Adam Johnson

[Henry]

Baffling stuff from Sheepie here.

 

Clydeside will be along shortly to back him up.

[SheepieBaaBaa]

Just opening an alternative discussion like, not defending the boy. But in terms of "since when is that the definition", the answer is "since forever"

 

Philia means arousal, paed means child, so paedophilia means arousal from children.

 

Just saying that in the purest terms, if the kid looks like an adult it is statutory rape but not paedophilia in the strictest sense.

 

Not making any moral judgement, just a technical observation.

 

If she looks young then he is both a paedo and a statutory rapist, but the two aren't necessarily the same that's all.

[SheepieBaaBaa]

Since when is the definition of a paedophile someone that wants to bang someone that looks like a kid? The definition is someone who bangs a kid.

 

Unless you are trying to suggest mental development = physical development (which is daft), you appear to be a paedo sympathiser. There is a reason why the age of consent is based on a fixed age, not on being physically ready for it...

Why does raising a question of definition make me a sympathiser? Not defending the cunt, just trying to say something more mentally stimulating than the standard "tie his balls to his ankles and make the cunt run" kind of stuff.

 

Either way, he's still a nonce.

[Foster14]

Just opening an alternative discussion like, not defending the boy. But in terms of "since when is that the definition", the answer is "since forever"

 

Philia means arousal, paed means child, so paedophilia means arousal from children.

 

Just saying that in the purest terms, if the kid looks like an adult it is statutory rape but not paedophilia in the strictest sense.

 

Not making any moral judgement, just a technical observation.

 

If she looks young then he is both a paedo and a statutory rapist, but the two aren't necessarily the same that's all.

 

Daft argument to get in to but it is a slow Friday at work. Go back to origination and philia doesn't mean arousal it is actually a variation of love from Greek times, that lends more to fondness/affection/brotherly type love. Nowadays, it is more used in terms of unnatural love/tendency. Although it may end up in a physical form of "love" (and in Adam Johnson's case it was probably his ultimate motivation), it could easily be motivated by non-physical means. Guess it depends what level you break it down to. Even if Johnson was ultimately wanting sex with her, he sent in excess of 800 messages to her over 3 months. To do that, he has to be relating to a child to encourage that end aim. Think he covers all the bases really, knew she was a child, groomed her and had sexual contact with her.

 

I guess your definition might have relevance if you picked up a girl in a club who looked of legal age, and you'd expect to be of legal age but ultimately found out afterwards she wasn't. Bordering on a grey area...

 

Why does raising a question of definition make me a sympathiser? Not defending the cunt, just trying to say something more mentally stimulating than the standard "tie his balls to his ankles and make the cunt run" kind of stuff.

 

Either way, he's still a nonce.

 

Fair enough. Ultimately, it suggested that your main aim was to grey up the area based purely on physical appearance, which seemed a strange approach.

[SheepieBaaBaa]

Nah, not my intention at all, more that you can argue paedophilia is a mental illness as a defence but someone deliberately targeting an under ager is potentially worse since they are just choosing an "easy target"

 

The worst example would be Jimmy Saville who was aroused by kids and targeted sick, vulnerable and mentally ill kids (and adults) to feed his sickness in a calculating way.

[ollie1903]

Aye, legally obviously and the one banging the child is a prick but in terms of "a paedo is someone that wants to bang someone that looks like a kid", then banging a kid that looks like an adult isn't actually being a paedo.

 

It's statutory rape, but not technically paedophilia.

 

It's all semantics and no doubt Adam Johnson got up to some antics with the lassie.

 

Holy shit

[vanderark14]

Isn't the harsher sentence because he actively groomed her?

 

I'm sure I read that he admitted to this

[SheepieBaaBaa]

 

Holy shit

Go back and read the posts before getting on the bandwagon after it's already left. Christ almighty...the art of stimulating debate is fucked , should I just have stuck with the ever so interesting response of "string the cunt up" rather than opening discussion on the distinction between a mentally ill paedophile and someone who is a predator who preys on kids?

 

At no point did I say what he did was ok, or defend him....fuck sake!!!!

[SheepieBaaBaa]

and it livened up the discussion nicely, so I class it as a success.

[tommo1903]

6 years is taking the piss, rapists get less than that, the judge being seen to be harsh so he doesn't get criticised in the press.

 

Community order would have sufficed, this was right on the bottom end of such crimes, his career is over, he'll always be looked upon as a paedophile, life basically ruined, if he'd forced himself on her or even had sex with her I'd be less compassionate but he's just a stupid guy who took advantage of a situation where an infatuated girl put herself on a plate for him. I think he's suffered enough. Prison should be for those who are a danger to society, he's clearly not and will never be in the position he was once in ever again.

 

No skin off my nose but a lot more deserving people are walking the streets while he'll be taking up a cell.

 

How old is your daughter now chief?

[daytripping]

 

How old is your daughter now chief?

 

She's 16, so he could have done with her what he liked and it would have been legal, done something a few Month back and he gets jailed for 6 years and his life left in tatters.

 

As I said I'm not saying what he did was right but I believe the sentence is too harsh, I also believe the "trauma" the girl is claiming she's under will be used as a money making tool in the coming days/weeks.

 

Would be easier for me or anyone else to say string the fucker up or on the Paris thread let all immigrants in, the poor souls, but as it's a fitba forum for airing opinions I'll stick by my real thoughts and not go green arrow hunting like some.

[tightbreeks]

sunderland have a lot to answer for in this sorry mess. No wonder he got up to all sorts of deviant behaviour if your bosses are like aye, crack on.

[Redstar]

She's 16, so he could have done with her what he liked and it would have been legal, done something a few Month back and he gets jailed for 6 years and his life left in tatters..

