Football 2015/16

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

hmm. he knew she was 15 before he kissed and fingered her. and very much wanted to do more. it was all very premediated. id say he was just thinking with his penis would be very much an understatement imo.

he was also getting his rocks off with others - older - at the same time, and talked about how he'd noticed the girl for her attractiveness. While he knew about her age, that doesn't appear to be anything about why he was drawn to her.

Have you never done something that you knew wasn't the best thing you could have done because your mind was following your bollocks and not your brain? I reckon you'd be an unusual male if you haven't.

(that's not a suggestion that you might have gone with someone underage, just to be clear ... just that with hindsight you're probably aware of having been a bit of a tit over a woman you were attracted to)

I'm not trying to suggest that was anything acceptable in what he did, but I'm also not jumping to wild and unsubstantiated conclusions based solely on the fact of her age - because nothing that came out in court suggested that what happened happened because of (purely) her young age.

Edited March 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[ThomThomDrum]

I think Hart is getting too much guff for the first goal. Yeah he was at fault as it beat him at the post and he may have had a bit of lead in his feet not expecting the shot, but its not as straightforward as that IMO. The shot (although not in anyway fast) did come through a crowd and at a slight angle away from goal, creeping in on target near the end. Such a shot is not actually that easy/straightforward a save even if it looks it should have been at first glance.

https://streamable.com/hijp

 

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by ThomThomDrum

[ThomThomDrum]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not trying to suggest that was anything acceptable in what he did, but I'm also not jumping to wild and unsubstantiated conclusions based solely on the fact of her age - because nothing that came out in court suggested that what happened happened because of (purely) her young age.

But it did happen with him 100% knowing what age she was and he very much actively pursued it. This is a rich Premiership footballer who could go into any club/pub in Sunderland and throw about a bit of dosh and fame and pick up a load of hot loose women of age, but he found a thrill in pursuing something that was not as easy and that was not legal. I would fear he actively went for this girl because of her age and how she was a challenge to him because of it, and not in spite of it

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

But it did happen with him 100% knowing what age she was and he very much actively pursued it. This is a rich Premiership footballer who could go into any club/pub in Sunderland and throw about a bit of dosh and fame and pick up a load of hot loose women of age, but he found a thrill in pursuing something that was not as easy and that was not legal. I would fear he actively went for this girl because of her age and how she was a challenge to him because of it, and not in spite of it

perhaps - tho nothing of that angle is particularly about her age of 15. Everything about that might have been the same if she was a year older.

I very deliberately put the "purely" bit in my "(purely) her young age" words because (for want of a better phrase) trying to corrupt her innocence isn't anything that's fixed around someone under 16. Without wanting to call myself a sleaze (tho I probably was), I can remember trying to talk my way into (16+) girls knickers in a not dissimilar way to what was said in the court when of a young age myself, and i know that was much the same for plenty of others too.

From what I've read of the case, there's an awful lot of much more solid things to throw in his direction - immature, stupid, abusing his fame, and trying to abuse her - before getting to the far more tenuous 'paedo' based solely on her being less than a year from the arbitrary line of the age of consent. An attractive woman is an an attractive woman if you're hooked on her, and age isn't really anything about that.

Edited March 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

25 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I think Hart is getting too much guff for the first goal. 

 

Cech's cock up Ashley William's winner is worse. 

[ThomThomDrum]

52 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

From what I've read of the case, there's an awful lot of much more solid things to throw in his direction - immature, stupid, abusing his fame, and trying to abuse her - before getting to the far more tenuous 'paedo' based solely on her being less than a year from the arbitrary line of the age of consent. An attractive woman is an an attractive woman if you're hooked on her, and age isn't really anything about that.

The guy is 28 years old. He knew she was 15. He even asked her to delete all contact with him so he could try do what he wanted to do without there being a trail of evidence easily found. He directly asked her about her age and when was she going to be 16, and when she said she was not old enough to go out it didn't phase him as he said "yeah but you look old enough"............

The guy knew what the fuck he was doing in the context of her age and was motivated to go through with what he wanted to do because of it.

This isn't a 17 year old boy fancying a 15 year old girl. This is a rich, famous 28 year old "mature" man grooming an underage girl, knowing all along what he was doing was morally and legally wrong.

He gets away with this one without it coming to the fore and what then? His reality and morals most likely become even more warped? Immature and stupid simply does not cut it for me in this case Im afraid. There was something a whole lot more sinister at work in his head IMO than that

[pink_triangle]

Will be interesting to see if Ranieri stays next season. I would personally be tempted to cash in my chips and move on.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

The guy is 28 years old. He knew she was 15. He even asked her to delete all contact with him so he could try do what he wanted to do without there being a trail of evidence easily found. He directly asked her about her age and when was she going to be 16, and when she said she was not old enough to go out it didn't phase him as he said "yeah but you look old enough"............

