I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
Those are good points you make and this particular case is screaming out for the grey areas to be black and white.
Everyone sees things differently morally but the law has to draw a line somewhere. The line in black and white is 16. Whether that be a day before her 16th birthday or whatever.
Is this not the reason why we have judges, to assess the serious of the crime once committed to pass down a sentence?
I don't care if she was "naive" "leading him on" "misguided" or had the body of Abi Titmuss, she was 15, he knew this and should have run a mile, end of argument, black & white, wrong un.
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
Yes, they are a blunt tool. But there has to be a dividing line somewhere. In the same way that doing 69mph is legal on the motorway but doing 71mph isn't. Humans, like cheese, mature at different ages. Some 15 year olds are very mature some 21 year olds aren't. What do you do? In Europe alone, the age of consent varies between 14 (eg Germany, Italy) through to 18 (eg Malta, Vatican City). Until recently it was 13 in Spain. Unless all adolescents are made to have some form of test with a Psychologist to ascertain whether they are old enough to have sex, and then get a sex licence, much the same as one gets a driving licence, then what would tinkering around with the age of consent actually achieve? That, in itself, would be a blunt tool. 16 seems about right to me. You can get married, join the Army or ride a moped. It would be odd if you couldn't legally have sex too. You have to look at how one piece of legislation fits in with others. But here's the other odd thing : a couple of 16 year olds can get married (without parental consent in Scotland) but as minors they could not sign a contract to buy or rent a house.
Now, if only some two thousand years ago there had been an adequate law to prevent some dodgy old carpenter from slipping a length to a 12 year old village girl in Nazareth and then think up a cunning plan to hide the fact, the world might be a better place.....
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
Sorry guys with respect you may have missed the point. He pleaded guilty (and therefore there was no prosecution or defence made) to an act of sexual activity with a child under 16.
He was then found guilty of a second act (which was reported as putting as putting his hand inside her pants) and not guilty of a third act (which was reported as her giving him oral sex). What I am trying to establish is what was the sexual activity to which he pleaded guilty? The press have reported it as kissing but kissing is not a sexual activity (as defined in Law) unless it involves penetration of the victims body other than her mouth. So what did he do?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
'digital penetration' was the main thing I believe.
If it was that VG, why did he plead not guilty to the second sexual activity count of which he was found guilty which was putting his hands down her pants? Unless I am being very naive here and "digital penetration" was accepted as being achieved without putting his hands inside her pants which he denied?
I think from what I've read, the four charges are: Grooming: Johnson pleaded guilty; Kissing: Johnson pleaded guilty; Touching/digital penetration/fingering: Johnson denied it but is found guilty; Oral sex: Johnson denied it and is found not guilty.
That's what I have read but "kissing" (mouth to mouth) is not sexual activity (as defined in law) - so what did he actually do?
Don't think you're getting an answer, give it up mate...
A bit creepy constantly asking this. You don't need to know.
Det Insp Aelfwynn Sampson from Durham Police, the lead investigator of the case, said she met Sunderland chief executive Margaret Byrne on 2 March 2015. She told BBC News: "They were given detail that he had met the girl and sexual activity had taken place." She said the club was also told he had exchanged messages with the girl.
Det Insp Sampson had told Adam Johnson's trial she had met Ms Byrne to outline the case.
The Sunderland Echo reported the officer said particulars of the offences were not discussed as Johnson had not been interviewed.
My understanding is that the police have to abide by the same provisions as anyone else. And, to a certain extent more so, when considering whether or not to disclose confidential information regarding an on-going investigation.
I'm having trouble understanding what and why a serving police officer is doing promulgating this information to the Club? Unless, there were some grounds for believing that they might have relevant information that would assist the evidence gathering and therefore needed to be aware of the background to the matter.
But, as it appears they had not yet interviewed Johnson, let alone charged him at that time, I am having trouble understanding quite what they were doing and why.
Maybe something to do with him being around children at Sunderland, they may have had a duty to make the club aware of the situation, just guessing
You're probably right. You can disclose information if it is to assist in investigating a crime or to prevent one. But it seems a little tenuous to me.
