Adam Johnson

[sb_73]

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".

Wats, I think the crime in this case was mainly the self confessed grooming. It wasn't an opportunist, spur of the moment snog and a grope in a nightclub. It was a campaign over a period of time by a privileged man in his late twenties to manipulate a 15 year old into having sex with him. The fact that it seems he failed is irrelevant. In that sense it was certainly a psychological attack. He asked her to delete their electronic conversations, he tried to cover his tracks. This was a calculated plan to exploit someone who was clearly gullible and vulnerable.

I have no idea how long he should get, and don't really care, but this certainly isn't anything like two teenagers a year or two apart in age having a grapple.

 

[Rangers Til I Die]

Quite an interesting moral debate. In England he is a convicted *****phile, 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.

Good post. He is.not.in the same league as Saville and Co unless at any stage she suggested they should stop whatever they were doing.
The grooming aspect semi to have been very.important in this case and of course those texts,whatsapp etc are all.there for ever.
I think the age does make a difference too. If he was 18 and once again.assuming consensually, I wonder if the law would take a different view? It's fair that the law should.require more responsibility from us as citizens as we age.

 

[Rangers Til I Die]

Wats, I think the crime in this case was mainly the self confessed grooming. It wasn't an opportunist, spur of the moment snog and a grope in a nightclub. It was a campaign over a period of time by a privileged man in his late twenties to manipulate a 15 year old into having sex with him. The fact that it seems he failed is irrelevant. In that sense it was certainly a psychological attack. He asked her to delete their electronic conversations, he tried to cover his tracks. This was a calculated plan to exploit someone who was clearly gullible and vulnerable.

I have no idea how long he should get, and don't really care, but this certainly isn't anything like two teenagers a year or two apart in age having a grapple.

You beat me to it re the grooming. Apologies for typos due to phone and stubby fingers.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Wats, I think the crime in this case was mainly the self confessed grooming. It wasn't an opportunist, spur of the moment snog and a grope in a nightclub. It was a campaign over a period of time by a privileged man in his late twenties to manipulate a 15 year old into having sex with him. The fact that it seems he failed is irrelevant. In that sense it was certainly a psychological attack. He asked her to delete their electronic conversations, he tried to cover his tracks. This was a calculated plan to exploit someone who was clearly gullible and vulnerable.

I have no idea how long he should get, and don't really care, but this certainly isn't anything like two teenagers a year or two apart in age having a grapple.

I agree it's not and it's a fair point that there was a sustained period of time of chatting her up, essentially. She probably was gullibe but I don't see her as being particularly vulnerable in this.

 

[Chaz]

Vulnerable or not, she's still a child and still a victim. He admitted grooming her. At what point does this sympathy for a confessed predatory *****phile stop? He's guilty, she's not, so she does not deserve to have her reputation trashed - least of all on here.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Vulnerable or not, she's still a child and still a victim. He admitted grooming her. At what point does this sympathy for a confessed predatory *****phile stop? He's guilty, she's not, so she does not deserve to have her reputation trashed - least of all on here.

You're going down the route of unnecessarily emotive language and exaggeration again. Nobody has sympathy for Johnson. I just think it's wrong to portray her as some helpless infant.

 

[kiwiqpr]

So will the courts now be clogged with 18 and 19 year old peadophiles who have been grooming their 15 year old girlfriends

Vulnerable or not, she's still a child and still a victim. He admitted grooming her. At what point does this sympathy for a confessed predatory *****phile stop? He's guilty, she's not, so she does not deserve to have her reputation trashed - least of all on here.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

So will the courts now be clogged with 18 and 19 year old peadophiles who have been grooming their 15 year old girlfriends

I'd be a bit uneasy about that age gap with a 15-year-old. 16 & 15 is fine, even 17 & 15 but above that you're a genuine adult.

 

[Chaz]

You're going down the route of unnecessarily emotive language and exaggeration again. Nobody has sympathy for Johnson. I just think it's wrong to portray her as some helpless infant.

Unnecessary emotive language? Exaggeration? Tell me which word I've used isn't entirely accurate. The victim is a child. She's fifteen years old. He admitted grooming her over a considerable period of time, with the intent of sexual contact. He has been found guilty of said sexual contact. He knew all that time that she was a child. So predatory *****phile is entirely accurate. And all these efforts to minimise the seriousness of what he did by painting her as some randy teenager who carries some of the blame is pathetic.

