The reporting of Adam Johnson's case

[Deleted User 728]

Bear with me on this one ... and please read the whole post before jerking any knees.


This week I watched Spotlight.
It's a magnificent piece of cinema that should be seen by every adult on the planet.
I'm stunned it was made, to be honest.
I'll be even more stunned if it wins any Oscars as I'm damn sure the Catholic church will try to veto any potential prizes this behemoth may pick up. Just one more way they seek to protect their own interests.

(in case you don't know, it's about the reporting of paedophile priests in Boston and is a true story)

The case was staggering and yet confirmed suspicions for many people and the case broadened out to cover most of the countries on the planet, exposing a worldwide plague of predators.

It's a depressing yet also uplifting movie because it tells the tale of a small victory against the system itself.


What has this to do with Johnson ?
Well, it's all about the wording.
In every report, headline and bulletin whether broadcast or in print or on the web, the word used has been "CHILD".

Child.

That to me implies someone helpless.
Someone young enough not to know what's going on.
Someone naive enough to go along with an adult.

There's a difference between a 15 year old and a 6, 7 or 8 year old.

I think the media should be more responsible and use the term "MINOR" because it's the word traditionally used in these cases.
Law has precedence and I think journalism should respect itself and follow suit rather than sensationalise a case like this.

[dlw10]

Interesting, I read an article on the Johbson case this morning and I thought exactly that! The word Child was used throughout.

[Sniffer]

A couple of things - and I agree with you mostly, Rigger. Firstly, the other half took her mother to see that film this afternoon and said it was excellent. Secondly, true, a 15 year old is a totally different creature to a 5 year old but that doesn't mean a 15 year old can't be lead. Kids mature differently. Some 15 year olds would tell him to f**k off, some would be overawed by a pro footballer and others would do as they were told because he is an adult. The third of those couple of things is something that we've been discussing at work (about a different case). A girl of 15 can make herself look older the way a 5 year old can't so, not that I'm condoning under-age sex obviously, there may be slight mitigating factors in some cases. Very slight.

[Deleted User 728]

A couple of things - and I agree with you mostly, Rigger. Firstly, the other half took her mother to see that film this afternoon and said it was excellent. Secondly, true, a 15 year old is a totally different creature to a 5 year old but that doesn't mean a 15 year old can't be lead. Kids mature differently. Some 15 year olds would tell him to f**k off, some would be overawed by a pro footballer and others would do as they were told because he is an adult. The third of those couple of things is something that we've been discussing at work (about a different case). A girl of 15 can make herself look older the way a 5 year old can't so, not that I'm condoning under-age sex obviously, there may be slight mitigating factors in some cases. Very slight.

That last point : bang on the money.

Was it Akon who got done for a 16yo in America ?? He met her in a club, which meant it was supposed to be over-25s

In the end it cost his career ...


I'm pretty sure any number of groupies have been under-age down the years yet nobody's been convicted.

[Sniffer]

No idea about Akon. You're more down with the kids than I am (an unfortunate turn of phrase considering...). I watched Top of the Pops from 1981 earlier and the amount of girls pawing Peter Powell was an eye-opener. I wouldn't have a scoobie as to there ages.

[Mellor]

What was he charged with ( and has pleaded guilty to), wasn't it 1 charge of 'sexual activity with a child' and 1 charge of 'grooming' (knew what he was doing).

Given the charges and the law:

* "The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier" (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1989). The UK has ratified this convention".

* Child protection law also defines a child as 'anyone who is under the age of 18'.

Child is correct for me. No sensational reporting here, unusually?

[Another Northern Soul]

What was he charged with ( and has pleaded guilty to), wasn't it 1 charge of 'sexual activity with a child' and 1 charge of 'grooming' (knew what he was doing).

Given the charges and the law:

* "The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier" (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1989). The UK has ratified this convention".

* Child protection law also defines a child as 'anyone who is under the age of 18'.

Child is correct for me. No sensational reporting here, unusually?

As long as the courts know the difference, that's the main point.

True but not exactly a surprise, the media needs to improve in many aspects. 'Minor' is an unfortunate word as it has two oft-used meanings ie. child and also 'not serious'. As Mellor mentions, the crucial thing for me here is the admission by AJ of 'grooming'.

[Deleted User 728]

I disagree Mellor, because of what I said earlier about the change in stance from the media by using the more emotive term (child) over the traditional (minor).

As for the grooming aspect ... I'm not even sure what that means in this respect.

It could mean he pretended to be younger in an online chat and it escalated from there till he admitted who he was and she was "hooked" by then ...
Or, it might just mean they spoke for weeks online, in texts, etc and the relationship developed like any would, but because she's young it's deemed - legally - as grooming.


Look, I'm not seeking to defend the guy : at 28 he's old enough to know he should walk away.
But it gets my goat the way it's reported.


It's like when someone famous is a suspect in the Yew Tree case, then it turns out he's acquitted but he'll forever be tainted.
Matthew Kelly springs to mind from an earlier case that was similar. He was completely exonerated but by then it was too late ..

People are thick and they get a lot of their opinions from the red tops and that annoys me.
There's an area in Portsmouth that's pretty grim called Leigh Park - it could almost be described as a sink estate - and a doctor moved in there a few years back.
You'd think the locals would be pleased a professional who's working there would also choose to live there, wouldn't you ?
Trouble was, his job was at a clinic on the estate as a children's' doctor - or paediatrician - and one of the locals found out.
Next day, his car was trashed and house windows were smashed with abusive graffiti painted on the exterior because they'd heard he was a "paedo" ...

That's what we're up against.

[Another Northern Soul]

I sincerely doubt anyone thinks you ARE defending Johnson, worry not Rigger.

[Deleted User 728]

I sincerely doubt anyone thinks you ARE defending Johnson, worry not Rigger.

I thought long and hard before writing the original post, believe me.