Martin Nolan give 1 year to guilty pedo.

nullzero

I find it incredible how many people crawl out of the woodwork on topics like these.
A few years ago when Adam Johnson was being sent to prison for engaging in sexual activity with a teenage girl there was all sorts of people defending him.

Maybe there's more people in society that have paedophilic tenancies than we care to recognise.

Strazdas

nullzero wrote: »

OK, so a teacher having sex with a boy on his sixteenth birthday is OK then?

I said just above it was morally wrong and the teacher should have been sacked on the spot.

One eyed Jack

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't mean to be mean, but if you are going to be belligerent you should try not being dense.

You got pulled up on your bullshìt. That’s all that happened there, and no amount of your specious waffle is going to disguise or distract from that fact.

nullzero

Strazdas wrote: »

I said just above it was morally wrong and the teacher should have been sacked on the spot.

Sacked on the spot but free to continue to seduce minors?

Immortal Starlight

She bought him felt tip pens and highlighter markers to use in school where she was a teacher for his 16th birthday. Then drove him to a hotel and had sex with him. When questioned by police she said she thought she had done nothing wrong and saw nothing wrong with her actions. Its unbelievable.

nullzero

Immortal Starlight wrote: »

She bought him felt tip pens and highlighter markers to use in school where she was a teacher for his 16th birthday. Then drove him to a hotel and had sex with him. When questioned by police she said she thought she had done nothing wrong and saw nothing wrong with her actions. Its unbelievable.

Yeah but it's OK because Emmanual Macron, and it's okay in other jurisdictions and and and...

I seriously worry about the mental state of the people defending this. These type of issues should be extremely easy to understand to be wrong but here we are arguing with people who think this behaviour is all above board. The mind boggles.

One eyed Jack

Strazdas wrote: »

As has been pointed out, had this incident happened in most countries in Europe, it wouldn't even have resulted in a court case.

Personally I think the age of consent is a year too high in Ireland. It will continue to lead to these type of messy court cases in future.

The age of consent is intended to protect children from being exploited by adults, and when the adults are in a position of authority, such as their teacher or their carer or any adult with responsibility for the child’s welfare, then. you’re not just talking about the age of consent any more but rather that the person was in a position of authority over the child, which makes them not just morally, but legally culpable.

This case wasn’t messy at all, it was actually pretty straightforward - the boys teacher had an additional responsibility above just being an adult, to protect the child, and took advantage of their position as the boys teacher in order to have sex with a child.

The teacher would have known this, and her claims that she believed the age of consent in Ireland is 16 are completely irrelevant. She knew that she was in a position of authority over the child and that what she was doing would mean a potential custodial sentence if she was found out. She decided to take that risk, knowing that she would be fired if she was found out.

Ultimately it was her own actions, not the law, which made the situation messy for everyone else.

osarusan

nullzero wrote: »

Maybe there's more people in society that have paedophilic tenancies than we care to recognise.

No connection to paedophilia in either case.

In the Adam Johnson case, a psychiatrist even testified that there was no suggestion Johnson was a paedophile.

Using the word paedophilia in relation to either case is well off the mark.

vriesmays

There should be one age of consent in the EU.

Justin Credible Darts

In this thread we had idiots blame the kid,
another idiot said the issue was not with the teacher...who actually committed the crime.
now there is people who think its the laws fault a teacher shagged a kid.

some of the excuses and blind ignorance and stupidity is staggering

Pineapple1

Immortal Starlight wrote:

She bought him felt tip pens and highlighter markers to use in school where she was a teacher for his 16th birthday. Then drove him to a hotel and had sex with him. When questioned by police she said she thought she had done nothing wrong and saw nothing wrong with her actions. Its unbelievable.

When I read that she bought him highlighters and pens as his present that really made my stomach churn even more. Absolutely vile yoke. Apparently she was pretty easy on the eye, she probably thought she could do whatever she wanted on that basis and get off scott free if and when she was caught. Glad it came around to bite her on the ass in the end.

RandomName2

nullzero wrote: »

Yeah but it's OK because Emmanual Macron, and it's okay in other jurisdictions and and and...

So you think that Emanuel Macron's wife should be in jail? I mean, it's fine to feel that way. There's solid grounds to say that it was an abuse of her position, given that she was his teacher, and that he was just 15.

nullzero wrote: »

I seriously worry about the mental state of the people defending this. These type of issues should be extremely easy to understand to be wrong but here we are arguing with people who think this behaviour is all above board. The mind boggles.

