itisrising
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 4,331
Well, TBH, I don't know. But I accept that there is enough ambiguity on the issue for me not to be able to condemn him as such.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Adam Johnson guilty - 6 year sentence
- Thread starter Prestwich_Blue
- Start date
Well, TBH, I don't know. But I accept that there is enough ambiguity on the issue for me not to be able to condemn him as such.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
It is sky running on a loop that is wrongI don't see this as a huge issue - we are a Manchester paper people would expect to see him in City Kit rather than a Sunderland one. I am not offended. He is clearly just a thick **** who is going to suffer the consequences. His career will be over, he will go to jail and he will end up divorced and in time quite possibly skint.
Private prosecution will no doubt follow.
Knew he was shitting it - he has looked ill this last 9 months.
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
Why?It'll be interesting to hear what is meant by grooming in this case.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The law is quite clear. Any communication with a child for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity.It'll be interesting to hear what is meant by grooming in this case.
Dr Phils guide to GroomingIt'll be interesting to hear what is meant by grooming in this case.
http://drphil.com/articles/article/704
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 29,477
The only ambiguity is in your head it's 16 simple see no ambiguity at all.Well, TBH, I don't know. But I accept that there is enough ambiguity on the issue for me not to be able to condemn him as such.
BimboBob
Well-Known Member
The law is quite clear. Any communication with a child for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity.
It's also quite clear on the legal age as well.
itisrising
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 4,331
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?
Yes it is! You've jumped from what is illegal to what is morally wrong when they often don't work side by side. What is moral isn't concerned with what the law states, that's my point. You've proven that he wasn't acting within the law, I accept that. Whether he was immoral for acting in such a way is a different story.
And regarding whether I agree with that, I'd be hard-pressed to give you an answer. Would we say that it is okay for a man to be punished for drinking a beer in Saudi knowing the law? Johnson knew the law and didn't follow it and he is culpable for that, whether it would be justifiable to punish someone for committing a crime that isn't a crime in various parts of the world is difficult to answer on my part.
itisrising
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 4,331
The only ambiguity is in your head it's 16 simple see no ambiguity at all.
I'm not talking about legal ambiguity, I'm talking about moral ambiguity.
It'll be interesting to hear what is meant by grooming in this case.
Well I don't think it will be about clipping her claws and making sure she had a wet nose and shiny coat.