Not all irrelevant: Very relevant. 800 messages, warning her to delete them so they wouldn't be seen, arranging to meet in secret, offering her gifts - he knew very well what he was up to and why. Maybe not in some people's eyes, but the law says fifteen is a child, and he knew this. He also researched the age of consent, so he knew it was illegal. All highly relevant. Whilst what he earned is irrelevant, the fact he lied to his employer before changing his plea shows a lack of remorse, which the judge remarked upon. So partly relevant. Yes, he should have known better. Very relevant. Hopefully he will never find out. It's a question people are bound to ask, but shouldn't be relevant to the sentencing.
The Judge had the remit to go up to 10 years so it may seem lenient. On a slightly different tangent, I have not seen any footballer current or ex comment on this. Should we expect some public condemnation of sorts?
If we go down the route of "if it were my daughter" I'd like to think I'd instill a better moral compass in my 15 year old so she doesn' tthink bagging a footballer is the be all and end all of life and therefore ending up in a compromising position in the first place.......
No matter what you think of both cases, Caroline berriman used her position to groom an underage boy and had sex with him over 50 times and received zero jail time. Doesn't detract from what Johnson did and he should rightfully be punished, but the sentence is harsh in my opinion.
He groomed and therefore should go to prison. But as to length of sentence, the girl was 15 not 8. He is being made an example of, to deter others. He is not Rolf Harris - although if reports are right, he had some pretty dreadful stuff on his pc, and needs psychiatric attention imo.
I alluded to exactly this in the previous thread on this subject......... it seems our attitudes are very different if it is an underage lad being the target of an older womans affections.............
In Germany, Italy and other 'civilised' Western European countries, the age of consent is 14. Whether we, as Dads, like it or not many 15 year old girls are physically and emotionally capable of having sex. This is not really a case of Johnson abusing a minor against her will so, in that respect, 6 years is harsh. However, she's still a child and he's a man who should blatantly know better. And for that reason.... nonce boy should be strung up by his bollox.
Her age - until she reaches 16 - is irrelevant. He groomed a child with the intent to have sex. He had several sessions where sexual activity took place, and he was found guilty by a court of law. No mitigating circumstances, it really is that black and white.
I'm winging it here as all my children are boys, but I accept that 14/15 year olds are capable of having sex but are they equipped for the emotional aspect at that age?
The law differentiates between sexual offences perpetrated against a child under 13 and those against a child under 16. So it can make the same distinction when sentencing.
As the father of two teenage girls, I can assure you that they are not, no matter how much they may act as if they are. Neither would they be able to cope with that level of betrayal by their idol.
Well the Germans think so. Personally I think they're probably not mentally ready and 16 is more sensible but children these days are significantly more 'adult' in their behaviour than i was when i was 15 for some reason. Johnson's obviously an unpleasant wrong 'un but I don't subscribe to this 'he's an evil *****' argument.
