Footballer Adam Johnson jailed for 6 years

Cathy.C wrote: »

Adam was 26? Do you really think that any 26 year old guy who is attracted to a 15 year old girl is nasty and creepy? My Dad was 24 when he married my 16 year old mother back in the 60's. In fact, I'd say most 16-year-old girls that got married around that time did so with guys that were in their 20's. A famous example would be Bo Derek who met her husband when she was 16. He was 30 years her senior and who she was with until the day he died almost 25 years later.

There is almost hysteria about inter-generational relationships these days as far as I can see. I of course agree that anyone that knowingly disregards sexual consent laws should face consequences for that. Of course they should but they should be measured and appropriate consequences. We see both men and women getting suspended sentences for abusing prepubescent children and so how can this sentence today be seen as measured. It can't. It's nothing short of madness to hand down a sentence of this length to someone who has brief sexual contact with someone who is just a year away from legally being able to get married (with parental consent).

My mother was 13 and my father 18 when they met. Different times though. My mother had left school, was working and they didn't do the deed until she married him when she was 18. If I had brought home an 18yr old boyfriend when I was 13, I don't know who she would have killed first. Does that make her a hypocrite?

Back then they had to grow up and face real life a lot earlier than today. Kids are now exposed to more sexualization from a young age and are full of romantic ideas about sex but that doesn't make them mature or fully understanding of their decisions.

I would have no problem with two 15yr olds shifting and fooling around but at 26 you just don't go there. You can window shop and enjoy a little fantasy but to actually act on it is a crime and rightly so. Personally I have never fancied someone that young and find the thought of it revolting.

fergiesfolly wrote: »

As the father of a 15 year old, I have a little experience in how mature they are and how open to manipulation they may be.
Neither my daughter or any of her friends have the mental or emotional maturity to be involved with a man as old as Johnson.
They may think they're all grown up and will act in what they believe is a logical and mature process, but anyone with any degree of intelligence will see it for what it is.... children playing at grown-ups.
As an adult, you will see inappropriate behaviour, know it for what it is and take steps to end it.
But not Johnson. He saw a schoolgirl with a schoolgirl crush and took advantage.
Whatever her level of complicity in the relationship and sexual activity is irrelevant
She is simply too young to comprehend the situation she became involved in.
He, as an adult, has the responsibility to ensure nothing came of this crush. But he encouraged it and abused her innocence.
I don't doubt for a minute that had his behaviour not come to light, he would eventually have coerced the girl into having sex.
He's a predator and deserves every second of his sentence.

Now why can't the Daily Mail post that as an article?

Penny Tration wrote: »

I think any man of his age who knows that a girl is 15 and still engages in a sexual relationship with her is a predator, yes.

Well that means that you are calling David Bowie, Stephen Tyler, Don Johnson predators (to name but a few). Personally I would feel to qualify labeling someone as a predator would require more than just the mere fact that the young person is 15 and they are somewhat older.

Let's not pretend underage + adult relationships are normal, healthy things. Being acceptable 50 years ago doesn't make them acceptable now. Men were also allowed to rape and beat their wives back then, so comparing society now to society then is ridiculous.

I am not saying that everything that was once considered normal should still be today. That is a strawman argument. I mention that it once wasn't seen as taboo as it is now as it is relevant. Especially given that the legal age to get married in the UK is still 16-years-of-age (with parental consent). When idiotic sentences like this are handed down, it makes a joke of the justice system when worse crimes inevitable get less. Had Adam beat this girl up and broke her arm I doubt he would have received such a sentence. This level of sentencing should be reserved for those who use a level of force, or are somewhat younger, or even where they are a repeat offender. There is simply no logic in handing down a sentence of this length given what occurred.

RayM wrote: »

I suspect they don't hate animals as much as they hate women...

nice :rolleyes:
I knew you wouldn't fail to take the outraged SJW angle on this.

eviltwin wrote: »

He was given the sentence for the grooming aspect of the case which is far more serious and sinister than the actual contact between the two.

Exactly. I'm glad that grooming was taken as seriously as it should be. Even if just by the legal system on this one case.

Mackenzie Ambitious Drug wrote: »

He sexually interfered with a 15 year old child, he deserves every day (and more) of his six years.. And deserves to have his f*cking legs broken too.

Bastard. If it was my daughter I'd want to cut his scumbag throat.

Except he's not doing 6 years, he's only doing three. The other three will be out on license.

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Thankfully the courts have moved on from the line of thinking that women and young girls are manipulative harlots who are out to lead men astray :rolleyes:

Yes, that's right and now we live in an era where 15 and 16 year olds are treated as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths instead. The truth is of minor consequence in this politically correct age. I guess some women like that but I most certainly do not. I run a bar and know only too well how manipulative and devious young girls can be. Young lads are at that age too of course but they are not the ones getting a free pass in society to do as they please and not have to accept any responsibly for the consequences of their actions, in this particular context at least. On the contrary, they are wrapped in cotton wool as the baying mob go pitch fork in hand after the evil predators. Which is all well and good if it is warranted but oftentimes it is not.

However, one female judge in the UK did stick her head above the parapet last year when she found that one 15-year-old pupil had in fact groomed her teacher and not the other way around.

Teacher avoids jail after 18-month affair with a pupil who groomed HIM

A religious studies teacher has been found guilty of having an affair with a 15-year-old student.

However Stuart Kerner, who taught RE at Bexleyheath Academy in south-east London, avoided jail as it was ruled that the pupil ‘groomed’ him.

Judge Joanna Greenberg QC said she accepted the claim that the victim had become ‘obsessed’ with Mr Kerner, and added: ‘Her friends described her, accurately in my view, as stalking you.’

The court heard how during the 18-month affair Mr Kerner took the pupil’s virginity on a yoga mat in and empty room, the same week his wife suffered a miscarriage.

While his wife sobbed in the public gallery, Judge Greenberg also told Mr Kerner: ‘If grooming is the right word to use, it was she who groomed you, (and) you gave in to temptation.’

Mr Kerner was handed an 18-month sentence suspended for 18 months after being found guilty of two counts of sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust.

Calling the victim ‘intelligent and manipulative’, judge Greenberg commented that the pupil could easily lie when it suited her.

It's also worth noting that the girl said that she preformed oral sex on Adam Johnson but yet the jury believed this not to be true.

The point is that each case has to be viewed on its merits. In my view you can't just claim that all older men who have sex with a 15-year-old are predators no more than you can claim that all 15-year-old girls that engage in sexual activity with older men should bear some of the responsibility. Both are equally absurd.