You worry? What is it you worry about? If the worry is the amount of sexual abuse that may occur you have justification. History seems to reject the proposition however. Ireland seems to have had a far greater volume of sexual abuse than countries on the continent. Does Italy or Germany have more sexual abuse than Ireland because its age of consent is 14 (note that in a role of authority the age is 16)? Apparently Ireland has a greater history of sexual abuse than most of her more liberal neighbors. Therefore defending the idea that this automatically protects society appears flawed.

Hey, did you notice something? I didn't have to say that people who defend the status quo in Ireland clearly are crawling out of the woodwork in a disturbing fashion and that they should be 'looked at'. That's a creepy thing to do. Only creepy people would make statements like that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You got pulled up on your bullshìt. That’s all that happened there, and no amount of your specious waffle is going to disguise or distract from that fact.

I think its your humility that is most compelling.

muffler

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

In this thread we had idiots blame the kid,
another idiot said the issue was not with the teacher...who actually committed the crime.
now there is people who think its the laws fault a teacher shagged a kid.

some of the excuses and blind ignorance and stupidity is staggering

how did you know I was an idiot?

nullzero

RandomName2 wrote: »

So you think that Emanuel Macron's wife should be in jail? I mean, it's fine to feel that way. There's solid grounds to say that it was an abuse of her position, given that she was his teacher, and that he was just 15.



You worry? What is it you worry about? If the worry is the amount of sexual abuse that may occur you have justification. History seems to reject the proposition however. Ireland seems to have had a far greater volume of sexual abuse than countries on the continent. Does Italy or Germany have more sexual abuse than Ireland because its age of consent is 14 (note that in a role of authority the age is 16)? Apparently Ireland has a greater history of sexual abuse than most of her more liberal neighbors. Therefore defending the idea that this automatically protects society appears flawed.

Hey, did you notice something? I didn't have to say that people who defend the status quo in Ireland clearly are crawling out of the woodwork in a disturbing fashion and that they should be 'looked at'. That's a creepy thing to do. Only creepy people would make statements like that.



I think its your humility that is most compelling.

Yes I do think Macrons now wife should have been jailed for what she did.

As for Ireland having a greater amount of sexual abuse than its neighbours (I'm assuming you are basing this on the fact that we were one of the first countries to reveal the extent of abuse perpetrated by the Catholic Church, something which is beginning to be revealed in others countries at the moment) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to be honest.

As for the "creepy" bit at the end, again I don't know what you're waffling on about, but somebody crusading (albeit in one online forum thread) for the age of consent to be reduced so everyone can have access to sexy time with those alluring teenagers wandering around the place is a tad on the creepy side now you mention it.

RandomName2

nullzero wrote: »

Yes I do think Macrons now wife should have been jailed for what she did.

Okay that's reasonable and consistent enough. I think a lot of people would disagree with you though, including the French president. Why do you think that what he has to say on the matter is irrelevant?

nullzero wrote: »

As for Ireland having a greater amount of sexual abuse than its neighbours (I'm assuming you are basing this on the fact that we were one of the first countries to reveal the extent of abuse perpetrated by the Catholic Church, something which is beginning to be revealed in others countries at the moment)

Yes, that is the point. Or in general, institutionalized sexual abuse, which while not directly caused by draconian laws, are in no doubt related to them. The strict laws that Ireland had on sex, in relation to homosexuality, extramarital relations, divorce, consent, etc. were all derived from similar spheres of thought. These ideas concerned virtue, the potentially damaging impact on society relaxing these rules would have, and on a general contempt for people in weaker positions. So just accepting at face value that such laws are benevolent I think is seriously flawed.

nullzero wrote: »

As for the "creepy" bit at the end, again I don't know what you're waffling on about, but somebody crusading (albeit in one online forum thread) for the age of consent to be reduced so everyone can have access to sexy time with those alluring teenagers wandering around the place is a tad on the creepy side now you mention it.

Do you want to know how ridiculous you sound?

Some people here want the law to remain as high as it is, because they want teenagers who are currently in sexual relations with each other to be penalized for their behavior. This is clearly born of jealousy (maybe some people here are incels). They are disguising this motive by claiming that they want to protect vulnerable teenagers from an army of predators who would otherwise ravage our helpless youth. When evidence is brought up that this is not a problem in other western countries, and that laws exist in relation to rape, and in relation to sexual activity where one party is in a position of authority, they get very angry and call their opponents peadophiles, again to disguise their true motives.

