RenfrewBlue Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 There's no blame for the girl no matter how she behaved. He's an adult that knew better. It's all his fault and suggesting otherwise is frankly disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 45 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said: There's no blame for the girl no matter how she behaved. He's an adult that knew better. It's all his fault and suggesting otherwise is frankly disgusting. This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 A few drops of info.. It's not pedophilia it's Ephebophilia. Her irresponsibility is a given by the fact she is considered a minor. So is irrelevant to the case in that context. She cannot give consent, so regardless of whatever she does, she cannot give consent. Same with a drunk person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huddersfield Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 29 minutes ago, phart said: A few drops of info.. It's not pedophilia it's Ephebophilia. Her irresponsibility is a given by the fact she is considered a minor. So is irrelevant to the case in that context. She cannot give consent, so regardless of whatever she does, she cannot give consent. Same with a drunk person. That's not completely correct in law. There is a distinction between age of consent and capacity to give consent. That difference is important in, for example cases of (say) a 15y 11m & 16y old where there is a statutory defence of mistaken age. I think from memory 13 is the age for incapacity to give consent, which means that the offence of sex with someone under that age becomes statutory rape & I believe carries a mandatory life sentence. Nonetheless, the offence of sex with an underage person is still essentially binary in most cases, a legal principle that has evolved largely to take away that type of defence & put the onus on the older party (whatever their gender) to take responsibility for ensuring the person's age before doing anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Huddersfield said: That's not completely correct in law. There is a distinction between age of consent and capacity to give consent. That difference is important in, for example cases of (say) a 15y 11m & 16y old where there is a statutory defence of mistaken age. I think from memory 13 is the age for incapacity to give consent, which means that the offence of sex with someone under that age becomes statutory rape & I believe carries a mandatory life sentence. Nonetheless, the offence of sex with an underage person is still essentially binary in most cases, a legal principle that has evolved largely to take away that type of defence & put the onus on the older party (whatever their gender) to take responsibility for ensuring the person's age before doing anything. Surely not? Aren't you thinking of murder? Are Scots and English law the same on this? By the way, I think you're right about the law making a distinction between under 16 and under 14. I think the judge can consider consent as a mitigating factor for under 16 but not under 14. The age of the offender is also a factor as well, and I'd say Johnson was well into you're-in-big-trouble category for that. He's nearly twice her age. I will admit however, reports of ten years in prison - well, I'd be surprised. There's a bad man convicted of five rapes there yesterday given a recommended sentence of 12.5 years before being eligible for parole. I wonder if there's more aggravating stuff to come out when we get the sentence? I haven't really been following it that closely right enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis McBasher Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 6 hours ago, Kirk said: No being funny but the girl is old enough to know right and wrong too. Doesnt excuse him for being a creep, but she should be held accountable for some of it. A child should be held accountable for being sexual assaulted by an adult? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mox Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 7 hours ago, Kirk said: No being funny but the girl is old enough to know right and wrong too. Doesnt excuse him for being a creep, but she should be held accountable for some of it. You're at the wind up, surely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) In most countries in Europe it would not even be a crime. I just did a quick search for an example but is he any worse than this paedophile? Who got off with no prison. So why is this guy so bad? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schoolboy-groomed-teaching-assistant-we-6536549 edit: and that was a teacher so in a 'position of trust'. Edited March 3, 2016 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Fallen idol Adam Johnson is considering an appeal as he faces being locked up alongside notorious killers Ian Huntley and Levi Bellfield. