Ched Evans + Adam Johnson court cases

[YoungWolf]

Child being the key word here. Phrases like 'no angel' and the like really do trouble me when it comes to cases like this. A 15 year old girl with a 28 year old England international who is also one of her favourite players - the power differential here is off the scale. This wasn't some drunken fumble or a case of 'she looked about 20 in the club yer honour', this was a 28 year old (with a pregnant girlfriend at home) deciding he wanted to shag a 15 year old. This is all on him and whatever he gets he deserves.

Agree entirely with this.

 

[Tyrannosaurus Dan]

She was a child, he was an adult abusing his position/her adoration of him to take advantage of the situation. Even if she had been sitting in his car naked, holding a sign saying 'Ride me, Adam' he still should have acted appropriately. He knew she was 15.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Opportunistic is in a nightclub or on a night out. Sat in front of a computer, looking up the age of consent and then still arranging to visit is dumb beyond words. He had time to stop and think so I would call it predatory. He deserves everything he's going to get.

As for his Mrs when she is pregnant I'd doubt your assumption of no action unless it was through his choice. After birth, possibly.

I've known mates go through pregnancy baron spells.

It still doesn't really tie in with what I'd consider predatory, she added him on Facebook, he didn't really chase her for anything he just asked to meet and she accepted the offer. I don't see him as being someone who's had a long standing desire to sleep with underage girls just a dumb, horny bellend who hasn't engaged his brain before it's too late.

That doesn't make him any less deserving his punishment, just I think it's a massive error of judgement on his part rather than a longstanding, premeditated manoeuvre.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

She was under 16. He knew she was under 16. That I am afraid, is the end of it. Her actions are utterly and completely irrelevant to the offence.

 

[North West Wanderer]

If he's that stupid not to know 16 is the age of consent, then if he's done anything after googling it then more fool him.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Johnson totally in the wrong and there are no excuses.

 

[ROVERT47]

Agreed, no excuses whatsoever.

 

[Freddeno]

Thinking with his dick rather than the brain, think we have all done that...but a child, there is a limit there

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The law is very clear.

If the girl is under 13 you have no defence at all.

If the girl is between 13 and 16 you have a defence that you reasonably thought she was over 16. Johnson hasn't got that defence as he specifically asked her age and she told him the truth. Before anything happened.

As I say, her actions, and whether you are trying to perceive them as "dodgy" or even "entrapment" mean absolutely nothing. Her behaviour as "no angel" is no different to alleging that a rape victim was "asking for it" by the way she was dressed or acted in terms of whether the offence has been committed. That's the law, and in my opinion, the law is absolutely right in that regard.

 

[The Bear]

I agree with everything apart from calling her a child. She clearly wasn't. She was old enough to know what she was doing and that it was wrong. Maybe technically she's a child in the eyes of the law but that's it. Other countries have different legal ages of consent. Does that mean that girls in those countries are a child before or after other children in other countries? It's all subjective in reality.

And her actions are completely relevant to the situation, even if they bear no relevance to the offence as per the law. That's my point. The law needs to catch up with society.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

She is a child. She is under the age of consent. Full stop. That is English Law.

The law doesn't need to catch up at all on this. I am sorry, but I absolutely cannot agree with you one jot on this. The onus of the offence is on the older party, and he KNEW she was underage. She could have been prancing around naked begging him to have sex and Johnson is still the one in the wrong.

 

[Dublin Drummer Wolf]

FFS Bear, she's hardly old enough to know what she was doing, remember when you were a teenager? We thought we knew it all. When actually we didn't, and most of us cringe when we think about what we did as teenagers.

Johnson was a grown man who knew what he was doing was absolutely wrong, not only cheating on his wife, but with a minor.

It does not matter if the girl came on to him, or led him on etc etc, he should have known better.

His wife was pregnant at home FFS.

 

[Langers]

We thought we knew it all. When actually we didn't, and most of us cringe when we think about what we did as teenagers.

Absolutely - she is a child. Doesn't mean she's an angel but it doesn't change the fact she is a child and Johnson absolutely has to take full responsibility for what is a reprehensible crime. He deserves everything he gets.

 

[The Bear]

So at what age do we make teenagers responsible for their actions if they've been involved in a crime?

 

[Dublin Drummer Wolf]

18

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Nope. Criminal responsibility kicks in at 10. Which is AGAIN irrelevant here as the victim has committed no crime.

I find your stance distasteful Bear. This girl was a matter of months older than my step-daughter is now. If a 28-year-old man went near her I would fucking kill him. She is mature for her age in some ways, and still very child-like in others. Like most teenagers.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

I agree with everything apart from calling her a child. She clearly wasn't. She was old enough to know what she was doing and that it was wrong. Maybe technically she's a child in the eyes of the law but that's it. Other countries have different legal ages of consent. Does that mean that girls in those countries are a child before or after other children in other countries? It's all subjective in reality.

And her actions are completely relevant to the situation, even if they bear no relevance to the offence as per the law. That's my point. The law needs to catch up with society.

This was essentially the argument of the Peadophile Exchange Network.

 

[North Shropshire Lad]

I've known mates go through pregnancy baron spells.

If you think the nine months of pregnancy is a baron spell, you've obviously not been married for nearly 20 years...:gloom:

 

[The Bear]

I think my issue is that I find the age of consent an arbitrary number which realistically doesn't apply to 100% of teenagers. Boys or girls.

Obviously the law has to draw a line somewhere. I accept that. I just think in cases like this the actions of both parties should be taken into account. The law says that's not how it works which is what I also have issue with.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Okay, forget the age of consent for just a second. Think about the fact that Johnson is nearly double her age. Doesn't that strike you as wrong?