Ah, I'm just joking. I don't actually think that's the case. I actually think you're virtue signalling by using a backhanded ad hominem attack against absolutely everyone on this forum who doesn't agree with what you say. That's not particularly relevant to the discussion though, which is why it pisses me off to bring it up. You aren't alone in this though. It is the laziest, sloppiest way that anyone can debate. The fact that the posters doing this slip and slide saying 'some people' or 'some opinions' makes it particularly transparent. They know it's ad hominem, and they attempt to disguise it with weasel words.

Justin Credible Darts, I think, was calling me an idiot.. but he's having difficulty quoting me.. so it's hard to tell. Not quite as much difficulty as he is having in making any substantive point mind you. Sorry I should have said... some clown was calling me an idiot just there.. hyuck hyuck

Allinall

nullzero wrote: »

Yes I do think Macrons now wife should have been jailed for what she did.

As for Ireland having a greater amount of sexual abuse than its neighbours (I'm assuming you are basing this on the fact that we were one of the first countries to reveal the extent of abuse perpetrated by the Catholic Church, something which is beginning to be revealed in others countries at the moment) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to be honest.

As for the "creepy" bit at the end, again I don't know what you're waffling on about, but somebody crusading (albeit in one online forum thread) for the age of consent to be reduced so everyone can have access to sexy time with those alluring teenagers wandering around the place is a tad on the creepy side now you mention it.

Teenagers. Again.
Seventeen, eighteen, nineteen year olds.

Why not be more precise?

One eyed Jack

RandomName2 wrote: »

you're virtue signalling by using a backhanded ad hominem attack against absolutely everyone on this forum who doesn't agree with what you say. That's not particularly relevant to the discussion though, which is why it pisses me off to bring it up. You aren't alone in this though. It is the laziest, sloppiest way that anyone can debate. The fact that the posters doing this slip and slide saying 'some people' or 'some opinions' makes it particularly transparent. They know it's ad hominem, and they attempt to disguise it with weasel words.

Well if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, you’re hardly innocent yourself there horse :pac:

Earlier on when I contradicted your opinions, you decided to make a personal attack along the lines of me supposedly having something to be embarrassed about. Instead of accepting that you were mistaken, nah, you tried anyway to make it personal.

nullzero

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay that's reasonable and consistent enough. I think a lot of people would disagree with you though, including the French president. Why do you think that what he has to say on the matter is irrelevant?



Yes, that is the point. Or in general, institutionalized sexual abuse, which while not directly caused by draconian laws, are in no doubt related to them. The strict laws that Ireland had on sex, in relation to homosexuality, extramarital relations, divorce, consent, etc. were all derived from similar spheres of thought. These ideas concerned virtue, the potentially damaging impact on society relaxing these rules would have, and on a general contempt for people in weaker positions. So just accepting at face value that such laws are benevolent I think is seriously flawed.




Do you want to know how ridiculous you sound?

Some people here want the law to remain as high as it is, because they want teenagers who are currently in sexual relations with each other to be penalized for their behavior. This is clearly born of jealousy (maybe some people here are incels). They are disguising this motive by claiming that they want to protect vulnerable teenagers from an army of predators who would otherwise ravage our helpless youth. When evidence is brought up that this is not a problem in other western countries, and that laws exist in relation to rape, and in relation to sexual activity where one party is in a position of authority, they get very angry and call their opponents peadophiles, again to disguise their true motives.

Ah, I'm just joking. I don't actually think that's the case. I actually think you're virtue signalling by using a backhanded ad hominem attack against absolutely everyone on this forum who doesn't agree with what you say. That's not particularly relevant to the discussion though, which is why it pisses me off to bring it up. You aren't alone in this though. It is the laziest, sloppiest way that anyone can debate. The fact that the posters doing this slip and slide saying 'some people' or 'some opinions' makes it particularly transparent. They know it's ad hominem, and they attempt to disguise it with weasel words.

Justin Credible Darts, I think, was calling me an idiot.. but he's having difficulty quoting me.. so it's hard to tell. Not quite as much difficulty as he is having in making any substantive point mind you. Sorry I should have said... some clown was calling me an idiot just there.. hyuck hyuck

Heres the thing Random.

Any adult who engages in sexual activity with a minor is at best morally reprehensible and at worst guilty of committing a serious crime.

Lets say for example you have a fifteen year old son or daughter and they bring home a twenty something or thirty something "partner" who they are having "consentual" sex with, what would your reaction be?

You say I sound ridiculous, you really need to take a look at what you're saying from an objective standpoint, you're not coming across particularly well. In fact you come across as somebody with quite deep seated issues, a lot of the body of your posts is incredibly passive aggressive and that typically slides into actual aggression in the form of abuse towards the ends of your posts "idiots" "weasel words" etc...

