Not to get in the way of your Old Testament nuttery, but there is a distinct definition of paedophile and he isn't one.
Hoping he gets raped says a lot about you as well.
Adam Johnson found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a child | Sentenced to six years
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
- Status
Hoping he gets raped says a lot about you as well.
According to another poster here the sentencing range available was 4-10 years so it's actually the mid range of what was available. Which seems fair when you consider he groomed the kid, didn't plead guilty and showed no remorse. In those circumstances it would be weird to give him the most lenient sentence possible.
I'm actually surprised that this even went to court. You'd expect this girl to have been given a few million to keep quiet.
So from condeming one act of sexual misconduct you'd condone homosexual rape?
Stone the guy and be done with it.
You can chuck the first one.
Last edited:
Yes, I see it now, the range of sentence is for 'grooming a child' where a child is someone under 16. Some possible mitigation falls apart for him, mid range is where we are.
Oh but she's 15, doesn't hold a lot of water because he is nearly 30. Lucky he didn't get longer,
.Wanting women to be treated equally isn't weird. There doesn't need to be a definition of it though, you just need to not be a cnut and treat people fairly. Those who attach a definition are almost always cnuts (not saying you are, like) who, in reality, actually want the best of both worlds and for women to be treated equally when it suits, yet have preferential treatment the rest of the time.
My mother is a very strong woman yet she would never brand herself with a depreciating feminist tag.
The big Winston part was a joke ffs.
There isn't any Old Testament nuttery in this and I actually take offence to that. I have someone very close to me that was raped at 14 by a MUCH older man so you keep your judgement of me to yourself please!
I actually posted that same link a couple pages back. The thing that really swung it there was the kid's piece of shit dad who basically picked her up and took her off the hook himself so he could carry on banging her.
still love the way no way has answered the simple question as to why two female teachers got let off for having sex with under age boys but he gets 6 years for not even having sex with a 15 year old who wasn't exactly innocent. both teachers must have groomed the boys, just like he did. abused their position in society etc etc. or is it just me not understanding this element which is as to why no one has bothered to explain this simple fact?
That's one of the very small consolations to come from crimes/tragedies being discussed on the caf - it marks out the lunatics so you don't have to read their future posts.
This thread is certainly bringing out the worst in some people
Well it wasn't funny, quite obviously. If you're going to post things you can expect to be judged accordingly and that post was deserving of the response it received.
I should have put a smiley after the Winston comment. It was a poor attempt at humour on my part. I do not condone any form of actual rape. I have a family member that was abused and raped when she was very young.
Cases like this are very personal to me and I'm glad that they've thrown the book at him.
Fair enough mate.
Ok no prob
In many ways these sentencing models seem to be a bit of a "tick the box" exercise where there are certain requirements needed to place the offence in different categories. I'd imagine a lot of crimes that seem much worse fail to meet the specific requirements to get placed in what we outsiders might consider the appropriate punishment range. It would certainly be interesting to read the logic behind those decisions.
Doesn't really change the situation regarding Johnson's sentencing though. The document Damien posted explains it all, it seems pretty straightforward and logical based on what the laws are.
It's been answered over and over again, repeatedly all day.
in what way? i'm just taking this a little personally as you haven't specified what is bothering you as surely someone (ie. I) can ask why in recent cases women are getting let off after having sex with their under age students (in one case a 12 year old boy), yet Mr J gets 6 years and he didn't have sex with her.
Don't get me wrong, i despise the guy, but i just don't understand why female teachers have abused their position and get let off for having sex when he did less (if you classify as what he did physically as less).
I complete feel for the girl, but it just seems such double standards because he's a guy / famous that he's getting this when others have done worse.
It might not have been angled at my comment but as you made such a general accusation it was worth commenting on
but it hasn't mate. no one has clearly explained why there's one rule for famous men over "normal" women who also abuse their position for the same or worse crime but get let off. it's a fair question.
Because law is complicated and takes years of hard work and study to practice?
Why are people surprised they don't understand a complicated and multi layered subject matter?
Erm, did you mean to quote me?
You've partly answered your own question with two words in bold.
Add to that the fact he's famous, and famous for playing football (gasp). And everyone knows how much 'overpaid' footballers aren't really liked.
@Earthquake
let me put it this way. i have both a daughter and son and by the most oddest of chances they were both the victims of the following true stories.
if my son were the victim of one of the teachers, i wouldn't be shouting all over the place, "yes, my boy lost his virginity to an older woman at 12, get in son". I'd be more worried about what affect it would have on him later in life, would he expect it to be normal etc later in life. He was 12, one of the victims and she got off. how the feck did she get off (pardon the pun) after what she did?
If my daughter were to be AJ's victim, i'd be just as worried in the sense how she'd be traumatized for sure, without a doubt. It was illegal and he abused his position. But also i'd feel partly responsibly as she wasn't innocent and she was near 4 years older than the male victim.
So again, why the difference as you're obviously more aware of it than me as i can't find an answer to my question
let me put it this way. i have both a daughter and son and by the most oddest of chances they were both the victims of the following true stories.
if my son were the victim of one of the teachers, i wouldn't be shouting all over the place, "yes, my boy lost his virginity to an older woman at 12, get in son". I'd be more worried about what affect it would have on him later in life, would he expect it to be normal etc later in life. He was 12, one of the victims and she got off. how the feck did she get off (pardon the pun) after what she did?
If my daughter were to be AJ's victim, i'd be just as worried in the sense how she'd be traumatized for sure, without a doubt. It was illegal and he abused his position. But also i'd feel partly responsibly as she wasn't innocent and she was near 4 years older than the male victim.