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/adam-johnson-considering-appeal-faces-7487255#rlabs=2%20rt$sitewide%20p$10 Hmmm... whereas... Berriman, of Chadderton, Oldham, was handed a two-year sentence, suspended for two years at Minshull Street Crown Court, having pleaded guilty to all three charges at an earlier hearing. She faces 250 hours of unpaid community work - and was ordered to pay a £100 victim surcharge. Berriman must also obey a restraining order prohibiting her from contacting or seeing the victim - who cannot be named for legal reasons. She admitted she committed the offences while exercising a degree of responsibility for the teenager’s education - and that she had exploited her position of trust. Can someone explain the massive difference in sentencing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac1 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) For some reason if it is an older man and young girl then it is looked upon as worse. Not the first time an older woman has been let off with this. No idea how though and what she did is far worse than Johnson and she came from a position of trust. A male teacher would never have been let off had he done the same with an underage girl. Edited March 3, 2016 by iainmac1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 18 minutes ago, iainmac1 said: For some reason if it is an older man and young girl then it is looked upon as worse. Not the first time an older woman has been let off with this. No idea how though and what she did is far worse than Johnson and she came from a position of trust. A male teacher would never have been let off had he done the same with an underage girl. Having sex 50 times versus Johnson 'only touching'... In jail with Ian Huntley versus 250 community service... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Haggis McBasher said: A child should be held accountable for being sexual assaulted by an adult? Really? Assaulted seems a strong word. No defence for what he did, this wasn't an accidental or impulsive incident, the grooming and all the rest tell us he knew exactly what he was doing. Baffled by why he did it. I think I can see the point 1 or 2 are making? She did appear to be a willing participant. It's also a bit weird (that's not the word, but can't think what is) how the arbitrary line is drawn at 16, 15 years and 11 months = paedo, 16 years and 1 day = ok. Although in this context I don't think it's particularly relevant, as he knew she was 15 and appears to have gone to lengths to make these things happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huddersfield Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 3 hours ago, adamntg said: Surely not? Aren't you thinking of murder? Are Scots and English law the same on this? By the way, I think you're right about the law making a distinction between under 16 and under 14. I think the judge can consider consent as a mitigating factor for under 16 but not under 14. The age of the offender is also a factor as well, and I'd say Johnson was well into you're-in-big-trouble category for that. He's nearly twice her age. I will admit however, reports of ten years in prison - well, I'd be surprised. There's a bad man convicted of five rapes there yesterday given a recommended sentence of 12.5 years before being eligible for parole. I wonder if there's more aggravating stuff to come out when we get the sentence? I haven't really been following it that closely right enough. I rattled that off quickly from the top of my head...a quick read up shows that life falls within the sentencing guidelines but you're correct isn't mandatory. I don't really know much about Scottish procedures to be honest as I've only ever worked in the English system. I take the point others have made about arbitrary lines but I think you just have to draw a line somewhere otherwise test cases will keep pushing it down. If you take a fairly crass comparison, underage drinking, the law simply works better if you have that line. If there was a test of capacity to drink I'd imagine over time ever younger kids would be boozing. Anyway in AJ's case, the girl will have been deemed to be capable of consent (hence the charge wasn't rape), but not legally allowed to have sex, hence the offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 They didn't have intercourse as far as I heard, that's part of the definition of rape isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 There's arbitrary lines and then there's prosecutor's discretion. There are plenty of cases to be found where sexual activity with a fifteen year old has resulted in a police caution - is it Johnson's age, or celebrity or the grooming that means this case is being taken so seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 6 minutes ago, adamntg said: There's arbitrary lines and then there's prosecutor's discretion. There are plenty of cases to be found where sexual activity with a fifteen year old has resulted in a police caution - is it Johnson's age, or celebrity or the grooming that means this case is being taken so seriously? Agree about that. The arbitrary line thing would be some sort of defence in different circumstances, but with the grooming and "research" etc. it's not so much in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huddersfield Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 16 minutes ago, adamntg said: They didn't have intercourse as far as I heard, that's part of the definition of rape isn't it? Rape covers a variety of penetrative sexual activities, not just intercourse. Part of the charge I believed related to oral sex I think?? The bit he was not guilty of? To your other point, the age difference is an aggravating factor, as is the grooming. I have dealt with plenty of blokes that have done a stretch for inappropriate touching (no penetration) of u.16 yo relatives for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 6 hours ago, Huddersfield said: That's not completely correct in law. There is a distinction between age of consent and capacity to give consent. That difference is important in, for example cases of (say) a 15y 11m & 16y old where there is a statutory defence of mistaken age. I think from memory 13 is the age for incapacity to give consent, which means that the offence of sex with someone under that age becomes statutory rape & I believe carries a mandatory life sentence. Nonetheless, the offence of sex with an