Premier League Thread 2015-16

To try and address a bunch of things in one post. Firstly, yes, it's a crime. There's no question of that. The fact the legal position is obviously not a reflection of reality is just more evidence that legal does not equal moral. As other have noted, this wouldn't be a crime in a number of other countries that have a lower age of consent. Fairly creepy yes, but legal. From memory those countries include the likes of France, Spain Italy and Sweden.

I'm not diminishing anything Johnson has done and I don't have any particular sympathy for him. I specifically said I don't know the details of this case. That being the situation I'm not going to diminish or criticise anything. Grooming sounds bad and is unquestionably the worst part of this. Abuse of position and fame without doubt. I'm sure the same thing happens with footballers, musicians etc and slightly older girls all the time and nothing (or at least much less) is said about it. Do 15-year-olds need to be protected from themselves up until their sixteenth birthday, when that need simply disappears? Clearly not.

The bulk of what I said was more generally about the topic of consent, which is an odd area. Morally speaking I don't necessarily think what Johnson has done is much different to if he was taking advantage of a 16, 18 or even 21 year old but the law sees it differently. As I said above, the black and white, line in the sand approach is obviously flawed and doesn't reflect reality. I don't believe that every single person in the UK miraculously gains the ability to consent to sex at midnight on their sixteenth birthday and I don't think many other people really believe that either. Nor do I believe that a 15-year-old has the ability to consent to sex while in France but somehow loses that ability partway through a trip on the Calais-Dover ferry.

Also, what I said I find interesting is the way people react to different celebrities who've essentially done the same thing. The likes of Elvis, John Peel, Bowie, the Rolling Stones and Jimmy Page seem to get a pass when it comes to sexual encounters with teenage girls, while others don't.

 

Canada's consent laws have an age difference baked in to address that; the age of consent is 16, but with exceptions down to age 12 based on a range of a couple years. Basically, if they could be classmates, no one's going to prison.

But, the kicker: what is legally allowed in Canada, the UK and the US is a legal threshold far more lenient than the "dear god you are a creep" threshold. A 27 year old and a ****ing school-age girl violates the living bejeezus out of that no matter the legal status, no matter how mature or immature or tall or short the girl. I don't know of the legality, but rest assured that those celebrities were engaging in some pretty creepy behaviour their own damned selves.

 

Puck I know you are not condoning his actions, but I have an issue with this line above that you wrote.

How about reality does not equal moral? (In this instance)

You may not have meant it this way but it came across as you questioning the law and validity of that law. One is needed or else there would be zero protection and clearly protection is needed. I understand the point about reaching 16 and in this instance I feel some questions need asking if the parents, but that's a different discussion altogether.

 

This may be an isolated case. There are parallels with older men and younger women. Of course, this highlights the major problem with commenting on the justice system - we only see headlines and don't have access to the evidence that the jury/judge heard.

 

Not in my book.

 

I can never understand when a grown woman has an affair with a very young man. In general, women tend to need to respect their partners and admire them for more than looks (that's lucky for a lot of you ). Even in my twenties, I would never have fancied a teenager. I can understand why it is different for a man as nature makes them look for fertile women, whereas women look for good men to be fathers to their children. But I agree with Beefy that a teacher is in a position of authority and should be punished accordingly.

It is Johnson's admission of grooming a girl he knew to be 15 that is the most concerning about this case. Doesn't sound like he picked up a precocious girl in a nightclub and unknowingly got involved....so how do you meet a girl whose age you know: social media or via friends and family. Creepy.

 

I can't help feeling that sexual behaviour is more complex than this oft-cited reductionist argument. And I would hold to the view that the precocious 15 year old needs the protection of the law. But your last comment sums it up well - bloody creepy.

 

Of course it is complex, but we are the result of our breeding...just like any animal. The difference is that learning and the will can overcome our underlying nature. In intelligent animals like us...learning and experience can change us greatly....which is why protecting children is so important.

 

I agree. The 'this will be normal in 100 years' statement made me think 2 things. Firstly that this was normal centuries ago and we have moved on from that. Secondly, and I apologise fo being blunt, there is a section of 'society' in this country that wants their own law to apply in this country that do want this to become normal and that is a worry.

It is not a can of worms and it is not black, grey, white. If he knew that she was underage then he deserves to be hammered for it. If someone didn't know which is where I think Puck is coming from then I can see where the sympathy comes in. It is pretty hard to know that some girls are 15 when they are not in their school uniforms. That is why clubs, off licences etc are now asking for ID for anyone they think is under 25. I do have some sympathy for that. I have one friend who when he was 22 went clubbing, took a girl home, then found out she was 15 and was a mess because he felt so guilty. She looked as old as us @ 22. She had all the bits in the right places and a mature face so he wasn't to know but he felt guilty about what had happened and never saw her again obviously.

I have no doubt some underagers still get into clubs etc and still buy alcohol but that side of things thankfully has become a much smaller problem.$

In Johnson's case he knew what he was doing and therefore he should take the full force of the law.

For information I have 2 boys 9 & 10 who I am already having to secure tablets and PCs and TVs against the constant strivation to find a way to see naked ladies. I also have a 4 year old daughter who thankfully is a long way off yet from the suspicious father period when 'innocent' boys come home.

 

The age of consent in the UK has been changed several times since it was first set at 12 in 1275. It was amended to 13 in 1875 and then to 16 10 years later, and only avoided being changed to 17 in 1917 by a single vote. I believe it was changed in 1950 to 17 in Northern Ireland but I don't know if that it still the case.

