Match Day Thread West Ham V Liverpool

why can't i post in the villa match thread?

insufficient privileges?

 

They're afraid of the truth. It's pure censorship. You either agree or die on here. In fact I can criticise your club, but being a Liverpool fan you can't. Just not the done thing, old chap

 

Obviously we killed you a long time ago and this is your eternal hell. . Stuck here with us.

 

From the board with Chief as a moderator...

Does the whistle indicate some sort of irony?

 

Until he bans UIR I refuse to accept any such irony!

 

1,130 posts since 16th of January?!

 

No sympathy for Johnson, but my ex's tribe are from 'Boro. Her sister got up the duff at 14 and had a baby at 15. The father was 17. They're still together now 20 years later (going like a swarm of locusts from one seaside town to another and devouring their benefits). He was interviewed by the police and threatened with being put on the Sex Offenders' Register.

 

That's some effort. I don't think any of us have devoted as much to slating LFC as this fella.

 

Are they grandparents yet?

 

But anyway, I had to rush straight to work after the match last night and couldn't. @ 3am when I had my break, 'cause this was closed? Why? What did I miss?

But my final thought was this - had we played Studge at the begining and not Benteke we would be through now - that simple. I sort of understood the logic of playing a weakened team in this tie at Anfield, as Wembley in the CL was still in the mix. But I'm still struggling as to why we we appear to be saving ourselves for a meaningless league game at Villa on Sunday.

But good luck to W Ham. And well done some of those kids last night. Can't believe Lucas only got a 5 rating in some papers, as apart from that foul at the end (immediately after Carroll had tried to twist one of our player's head off his shoulder, it has to be said), I thought he was tremendous. And Benteke should just be plan B on the bench henceforth.

But is anyone still talking about the game?

 

yes Stan, surprisingly! And their daughter has 'special needs' and they're registered as carers. ADHD. Sweet.

 

Just read about the Johnson case and how he's admitted to the grooming charge.

I take issue with many people who believe that ****philia is based only on physical appearance - that if a 15 year old looks 21, it's not as bad as if she looks 13. As a society we protect children because of their mental state. Children at 15 are not mature enough to make sexual decisions. They're confused, pumped full of hormones, growing, etc. When they do experiment, which is natural, it's going to be with other people their age, who are also learning social norms and how to properly make rational decisions as adults. In many countries there are Romeo and Juliet laws which protect teenagers within a certain age difference, who are in established non-position of power relationships. This is where we draw the line.

An adult engaging with anyone at this age knows that they're confused. They know that this child doesn't have the mental capabilities to understand that they shouldn't be sleeping with an adult. And so they're taken advantage of. Grooming is especially horrid as it is manipulation to gain the trust of this child, to make the child think what they are doing is normal. It's predatory, regardless of if they look 18 or not. Think back to when you were 15. You didn't know left from right, let alone if you should sleep with someone. You made mistakes, you learned from them. Girls do their makeup, try to look older, go out, act outside their age. But it doesn't mean they wanted it, or were ready to make that decision. Basically, going out to a club and trying to look older is not an excuse for adults to take advantage of that. He's the adult, he should know better - she's a child, she doesn't.

I don't know the laws in England but it sounds like you would do well with the laws protecting relationships within a certain age range.

So for me, Johnson would be guilty had she been a week younger than 18. A ten year age difference is enough to know that you have ten years experience over this person and that you should wait a week. Let alone 15 years old.

I also don't think Sunderland did anything wrong in allowing him to play. Innocent until proven guilty applies to all, even those that will eventually be found guilty. Presumably they'll tear up his contract and perhaps even try and recoup their money a la Mutu.

 

you can read? not bad for a manc

 

Laws in Uk have age of consent at 16. So if she'd been 16 and one day he would have been fine as long as contact wasn't made during his work.