Here's the thing Random I hope that what I'm saying does upset you and everyone who agrees with you because your beliefs are worrying.
I'm usually open to all opinions on the majority of topics but when it comes to the safety of minors particularly in relation to how they can be groomed and exploited by adults, as has been proven to be the case in this instance, I feel the line in the sand is clear for all to see and those who choose to cross it deserve no quarter.

Has my opinion offended you? Tough sh1t.

nullzero

Allinall wrote: »

Teenagers. Again.
Seventeen, eighteen, nineteen year olds.

Why not be more precise?

Still being obtuse I see, at least you're consistent.

sydthebeat

nullzero wrote: »

Still being obtuse I see, at least you're consistent.

How is it obtuse when they are asking you to be specific?

Do you know what obtuse actually means?

RandomName2

nullzero wrote: »

Still being obtuse I see, at least you're consistent.

nullzero wrote: »

Heres the thing Random.

Any adult who engages in sexual activity with a minor is at best morally reprehensible and at worst guilty of committing a serious crime.

You are attempting to use loaded language, and you are doing so in a sloppy manner.

A 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old is morally reprehensible you say? And an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old is committing a serious crime (this is actually correct as far as it goes). Your worrying opinions spawned from deep seated issues are at least consistent with how the law currently operates.

nullzero wrote: »

Lets say for example you have a fifteen year old son or daughter and they bring home a twenty something or thirty something "partner" who they are having "consentual" sex with, what would your reaction be?

Are you answering my question with a hypothetical? Why should I do you the courtesy of answering when you won't say why you think Emanuel Macron's opinion is irrelevant and that his wife should be in jail? Note that I have not defended her actions (thereby making your hypothetical question particularly misplaced).

nullzero wrote: »

Has my opinion offended you? Tough sh1t.

Your opinion hasn't offended me. Not in the slightest. You could say that sex outside of matrimony should be illegal. You wouldn't be alone in the sentiment. I would disagree, but you are free to voice that opinion, if you happen to possess it. My issue was with your slimy ad hoinem attacks that you are using because you slip and slide around questions, attempting to make the issues binary moralistic systems where you say that anyone who disagrees with your proposition, that 18 year olds should be jailed for having sex with 16 year olds, is in fact a peadophile. I am deeply opposed to that because you are trying to shut up debate on the matter in possibly the creepiest manner possible.

You are also, as I said, out of step with the rest of Europe, but priestly values die hard. I wonder, did priests back in the day attempt to silence debate through ad hominem attacks citing their superior moralistic evaluation of social morés? I feel certain they did. Note that when I say worrying opinions spawned from deep seated issues earlier in this post, I am merely copying your diction.

nullzero wrote: »

actual aggression in the form of abuse towards the ends of your posts "idiots" "weasel words" etc...

Hey! Give Justin Credible Darts a break.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, you’re hardly innocent yourself there horse :pac:

Earlier on when I contradicted your opinions, you decided to make a personal attack along the lines of me supposedly having something to be embarrassed about. Instead of accepting that you were mistaken, nah, you tried anyway to make it personal.

Look ,it's okay. You were wrong about the 2006 law, and again wrong about the 2017 law. It doesn't matter too much. It was annoying the way you attempted to put me down by quoting bits of statutes that didn't actually back up what you were saying, but it wasn't all that big a deal. Your intellectual capacity, which in truth I know nothing about, has no bearing on the validity of what you have to say.

RandomName2

sydthebeat wrote: »

How is it obtuse when they are asking you to be specific?

Do you know what obtuse actually means?

Cyclingtourist

nullzero wrote: »

OK, so a teacher having sex with a boy on his sixteenth birthday is OK then?

Not a good career move but there's an over protectiveness about the student-teacher relationship. What if she had been his nurse in hospital?
Dev had sex with his Irish teacher and produced a whole line of little Devs with her while issuing homilies about "comely maidens dancing at the cross-roads".

OMG!! She was his teacher and he hardly out of short pants.
No he was a young adult of 16 and like many of his peers in Ireland probably a horny not-so-little mammy's boy.

One eyed Jack

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are attempting to use loaded language, and you are doing so in a sloppy manner.

You haven’t a mirror there at all? :pac:

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look ,it's okay. You were wrong about the 2006 law, and again wrong about the 2017 law. It doesn't matter too much. It was annoying the way you attempted to put me down by quoting bits of statutes that didn't actually back up what you were saying, but it wasn't all that big a deal. Your intellectual capacity, which in truth I know nothing about, has no bearing on the validity of what you have to say.

