Rich Toff let off for child porn

I don't believe I am squirming. I'm making what appear to me to be reasonable points.

This is a private messaging board, and on it you can allow or disallow any type of discussion that you want. In general though, there is a principle in this country called freedom of speech. One result of that principle is that individuals are at liberty to state their opinions. Amongst other things, that means - in theory at least - that reasoned debate can be engaged in, rather than those who dare to oppose the baying mob (which I am not labelling you as being a part of btw), or the general concensus of opinion, being strung up for descent, and no reasonable discourse being entertained.

And in my view, I am making reasonable points in expressing an opinion and discussing a serious issue. Just because a topic is emotive, does not mean that there is no discussion to be had on it, and indeed not discussing, considering and debating such issues, and just judging matters on popular impulse, is far more dangerous than discussing them.

And that is my principle concern here. That the law is not being made by reasoned judgement, but in reaction to inconsidered public sentiment. That is not justice.

You are jumping to conclusions in my opinion btw. He was sexually attracted to this girl. You have said yourself that her body appeared to be older than a 16 year olds.

The fact that he was attracted to her doesn't mean that he is sexually attracted to children per se, and I am unaware of any evidence, or even contention that he is.

No doubt you will consider this comment obtuse, but that is the truth of it.

I don't condone what he did (as ai have stated several times), but your portrayal of him as some kind of serial child predator, and as someone who is by nature a child molester, appears to me to be unsupported by the facts.

In any case, he isn't being sent to jail because he is by nature a child-molester, or a "sick pervert". He's being sent to jail for the incident in which he was involved and which the law regards as a criminal act. It's that act which is being assessed, and hat act alone.

 

That should have read, "I am not labelling you" there, not, "I am labelling you"

 

No it isn't and no there's not.
Not even remotely true

 

That all said, I realise people are mainly here for ****s and giggles, not for serious philosophical debate or whatever.

Didn't mean to put anyone's back out/up/whatever the expression is

 

Eh ?

 

Basically everything I quoted was ****e. Pure ****e.

So ****e I stopped reading after it.

 

The only things that have been written since you wrote that, are :

a) comments of yours, which you wrote yourself
b) comments of mine, which you have directly responded to

what can you not have read ?

The comments that you've highlighted are essentially sound anyway. Any decision to not read on (which you don't appear to have taken anyway), on the basis of a pedentic literal interpretation, of an essentially correct statement, would show an irrationailty as to suggest you are not minded to partake in sensible dialogue anyway.

In fact, it would demonstrate the exact kind of emotional, illogical and reckless characteristics whose apparently growing influence I have stated I am concerned about.

 

It's rare to come across someone so delusional yet so boring.

Go annoy someone else you tedious ****.

 

Agree with all that. Would also add that an England cricketer got 13 years for smuggling cocaine. Five years for grooming and sexually molesting a schoolgirl seems more than tolerant to me.

 

@DevAdvocate

 

He just signed a boot deal with Adidas.

 

1/ 99.9% of the people posting on here disagree with you. That probably means that you are wrong.

2/ The anticipated sentence is totally disproportionate with other crimes? Are you ****ing mental? The sentence that he hasn't been given yet is disproportionate to other sentences that may or may not be handed out to random felons?

OK then.

3/ My reference wasn't an attempt to show I was correct. It was given to show you were wrong. It worked a treat and there are hundreds of others that would do the same. Fortunately there is no need to post them because it seems every ****, Stevie Wonder included can see how much of a total ****tard you are.

D/ Your comments speak for themselves.

 

A. Bullet points are my thing Aldo.
&
B. Your 99.9% stat is made up like 50% of stats read online.

 

Mate you have this. I'll be the first to admit I am not articulate in talkin but I agree.

 

Johnson has been convicted of having a sexual encounter with a girl aged under 16 (15).

You state that you wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the only dalliance of this nature. There is no evidence whatsoever that he has engaged in a sexual act, or sought to engage in a sexual act, with an underage girl on any other occasion. On the basis that no other girl has come forward (unlike in every other high profile celebrity sex case of recent times) in the year or more since his arrest was publicised, I would be of the view that it is extremely unlikely, that he has committed any other similar offence.

