Adam Johnson guilty - 6 year sentence

And so was Saville accused of such, but there's clearly a difference. Had she been a few months older, it would somehow have been totally okay yet, because she wasn't, he's accused of the same thing that Saville was.

To avoid any more ambiguity mate, at what age do YOU think it should be legal for grown men to have sex with children?

15?, 14?, 11?

For me 16 is about right and Adam Johnson is every bit as much a pervert as any other paedophile.
 
There's a clear fallacy on your part. That jump from me not condemning him to you indirectly calling me a peadophile was a pretty clear example of that. Let me ask you this, would it be okay if he were to groom a newly-turned 16 year-old?

It is an arbitary cut-off point that our system has come up with, whether it is right or wrong is an entirely different matter and that's my point.



It's an arbitrary cut off point as determined by the laws of this country. Grooming a 16 year old is not illegal. Grooming a 15 year old is even if she looks older and has a wazzo pair of norks. It's not "up in the air" if it's morally right or wrong. As far as the law stands he is in the wrong. End of.

He groomed an under aged girl. He then admits to having sexual activity with her. That's it. End of. No amount of sop from you about morals will change that.

When you start calling him 'Stupid' do you not understand why people might that you are defending him because of your moral stance?

So instead of me calling you a paedo indirectly I'll ask you this.

Do you agree that Johnson has broken the law and should be punished or do you think that as she was nearly 16 it was ok?
 
It's an arbitrary cut off point as determined by the laws of this country. Grooming a 16 year old is not illegal. Grooming a 15 year old is even if she looks older and has a wazzo pair of norks. It's not "up in the air" if it's morally right or wrong. As far as the law stands he is in the wrong. End of.

He groomed an under aged girl. He then admits to having sexual activity with her. That's it. End of. No amount of sop from you about morals will change that.

When you start calling him 'Stupid' do you not understand why people might that you are defending him because of your moral stance?

So instead of me calling you a paedo indirectly I'll ask you this.

Do you agree that Johnson has broken the law and should be punished or do you think that as she was nearly 16 it was ok?

But what if she had a wazzo pair of nor.... ahh nevermind
 
Legally and morally wrong, anyone that says otherwise needs to give their head a wobble. This was over a period of time as he has acknowledged by admitting to grooming her. He is a despicable ****.
Hard to argue with that summing up, I'm not happy with people branding him with the idiot tag, he undoubtably is, but to thick to understand the law ? I think not. Completely morally corrupt **** in my eyes.
 
Absolutely. And this is my point. Legally he was wrong and he was stupid and no one can deny that. Whether it was morally wrong is up in the air and that's basically been my point throughout.

How is it not morally wrong ? It's not like they met in a club and she deceived him about her age, then went home and had a quickie. He groomed her in the knowledge she was underage ! He took his time and planned it in an obvious attempt to gain her trust. If that's not morally wrong then I don't know what is !

He's a fucking wrongun
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.