It's why I distinguished between a legal and moral line. Legally we can have sex with a 16 year old (unless in a position of authority like a teacher for example)

While there are no actual romeo/juliet laws (with the exception of written consent from parents to get married at 15 ....i think) our prosecution take such things into consideration. The police can not as they are employed to detect and prevent crime so will investigate if reported but it's up to the prosecution service to look at the evidence provided and judge whether a case is in the public interest. So 16 year old boy shagging his 15 year old girlfriend would probably not go to court. An 18 year old doing same with 15 year old might be looked at more closely and a 28 year old would have no defence etc.

Before I go on I'd like to make clear I agree with you on the principle of the law is the law and that should always be the starting point if reported and then if the first examples above turn out to be the case decisions made based on that.

I personally back when I was 18+ and going to clubs (got in from 15 because i looked older) could usually spot the 15-17 year old girls and avoid. Could I say hand on heart that every girl i pulled in the club, especially if we didn't leave and hold actual conversations that could be heard was over age? No but obviously I hope my judgement was soundl but then again there were a fair few drunken fumbles in clubs during that time.

And that is a little pet hate of my own. I'm sure it is still the case but when I was 16 as a lad the chances of being asked for id at the door were very high and remained so well past 18. Yet my female friends of equivelent age were never asked. The club owners were essentially passing the legal buck. In theory it is sound that an 18-25 year old bloke should realise this and ascertain at best guess the age of any girl they touch but the reality is a lot of stupid and still young and immature males being encouraged by the actions of the club to drink heavily and socialise with potentially underage girls.

This encourages a culture where a shading of the line is "ok". Police would raid a club now and then but rarely was more than a fine passed out.

As you say none of the above applies to actions similar to Johnsons. That was sober and in the light of day not in the dark heat of a drunken moment.

Whuch leads me to another pet hate. Programmes aimed at 11-15 year olds that have characters that are supposed to be that age yet every single time actors as old as 25 are used. It's again adding to the culture that says they're children but not really children....it's fiction I know but all these little things add up to produce a culture where adults can "cheat" and look at supposed children in an adult or sexual way.

 

That's a higher average per day than me!!!

 

There is another thing, aren't there enough women over 16 or even nearer his age out there in the world for him to go for???

One of the mitigating circumstances (among others) with say an 17 yr old with a 15 yr old is their ability to link up with an older women. Reality is with social circles etc that is unlikely. But a 28 yr old should be able to find someone nearer his own age or even older, esspecially given his celebrity status.

 

At least when he told his girlfriend he was "playing away this weekend" he actually was!

His girlfriend is sticking by him. I wonder what she sees in the £60,000 a week peadophile

 

Probably just in it for the money

 

Indeed. The fact he had an adult girlfriend (still does with baby in tow!) Proves it.

As with many of these cases and the proven assault cases its a matter that as a celebrity, with money and influence even if it is only local (the old notorious example of my day was the local DJ clearly shagging underage girls in said clubs) he doesn't often get told he CANT do something. He's a spoilt brat.

The rest of us face responsibilities and consequences of a range of actions from a young age. Celebrities sports or other wise, especially those introduced to it from a young age..rarely hear no and more often that not have a legion of adults that clean up their mess with power and money. Look at Michael Jackson!

We all have darker sides to us that we don't like to admit even to ourselves but even beyond self control and inner moral compass we have a healthy fear that we will face consequences if we do wrong.

These guys and the likes of Saville etc rarely face these consequences due to their position and money...Their dark sides are left unrestrained at best or actively encouraged or developed at worst.

Same goes for people in positions of trust. We do not want to believe we unwitting or otherwise put our children at risk so found it hard to believe. The *****philes are experts at playing on that. Expert manipulators of other adults not just the children.

 

And thats one I can never understand...Women that stand by men like this..Like Chad and Rolf Harris...even if despite conviction you believed they are innocent of assault. Theyve cheated on you and made you a very public mockery...

Something not right with their characters either.