Heh. That Graham Rix 'and if you tolerate Rix..' chant still makes me lol.
Adam Johnson Held Over Sex Claim
- Thread starter refugee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I admitted having sex with my ex wife..
When she was 15..
According to your interpretation of the law. I raped her..
It certainly did feel like that at the time..
In fact she probably borderline raped me.. Given how up for it and kinky she was back then.. [emoji33]
Again, if you think I believe everyone that gets arrested is guilty you don't understand my argument. Your making up what you think my argument is.
And everybody knows it's a nonsense argument. This is exactly like the Suarez Evra incident, when I stated that for it to get to a charge being brought there had to be evidence, and it turned out the evidence was from Suarez himself.
You had to be wilfully ignorant to take your line on both the Suarez Evra thing and this.
Woland: if you're asking whether Rix or someone else in the same situation could sue them, the answer's no - it would get thrown out immediately because the law wouldn't countenance an offender profiting from his crime.
It's not his interpretation, it's just the law.
Ok, I'll admit, I've had my tongue in cheek a little in this thread.
I just find it strange that you have spent the past number of pages trying to excuse the fact that someone that is 27 has apparently had sex with a minor, but bringing up the ages of consent in other countries. Why that is relevant is beyond me. the only logical reason I can come to for you trying to argue that point, is that you have done the same? If not, I apologise, but what is the reason for arguing the point?
The fact is that he has been arrested, because what he has apparently done is illegal in the UK. That fact can't change, no matter how many examples you can bring from other countries, and what justification you want to bring to it.
And to clarify, I don't think FFF and redninja and whoever else said it, are in the same ballpark. Maybe sleeping with someone 15, when you're 17-19, or even definitely doing it when you're 19, is not the same as someone 27 doing it.
Mystic -Let's just say the following is true (because I've seen the alleged social media message saying this) :
The pair met on instagram, they began chatting he sent her a message offering her a free jersey and asked for a thank you in return, even though she said wasn't going to be 16 til November.
Let's presume that's true. The police will obviously look to see the messages backing it up. So they either get something that needs following up or they don't.
They've arrested him. And sought the evidence to.secure a conviction possibly after obtaining a warrant in court.
The point is a lot of questions have been raised. None of them have been answered. If Johnson has an innocent explanation for it, I'd love to hear it. Presuming all of the above is true of course
The pair met on instagram, they began chatting he sent her a message offering her a free jersey and asked for a thank you in return, even though she said wasn't going to be 16 til November.
Let's presume that's true. The police will obviously look to see the messages backing it up. So they either get something that needs following up or they don't.
They've arrested him. And sought the evidence to.secure a conviction possibly after obtaining a warrant in court.
The point is a lot of questions have been raised. None of them have been answered. If Johnson has an innocent explanation for it, I'd love to hear it. Presuming all of the above is true of course
I understand that view but I can't agree with it. Whatever their failings, nobody forced the perp to do what he did. The doormen's employer may or may not want to keep them in their jobs but, as far as the criminal offence is concerned, that's the perp's responsibility and his alone.
I did a dissertation on this area of law when I was in college.
It probably says more than I'm willing to admit about myself.
There's some interesting arguments on whether you use a subjective approach to the problem, an objective one or a mix.
They are all guilty of negligence, a mere civil tort for which the employer is liable. The man is guilty of a criminal offence for which he is liable and the price to pay is prison.
The feminists need to sort this shit out
It's got to be a mix. The line is 16. If that line is crossed because a man is taking advantage of a girl who doesn't know what she wants then it's rape. If it's crossed because a girl deceives people about her age then I don't think it is. I know the law does but I don't.
Presuming that lot is true and it clearly indicates he wanted to do that whilst in full knowledge of her age, then thats a different story, maybe our difference in opinion stems from the fact that I hadn't seen these postings, but it would certainly suggest his guilt. I just don't like the trend in society of assuming someone is guilty before there's been a trial, or even any evidence to backup the claims.
Hahaha!
Do you like that top I sent you?
He sent me a p.m. about that. He said it was pretty nice and all but it was covered in funny stains.
The law does take that into account in mitigation, when deciding on the sentence. They can't ignore the written law though. Nor can parliament really relax the law in the current climate lest they admit to being secret paedophiles. So like the cartoonists, its up to you to stay out of the way of things which can send you to prison.
Thanks Uncle Woland.
Show me on the lizard where he touched you
Rape thread gets 8 pages. I start 2 threads over a few days, one about our scoring, and one about our defending, and I get 2 responses combined (plus 2 from someone I have on ignore). I think I know how to get you folks' attention now.
Similar threads
- Locked
