (or even younger) may be mature enough to happily consent and undertake in sexual activity, the law has determined that some are not and therefore a line has to be drawn somewhere.

By the same reasoning it s why the CPS does not usually pursue cases of 16-17 year olds engaging in sexual activity with under 16s because know one makes a complaint and a certain amount of common sense is used. Which is good that we can use the law effectively.

However it seems the father of the girl in question is the one pursuing the complaint and quite rightly seeking a police investigation into the alleged activity.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Maccys Back"]You can''t go drink driving and say "well I wasn''t speeding" can you. I can''t believe how difficult some find this law.[/quote]But that''s not the comparison is it? Take the drink driving part out and look at the following scenario:You''re out driving your car and clearly see that the speedo says you are doing 30mph (in a 30mph zone), you know that your car has been regularly serviced and MOT''d and there were no known issues with the speedo or anything that could give an inaccurate reading, but because the car was then clocked doing 40 despite ALL your knowledge telling you that you were doing NOTHING wrong - you get a ticket and 3 points...That''s pretty much the speeding equivalent of the ''nightclub'' scenario, in that for all intents and purposes you have no idea you are doing anything wrong, but apparently should be punished regardless because ''hey, that''s the law''.If we''re going to insist that all guys must have documented evidence that a potential sexual partner is of legal, consensual age, along with a current breathalyzer result as well as a possible video/voice recording throughout the act to ensure that at no point consent is withdrawn by the woman, then the world really is going mad and common sense truly is dead by all accounts...

[nutty nigel 7,535]

What other laws and names shall we get changed while we''re about it Lakey?

 

Hope your dog was ok and it was a nice gesture by the old bill. But they wouldn''t have been so accomodating had you been drunk driving taking your dog to the vets. Likewise being upset about a dog also wouldn''t count as mitigating circumstances for having under age sex.