Donate SIGN UP

Answers

81 to 100 of 180rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Last

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.
AOG,
You seem to be suffering from a memory lapse.

The girls in Rochdale case did not take a taxi ride and were then insulted. They were young girls in the care system. They were vunerable because they were drinking, taking drugs and already having sex. The groomers knew that if they gave them the drink and the drugs they wanted, the girls could be persauded to have sex with them.

// Such men regard their victims with contempt – “easy” girls, often in care or on `at risk` registers, whose early isolation from school and family has already turned them to drink, drugs or both.
One of the men on trial in Liverpool summed up this attitude when he said: “You white people train them in sex and drinking, so when they come to us they are fully trained”.
Like others in the gang, he saw nothing wrong with plying victims with drink and then forcing them to have sex. As he told Girl A: “I gave you vodka, now it’s your turn to give me something”. //
//As he told Girl A: “I gave you vodka, now it’s your turn to give me something”. //

Not terribly far removed from "I gave you a signed football shirt, now it's your turn to give me something" is it?
Question Author
Gromit

/// AOG,
You seem to be suffering from a memory lapse.

The girls in Rochdale case did not take a taxi ride and were then insulted. ///

Who said they did?

It seems that it is you who is suffering from a memory loss , and not I.

But let me remind you, it was you who brought certain taxi drivers into the equation when your other even more stupid comparison, that of Asian grooming gangs, made a complete fool of you.
Question Author
jackthehat

/// Not terribly far removed from "I gave you a signed football shirt, now it's your turn to give me something" is it? ///

Even though a signed football shirt costs loads more than a few swigs of vodka, what was received in return for the shirt could not possible be anywhere on the same level as what was expected and received in return for the vodka.
AOG,
Ah, so you have a sliding scale with your morality regarding grooming.
A *** for a football shirt is acceptable ? No it isn't.
-- answer removed --
Divebuddy,
So it is permissable to have sexual contact with an under age girl once, and as long as payment is a cheap football shirt then everything is fine?

Johnson has been found guilty and will be sentenced to a number of years in prison. He has not been hard done by and was not unlucky. He deserves everything.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //Never mind all this football shirt/vodka nonsense. Did Johnson repeatedly rape the girl. Did he pass her around his friends so that they could rape her. That'll be a no then.

The old saying.... Comparisons are odious, was never more true than here. //

I remain utterly amazed at the effort se posters are willing to put in to provide 'comparisons' between two sets of circumstances in which sexual assault is involved, with the express intention of minimising Johnson's offences compared with that of Asian grooming gangs.

In each case, sexual assault of children has taken place - do we really think it is defensible to try and establish some of sliding scale of impact of culpability in order to continue to infer that the girl in the Johnson case was somehow more involved in her own grooming than the Rochdale children.

It is mindboggling that people who know nothing of the individual children in either case are still trying to paint Johnson's victim as some scarlet Lolita, and him as foolish rather than depraved.

Sexual assault on children is wrong on every level.

Trying to 'grade' its seriousness based on nothing more than stereotyping of complete strangers simply adds to the notion that the Asian taxi drivers' behaviour was indefensible, which it is, but that Johnson was really rather a victim of bad luck and dubious trap-setting - which he was not.

I hope those involved with continually trying to mitigate Johnson's actions will have a long hard think about the fact that it is not the circumstances that create the crime - and that the crime is the same - abuse of vulnerable children.
\\\\I hope those involved with continually trying to mitigate Johnson's actions will have a long hard think about the fact that it is not the circumstances that create the crime - and that the crime is the same - abuse of vulnerable children.\\\

I have had a "long hard think" and I disagree.
// Jeez, Gromit. You do go on. I'll repeat it again. Nobody is speaking in defence of Johnson. // db

Jesus - db you could have fooled me ..... I thought this thread was a little corner on AB reserved for white supremacists ....

No Mr hughes i am not including you in that
-- answer removed --
"I'll repeat it again. Nobody is speaking in defence of Johnson. Everybody agrees he's been an idiot and deserved to be convicted.OK. But there is no comparison between what he did and what the Rochdale gangs got up to.".

No amount of repetition will penetrate his defences, Divebuddy. Our Catholic friends would use the term invincible ignorance.
"Sexual assault on children is wrong on every level.
Trying to 'grade' its seriousness...
The crime is the same - abuse of vulnerable children.".

I could describe three quite different scenarios in which "the same" crime" was committed, but which no normal person with a sense of proportion would consider equally evil. Maybe Andy should forego composing a few of his valuable contributions to culture in order to " have a long hard think about the fact that it IS" the circumstances that determine the severity of the crime.
-- answer removed --
I didnt have to look very far

//Did Johnson repeatedly rape the girl. Did he pass her around his friends so that they could rape her. That'll be a no then. The old saying.... Comparisons are odious, was never more true than here.//

The people who you say are defending Johnson ( although they clearly are not) didn't make the comparison with the Rochdale gangs,

well if the above is not a defence of Johnson it must be an indictment of him and not very hard hitting is it ?

It will be interesting to see what the sentence is
-- answer removed --
DB, what happened to... //The old saying.... Comparisons are odious, was never more true than here.// ?
I don't get the point you're making, Pixie. I'm sure that's my fault.

Could you restate it more simply, please?
That's what divebuddy said at 16:59 and he now seems to be wanting comparisons?

81 to 100 of 180rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Maybe Footballer Adam Johnson Won't Get Such A Harsh Jail Sentence After All?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.