Adam Johnson

A fifteen year old cannot give consent. He should never have been in the situation where this could have happened. The girl is most definitely a victim, irrespective of her part in this, and he is 100% at fault.

 

Yes. It's still child sexual abuse.

 

So should society revile Bowie in equal measure to Johnson?

 

It would apply to any adult, no matter whom, if proven in a court of law !!

 

It hasnt been taken to a court of law, and proven beyond reason doubt !!

Hearsay of over forty years ago is not quite the same.

And particularly a Huffington Post blog about a facebook post !!

Not sure that could be tabled as evidence in a court of law

 

So what about Savile.

Whose cases were never proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

 

What's your point ?

Saville hasn't been convicted either.
Victims have come forward, on a vast scale, plus large numbers of independent people providing corroborating evidence, and with that society has come to conclusion of his supposed wrong-doing.

But that is as far as it can go.

As far as I know no person/s have come forward alleging Bowie having sex with a minor, nor victims coming forward.

All we have is a Huffington Post blog about a facebook post !! That is not quite the same !!

 

Sku, why are you sticking up for a confessed sex offender who has admitted grooming a child and been convicted of sexual assault?

 

Not at all.

My position has been very clear on Johnson.

The blurred lines surround how society views others.

That's what I'm exploring.

 

There's obviously no one sticking up for him. The debate is a bit more mature than that.

 

No it isn't. We've had everything from the girl asking for it, through they are all at it, to fifteen being close to sixteen so it's close to o.k. (paraphrasing).

He's a convicted, admitted child sex offender. There's no need for any debate that tries to shift the blame for this from this paedophile to his victim.

 

There isn't any shifting of the blame for goodness sake. No one has said any of the things you've said above. You're merely taking posts out of context and exaggerating them.

 

I actually think that the public are a little hysterical about these things since Saville.
Johnson was wrong and will pay the price. Anything more than a couple of years inside will be way over the top imo.

I remember drooling over Sam Fox when she made her page three debut. I'm sure guys up and down the Country were doing the same.
She was 16 when she first appeared! So it was fine for adults to fancy her at that age, but not the day before her 16th Birthday. I was a young man back then and I admit that I wouldn't feel comfortable drooling over such a young female now at my age.

I know there has to be a line and I agree that 16 is the correct age of consent, but I can't think of Johnson as a sex offender. I am not condoning his actions and as the adult he should have known better. He deserves to be punished, but the reaction to this case has been way over the top imo.

 

Hilarious. I'm not even sure your aware of what your posting. Think about this statement.

 

Rubbish. You yourself said it was consensual, so she's not a victim. You also said most fifteen year olds are at it, and that as a famous footballer, of course she'd do it.

Your position is tantamount to an apologist.

 

Well I didn't say the third thing for a start.

It was consensual- she consented to it. That doesn't make it ok but it would wrong to label this a sex 'attack'. I don't know how much simpler that statement needs to be.

Most 15-year-olds are "at it" if by "at it" you mean taking part in sexual acts. Most are having full sex by 16-17 so it would be both wrong and naive to think they aren't doing other things at 15 and often younger and often with those the other side of the age of consent which happens to be 16.

None of that makes me an apologist and I dislike the accusation. I'm just trying to give a point of view a bit more considered than "hang the nonce" or "what if it was your daughter".

 

I've thought about it, just for you, and stand by it. It doesn't mean it's not a crime, as I've said several times to try and combat the hysteria.

 

Here's my problem.

http://www.fpa.org.uk/sites/default...-and-confidentiality-factsheet-march-2009.pdf

The law specifically allows teens who are deemed to be 'competent' to receive contraception. Whilst that is not consent for sex per se, why else is contraception required?

So on the one hand a 15 year old may receive contraception perfectly legally, if she has sex with an 18 year old, HE has broken the law. The only thing that stops him being arrested is consensuality.

So if she changes her mind afterwards, he gets into big trouble.

Not sure if entirely relevant to this case but the law is not consistent as appears to be so often the case.

 

I guess the problem is you'd have thousands more teenage pregnancies a year without easy access to contraception. It's an impossible law to police really. If it was a guaranteed 10 years inside for shagging before your 16th birthday, kids still would as they have done since the beginning of time.

 

Quite an interesting moral debate. In England he is a convicted paedophile, has lost his career, his reputation and will be jailed, probably for some years. It seems that in many parts of the world, including most of South America, Iceland, Croatia and until fairly recently also Spain and Canada, he would have done nothing wrong.

Kids are being sexualised by the media far too young. You only had to see the manner of Rihanna's dancing at the Brits or tune into any of the music video channels to see the sexual nature of the barely clad girls. There can be no doubt that some teen girls will be inspired or influenced by this.

The British gutter press have been happy to publish pictures of 16 year olds all but naked, yet only a few months of age difference makes such a picture not only morally reprehensible, but also illegal. I suppose this will always be the case where there is a defined cut off age and such black and white terms take no account of the maturity of the parties.

For my part, it is clear he is guilty and he must be punished. Nonetheless, somehow I don't see his crime in the same league as Saville's crimes and don't think the punishment should be as severe as that handed down to Rolf Harris. Having said all of that, I don't have a daughter and my views might well be different if I did.