underage person is still essentially binary in most cases, a legal principle that has evolved largely to take away that type of defence & put the onus on the older party (whatever their gender) to take responsibility for ensuring the person's age before doing anything. Cheers for the correction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 31 minutes ago, Huddersfield said: Rape covers a variety of penetrative sexual activities, not just intercourse. Part of the charge I believed related to oral sex I think?? The bit he was not guilty of? To your other point, the age difference is an aggravating factor, as is the grooming. I have dealt with plenty of blokes that have done a stretch for inappropriate touching (no penetration) of u.16 yo relatives for example. Oh aye, you can't beat a bit of incest to ratchet up the aggravation. This is all very unpleasant. Think I'll go back to the fitba topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wulliemac Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 3 hours ago, thplinth said: Having sex 50 times versus Johnson 'only touching'... In jail with Ian Huntley versus 250 community service... 3 hours ago, thplinth said: Having sex 50 times versus Johnson 'only touching'... In jail with Ian Huntley versus 250 community service... Think the sentence was appealed in that case, and the classroom assistant did end up getting the jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 17 hours ago, Barney Rubble said: However reprehensible Johnson's actions were, the 15 year old's conduct was irresponsible in this instance. Immaturity does not absolve any youngster from acting responsibly particularly where personal safety is concerned. Yea, she knew exactly what she was doing. He shouldnt have behaved how he has but shes not innocent in it all. 16 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said: There's no blame for the girl no matter how she behaved. He's an adult that knew better. It's all his fault and suggesting otherwise is frankly disgusting. Sorry that I dont see the world in black and white. She was a willing participant. 12 hours ago, Haggis McBasher said: A child should be held accountable for being sexual assaulted by an adult? Really? I dont think willingly doing it and texting him the way she was is really her being sexualy assaulted. 11 hours ago, Mox said: You're at the wind up, surely. Nop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huddersfield Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 The real flaw in that position is that it assumes a girl who might be highly sexually active is doing it through informed choice, but that's really not the case. Do a quick Google Scholar on the subject & you will uncover fairly consistent findings going back over decades that links early promiscuous behaviour to sexual abuse, and indeed more recent research is showing that physical and emotional neglect have similar impacts. You just can't assume that every girl that ever enters a sexual relationship does it for positive reasons. A 15-year-old who enters multiple sexual relationships is almost certainly not doing it for emotionally positive reasons. I don't know anything about the girl, but I feel drawn to think that she either fell into that category, or was a starstruck fan who thought she'd got lucky. I'm struggling to see how either of those scenarios in any way reduce his culpability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 17 minutes ago, Huddersfield said: I don't know anything about the girl, but I feel drawn to think that she either fell into that category, or was a starstruck fan who thought she'd got lucky. I'm struggling to see how either of those scenarios in any way reduce his culpability. I fully agree with your analysis, however neither of those scenarios, or Johnson's clearly evident culpability, negate that her actions in this case were both ill-informed and irresponsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huddersfield Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 9 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said: I fully agree with your analysis, however neither of those scenarios, or Johnson's clearly evident culpability, negate that her actions in this case were both ill-informed and irresponsible. I'm not going to pretend I know anything much about this case because I don't, I'm more talking about what I know generally from having worked with less high profile offenders & victim services. Scenarios where setled & stable 15 yo girls engage in sexual activity are usually way different to this. I struggle to think that she just took a shine to this guy & his status as a Premiership footballer was by the by. And once you grant that he used his status to entice her, then just as in any abusive situation that feels like a fairly bog standard abuse of power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Kirk said: Yea, she knew exactly what she was doing. He shouldnt have behaved how he has but shes not innocent in it all. Sorry that I dont see the world in black and white. She was a willing participant. I dont think willingly doing it and texting him the way she was is really her being sexualy assaulted. Nop It's got feck all to do with black and white. It's doesn't matter what she did or how she behaved. He's an adult and has admitted to grooming her. Just think about that for a minute. He's put time and effort into getting her into the position where he can get what he wanted. Why did he do that? He's a filthy pervert and nothing changes that. As Huddersfield has said, from a position of experience, shows just how wrong you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.