The guy knew what the fuck he was doing in the context of her age and was motivated to go through with what he wanted to do because of it.

This isn't a 17 year old boy fancying a 15 year old girl. This is a rich, famous 28 year old "mature" man grooming an underage girl, knowing all along what he was doing was morally and legally wrong.

Yep, the guy is 28 years old. It's no coincidence that the first thing I threw in his direction was 'immature'.

And yes, it's clear he knew it was wrong on all sorts of angles ... but carrying on anyway is what guys do when they're led by their dick and not their brain. If you've not been there* yourself I'm sure to know plenty of guys who have; it's ultimately little different to what a married bloke does around an affair.
(* I don't mean with 'underage', I mean in general).

And as you mention, he said "you look old enough". I don't think that's an irrelevance towards what was motivating him - and that doesn't sound like it was her young age that was the motivation.

 

6 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

He gets away with this one without it coming to the fore and what then? His reality and morals most likely become even more warped? Immature and stupid simply does not cut it for me in this case Im afraid. There was something a whole lot more sinister at work in his head IMO than that

Whoa! I'm not for a moment suggesting he should get away with anything, and he hasn't. He's going to jail, and I've no issue with that.

I'm merely saying that there's nothing but the fact of her age and him knowing of it to suggest 'paedo' (that he was attracted to her precisely because of her young age), while everything else suggests that wasn't really any part of it. He was attracted to her - a 'her' that he said looked older - before he knew of her age.

It appears to be the case from what was said in court that he (in his head) decided to put her young age to the side, rather than that being the driver of things.

[zahidf]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

perhaps - tho nothing of that angle is particularly about her age of 15. Everything about that might have been the same if she was a year older.

I very deliberately put the "purely" bit in my "(purely) her young age" words because (for want of a better phrase) trying to corrupt her innocence isn't anything that's fixed around someone under 16. Without wanting to call myself a sleaze (tho I probably was), I can remember trying to talk my way into (16+) girls knickers in a not dissimilar way to what was said in the court when of a young age myself, and i know that was much the same for plenty of others too.

From what I've read of the case, there's an awful lot of much more solid things to throw in his direction - immature, stupid, abusing his fame, and trying to abuse her - before getting to the far more tenuous 'paedo' based solely on her being less than a year from the arbitrary line of the age of consent. An attractive woman is an an attractive woman if you're hooked on her, and age isn't really anything about that.

well he wouldnt be in prison if not for her age. and he was looking up age of consent, so...

hes on the sex offenders register and rightly so imo. i appreciate he may not have targetted her because of her age, but the fact he knew she was under age and that it was illegal before he fingered her is damning enough in my eyes

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

well he wouldnt be in prison if not for her age. and he was looking up age of consent, so...

hes on the sex offenders register and rightly so imo. i appreciate he may not have targetted her because of her age, but the fact he knew she was under age and that it was illegal before he fingered her is damning enough in my eyes

Who's said it wasn't illegal or that he's not done wrong? No one.

Who's stretched things into unsupported accusations? You.

[ThomThomDrum]

And yet this guy, as I said, if wanting to get his end away with attractive legal women could most definitely and very easily do so due to his fame and money, but he decided not to do that, but to pursue someone underage over a protracted period of time. 

He is the sort of guy who would have women on tap in a club, but he chose the difficult path to see if he could bag an underage girl after he found out she was too young for him. A lot of work for someone you are only attracted to. 

To me its more than immaturity to find out an attractive girl is underage and to continue to pursue. The fact that his pregnant Mrs is at home and he is chatting up a school girl is perverse to me. Thinking with his dick is not good enough reason. If his dick was what he was thinking with  he could have sorted that out very easily. Its the ability to "put aside the age" where the problem is. There is something broken in him or missing in him IMO for him to be able to think like that or not think.................as i say immaturity and stupidity does not cut it for me

I reckon he saw it as a challenge. Something were he got more of a thrill out of than just your jollies. The buzz of the pusut. The knowing it was wrong. The sneaky behaviour and trying not to get caught.  etc etc. All that I reckon gave him a buzz above and beyond just bagging a hot girl

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by ThomThomDrum

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

And yet this guy, as I said, if wanting to get his end away with attractive legal women could most definitely and very easily do so due to his fame and money, but he decided not to do that, but to pursue someone underage over a protracted period of time. 

It came out in court that he was getting jiggy with others - overage - too, so he was doing exactly what you might have expected.

But he fancied this girl too, and the details of the case get to show he was finding her attractive before he knew her age.

As I'm trying to point out, right and wrong don't come into it much when a bloke (or woman, come to that, as they have affairs too) are led by their dick and not their brain .... and there's really nothing at all to suggest there's anything more to this than him allowing his dick to over-ride his brain.