No, what matters is that you were mistaken, and instead of acknowledging your mistake you tried to pawn it off on me by suggesting you were trying to save me any embarrassment, and that I shouldn’t be so dense if I was being so belligerent, or words to that effect anyway, I didn’t care too much for your personal attacks.

It’s very simple. The provision existed in the Act of 2006, it’s there in Section 3 in black and white. When Permabear pointed out to you the existence of the amended Section 3 in the 2017 Act which still contained the same provision again about a person in authority, you claimed it must have been a recent change as you weren’t aware of it. That’s when I pointed out to you that it wasn’t recent, it existed in 2006, and I pointed you to Section 3 of the 2006 Act. Your response was a copy and paste of some Oireachtas report which you didn’t even provide a source for.

Nobody was trying to “put you down”, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply mistaken, as you have been throughout this thread. I didn’t say anything before because I just couldn’t be bothered correcting you on your numerous errors, but that one was important enough that I couldn’t let you away with posting complete nonsense. You’re still posting complete nonsense, only now you’ve tried to make it personal because the facts contradict what you had previously believed didn’t exist in Irish law.

Ironicname

Cyclingtourist wrote:

OMG!! She was his teacher and he hardly out of short pants. No he was a young adult of 16 and like many of his peers in Ireland probably a horny not-so-little mammy's boy.

Just to be clear, are you as equally blasé when the child is a girl?

Ironicname

Cyclingtourist wrote:

Not a good career move but there's an over protectiveness about the student-teacher relationship.

That's a scary ****ing attitude chief. Do you have kids?

nullzero

sydthebeat wrote: »

How is it obtuse when they are asking you to be specific?

Do you know what obtuse actually means?

One use of the word being "slow to understand". The poster knew what I meant but feigned misunderstanding for effect.

Do you understand the meaning of the word?

nullzero

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are attempting to use loaded language, and you are doing so in a sloppy manner.

A 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old is morally reprehensible you say? And an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old is committing a serious crime (this is actually correct as far as it goes). Your worrying opinions spawned from deep seated issues are at least consistent with how the law currently operates.



Are you answering my question with a hypothetical? Why should I do you the courtesy of answering when you won't say why you think Emanuel Macron's opinion is irrelevant and that his wife should be in jail? Note that I have not defended her actions (thereby making your hypothetical question particularly misplaced).



Your opinion hasn't offended me. Not in the slightest. You could say that sex outside of matrimony should be illegal. You wouldn't be alone in the sentiment. I would disagree, but you are free to voice that opinion, if you happen to possess it. My issue was with your slimy ad hoinem attacks that you are using because you slip and slide around questions, attempting to make the issues binary moralistic systems where you say that anyone who disagrees with your proposition, that 18 year olds should be jailed for having sex with 16 year olds, is in fact a peadophile. I am deeply opposed to that because you are trying to shut up debate on the matter in possibly the creepiest manner possible.

You are also, as I said, out of step with the rest of Europe, but priestly values die hard. I wonder, did priests back in the day attempt to silence debate through ad hominem attacks citing their superior moralistic evaluation of social morés? I feel certain they did. Note that when I say worrying opinions spawned from deep seated issues earlier in this post, I am merely copying your diction.




Hey! Give Justin Credible Darts a break.



Look ,it's okay. You were wrong about the 2006 law, and again wrong about the 2017 law. It doesn't matter too much. It was annoying the way you attempted to put me down by quoting bits of statutes that didn't actually back up what you were saying, but it wasn't all that big a deal. Your intellectual capacity, which in truth I know nothing about, has no bearing on the validity of what you have to say.

Another long winded post that answers none of the questions asked.

I'll simplify things for you. Let's talk about the topic at hand. Do you believe that it was acceptable for a 23 year old woman to groom a 15 year old boy and have sex with him on his 16th birthday?

Cyclingtourist

Ironicname wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you as equally blasé when the child is a girl?

If the young adult 16 YO was female yes. Like all relationships it depends on both individuals and I'm against strict punitive laws purely based on numbers.

Ironicname wrote: »

That's a scary ****ing attitude chief. Do you have kids?

I'm a parent.

nullzero

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

If the young adult 16 YO was female yes. Like all relationships it depends on both individuals and I'm against strict punitive laws purely based on numbers.



I'm a parent.

So when your kid is 15 and is being groomed by an adult for sex you'll be OK with it?