I think my qualm is that the trial was meant to be August sort of time to my knowledge and was then postponed. Obviously I don't know the ins and outs and there is a chance that this delay was a one off.
I know some of you are a bit dismissive of his behaviour being just a kiss or whatever. I do question how you would feel if a similar thing occurred to a family member of yours? He's also yet to be trialed for the other two cases so could be a lot worse?
As a precedent I would prefer any matter to do with Children s£x matters to be resolved as soon as possible. And if not have stricter bail protocols to prevent suspects from working in high profile jobs or professions with high child involvement until proven to be innocent. Immediacy of trials would prevent too much disruption to innocent parties.
Junction I think it's a strong suggestion to not name or shame people. This would hopefully protect those wrongly accused although wasn't it originally announced as a 27year old from the Wear Side area? Think people will always find out identities of high profile individuals by some means. Even so, if he wasn't named and we didn't learn until today I would be very disappointed knowing that he had been let to continue being in the public's eyes for the past 6 months without conclusive evidence he wasn't a criminal.
Just my opinion and appreciate there are certain priorities for trials etc.
Slightly off topic, whilst the age of consent is 16 & if you are 15 & under you are classed as a child unless.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................you want to fly off somewhere & then they say children aged 12 & over pay the full adult price!!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
its not the delay in proceedings that isn't fair....its the naming and shaming that's unfair before a trial/verdict/plea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
He's admitted to kissing an under age girl, and to grooming her.
Pretty low life stuff, but hardly a hanging offense particularly when we don't know all the facts. Did she lie about her age? Has he been set up (Hardly a first)?
Don't be too quick to judge.
Deserves to have it chopped off if you ask me the caant
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
its not the delay in proceedings that isn't fair....its the naming and shaming that's unfair before a trial/verdict/plea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
He's admitted to kissing an under age girl, and to grooming her.
Pretty low life stuff, but hardly a hanging offense particularly when we don't know all the facts. Did she lie about her age? Has he been set up (Hardly a first)?
Don't be too quick to judge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry's any sexual activity with a child no matter how little or minor the offence is unacceptable, if he's admitted grooming her then the facker must have known she was underage
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
But if she's on year older it's all ok...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Full Back Killer... 'If you blink, you'll miss it' (Ledley, King of N17) (U15152)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
its not the delay in proceedings that isn't fair....its the naming and shaming that's unfair before a trial/verdict/plea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
He's admitted to kissing an under age girl, and to grooming her.
Pretty low life stuff, but hardly a hanging offense particularly when we don't know all the facts. Did she lie about her age? Has he been set up (Hardly a first)?
Don't be too quick to judge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry's any sexual activity with a child no matter how little or minor the offence is unacceptable, if he's admitted grooming her then the facker must have known she was underage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily, he wouldn't be guilty of grooming her if he chatted her up online under the impression she was 16.
No doubt he's been stupid, and if he did so knowingly then he deserves all he gets but I don't like trial by media.
Remember that poor sod in Bristol a year or so ago, the red tops had him hung, drawn and quartered .......... turns out he'd done fack all.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
An 18 year old and a 15 year old is illegal
A 40 year old and a 16 year old is legal
They should make the limit half your age and add 7
Well thats how the law and certain rules work. They have to draw the line somewhere.
For example, at 17 you can legally drive but not vote or buy alcohol in a pub. If you're mentally ill and have the mental age of a 12 year old you can legally drink but probably not be allowed a driving licence.
If you're an 18 year old dwarf smaller than the Thorpe Park rabbit you cant go on some of the rides, where as a tall 6 year old can.
Shiiiiiiit happens.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
15 year old girls these days can easily pass for 20 the way they dress and makeup etc. But he has admitted knowing her age, so he has been a silly boy. The girl in question is probably just as much to blame as Johnson though.
If it was the other way round and I was a 15 year old lad being seduced and groomed by an older woman, I would think all my birthday`s had come at once, and I certainly would not be telling anybody.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Fs, it is NOT okay to bang 15 year olds
Not even if your 18 Analog or if she seems up for it Billy The Yidd
Have a word with yourselves
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by Full Back Killer... 'If you blink, you'll miss it' (Ledley, King of N17) (U15152)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
its not the delay in proceedings that isn't fair....its the naming and shaming that's unfair before a trial/verdict/plea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
He's admitted to kissing an under age girl, and to grooming her.
Pretty low life stuff, but hardly a hanging offense particularly when we don't know all the facts. Did she lie about her age? Has he been set up (Hardly a first)?
Don't be too quick to judge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry's any sexual activity with a child no matter how little or minor the offence is unacceptable, if he's admitted grooming her then the facker must have known she was underage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily, he wouldn't be guilty of grooming her if he chatted her up online under the impression she was 16.
No doubt he's been stupid, and if he did so knowingly then he deserves all he gets but I don't like trial by media.
Remember that poor sod in Bristol a year or so ago, the red tops had him hung, drawn and quartered .......... turns out he'd done fack all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry I completely agree that everybody deserves the right to a fair trial and not a trial by media as you allude to..
However he's pleaded guilty to a count of s£xual activity and grooming so he's taken the decision himself there. The media aren't labeling him guilty.
Got to agree with Sizzle here the laws there to protect those under the age of 16 under the basis that they are not mature and informed enough to commit to consensual s£x and other activities. Even if they may seem older with all their makeup etc, that almost highlights their immaturity in my view.
Do agree that it's still not morally right for an older fella to try it on with a girl who just turned 16 but that's more a breach of a moral law.
What AJ admitted to is a breach of a legal law and I'm disappointed it wasn't resolved earlier.
Sign in if you want to comment
Johnson admits to charge
Page 3 of 5
posted on 10/2/16
I think my qualm is that the trial was meant to be August sort of time to my knowledge and was then postponed. Obviously I don't know the ins and outs and there is a chance that this delay was a one off.