So again, why the difference as you're obviously more aware of it than me as i can't find an answer to my question
You keep telling yourself that. There's heaps and heaps of studies confirming this significant disparity.
but then a good lawyer would be able to fight for discrimination against men / famous people and get them off. have you all not been watching the OJ drama? dang, i was in the states at the time and couldn't believe it. i can't believe they are not playing this card to get him off.
not sure i did mate
Good for the studies. I'm sure they were conducted by those very same people who are qualified to use and make sense of that information.
Just don't be surprised that you can't get random posters on Redcafe to give a worthwhile answer on such a complicated subject.
The fact he didn't fess up straight away and instead strung it out for a year so he could keep on banking £60k a week probably didn't endear him to the judge much. Still the sentence seems at least 4 years too long to me!
Well yes, obviously his status as a footballer was taken into account. It was extremely relevant to both the nature of the crime and the way the sentencing guidelines were applied.
You make it sound like some sort of unfair double standard when it appears the judge was actually required to weigh it as a factor in his sentencing.
Oscar Pistorius got less then that for putting more holes in his girlfriend then a slice off Swiss cheese
It's not hard, these are extensive studies that simply compares relatable crimes. What are you saying exactly? These studies have been tainted or falsified in some way?
You're looking at the victims, that's only half the case. Johnson's completely lack of remorse and general disregard of the levity of the situation didn't help, along with being a high profile case to make an example of. Also consider that it's been a premeditated action which he researched, and then went ahead, rather than purely a heat of the moment mistake.
The thinking of some people in this thread is stunning:
"If she was my daughter, I'd kick his head in and want him hung."
"She's not my daughter, so I feel that the sentence is harsh."
Well done, geniuseseseseses...
"If she was my daughter, I'd kick his head in and want him hung."
"She's not my daughter, so I feel that the sentence is harsh."
Well done, geniuseseseseses...
On one level everything is very clear cut. The judge pointed this out succinctly and accurately. From that stand point the sentence makes perfect sense.
But there are questions being asked here that challenge the fundamental premises on which the law is based and they can't be brushed away by saying that we just need to accept that we are just too stupid to understand the complexity of the thinking. Sexual equality vs old ideas about men and women. Why do women apparently get off with lesser sentences? Do we, men, tap the young girl in the high street in mini skirt on the shoulder and ask whether she is over 16 before we ogle her legs and bum. Is it ok to look as long as you don't act out? What message then does that send the downloaders of child porn? What do you do when young girls are reaching sexual maturity earlier and earlier. And what of the overtly coquettish behaviour of some girls that was apparently featured in some measure this case.
It is a minefield.
But there are questions being asked here that challenge the fundamental premises on which the law is based and they can't be brushed away by saying that we just need to accept that we are just too stupid to understand the complexity of the thinking. Sexual equality vs old ideas about men and women. Why do women apparently get off with lesser sentences? Do we, men, tap the young girl in the high street in mini skirt on the shoulder and ask whether she is over 16 before we ogle her legs and bum. Is it ok to look as long as you don't act out? What message then does that send the downloaders of child porn? What do you do when young girls are reaching sexual maturity earlier and earlier. And what of the overtly coquettish behaviour of some girls that was apparently featured in some measure this case.
It is a minefield.
Doesn't seem all that odd, when you take into consideration the particular features of the case.
If a person knows exactly what he's doing, knows he's breaking the law, gets caught but fails to admit his guilt, and then to top it off conducts himself in a disrespectful manner during the trial – well, what do you expect? They throw the book at the cnut, obviously.
That said, courts obviously aren't infallible. Could very well be that those female offenders people keep coming back to got away cheaply, but it's always a question of individual circumstances. For one thing, both of them seem to have cooperated fully with the authorities and admitted their guilt straight away. That obviously makes a difference regardless of what crime you've committed.
If a person knows exactly what he's doing, knows he's breaking the law, gets caught but fails to admit his guilt, and then to top it off conducts himself in a disrespectful manner during the trial – well, what do you expect? They throw the book at the cnut, obviously.
That said, courts obviously aren't infallible. Could very well be that those female offenders people keep coming back to got away cheaply, but it's always a question of individual circumstances. For one thing, both of them seem to have cooperated fully with the authorities and admitted their guilt straight away. That obviously makes a difference regardless of what crime you've committed.
and you're telling me both the female teacher's cases weren't premeditated and didn't know what they were doing (you do realise they had sex on numerous occasions) ? they were teachers, they'd be more aware than most thick footballers what they were doing as it's a part of teacher training. AJ probably has the IQ of most 15 year olds but teachers don't.
i'm not looking for an argument but you seem to be finding a way to justify it's ok for the lenience of the female teachers but if it's a famous guy / male lets shut the guy behind bars.
Are all these statements saying he was into beastiality and had numerous animal videos true?
If so then he truly is a sick fecker
If so then he truly is a sick fecker
Six years fecking hell. In all honesty I know little about the case I haven't bothered reading much but 6 years is a long time.
ok, hypothetical situation... i'm a male teacher and have sex with a 15 year old. i won't even talk about the case about the one who had sex with a 12 year old. are you saying if i were to do that, cooperate and admit my guilt and show deep remorse i'd be let off with the same punishment as those two female teachers. absolutely no chance. both those female teachers knew what they were doing and were fully trained on what was legal / allowed and what is not.
it's just double standards for certain crimes.
Can you honestly say that you've never even seen a pic of such stuff?
- Status