I dare say if she bowled up with Shay Logan in tow that might be a different matter...regardless of what age she was.

[tightbreeks]

Shay Logan should go for the whole kid n play thing next season. Fkn awesome Barnet.

[Chewie37]

There's an important message at the end of this advert, especially for Adam Johnson and his pals

 

[dazzy_deff]

I said the same at work that the sentence was too harsh. Yes he deserved punished and he will always be a nonce but Rolf Harris got 6 and a half years and one of his victims was 8 years old and he nailed his daughters mate that he groomed. An extra half year (3 months with good behaviour) for that seems ridiculous. Johnson didn't nail her and she wasn't exactly a young child. Like I say, he deserved punished, but surely a year or two would have sufficed. Based on what I've said, either johnsons sentence needs cut, or Rolf Harris' needs drastically increased.

[King Street Loon]

Is he appealing the length of sentence?

[Foster14]

I said the same at work that the sentence was too harsh. Yes he deserved punished and he will always be a nonce but Rolf Harris got 6 and a half years and one of his victims was 8 years old and he nailed his daughters mate that he groomed. An extra half year (3 months with good behaviour) for that seems ridiculous. Johnson didn't nail her and she wasn't exactly a young child. Like I say, he deserved punished, but surely a year or two would have sufficed. Based on what I've said, either johnsons sentence needs cut, or Rolf Harris' needs drastically increased.

 

The problem with comparison to Rolf Harris is that sentencing for crimes has to be based on law and guidelines at the time the crime was committed? Bit more detail on it at the link below, but basically the logic behind it is that the deterrent to commit a crime is available at the time, so the person committing it should be tried based on that. If you murdered someone and the standard sentence at the time was 20 years, you shouldn't then be jailed for 30 years if that law changes...

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/blog/post/how-sentencing-of-historic-offenders-works/

 

I think a more valid comparison is this one:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-pregnant.html

 

2 years suspended and community services against 6 years in jail. Not sure what the legal basis was for the difference in sentencing here, but given the crimes are pretty much identical (but committed more often in this case), would suggest that the sentence should be the same. It would suggest that either the sex of the offender has disparity in treatment, the status of Adam Johnson has resulted in additional punishment or the non guilty pleas by Adam Johnson resulted in tougher sentencing.

 

Ignoring the likelihood that most of us are probably thinking that the 15 year old boy in question deserves a "nice", the crimes are identical. I'd say Adam Johnson's is too long, the teaching assistants was too lenient and they are both paedos, who used prominence or trust to engage in sexual activity.

[Bluto10]

Massive difference between chatting up an almost-legal and something nae even in secondary school.

Fuckin huge difference in fact.

[Bluto10]

Is it actually possible to 'groom' a 15 year old; given the law says they can get legally married in under 365 days?

Surely at that age they are are of sound mind and judgement

[tup]

No, they are still children, who should be protected from adults.

[Foster14]

Is it actually possible to 'groom' a 15 year old; given the law says they can get legally married in under 365 days?

Surely at that age they are are of sound mind and judgement

 

They've not even sat their standard grades (not sure if they have been renamed nowadays) when they are 15. If the legal age was 15, then you'd have the same question about 14 year olds and so on.

 

Also, think you need to be 18 to marry in England...

[Bluto10]

No, they are still children, who should be protected from adults.

Nah.

 

I'd say a 10 yo is a child.

Not a 15yo

[RAZOR]

 

They've not even sat their standard grades (not sure if they have been renamed nowadays) when they are 15. If the legal age was 15, then you'd have the same question about 14 year olds and so on.

 

Also, think you need to be 18 to marry in England...

 

I sat my standard grades when I was 15. Didn't turn 16 until the December.

[Bluto10]

They've not even sat their standard grades (not sure if they have been renamed nowadays) when they are 15. If the legal age was 15, then you'd have the same question about 14 year olds and so on.

 

Also, think you need to be 18 to marry in England...

Exactly.

 

Needs to be on case by case basis. Or lowered.

 

Just simply make it illegal to have sex with anyone under 18 if you are older than them.

[Foster14]

 

I sat my standard grades when I was 15. Didn't turn 16 until the December.

 

I also did mine when I was 15, now that I think about it. D'oh...

Exactly.

 

Needs to be on case by case basis. Or lowered.

 

Just simply make it illegal to have sex with anyone under 18 if you are older than them.

 

So two under 18s need to have been born on the same day to have sex?

[Bluto10]

I think you get my point.

 

You have to be an incredibly sheltered 15yo to not know what's what at that age.

[Foster14]

I think you get my point.

 

You have to be an incredibly sheltered 15yo to not know what's what at that age.

 

You'd have to be incredibly foolish to fall for some scams, but that doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed against you if you do so.

 

I think most 15 year olds are pretty impressionable and make bad decisions. I personally believe they are at an age where they should be protected from predatory adults, and the law seems to agree. I'd say there is something quite not right if someone approaching 30 is chasing an 18 year old, never mind younger, and you have to remember, there was a lot of perseverance from Johnson to get this girl he knew to be underage.

[tup]

Agreed. 15 year olds are children.

 

Adults should not be pursuing them. The very notion is sick.

[daytripping]

 

You'd have to be incredibly foolish to fall for some scams, but that doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed against you if you do so.

 

I think most 15 year olds are pretty impressionable and make bad decisions. I personally believe they are at an age where they should be protected from predatory adults, and the law seems to agree. I'd say there is something quite not right if someone approaching 30 is chasing an 18 year old, never mind younger, and you have to remember, there was a lot of perseverance from Johnson to get this girl he knew to be underage.

 

He's 27, using your logic she was approaching 18,