Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins 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.
@Hypognosis
wasnt me they were after, was the footie players !, i just happened to live very near one of the nightclubs that when this particular side got into the then 1st div, this team who were all members and if it was a london oppo, plenty of them would turn up also.
These girls would ask us to take them in, buy us a drink for taking them in and then hang around for the footie players hoping to get their drinks paid for all night, and who knows what else...
got to know a few top players fairly well and they used to love talking about their exploits ...say no more !
yeah AJ is guilty, hes a mug and deserves all he gets but Ive seen her sort in action plenty of times...she'll be doing the same but it wont be famous footballers anymore...
wasnt me they were after, was the footie players !, i just happened to live very near one of the nightclubs that when this particular side got into the then 1st div, this team who were all members and if it was a london oppo, plenty of them would turn up also.
These girls would ask us to take them in, buy us a drink for taking them in and then hang around for the footie players hoping to get their drinks paid for all night, and who knows what else...
got to know a few top players fairly well and they used to love talking about their exploits ...say no more !
yeah AJ is guilty, hes a mug and deserves all he gets but Ive seen her sort in action plenty of times...she'll be doing the same but it wont be famous footballers anymore...
-- answer removed --
@all
The time to NOT indulge in victim-blaming is where it was a break-in, or someone dragged away on the street.
Cases where there was considerable interaction before the event need careful consideration and, as all horror-film fanatics know, it is always possible to get more than you bargained for, in any interaction.
As observed in everyone's reply, he knew her age. If he was ever unsure, he could have insisted on meeting her parents, before taking the relationship towards the physical. Laughably old-fashioned, by today's standards, I'd dare say but, with the potential for career implosion, why ever not?
The time to NOT indulge in victim-blaming is where it was a break-in, or someone dragged away on the street.
Cases where there was considerable interaction before the event need careful consideration and, as all horror-film fanatics know, it is always possible to get more than you bargained for, in any interaction.
As observed in everyone's reply, he knew her age. If he was ever unsure, he could have insisted on meeting her parents, before taking the relationship towards the physical. Laughably old-fashioned, by today's standards, I'd dare say but, with the potential for career implosion, why ever not?
-- answer removed --
She herself is old enough to be criminally liable. The killers of Jamie Bulger, for example, were criminally liable aged 10. Her "young age" of 15 would be no defence if she was the perpetrator of a heinous crime, rather than the victim. i.e. she is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong.
That said, Adam Johnson is a muppet who deserves to go to jail for what he's done. Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall are rightly vilified for taking advantage of underage girls and Johnson is little different, except he's done it at a time when the public is less tolerant of it.
That said, Adam Johnson is a muppet who deserves to go to jail for what he's done. Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall are rightly vilified for taking advantage of underage girls and Johnson is little different, except he's done it at a time when the public is less tolerant of it.
@islay
//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.
//
I'm puzzled by the contradiction whereby the (generic) 15 year old is, in her own mind, all grown up enough to be in charge of her own destiny, yet people our age look upon them as children, evilly manipulated by some lecherous perv.
There is no way I'd want to mitigate the likes of So-vile but, in amongst all the debate, was there ever any talk of virginity-loss one upmanship? (One upgirlship, even). Does such a thing exist?
//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.
//
I'm puzzled by the contradiction whereby the (generic) 15 year old is, in her own mind, all grown up enough to be in charge of her own destiny, yet people our age look upon them as children, evilly manipulated by some lecherous perv.
There is no way I'd want to mitigate the likes of So-vile but, in amongst all the debate, was there ever any talk of virginity-loss one upmanship? (One upgirlship, even). Does such a thing exist?
You wrote:
I'm puzzled by the contradiction whereby the (generic) 15 year old is, in her own mind, all grown up enough to be in charge of her own destiny, yet people our age look upon them as children, evilly manipulated by some lecherous perv.
They might think that they are all grown up and in charge of their own destinies, but they are not.
That is why the age of consent is 16.
That is why 15 year olds cannot go out and get a full time job.
That is why a 15 year old cannot become an MP.
That is why a 15 year old cannot vote.
That is why a 15 year old cannot take their driving test.
That is why a 15 year old cannot go for a pint down the pub.
That is why a 15 year old cannot go an buy 20 Silk Cut at their local newsagents.
Just because a 15 year old feels like a grown up, it doesn't mean they are. I think we can all remember *feeling* like we knew it all at 15 and I bet if we could jump in a time machine and travel back to have a chat with our 15 year old selves, we'd all say - "You've got a LOT more to learn...enjoy being a kid whilst it lasts."
It's somewhat ironic that the OP appealed to not turn the thread into a anti-Katie Hopkin diatribe and yet some of the comments aimed at the victim amount to just that.
Some of the posts acknowledging Johnson's guilt come across as rather grudging in nature that he allowed her to lead him down the wrong path.