I would suggest that it would be absolutely absurd, if your contention is that the sentence for the crime he has been convicted for, should take into account a considerariin that he might have committed other instances of this offence - particuarly where the absence of any other victim in sich a high profile case, strongly suggests the contrary. To sentence someone based on complete guess work, that they might have committed other similar acts, with no evidence or suggestion that such acts might have taken place, is logically, scarcely any different to medievil practices of burning people alive, on suspicion of being witches.

You also describe him as a "sick pervert", which you state you would like to be taken into account in his sentencing, and you suggest that people should be sent to jail if they are a, "sick pervert". You seem to categorise him as a, "sick pervert" on the basis that he is sexually attracted to, "adolescent females". You therefore imply that anyone who has the capacity to be physically attracted to an adolescent, should be imprisoned.

I don't know what you meant by, "adolescent", and to be fair, it wouldn't be unreasonable if you didn't have a specific definition in mind. I've just had a look at some definitions though, to try to guess specifically what your views are :

+The World Health Organisation states that adolescence finishes at age 19.

+ A medical organisation, cited on wikipedia in its definition of adolescence, states that girls usually reach, "full physical development" between the ages of 15 and 17. *

+ The UK government's advice is that psychological adolsence is completed aged 25 **

I presume that when you suggest that any adult who is physically attracted to an "adolescent" should be sent to prison for being a, "sick pervert", you are referring to phsyical adolescence, rather than mental adolescense, otherwise just about every human adult - including almost all the law makers, all the judges, all the parents, and all the police - would be in prison.

If you take the WHO's definition though, you are still looking at sending to prison anyone who could be attracted to those as old as 19. Before its recent demise, girls of 18 regularly posed for the Sun's page 3. 18 and 19 year old girls could also work in mens' magazines etc such as Nuts, semi clothed. These publications have or had very widespread readership. So again, if you are suggesting that anyone who has the capacity to be attracted to an 18 or 19 year old should be given a lengthy jail sentence, it would seem that a very large proportion of the population would always be in prison, using your suggestions.

What about if we take your use of the word "adolescence" with a pinch of salt (as it might be fair to do), and instead look at the completion of physical adolescence, as defined by the medical people ? Well that suggests that some teenagers are fully mature physically at 15 (although I find this surprising). On that basis, we would be saying that there are some teenagers who are underage, who would actually come outside of your, 'sexual preference' rule.

So, it's difficult to see how a law such as the one hat you propose, could be formulated.

If it's legal for an adult to have sex with a boy or girl aged 16, it would also seem perverse to make a law saying that an adult could be sent to prison as a, "sick pervert", on the grounds that they were attracted to someone of that age (or indeed, several years older). In fact, it would make no sense at all.

The only options remaining, using the views which you have expressed, would be either to

a) raise the age of consent (to perhaps 19 ie the WHO's definition of the completion of adolescence (surely not to 25 ?)

or

b) extend the underage rule, from those who partook in sexual activity with an under 16, to those who had a physical attraction to an under 16.

I won't discuss option a at length, other than to say that I have never heard such an opinion mooted previously.

Looking at option b, I still think that if you are talking about a wide range of people that you are going to put in prison. It might sound unpalatable, but I would suggest that there exists in this world a 15 year old boy and a 15 year old girl, who very many people would have the capacity to have a physical attraction for. If you want to put every man in prison who could find a 15 year old future Baywatch star or a 15 year old brooke shields physically attractive, and every woman who could find a 15 year old brad pitt, or a 15 year old river phoenix physically attractive, then you are going to be putting an awful lot of prison for being, "sick perverts".

Aside from that though, making criminal laws based solely on sexual preference, or more precisely sexual range, with no practise or intent to practise those 'preferences', is from a jurisprudence and moral point of view, extremely controversial to say the least. In fact some would say that it smacks of Nazi Germany.

Whatever the case though, there is zero evidence that Adam Johnson was attracted to any other girl under 15, so sentencing him on the basis that he might be, would have the rather unfortunate double whammy, of being the legal and moral equivalent of burning a witch, and of being akin to Nazism.

But as no such law does exist, what is absolutely certain, is that when Adam Johnson is sentenced, no such logical, moral and legal absurdities should be considered.

For that reason alone, I would expect him to receive a sentence many times shorter than that given to the headmistresses sentenced to 8 years for 13 counts of sleeping with 13 and 14 year old pupils at her school.



* this surprises me a bit tbh
**
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...young-people-getting-inferiority-complex.html

 

Even I won't quote that.

 

I like @RobSpur though

 

Did you read it though?

 

Naw,me neither.