 

[Chaz]

So will the courts now be clogged with 18 and 19 year old peadophiles who have been grooming their 15 year old girlfriends

Like it or not, an 18 year old who sleeps with a 15 year old is breaking the law. An 18 year old who has a 15 year old girlfriend but does NOT have sexual contact with them until they reach 16, may be considered to be grooming her, but the courts wouldn't really be interested if no inappropriate contact took place.

That's very different to this case, however, and really has no bearing on the serious nature of Johnson's actions, or the effect it will have had on his victim.

 

[qprted]

yeah hes thrown his whole life away and will no doubt feel suicidal every single day of his life

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Unnecessary emotive language? Exaggeration? Tell me which word I've used isn't entirely accurate. The victim is a child. She's fifteen years old. He admitted grooming her over a considerable period of time, with the intent of sexual contact. He has been found guilty of said sexual contact. He knew all that time that she was a child. So predatory *****phile is entirely accurate. And all these efforts to minimise the seriousness of what he did by painting her as some randy teenager who carries some of the blame is pathetic.

I think I'm going to have to start banging my head against the wall.

No one is minimising the seriousness of a 28 year old bloke doing stuff with a 15 year old. Of course she was technically a child but it would be wrong to assume, as someone do that age, she is a "child" in the way we'd traditionally define one.

When I was 15 I was pretty randy all the time. If a wealthy 28 year old woman had come on to me, I'd have known it was wrong but would have gone for it willingly. No one was duped here.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Wats, I think the crime in this case was mainly the self confessed grooming. It wasn't an opportunist, spur of the moment snog and a grope in a nightclub. It was a campaign over a period of time by a privileged man in his late twenties to manipulate a 15 year old into having sex with him. The fact that it seems he failed is irrelevant. In that sense it was certainly a psychological attack. He asked her to delete their electronic conversations, he tried to cover his tracks. This was a calculated plan to exploit someone who was clearly gullible and vulnerable.

I have no idea how long he should get, and don't really care, but this certainly isn't anything like two teenagers a year or two apart in age having a grapple.

Good post, Stan. I do believe, however, that the length of sentence is critical here - because when dealing with one of these cases involving a 15 year old girl, as opposed to a girl up to 14 years old, the 15 year old is only months away from being 16, the legal age from consent. What if the girl in question had been 15 years and 11 months? The law is still broken, but clearly the sentence cannot be the same as grooming a girl of 13 or 14 or less.

On the victim question, the difficulty is that 15 year old girls are different. Sure, some would be feel misled and abused by Johnson. But there are others that would see it as a conquest. My first girlfriend was 15 (like me), and was not a virgin (unlike me). She had been seduced on one night by a 19 year old, yet there was nothing about her that was a victim...believe me.

 

[Chaz]

I think I'm going to have to start banging my head against the wall.

No one is minimising the seriousness of a 28 year old bloke doing stuff with a 15 year old. Of course she was technically a child but it would be wrong to assume, as someone do that age, she is a "child" in the way we'd traditionally define one.

When I was 15 I was pretty randy all the time. If a wealthy 28 year old woman had come on to me, I'd have known it was wrong but would have gone for it willingly. No one was duped here.

And if that had happened, the woman would have been guilty of child sexual assault.

You keep insisting that she clearly played her part in this, and as such he shouldn't be judged as harshly as others. If that's not shifting blame, I don't know what is. Whatever her actions, she is a child, and as such the victim. You seem very keen to paint her as otherwise for some unknown reason. That's my problem with your stance. You appear to be saying that 'oh, she's fifteen and clearly a willing participant, so why are people being so hard on Johnson' and then you say you're not 'minimising the seriousness' of his crime. You can't have it both ways - either he's the predatory *****phile that the courts and his own admission have shown him to be, or he's a poor unfortunate little multi-millionaire who got caught in a honey-trap by a wanton fifteen year old.

Which one are you saying? Because I'm getting confused with the mixture of empathy, accusations and leniency that you seem to be displaying here.

 

[sb_73]

I think I'm going to have to start banging my head against the wall.

