Adam Johnson

Admin close this thread please. It's serving no purpose.

 

I don't know, I think it has been pretty amusing.

 

I'm finding it pretty unpleasant to be honest.

 

He took advantage of a 15 year old.

Emotionally and sexually.



He is a dirty *******.


Now close the thread.

 

To put it bluntly he should know better(Johnson) he fingered a lass in the back of his car then she sucked him off , I'd be surprised if he got 18 month. He wants his ballax whipping the thick ****. But the rest of you arguing between yourselves give it a rest STFU you ****s . Yes she's underage and in today's climate it's a no no and against the law
HtFh

 

Feight, feight, feight

 

The way I see it, we have laws to protect the most vulnerable. There are thousands of 15 year old girls (and boys) in this country who are extremely vulnerable and they require and deserve our protection. Maybe the girl in this particular case wasn't all that vulnerable, I don't know, I haven't read up on it, although there is an extremely valid argument that as she matures emotionally she will have a very different view on what took place than she did at the time and may feel she was taken advantage of. Such encounters can scar people for life, even if they appeared consensual at the time.

In an ideal world I think some of the arguments put forward in this thread would be legitimate and compelling. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where our children are preyed upon by some horrific people, quite often working in gangs, and we have to protect them against this kind of abuse. I can't see any other way to do that than outlawing sex with anyone under the age of 16. Otherwise we'd have a never ending stream of cases where serious rapist paedophiles would argue in court that the particular child they had taken advantage of was way hot and well up for it. If this means that someone like Adam Johnson simply has to say a firm no if contacted by an under-age girl, I don't think that's much of a price to pay. 10 years seems excessive and I would question if it served any purpose, but a custodial sentence of 4 years, for which I believe Johnson would only serve 2, sends out a strong message that we do value our children and our society will not tolerate them being taken advantage of.

IMHO of course

 

I agree with all the above but would add that I think it is extremely unfair and immoral to pick and choose who we use to set examples with (the courts not you). No example was set when a woman preyed upon her schoolchildren who were younger than the girl in Adam Johnsons case (and she was older too) or when another woman (again older than Johnson) preyed upon another school child in her care and had a sexual relationship with him which went so far that she told him she was pregnant when she wasn't which must psychologically do more damage and she was only given a 2 year sentence. It has to be consistent, it simply has to be. You can't go using people and playing with their lives just to set examples when you want to. Picking and choosing is wrong.

I'd also like to raise the point that in the two examples above the charge of grooming was never brought despite in one of the cases the victim himself making the claim that she groomed him online and in the other the perpetrator bought gifts for the victim before the first act and in both cases it was the perpetrators who instigated the relationships yet when it is a man who did it, and even though the victim has confirmed that she was the one who made contact not the other way round, a charge of grooming was brought. There is no consistency in the way that people are dealt with and there has to be. Until there is the justice system of this land is an ass.

 

No it isn't. That is akin to saying that alcoholism is drink driving.

Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent kids (say 10 and under ish)
Hebephilia is a sexual attraction to children in early puberty (say 12, 13 or sometimes 14)
Ephebophilia is a sexual attraction to children in the later stages of puberty (say 15 to 18/19 year olds).

Adam Johnson is certainly guilty of ephebophilia but there is no evidence at all to suggest he is a paedophile and the media constantly using the wrong word only serves to create a society where people are judged 'wrongly' by the public. Paedophile should be reserved for people who actually are, not necessarily to protect people like Johnson but rather so that when the word is used it has more meaning. It might just be me but it seems to be thrown around so much these days (along with grooming as I said earlier) that it doesn't have the same impact anymore.

For example there is at least one member of this BBS who is guilty of doing almost exactly the same as Adam Johnson. I believe what he did was wrong, very wrong. But does it make him a paedophile? No it doesn't. The media would have labeled him as one though and everyone who knew him would have had the value of the word lowered ever so slightly.