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
Yes, they are a blunt tool. But there has to be a dividing line somewhere. In the same way that doing 69mph is legal on the motorway but doing 71mph isn't. Humans, like cheese, mature at different ages. Some 15 year olds are very mature some 21 year olds aren't. What do you do? In Europe alone, the age of consent varies between 14 (eg Germany, Italy) through to 18 (eg Malta, Vatican City). Until recently it was 13 in Spain. Unless all adolescents are made to have some form of test with a Psychologist to ascertain whether they are old enough to have sex, and then get a sex licence, much the same as one gets a driving licence, then what would tinkering around with the age of consent actually achieve? That, in itself, would be a blunt tool. 16 seems about right to me. You can get married, join the Army or ride a moped. It would be odd if you couldn't legally have sex too. You have to look at how one piece of legislation fits in with others. But here's the other odd thing : a couple of 16 year olds can get married (without parental consent in Scotland) but as minors they could not sign a contract to buy or rent a house.
Now, if only some two thousand years ago there had been an adequate law to prevent some dodgy old carpenter from slipping a length to a 12 year old village girl in Nazareth and then think up a cunning plan to hide the fact, the world might be a better place.....
Correctly if I'm wrong but doesn't one get a driving licence by having a practical test of one's ability to drive in various situations with an examiner? What about all those poor young men that fail the test for first twenty times and keep having to take it again?
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
I totally agree with what you say, for instance a 16 yr old is deemed old enough to have intercourse and the possibility of having a baby and bringing a child into the world but is deemed not old enough to drive a car or drink alcohol in a pub which to me is ridiculous, how can you be responsible enough to start a life but too immature to handle a car or your drink. I think personally the whole area needs looking at and brought into line with one age you are ok for everything.
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
Sorry guys with respect you may have missed the point. He pleaded guilty (and therefore there was no prosecution or defence made) to an act of sexual activity with a child under 16.
He was then found guilty of a second act (which was reported as putting as putting his hand inside her pants) and not guilty of a third act (which was reported as her giving him oral sex). What I am trying to establish is what was the sexual activity to which he pleaded guilty? The press have reported it as kissing but kissing is not a sexual activity (as defined in Law) unless it involves penetration of the victims body other than her mouth. So what did he do?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
'digital penetration' was the main thing I believe.
If it was that VG, why did he plead not guilty to the second sexual activity count of which he was found guilty which was putting his hands down her pants? Unless I am being very naive here and "digital penetration" was accepted as being achieved without putting his hands inside her pants which he denied?
I think from what I've read, the four charges are: Grooming: Johnson pleaded guilty; Kissing: Johnson pleaded guilty; Touching/digital penetration/fingering: Johnson denied it but is found guilty; Oral sex: Johnson denied it and is found not guilty.
That's what I have read but "kissing" (mouth to mouth) is not sexual activity (as defined in law) - so what did he actually do?
Don't think you're getting an answer, give it up mate...
A bit creepy constantly asking this. You don't need to know.
Why is he creepy? It's a question that doesn't make sense that no one could give an answer to. This thread has run for 19 pages because people are interested in the trial. Maybe we should tear it down and start again:
"Adam Johnson Court Case Page 1: You don't need to know, stop being so creepy."
I would lower the age of consent for similar aged people to around 15 as it isn't helpful to make victims and villains of young people. But also say, for any below 18, a relationship with a person X years older is illegal. More complicated, but so is the subject. We also have the situation that if Johnson was playing for a German club he wouldn't have broken any law. I think he should be punished, but he isn't in the same league as Huntley and Bellfield as the Sun portrayed this week.
I have a problem with Children be expoited by adults. We need an age of consent to protect children from adults, but why is it 16 not 17 or 18? If a girl is a week away from her 16th Birthday it is illegal and if she is a day older than 16 it is legal! a 17 year old can be more naive and less emotionally and sexually mature - nobody is the same. If a 15 year old has sex with a 15 year old, are they both victims? The question is a difficult one for me - but fundamentally, it is wrong for a signicantly older man to have sex or try to have sex with a significantly younger girl. A 30 year old can legally groom an immature 17 year old now which is equally wrong! I think Johnson deserves punishment for that moral reason. But the boundaries of the law are a blunt tool.