I know some of you are a bit dismissive of his behaviour being just a kiss or whatever. I do question how you would feel if a similar thing occurred to a family member of yours? He's also yet to be trialed for the other two cases so could be a lot worse?
As a precedent I would prefer any matter to do with Children s£x matters to be resolved as soon as possible. And if not have stricter bail protocols to prevent suspects from working in high profile jobs or professions with high child involvement until proven to be innocent. Immediacy of trials would prevent too much disruption to innocent parties.
Junction I think it's a strong suggestion to not name or shame people. This would hopefully protect those wrongly accused although wasn't it originally announced as a 27year old from the Wear Side area? Think people will always find out identities of high profile individuals by some means. Even so, if he wasn't named and we didn't learn until today I would be very disappointed knowing that he had been let to continue being in the public's eyes for the past 6 months without conclusive evidence he wasn't a criminal.
Just my opinion and appreciate there are certain priorities for trials etc.
posted on 10/2/16
Slightly off topic, whilst the age of consent is 16 & if you are 15 & under you are classed as a child unless.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................you want to fly off somewhere & then they say children aged 12 & over pay the full adult price!!
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
its not the delay in proceedings that isn't fair....its the naming and shaming that's unfair before a trial/verdict/plea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
He's admitted to kissing an under age girl, and to grooming her.
Pretty low life stuff, but hardly a hanging offense particularly when we don't know all the facts. Did she lie about her age? Has he been set up (Hardly a first)?
Don't be too quick to judge.
posted on 10/2/16
Deserves to have it chopped off if you ask me the caant
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
its not the delay in proceedings that isn't fair....its the naming and shaming that's unfair before a trial/verdict/plea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
He's admitted to kissing an under age girl, and to grooming her.
Pretty low life stuff, but hardly a hanging offense particularly when we don't know all the facts. Did she lie about her age? Has he been set up (Hardly a first)?
Don't be too quick to judge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry's any sexual activity with a child no matter how little or minor the offence is unacceptable, if he's admitted grooming her then the facker must have known she was underage
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
But if she's on year older it's all ok...
posted on 10/2/16
*one
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
comment by Full Back Killer... 'If you blink, you'll miss it' (Ledley, King of N17) (U15152)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
its not the delay in proceedings that isn't fair....its the naming and shaming that's unfair before a trial/verdict/plea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
He's admitted to kissing an under age girl, and to grooming her.
Pretty low life stuff, but hardly a hanging offense particularly when we don't know all the facts. Did she lie about her age? Has he been set up (Hardly a first)?
Don't be too quick to judge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry's any sexual activity with a child no matter how little or minor the offence is unacceptable, if he's admitted grooming her then the facker must have known she was underage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily, he wouldn't be guilty of grooming her if he chatted her up online under the impression she was 16.
No doubt he's been stupid, and if he did so knowingly then he deserves all he gets but I don't like trial by media.
Remember that poor sod in Bristol a year or so ago, the red tops had him hung, drawn and quartered .......... turns out he'd done fack all.
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
An 18 year old and a 15 year old is illegal
A 40 year old and a 16 year old is legal
They should make the limit half your age and add 7
posted on 10/2/16
Well thats how the law and certain rules work. They have to draw the line somewhere.
For example, at 17 you can legally drive but not vote or buy alcohol in a pub. If you're mentally ill and have the mental age of a 12 year old you can legally drink but probably not be allowed a driving licence.
If you're an 18 year old dwarf smaller than the Thorpe Park rabbit you cant go on some of the rides, where as a tall 6 year old can.
Shiiiiiiit happens.
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
15 year old girls these days can easily pass for 20 the way they dress and makeup etc. But he has admitted knowing her age, so he has been a silly boy. The girl in question is probably just as much to blame as Johnson though.
If it was the other way round and I was a 15 year old lad being seduced and groomed by an older woman, I would think all my birthday`s had come at once, and I certainly would not be telling anybody.
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/16
Fs, it is NOT okay to bang 15 year olds
Not even if your 18 Analog or if she seems up for it Billy The Yidd
Have a word with yourselves
posted on 10/2/16
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by Full Back Killer... 'If you blink, you'll miss it' (Ledley, King of N17) (U15152)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Harrys accountant (U1141)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
its not the delay in proceedings that isn't fair....its the naming and shaming that's unfair before a trial/verdict/plea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
He's admitted to kissing an under age girl, and to grooming her.
Pretty low life stuff, but hardly a hanging offense particularly when we don't know all the facts. Did she lie about her age? Has he been set up (Hardly a first)?
Don't be too quick to judge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry's any sexual activity with a child no matter how little or minor the offence is unacceptable, if he's admitted grooming her then the facker must have known she was underage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily, he wouldn't be guilty of grooming her if he chatted her up online under the impression she was 16.
No doubt he's been stupid, and if he did so knowingly then he deserves all he gets but I don't like trial by media.
Remember that poor sod in Bristol a year or so ago, the red tops had him hung, drawn and quartered .......... turns out he'd done fack all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry I completely agree that everybody deserves the right to a fair trial and not a trial by media as you allude to..
However he's pleaded guilty to a count of s£xual activity and grooming so he's taken the decision himself there. The media aren't labeling him guilty.
Got to agree with Sizzle here the laws there to protect those under the age of 16 under the basis that they are not mature and informed enough to commit to consensual s£x and other activities. Even if they may seem older with all their makeup etc, that almost highlights their immaturity in my view.
Do agree that it's still not morally right for an older fella to try it on with a girl who just turned 16 but that's more a breach of a moral law.
What AJ admitted to is a breach of a legal law and I'm disappointed it wasn't resolved earlier.
Page 3 of 5