No one is minimising the seriousness of a 28 year old bloke doing stuff with a 15 year old. Of course she was technically a child but it would be wrong to assume, as someone do that age, she is a "child" in the way we'd traditionally define one.

When I was 15 I was pretty randy all the time. If a wealthy 28 year old woman had come on to me, I'd have known it was wrong but would have gone for it willingly. No one was duped here.

Good post, Stan. I do believe, however, that the length of sentence is critical here - because when dealing with one of these cases involving a 15 year old girl, as opposed to a girl up to 14 years old, the 15 year old is only months away from being 16, the legal age from consent. What if the girl in question had been 15 years and 11 months? The law is still broken, but clearly the sentence cannot be the same as grooming a girl of 13 or 14 or less.

On the victim question, the difficulty is that 15 year old girls are different. Sure, some would be feel misled and abused by Johnson. But there are others that would see it as a conquest. My first girlfriend was 15 (like me), and was not a virgin (unlike me). She had been seduced on one night by a 19 year old, yet there was nothing about her that was a victim...believe me.

I think the age of the girl, whether she was (initially) 'up for it' or not, or her general character or the supposed characters of 15 year old girls in general, are irrelevant in this case, as are our own personal histories. What Johnson did was classic, serious, *****phile behaviour. The girl should take no responsibility or blame for that, Johnson should take it all.

 

[Chaz]

I think the age of the girl, whether she was (initially) 'up for it' or not, or her general character or the supposed characters of 15 year old girls in general, are irrelevant in this case, as are our own personal histories. What Johnson did was classic, serious, *****phile behaviour. The girl should take no responsibility or blame for that, Johnson should take it all.

Agree entirely. Makes a change with us, I know but agree 100%

I should be so eloquent...

 

[sb_73]

Agree entirely. Makes a change with us, I know but agree 100%

I should be so eloquent...

Worryingly Chaz I have found it difficult to argue with a number of your recent posts. Getting soft in my old age. Might be best just to recognise that Wats has a different perspective in this case though.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I think the age of the girl, whether she was (initially) 'up for it' or not, or her general character or the supposed characters of 15 year old girls in general, are irrelevant in this case, as are our own personal histories. What Johnson did was classic, serious, *****phile behaviour. The girl should take no responsibility or blame for that, Johnson should take it all.

What you're saying is that if she was a day or week off her 16th birthday, that should not be taken into account by the court in sentencing (as opposed to determining criminal responsibilty) . Strongly disagree

There's no question that the girl should take any blame - of course she should not. Whether she feels a victim or not depends on her nature, but of course that is not a matter for the court

 

[sb_73]

What you're saying is that if she was a day or week off her 16th birthday, that should not be taken into account by the court in sentencing (as opposed to criminal responsibilty) . Strongly disagree

There's no question that the girl should take any blame - of course she should not. Whether she feels a victim or not depends on her nature, but of course that is not a matter for the court

Correct. Because this was not a case of casual, opportunistic sex, but a calculated grooming campaign. He was using his celebrity and the 'favours' he had done for her to extract 'favours' in return. In fact, had it happened with an 18 year old, or a 35 year old, it would be equally manipulative, pathetic and inadequate behaviour, just 'legal'.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

And if that had happened, the woman would have been guilty of child sexual assault.

You keep insisting that she clearly played her part in this, and as such he shouldn't be judged as harshly as others. If that's not shifting blame, I don't know what is. Whatever her actions, she is a child, and as such the victim. You seem very keen to paint her as otherwise for some unknown reason. That's my problem with your stance. You appear to be saying that 'oh, she's fifteen and clearly a willing participant, so why are people being so hard on Johnson' and then you say you're not 'minimising the seriousness' of his crime. You can't have it both ways - either he's the predatory *****phile that the courts and his own admission have shown him to be, or he's a poor unfortunate little multi-millionaire who got caught in a honey-trap by a wanton fifteen year old.

Which one are you saying? Because I'm getting confused with the mixture of empathy, accusations and leniency that you seem to be displaying here.

Why does it have to be one of those polar opposites? My stance has been quite clear throughout- he has done something wrong and should be punished accordingly but it's wrong to label her as a helpless child as if she were younger and less mature than one is at 15. For the millionth time, I'm not shifting blame, blaming her, asking why people are blaming AJ, suggesting a honey trap or any of your other accusations, some seemingly made up.