I totally agree with what you say, for instance a 16 yr old is deemed old enough to have intercourse and the possibility of having a baby and bringing a child into the world but is deemed not old enough to drive a car or drink alcohol in a pub which to me is ridiculous, how can you be responsible enough to start a life but too immature to handle a car or your drink. I think personally the whole area needs looking at and brought into line with one age you are ok for everything.
The dilemma is that rules (and laws) must be obeyed but the young (including teenagers) will be tempted, and make some of the rules unenforceable.
It wasn't that long ago (all-right it was quite a long time) that sex before marriage was deemed to be unacceptable. These days not only is that acceptable but most people will accept their friend sleeping with someone else's husband/wife and fine it clever/funny/substitute other word. All the while society is going to completely ignore the rules (laws) there will be pressure to change them.
I seriously doubt that the average age that our 'children' first have sex is anywhere near 18. Chances are that there are thousands and thousands of children that have under age sex every year. push the age up and that number will grow. Reduce it and it can have consequences where actions like that of Adam Johnson become 'acceptable'. Controlling minimum ages for driving and drinking are much easier to police. Crikey, we can't even get our children to tidy their rooms when we stand over them what chance we can stop them being curious when they are alone with someone they are attracted to?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
Sorry guys with respect you may have missed the point. He pleaded guilty (and therefore there was no prosecution or defence made) to an act of sexual activity with a child under 16.
He was then found guilty of a second act (which was reported as putting as putting his hand inside her pants) and not guilty of a third act (which was reported as her giving him oral sex). What I am trying to establish is what was the sexual activity to which he pleaded guilty? The press have reported it as kissing but kissing is not a sexual activity (as defined in Law) unless it involves penetration of the victims body other than her mouth. So what did he do?
Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual activity with a child under 16 and one count of grooming.
In the reporting of the trial which was about two further charges of sexual activity with a child under 16, they refer repeatedly to the guilty plea as "kissing" the girl.
At the trial he only admitted kissing during his testimony. I have looked at the law on this and "kissing on the mouth" is not a definition of sexual activity - so what did he actually do?
'digital penetration' was the main thing I believe.
If it was that VG, why did he plead not guilty to the second sexual activity count of which he was found guilty which was putting his hands down her pants? Unless I am being very naive here and "digital penetration" was accepted as being achieved without putting his hands inside her pants which he denied?
I think from what I've read, the four charges are: Grooming: Johnson pleaded guilty; Kissing: Johnson pleaded guilty; Touching/digital penetration/fingering: Johnson denied it but is found guilty; Oral sex: Johnson denied it and is found not guilty.
That's what I have read but "kissing" (mouth to mouth) is not sexual activity (as defined in law) - so what did he actually do?
Don't think you're getting an answer, give it up mate...
A bit creepy constantly asking this. You don't need to know.
That is bordering on the offensive.
I didn't realise I had to clear all my questions with you before asking them.
So some under 18 players responded to online messages from a (fake) 16 year old. What is wrong with a 17 or 18 year old male being in contact with a 16 year old female? How is that teaching them a lesson? Why are the Daily Mail reporting on it?
No need to answer that last one, its clearly just an excuse for them to bring up the whole Adam Johnson thing again for the benefit their oh-so-outraged-and-not-at-all-taking-a-morbidly-voyeuristic-interest-in-the-story readership.
So some under 18 players responded to online messages from a (fake) 16 year old. What is wrong with a 17 or 18 year old male being in contact with a 16 year old female? How is that teaching them a lesson? Why are the Daily Mail reporting on it?
No need to answer that last one, its clearly just an excuse for them to bring up the whole Adam Johnson thing again for the benefit their oh-so-outraged-and-not-at-all-taking-a-morbidly-voyeuristic-interest-in-the-story readership.