The only group for whom the AOC has been lowered over the last few years is homosexual males, for whom it is now the same as for the general population. It does seem strange that for all the talk of reform, the general trend has been upwards. Personally I wouldn't be in favour of lowering the AOC, but some element of the difference in age between the parties should be factored in, as Schad informs us is the case in Canada. The Sexual Offences Act of 2000 does protect vulnerable people between 16 and 18 from those in a position of trust: perhaps the definition of "trust" also needs to be looked at?

 

I know it can be both ways but with Men I tend to think you are right in that it is to do with (some/many?) men finding young perky female bodies attractive. Factoring this as just a physical attraction because obviously we would all be 'jumping ship' from our relationships once our partners got past this stage. I think some women also have these tendancies where they find the young virile body attractive.

It could be that both sexes find that innocence and naivety attractive although in most cases I would suspect that the novelty of that would soon wear off.

In most cases I think that in the teacher and in Johnson's example it is purely that feeling of power. Of the I know what I am doing and am going to show you. This is quite common in a lot of people of both sexes and I would bet there are 1000% more people who have these tendancies but are sensible enough or strong enough to suppress them. There are lots of examples of powerful women in business or hereditory or otherwise that enjoy much much younger men and in recent years we have also seen that more and more women are ringleaders or key elements in grooming or child abuse cases.

I think the problem really is like any crime, domestic violence, child abuse or grooming we are still of the mentality of it being a male thing where I think in years to come it will become obvious that there are as many individuals from each sex this way inclined. Maybe men have a mentality that they can lie better or cover things up better or get away with it? Maybe they are less able to suppress their 'desires'. I do think though that there are many many more people who have these desires, just that the vast majority of them are able to suppress them either through knowing it is wrong or through not wanting to be caught.

In terms of the law. The law has to be a fixed line. You can't have laws that assess maturity or ability to handle alcohol etc. There has to be a line set at a level that protects the majority.

 

After previous saying I felt sorry for Johnsons GF I have now changed my mind seeing as she's still attending court with him/supporting him

Jesus Christ woman have some respect.

 

You really cloud the issues using phrases like "we are the result of our breeding". I have no idea what you are trying to say. Is this an evolutionary argument, as in your previous point? If so I wholly reject your argument on the grounds that evolutionary psychology is untestable. But obviously I agree that "protecting children is .. important" This is fundamental.

My point about the complexities is that we have moved beyond sex as means of reproduction.

 

Two things:

Having seen more of the facts in the other thread DTLW made it's clear that in this case Johnson took advantage of a young, perhaps somewhat naive, young girl who hero-worshipped him. Personally I don't think her age should be the sole defining factor here. Maturity (I'm not sure that's the best word but it's all I can think of) is far more important, although it's obviously far more difficult to judge which is why the law likes to draw a line.

The current law in the UK doesn't reflect reality. That doesn't mean there should be no law but there are other options as opposed to drawing one line at an age that was picked out for some reason or other in 1885 and saying "Anything before this line is wrong, anything after is okay." The current legal situation is that it would have been legal/okay for Johnson to do this if the girl had been a year (probably even less) older, which is just barmy. The age-graduated system mentioned earlier in the thread would be an improvement, particularly if it includes something based on the age gap between the couple. I don't think it's impossible that a 14-year-old could be mature enough to make an informed decision and some fairly knowledgeable people have suggested lowering the age of consent in the last few years. Equally, I've met a few people just over the age of consent that I'm not convinced really are/were mature enough to make that sort of decision.

As for the "In a hundred years..." comment, I'm just speculating. I wouldn't rule it out though. Societal norms have changed enormously in the last hundred years. People's attitudes towards and experiences of race, death and sexuality have been transformed and things like improved nutrition, education and healthcare mean children grow faster now and likely physically mature at a younger age. Who's to say what the next century will bring?

 

Here, it's an exception for ages 12-13 (seriously) if the other person is within two years of age, 14-15 if the other person is within five years of age. There's still plenty of room for creep in there, namely the 'second year of university'/'first year of high school' gap, but it's overall more reasonable.

It has generally moved in the opposite direction, as people have concluded that physical maturity is reached far earlier than emotional maturity, and if anything the gap is increasing there; children are allowed to mature at a slower pace, because they aren't being rushed into premature adulthood owing to financial necessity. We no longer have some sort of biological imperative to reproduce at the first opportunity, humankind having done rather well for itself, nor on an individual level are we dirt farmers who need seventeen familial labourers. I seriously, seriously doubt you or I will see circumstances where it again becomes legal for fully-formed adults to prey upon kids in their early teens. Good.

 

Right, please can we get this thread back on topic now? There is a thread for this discussion and any further posts concerning Adam Johnson will be deleted.

Thank you.

 

The police would show very little interest if a girl was fifteen and a boy was a year older if no coercion was involved. There has to be a cut off point. And people talk of maturity....physical maturity doesn't indicate psychological maturity. The younger a girl is the more likely she is to indulge in risky behaviour and to believe anything she is told....the incidence of cervical cancer has increased and the age it is detected has lowered because it is associated with unprotected sex in the young. And that's just one example. No one can stop some young girls having sex, but a legal cut off reduces the incidence considerably as most decent men will shy away or wait. And the legal limit at least allows prosecution of the gangs of Asian men preying on vulnerable and unprotected youngsters.

 

Ooops just seen Chilcos message.

 

Yellow card Fran!

 

Me bad.