The Football News Thread 2015/16 - everything non-Wolves

[Deutsch Wolf]

Grim.

 

[lemonjelly]

Creepy.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Clearly knew what he was doing & what the law was - will deserve all he gets

 

[Stan Hullis]

The prosecutions case seems cut and dry.

What a repugnant human being, he deserves all he gets.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

The prosecutions case seems cut and dry.

What a repugnant human being, he deserves all he gets.

It's not cut and dry at all, he's pleaded guilty to things that are obvious from those messages but nothing in there either way about the charges which are yet to be decided.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Intimation that she didn't delete mesages as he had asked - depends what he had said to her via there re the other incidents

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Discussing the case is ok, but I don't really have the inclination to read another three pages on TWF's interpretation of the UK's current laws on rape and sexual assault, so if we could steer away from that... :tiphat:

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Intimation that she didn't delete mesages as he had asked - depends what he had said to her via there re the other incidents

True, there's perhaps more to be revealed in that respect but at the moment there doesn't seem to have been anything more than what he's already admitted to.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It's day one Mark. I'm sure plenty more will be revealed.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

I know, that was sort of my point.

I wasn't the one who was claiming it was all cut and dried.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It is cut and dried on the elements he has admitted to, which seems to be a lot of what has been covered today. I guess it is scene setting, before getting to the arguments about the stuff he hasn't admitted.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Establishing a pattern of behaviour I suppose. The jury have now been left in no doubt that Johnson was engaging in predatory behaviour and that he clearly knew the girl was under 16. That will be important when they come to consider the additional charges.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Absolutely. And because there has been an admission of guilt on some of the charges it is pretty hard to challenge this evidence which is establishing bad character with this type of offence. Get that done in the eyes of the jury, and getting a decision on the contentious stuff becomes an easier mission.

 

[The Bear]

Seems to me he's admitted sexual activity in the car with her but denied full sex.

 

[Stan Hullis]

I missed the part or at least forgot the parts he had admitted too.

It isn't cut and dried for the rest, that's true.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Seems to me he's admitted sexual activity in the car with her but denied full sex.

Sexual assault and grooming a minor, and then the texts clearly seem to be implying that had the opportunity been there he would have got the full sex. Looks pretty bad.

 

[The Bear]

Yep. He's clearly an idiot for pursuing her when he knew she was underage.

The only problem I have is seeing the girl get off scot free. It takes two to tango even if she was a few months underage by the law. She pursued the relationship as well and knew he could get into trouble for it. Sexual maturity is never black and white. I guess the law has to draw a line somewhere but it makes me uncomfortable that it is so one sided.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Last time I looked what the girl did wasn't in any way criminal.

There is an age of consent. That is the end of the matter. Had she not made her age clear to him then he would be in a much better position as clearly she is an "old" looking teen, but he KNEW she was under-age. That is simply that.

To explain - if you do this sort of thing with a 13 to 16-year-old you have a defence that you reasonably though they were 16. Under 13 no such defence. These texts and admissions show he knew she wasn't 16. Her behaviour is actually irrelevant to the case.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Yep. He's clearly an idiot for pursuing her when he knew she was underage.

The only problem I have is seeing the girl get off scot free. It takes two to tango even if she was a few months underage by the law. She pursued the relationship as well and knew he could get into trouble for it. Sexual maturity is never black and white. I guess the law has to draw a line somewhere but it makes me uncomfortable that it is so one sided.

I would assume that the law expects that as the older party he should have the maturity to know the rules & ensure that nothing happened.

All he had to do was defer the contact for what appears to be only a matter of months when she would be 16 & none of this would be happening (would still make him a scumbag, but not a criminal)

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

She was underage. He was her hero. She was infatuated with him. Therefore, he was in a position of trust effectively. That isn't her fault no matter how you dress it up.

This "why is she getting off scot-free" and "it takes two to tango" nonsense frankly stinks of "she wore a short skirt and so she deserved it" crap that was debunked years ago.