I'm not trying to excuse his behaviour, I'm simply trying to point out that there were more relevant things about why he did what he did than her age.

Blokes - and women too - do wrong things when following their lust.

To pretend its all about her age when there's nothing to suggest it was is getting very unthinking-tabloid about it.

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I reckon he saw it as a challenge. Something were he got more of a thrill out of than just your jollies.

I reckon you're probably right with that part - but the thrill of the chase is often a big part of things, no matter what age.

[zahidf]

53 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Who's said it wasn't illegal or that he's not done wrong? No one.

Who's stretched things into unsupported accusations? You.

depends how to define paedo. i would define someone grooming a 15 year old girl and then fingering her as very much being a paedo. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

depends how to define paedo. i would define someone grooming a 15 year old girl and then fingering her as very much being a paedo. 

It all depends if the age was the attraction, and we know from court that it wasn't.

[The Nal]

For the record, Utd looking promising in terms of top 4 but were fucking awful last night. Watford were very very unlucky. Should've been 3-4 up by the time Mata scored and had at least one blatant peno turned down.

City are worse though. Much better players who just don't seem to give a shit.

Whats Kolarov on? 90k a week?

"Ooh please don't let the ball hit me!"

He actually fucking jumped out of the way!

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, The Nal said:

City are worse though. Much better players who just don't seem to give a shit.

They weren't great last night, that's for sure ... but some of that was how it just wasn't clicking for them, while in the final on Sunday it was Liverpool having that problem (while it wasn't a problem last night). Sometimes for no particular reason the ball does or doesn't bounce your way.

Mostly, they're too reliant on Aguaeo to conjure something out of nothing and he's going thru a flat spot. They made a big mistake selling Dzeko I reckon.

Was good to see Flanagan get a start again last night, and to see him play well ... tho was quite surprised he wasn't played on the left (they moved Clyne there instead) as he'd destroyed City from there in a game a couple of years ago.

[ThomThomDrum]

I dont know if a paedo is only someone who sees "age as an attraction" or if its someone who doesnt seem to think age matters, no matter what the law says.

All paedos/abusers know it's wrong what they do, but they dont find it morally wrong to do so and so do it. Thats what Johnson did. He knew it was wrong but went through with it regardless. Its his actions and behaviour after he finds out what age she is that calls into question his mental state

Comparing his actions to those adults who have affairs with adults is not the same at all IMO, even if its all primarily driven by lust. All abuse and affairs alike are driven primarily by lust. Adults who have affairs with adults however dont ever have the moral question of if they are causing harm to an innocent person. The affair in which they engage in is morally questionable to some, but its not illegal. 

For Johnson to find out she was 15 and to not think "Jesus! WTF I better stay clear" to me means there is something fucked up with his compass. He found out and then thought, oh, I better not get caught. He did not think of how this could affect her. He didnt think it was morally wrong, he just knew it was illegal but didnt agree it should be. He convinced himself it was OK and age didnt matter. Its not OK, and thinking like that is not OK. Our society has failed him if a 28 year old man thinks thats OK. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by ThomThomDrum

[mrtourette]

5 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

For Johnson to find out she was 15 and to not think "Jesus! WTF I better stay clear" to me means there is something fucked up with his compass. 

I don't think that's being questioned, just whether that instantly makes him as bad as Ian Watkins (the "all paedos are the same" approach) or whether it just makes him a dirty shitbag with no morals (even before you think about his partner and kid). Neither is OK, but personally I find it disappointing if someone can look at any conviction (whether it be for this, or murder, or violence) and without even considering the actual circumstances can take a "they've been convicted so they're the same as all the others" stance (not saying that you are, but it has been mentioned earlier in the thread).

 

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I dont know if a paedo is only someone who sees "age as an attraction" or if its someone who doesnt seem to think age matters, no matter what the law says.

All paedos/abusers know it's wrong what they do, but they dont find it morally wrong to do so and so do it. Thats what Johnson did. He knew it was wrong but went through with it regardless. Its his actions and behaviour after he finds out what age she is that calls into question his mental state

Comparing his actions to those adults who have affairs with adults is not the same at all IMO, even if its all primarily driven by lust. All abuse and affairs alike are driven primarily by lust. Adults who have affairs with adults however dont ever have the moral question of if they are causing harm to an innocent person. The affair in which they engage in is morally questionable to some, but its not illegal. 

For Johnson to find out she was 15 and to not think "Jesus! WTF I better stay clear" to me means there is something fucked up with his compass. He found out and then thought, oh, I better not get caught. He did not think of how this could affect her. He didnt think it was morally wrong, he just knew it was illegal but didnt agree it should be. He convinced himself it was OK and age didnt matter. Its not OK, and thinking like that is not OK. Our society has failed him if a 28 year old man thinks thats OK. 

I think that the fact he wasn't aware of the age of consent and needed to look it up says a lot about how smart he is(n't).