Anyway, the media frenzy will reach stratospheric levels when he is sentenced. Not only do many think that he should not receive several years jail but there are plenty who think he should not even be imprisoned. I find Hopkins' attitude perverse and she is very much the 'apprentice' where matters relating to the judiciary are concerned.
Some of the posts acknowledging Johnson's guilt come across as rather grudging in nature that he allowed her to lead him down the wrong path.
Anyway, the media frenzy will reach stratospheric levels when he is sentenced. Not only do many think that he should not receive several years jail but there are plenty who think he should not even be imprisoned. I find Hopkins' attitude perverse and she is very much the 'apprentice' where matters relating to the judiciary are concerned.
@sp1814
I agree with the main sweep of your post but your list of things they are not legally permitted to do are "at a higher level", societal-level behaviours.
They probably could drive but we'd rather not clutter their minds while they're already fully occupied cramming academic material into their minds. Also, it's one thing to operate the car controls (viz apocryphal tales of those who say they were driving around the farmyard as soon as they could reach the pedals) but completely another to develop road sense, predict what other road users are just about to do.
Great clamour, of late, to lower the voting age but the minimum was probably set at its present point on the assumption that youths are impressionable, sometimes seek to be led and also have not experienced enough of real life to assess which party's aims benefit them best. They may be more aware of parties and policies, these days (social media exposure, background reading) but is that impressionability still there?
Anyway, Hopkins lambasts the footballer for being led by a part of his anatomy and my earlier reference to genetic influences was basically saying that young women are equally capable of merely obeying their biological drives.
"Hormonal" is a term often misused by sexist men. I hope I am not one or mistaken for one. Boring scientific fact is that Genes mediate hormone release - determining age of onset, variable from one individual to the next; hormones influence brain activity, which shapes behaviour via a chemical 'reward' system.
The age at which typical law students ditch biology lessons is unknown to me. A school of inter-disciplinary studies is sorely needed, to bridge the gaps between all our -horribly narrow- fields of study.
Maybe "does our biology mitigate sexual offences?" should be a whole other thread?
Like I said, we operate under higher, social functioning which is supposed to override the biology and control who mates with whom. So lawyers need not understand biology, merely reinforce society's inbuilt self-controls.
I agree with the main sweep of your post but your list of things they are not legally permitted to do are "at a higher level", societal-level behaviours.
They probably could drive but we'd rather not clutter their minds while they're already fully occupied cramming academic material into their minds. Also, it's one thing to operate the car controls (viz apocryphal tales of those who say they were driving around the farmyard as soon as they could reach the pedals) but completely another to develop road sense, predict what other road users are just about to do.
Great clamour, of late, to lower the voting age but the minimum was probably set at its present point on the assumption that youths are impressionable, sometimes seek to be led and also have not experienced enough of real life to assess which party's aims benefit them best. They may be more aware of parties and policies, these days (social media exposure, background reading) but is that impressionability still there?
Anyway, Hopkins lambasts the footballer for being led by a part of his anatomy and my earlier reference to genetic influences was basically saying that young women are equally capable of merely obeying their biological drives.
"Hormonal" is a term often misused by sexist men. I hope I am not one or mistaken for one. Boring scientific fact is that Genes mediate hormone release - determining age of onset, variable from one individual to the next; hormones influence brain activity, which shapes behaviour via a chemical 'reward' system.
The age at which typical law students ditch biology lessons is unknown to me. A school of inter-disciplinary studies is sorely needed, to bridge the gaps between all our -horribly narrow- fields of study.
Maybe "does our biology mitigate sexual offences?" should be a whole other thread?
Like I said, we operate under higher, social functioning which is supposed to override the biology and control who mates with whom. So lawyers need not understand biology, merely reinforce society's inbuilt self-controls.
Ellipsis
I think that from about 25 onwards, you're pretty much set. I won't go into details, because it's really boring, but it's all to do with brain function. Up until a certain point, the human brain is creating new connections and learning about the way the world works. After a certain time (and for me, I think this was in my mid-twenties), your basic character, morals, and world view is pretty much set. After that you might change about 15%, but that's it.
If I could go back to my 28 year old self, all I would tell him is a load of lottery numbers...nothing else would be of much value.
And I do not believe in the wisdom of old age at all.
I think that from about 25 onwards, you're pretty much set. I won't go into details, because it's really boring, but it's all to do with brain function. Up until a certain point, the human brain is creating new connections and learning about the way the world works. After a certain time (and for me, I think this was in my mid-twenties), your basic character, morals, and world view is pretty much set. After that you might change about 15%, but that's it.
If I could go back to my 28 year old self, all I would tell him is a load of lottery numbers...nothing else would be of much value.
And I do not believe in the wisdom of old age at all.
Latest Posts
Good Morning,Feathered Worm Seekers
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Electric Bubble Car - Would You Buy One?
Motoring35 mins ago
Music37 mins ago
