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

[Alan]

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.

Too right.

 

[Tredman]

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.

Exactly this.

He knew she was underage and abused his position to take advantage of her. Deserves everything coming to him.

He's a paedophile, even if he didn't have sex with her.

 

[Freddeno]

Yeah, true paddy

 

[The Bear]

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.

It isn't like that at all.

I'd imagine there are plenty of 15 year old girls out there having sex with their boyfriends or whoever. It doesn't mean they are all being taken advantage of or raped. Maybe in the eyes of the law it is as a technicality, but human nature and sexual maturity isn't as black and white as the law. Just my opinion.

I feel that as long as it can be proven that there is consent and the girl wanted to engage in sexual activity then it shouldn't be classed as rape. Up to a certain age that is. Maybe 13-16. Don't get me wrong they should still be punished as it's a crime, but rape is a very serious word to apply to such a situation and has connotations to the public that I feel aren't in line with the crime committed.

I shan't post any more as I think we've had this conversation before and it's probably not the place for it so I shall leave my feelings there.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I'm afraid you are completely wrong. Spectacularly. HE WAS FUCKING 28 NOT 15 like her.

 

[Lupo]

Hang on Bear there's a huge difference between 2 15 year olds having sex (still against the law) and a 28 year old man having it with a 15 year old!

 

[Tony Towner]

I feel that as long as it can be proven that there is consent and the girl wanted to engage in sexual activity then it shouldn't be classed as rape. Up to a certain age that is. Maybe 13-16.

That is exactly what the law is. Johnson hasn't been charged with rape, he has been charged with sex with a minor/girl he reasonably knew was under the age of 16. Rape is 12 or below, as he will have found out on his Google search

 

[The Bear]

Hang on Bear there's a huge difference between 2 15 year olds having sex (still against the law) and a 28 year old man having it with a 15 year old!

Absolutely. I agree 100%. He took advantage of her and deserves to be punished for it.

However it doesn't mean that in both cases the 15 year old girl wasn't prepared emotionally or physically for it though.

In my year at school there was a girl who was 15 and shagging a lad two years higher up from the 6th form. She was proud of it and bragged about it to her friends. Does that mean I should have been reporting it all to the police so that he could be sent down and nothing whatsoever happen to her? Each situation and person is different. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Tuco]

Whatever the girl wants is irrelevant, he knew she was underage and as a responsible adult nearly twice her age he should go nowhere near her. Obviously he isn't responsible just a perv who will get whats coming to him.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

13 or below is actually the cut-off on the ages. It wouldn't be rape then either though. It would be sex with a minor and there would be no defences about "how old they looked". It carries the same sentence as rape.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Whatever the girl wants is irrelevant, he knew she was underage and as a responsible adult nearly twice her age he should go nowhere near her. Obviously he isn't responsible just a perv who will get whats coming to him.

Yep.

 

[The Bear]

I'm asking as I don't know here - Is Johnson's case in the eyes of the law the same as if a bloke went out and violently raped a woman who was overage? I. E. Does it carry the same charge and sentencing etc?

 

[Lupo]

Absolutely. I agree 100%. He took advantage of her and deserves to be punished for it.

However it doesn't mean that in both cases the 15 year old girl wasn't prepared emotionally or physically for it though.

In my year at school there was a girl who was 15 and shagging a lad two years higher up from the 6th form. She was proud of it and bragged about it to her friends. Does that mean I should have been reporting it all to the police so that he could be sent down and nothing whatsoever happen to her? Each situation and person is different. That's all I'm trying to say.

I see what you're saying and agree to an extent but in the eyes of the law she is still a child and he is a supposedly mature man so the onus of responsibility lies firmly with him regardless of how flirty and provocative she (no doubt) was towards her hero. He knew her age and should have known better

 

[Tony Towner]

Absolutely. I agree 100%. He took advantage of her and deserves to be punished for it.

However it doesn't mean that in both cases the 15 year old girl wasn't prepared emotionally or physically for it though.

In my year at school there was a girl who was 15 and shagging a lad two years higher up from the 6th form. She was proud of it and bragged about it to her friends. Does that mean I should have been reporting it all to the police so that he could be sent down and nothing whatsoever happen to her? Each situation and person is different. That's all I'm trying to say.

And if you had the 17 year old lad would have got a caution at worst, bollocking at best. Johnson is 28, the police /CPS take the age of the perpetrator into account

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I'm asking as I don't know here - Is Johnson's case in the eyes of the law the same as if a bloke went out and violently raped a woman who was overage? I. E. Does it carry the same charge and sentencing etc?

No - he hasn't been charged with rape. He has been charged with other offences. Sentencing isn't as high. 14 years and so on, rather than life max for rape.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Absolutely. I agree 100%. He took advantage of her and deserves to be punished for it.

However it doesn't mean that in both cases the 15 year old girl wasn't prepared emotionally or physically for it though.

In my year at school there was a girl who was 15 and shagging a lad two years higher up from the 6th form. She was proud of it and bragged about it to her friends. Does that mean I should have been reporting it all to the police so that he could be sent down and nothing whatsoever happen to her? Each situation and person is different. That's all I'm trying to say.

Seriously? Have a word.

A 28 year old man in a position of trust is completely fucking different. Massively.

 

[Tony Towner]

Had the pleasure of Derby vs MK today. It would appear that the 'Derby Way' involves putting Bradley Johnson on the left wing. They were shocking and Martin and Johnson are both at least half a stone overweight. MK came for a 00, but realised with about 25 mins to go they could win it. Scored straight from a free kick that was a good strike by Forster-Caskey, but I thought Carson could have done better

 

[Donegal Wolf]

UEFA re-considering how they tender their tv rights for the CL, seems they are not happy that BT Sport figures for games are in the region of 200,00 when with ITV it was 4-5million

 

[MARKakaJIM]

UEFA re-considering how they tender their tv rights for the CL, seems they are not happy that BT Sport figures for games are in the region of 200,00 when with ITV it was 4-5million

Hardly a fair comparison.

 

[Parkins left foot]

UEFA re-considering how they tender their tv rights for the CL, seems they are not happy that BT Sport figures for games are in the region of 200,00 when with ITV it was 4-5million

That's because BT Sports are charging stupid prices for the service - then again they paid a stupid price so need to get it back somehow