"'One of the players accepted a Facebook friend request and another did the same and sent an innocent message. There was nothing untoward at all', she said."
16 is legal even of it'd be weird if they were in their mid to late twenties... Therefore this is even more of a non story seeing as they targeted the under 18's...
Wonder how they picked Fulham of all clubs... simply because if they'd decided to go after Charlton presumably the dropped case against Cousins a few years back would suddenly be resurrected, which would be extremely unfortunate and probably reported with a slant besides.
Hope Nla doesnt read Katie Hopkins' article on this story.
I feel badly about reading it myself.
She does seem to be free of the shackles of offending people that have a very strong opposing view.
Much of what she says makes sense but she speaks as though she has a lot more information, than I do, on the girl that was involved. Some of the 'suggestions' as to the behaviour of the 15/16 year old are credible but in the absence of actual facts I have no idea if they are true or just supposition on behalf of Ms Hopkins.
Either way it does look as though the Ms Hopkins (and many of those that commented) believes that fifteen year old girls are not to be excluded responsibility for their actions, even if a grown man needs to be responsible for his.
Comments
Is this not the reason why we have judges, to assess the serious of the crime once committed to pass down a sentence?
Unless all adolescents are made to have some form of test with a Psychologist to ascertain whether they are old enough to have sex, and then get a sex licence, much the same as one gets a driving licence, then what would tinkering around with the age of consent actually achieve? That, in itself, would be a blunt tool.
16 seems about right to me. You can get married, join the Army or ride a moped. It would be odd if you couldn't legally have sex too. You have to look at how one piece of legislation fits in with others.
But here's the other odd thing : a couple of 16 year olds can get married (without parental consent in Scotland) but as minors they could not sign a contract to buy or rent a house.
Now, if only some two thousand years ago there had been an adequate law to prevent some dodgy old carpenter from slipping a length to a 12 year old village girl in Nazareth and then think up a cunning plan to hide the fact, the world might be a better place.....
;-)
This thread has run for 19 pages because people are interested in the trial. Maybe we should tear it down and start again:
"Adam Johnson Court Case
Page 1: You don't need to know, stop being so creepy."
It wasn't that long ago (all-right it was quite a long time) that sex before marriage was deemed to be unacceptable. These days not only is that acceptable but most people will accept their friend sleeping with someone else's husband/wife and fine it clever/funny/substitute other word. All the while society is going to completely ignore the rules (laws) there will be pressure to change them.
I seriously doubt that the average age that our 'children' first have sex is anywhere near 18. Chances are that there are thousands and thousands of children that have under age sex every year. push the age up and that number will grow. Reduce it and it can have consequences where actions like that of Adam Johnson become 'acceptable'. Controlling minimum ages for driving and drinking are much easier to police. Crikey, we can't even get our children to tidy their rooms when we stand over them what chance we can stop them being curious when they are alone with someone they are attracted to?
I didn't realise I had to clear all my questions with you before asking them.
I'm bored with this now.
*I am not saying getting drunk and sleeping with a child is any better just trying to think of why it might be seen differently by the law.
With Johnson it was planned and calculated - malice aforethought. Pretty much the differential between murder and manslaughter.
Nice facepalm moment there...
No need to answer that last one, its clearly just an excuse for them to bring up the whole Adam Johnson thing again for the benefit their oh-so-outraged-and-not-at-all-taking-a-morbidly-voyeuristic-interest-in-the-story readership.
#NonStory
Hold the front page.
Edit. Seen others mention same above now.
I feel badly about reading it myself.
Much of what she says makes sense but she speaks as though she has a lot more information, than I do, on the girl that was involved. Some of the 'suggestions' as to the behaviour of the 15/16 year old are credible but in the absence of actual facts I have no idea if they are true or just supposition on behalf of Ms Hopkins.
Either way it does look as though the Ms Hopkins (and many of those that commented) believes that fifteen year old girls are not to be excluded responsibility for their actions, even if a grown man needs to be responsible for his.