Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Agree Or Disagree?
158 Answers
http://
I wager that most are thinking exactly what Kate Hopkins has dared to say, but have been frightened in case they are accused of siding with a 'paedophile' or showing no sympathy for a 'child's' suffering etc etc.
Please don't turn this thread into a anti-Kate Hopkins or even anti-AOG, just comment on the case itself.
Yes we all know that he committed a UK criminal act, but is the media blowing this case out of all proportion?
I wager that most are thinking exactly what Kate Hopkins has dared to say, but have been frightened in case they are accused of siding with a 'paedophile' or showing no sympathy for a 'child's' suffering etc etc.
Please don't turn this thread into a anti-Kate Hopkins or even anti-AOG, just comment on the case itself.
Yes we all know that he committed a UK criminal act, but is the media blowing this case out of all proportion?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Firstly he is not a paedophile as the child he abused is over the designated age limit for paedophiles!!
As for the trash that this person has written I believe one direct quote is '*** to wag'!!
Sorry I could never agree with anyone who would think that about a child who has been abused by a person in a position of trust.
As for the trash that this person has written I believe one direct quote is '*** to wag'!!
Sorry I could never agree with anyone who would think that about a child who has been abused by a person in a position of trust.
These stories almost always pan out the way this one has - people trying to figure out exactly which shades of grey were in place here, and others who see it entirely in black and white.
Ms. Hopkins adopts her usual bullish approach, which centres round her usual 'My child would know better than to get into a situation like this ...' - which by default paints her as the perfect parent who has made sure of that.
But the truth is, no matter how well we educate our children, there are situations out there which they are utterly unprepared for, and young girls exploring their sexuality are prone to quite a lot of them.
I have said previously when this was debated - young girls do throw themselves at famous young men, but that doesn't mean that famous young men are obliged to catch them!
Are some girls of fifteen streetwise, and know what goes on? Indeed they are, I know, I raised one.
Are some girls of fifteen far more naïve and prone to the sort of hero worship and innocence that has trapped this poor girl? Indeed they are, I know I raised two of them as well.
But - and this is the salient point - at fifteen, dressed go out, they all passed for nineteen, and happily they didn't get themselves into a situation like this - but the situations they could have been in are outside my, or any parents' control, no matter what Ms. Hopkins' lofty pronouncements about her own children and parenting may say.
Johnson is a not a paedophile - but he is a reptile with no brains and no morals, and ... and this is the point ... he has broken the law and been tried accordingly, and will be punished accordingly.
Johnson is the criminal here, not the girl, she is the victim here, not him.
Ms. Hopkins has an audience for her views - a large one, but a volume of agreement does not make any viewpoint the truth - Hitler had a nation behind him, but it doesn't persuade many people that Nazism was a good idea for anyone.
The day I find myself thinking what the majority of Katie Hopkins' hate-bait writing is saying is the say I will stick a fork through my face.
Ms. Hopkins adopts her usual bullish approach, which centres round her usual 'My child would know better than to get into a situation like this ...' - which by default paints her as the perfect parent who has made sure of that.
But the truth is, no matter how well we educate our children, there are situations out there which they are utterly unprepared for, and young girls exploring their sexuality are prone to quite a lot of them.
I have said previously when this was debated - young girls do throw themselves at famous young men, but that doesn't mean that famous young men are obliged to catch them!
Are some girls of fifteen streetwise, and know what goes on? Indeed they are, I know, I raised one.
Are some girls of fifteen far more naïve and prone to the sort of hero worship and innocence that has trapped this poor girl? Indeed they are, I know I raised two of them as well.
But - and this is the salient point - at fifteen, dressed go out, they all passed for nineteen, and happily they didn't get themselves into a situation like this - but the situations they could have been in are outside my, or any parents' control, no matter what Ms. Hopkins' lofty pronouncements about her own children and parenting may say.
Johnson is a not a paedophile - but he is a reptile with no brains and no morals, and ... and this is the point ... he has broken the law and been tried accordingly, and will be punished accordingly.
Johnson is the criminal here, not the girl, she is the victim here, not him.
Ms. Hopkins has an audience for her views - a large one, but a volume of agreement does not make any viewpoint the truth - Hitler had a nation behind him, but it doesn't persuade many people that Nazism was a good idea for anyone.
The day I find myself thinking what the majority of Katie Hopkins' hate-bait writing is saying is the say I will stick a fork through my face.
When that young girl went after Adam Johnson she did it for 1 reason. Not for the money or the fame, but simply to prove to her friends that she could. Adam Johnson fell for it and gave in. The only reason we are now reading about it is because he is some sort of celebrity.This sort of thing happens every day all over the world but because he is 'famous' it makes the headlines.
-- answer removed --
@divebuddy
If you're tired of the repeats and want something new to be said…
//(jim360)
Yes, there is a problem where young girls in particular could be said to "throw themselves" at the rich and famous. Yes, it has to be acknowledged. No, it doesn't have to be blamed on the girls themselves.
//
If this was a nature documentary, we'd be discussing how our genes drive the female to seek the male with ample, visible resources, with which to nurture her offspring and to commence coupling at the earliest opportunity.
Cars are not mere items of clothing. Hence the expression "nah, mate, you'll never get **id, driving around in that!" Hence "midlife crisis man".
If you're tired of the repeats and want something new to be said…
//(jim360)
Yes, there is a problem where young girls in particular could be said to "throw themselves" at the rich and famous. Yes, it has to be acknowledged. No, it doesn't have to be blamed on the girls themselves.
//
If this was a nature documentary, we'd be discussing how our genes drive the female to seek the male with ample, visible resources, with which to nurture her offspring and to commence coupling at the earliest opportunity.
Cars are not mere items of clothing. Hence the expression "nah, mate, you'll never get **id, driving around in that!" Hence "midlife crisis man".
divebuddy - ////abused by a person in a position of trust.//
How on earth could Johnson be described as that. Footballers have a great record of taking the moral stance on things, don't they. NO. //
By definition, adults are in a position of trust where children are concerned.
Footballers are not exempt from this simple moral truth because they choose to regard young women as simply provided for their pleasure and amusement.
I think it is beholden on football clubs who place these immature young men in situations where money and alcohol and 'fame' combine to provide them with situations which are morally and legally wrong, to educate them about the world that goes on beyond their closeted adored feted existence, and that simple decency does not cease to apply to your behaviour when you get a seven-figure bank balance and your name on Match Of The Day.
How on earth could Johnson be described as that. Footballers have a great record of taking the moral stance on things, don't they. NO. //
By definition, adults are in a position of trust where children are concerned.
Footballers are not exempt from this simple moral truth because they choose to regard young women as simply provided for their pleasure and amusement.
I think it is beholden on football clubs who place these immature young men in situations where money and alcohol and 'fame' combine to provide them with situations which are morally and legally wrong, to educate them about the world that goes on beyond their closeted adored feted existence, and that simple decency does not cease to apply to your behaviour when you get a seven-figure bank balance and your name on Match Of The Day.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank40 mins ago
Power Of Social Media Put To Good Use
News53 mins ago
Learn Cpr And First Aid Course In South...
Science180 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles182 mins ago