> For Johnson to find out she was 15 and to not think "Jesus! WTF I better stay clear" to me means there is something fucked up with his compass.

He was cheating on his pregnant wife with more than just this girl, so he was already well 'off-compass' (if you want to regard it like that). And what you've said there in quotes could be said by anyone having an affair, yet they still do it ... and while we might find that objectionable, being that off-compass to have an affair isn't really considered as anything abnormal or fucked-up.

Even before getting to know the girl's age everything Johnson was doing towards her was morally wrong from the angle of his existing relationship. Her age was just another part of 'wrong' that he chose to put to the side in pursuit of her.

Ultimately, for my thinking, it's the difference between chasing her because she was 15, or chasing her in spite of her being 15. From what I read of the court case it was the later, and nothing of what I read was suggesting an interest in young girls (not from the prosecution, even), just an interest in this particular girl.

When I was 17, I was stunned to discover that the sort of dream girl that any 17 year might drool over (but waaay out of my league) was 13 and not the at-least 20 I'd been presuming her to be.  That sort of thing may or may not be relevant here, we don't know (or at least, I don't). What we do know doesn't support the idea of his interest in her was due to her young age or him perceiving her to be of a young age.

Edited March 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[lost]

A pedophile is surely someone who finds pre-pubescent children attractive? Its pretty clear most countries see puberty as the acceptable age to start being sexually active but obviously its difficult to define as its starts at different ages for different people. This is why we have a host of different ages for the age of consent across the EU from around 13 upwards.

I guess as the EU becomes closer its starting throwing up "issues" in this area as people move about from country to country. a married couple which maybe perfectly normal in their country maybe breaking the law in another. 

[DomDom1984]

Morton are visiting Celtic on Sunday. Says a lot for our opposition that I'm not even close to worried about taking a humping from the Scottish champions. It does help that a much worse Morton side beat a much worse Celtic side there two seasons ago.

Celtic have players that can turn a game on it's head with one kick of a ball. Commons is one of those, and he's going to be there on Sunday. Griffiths is another. We have a makeshift defence and midfield. That said, if we can pressure, not shite ourselves and generally have a go, we should have enough to worry Celtic. Bobby Barr returns to the side after being out during the week as well, which is HUGE in games like this. Believe it or not, Morton excel on pitches with width. That's going to add to our chances I think.

We're not the favourites. I'm not even that sure we'll earn a replay. Says a lot though that if we go through, I won't be that surprised.

[lost]

51 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

It seems the lowest is 14...

Yes I was thinking of Spain that was 13 but it seems they raised it last year according to that article, didn't realize it was 12 before 1999 though.

Quote

I think we have it right in the UK.  Its a good balance.  16...  18 if you are in a position of responsibility. 

I've always been a bit uneasy with the belief that this country has it spot on at this moment in time. I remember 4 years ago during the winter Olympics in Russia we were bashing them for not having liberal enough attitudes to sex and homosexuality and then 6 months later we were bashing Brazil during the world cup for having too liberal attitudes to sex and sexualising youngsters below our age of consent.

Edited March 3, 2016 by lost

[kaosmark2]

40 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Watched on the News Big Sam having to explain why the club selected him the play etc.  I don't think this is fair.

Sam's job is to win football matches.  Its down to the Sunderland board / HR department to make the call on if Johnson was available for selection or not.  Its should of been the CEO answering the question on why he wasn't suspended and not Sam.

These players have a value and status to say its up to the manager.  Sam isn't in a position to not play such a massive asset.  Its way beyond the managers now.  Its on the CEO etc.

I don't like fat Sam or the club and I agree. If Johnson admitted to the club what he admitted in court, there's the question of why he wasn't sacked then. If as the club said, they had no idea until the guilty plea, then it's on him. Either way it's not fat Sam's fault. He felt the player was physically and mentally fit to play, and the board had kept his contract running.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, lost said:

A pedophile is surely someone who finds pre-pubescent children attractive? 

The literal meaning is 'child love'.

To me, someone who would be driven by 'child love' would be someone who targets someone who is child-like ... and while I've read nothing that's explicit either way, the impression I've had from what I've read of the case is that she was more 'young woman like' than 'child like' in her looks, and that it was her looks which he was attracted to.

 

10 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

because of her age and immaturity.

and this is where the difficulty lies. There is no distinct link between age and maturity.

I agree that he took advantage of her immaturity, but it would be perfectly possible for him to have done exactly the same if she'd have been a year older, which would have meant no criminal act. But she was the age she was, and that's definitely a crime.

I've no problem labelling him a criminal, and as someone who has done wrong.

I just don't see it as something that's specifically to him about her young age, and nor did the Crown's prosecution. Her immaturity allowed him to abuse, but immaturity was nothing of what attracted him to her in the first place.