He had a certain fan base here and some weren't gone on him.
He disappeared very fast last year and now he's about to sue Twitter.
You are deflecting and you really do seem to take issue with the age of consent
Doesn't make a whole heap of difference but..
"Ive no issue in saying she was wrong to say she was underage. But his actions were still dusgusting. 17 in school. 27."
..according to the unredacted parts of her post, he was 28 when he first started contacting her by text and met up with her. So if she was 17 by the time they had intercourse, he could have been 29.
Just on this - I'm a lawyer, have been for a long time, and have never been able to find a standing statutory or other legal definition of "adult".
Would be very much obliged if you have one to hand.
So he was vocal supporter of the Me Too movement and this obviously annoyed some people, at least if this thread is anything to go on.
Sounds like a potential motive to destroy him to me.
How am I deflecting?
I have pointed out categorically, on many occasions, that I believe a 27 year old person having a physical relationship with a child is weird and highly inappropriate
You're implying that I have a problem with a 17 year old having sex. That is vastly different to what I have said so I would appreciate if you didn't misinterpret me.
Like I said, I am talking about his actions, I am not talking about her actions. Who would blame the 17 year old if an older man/woman showed an interest in them?
I am not talking about the law. I'm talking about someone in their mid-late 20s who knows their place in the world and has had years of independent living having a relationship with someone 10 years younger than them who is not even allowed to wear anything other than a uniform from 8:30 to 3:30 every day. A school child hasn't had any sense of independent living whatsoever. It's completely different to them having a physical relationship with someone in and around their own age, because they are both more likely to be in the same boat.
I'll ask you one more time. Do you not see anything wrong with that?
Creepy stuff. Whats good for the goose and all that. His personal life would seem fair game.
I wasn't the one that made the claim that 17 was an adult in the eyes of the law, in fact I'm saying 17 is a child in the eyes of the law.
I assume I don't need to point you in that direction, do I?
If you want a legal definition of adult then ask those who are claiming I'm incorrect when I say a 17 year old is a child.
Read the whole article.
Apparently the interview was just a set-up and the pair continued with a normal interview as soon as Roz returned to the studio.
🤭
He had intimate relations with a person who was legally allowed to consent.
Still sounds like you have an issue with the age of consent.
You say that you have no issue with 17 year olds having sex. What age difference do you think is permissible and why?
I thought the well knit RTE family would be all over him now in support that the issue has been fully cleared up according to him?
Just it's weird and inappropriate. That's my opinion and I have expressed umpteen times in this thread why I think it's weird and inappropriate.
You disagree. That's your opinion.
And before you bring up Macron's wife, they met when he was 15 and she was his teacher and didn't engage in a relationship until he was 18. Yes, that is weird and inappropriate too.
The law doesnt say a 17yrd old is an adult. The law says that a person under 17 is not legally old enough to consent to a sexual act even if they want to.
It is against the law to engage in a sexual act with someone who cannot legally give consent, ie: under 17
What makes you think 17 year olds cannot have a drink?
Sure thing 🤣
Exactly, and the law also says anyone under the age of 18 is a child.
Again, another poster here said that 17 is 'an adult in the eyes of the law', which is not true.
Id imagine that most of them would have an issue with him have sexual realtions with a 17yo school going girl when he was 27 or 28 or 29.
Yeh all fully cleared up lol
is your issue that she was a child, ie under 18?
I find everything about McDermott weird and inappropriate.
I just was wondering why you would say you have no issue with the age of consent when that's exactly what you have an issue with.
No but under the the Criminal Law sexual offences act 2017 a child is determined as being under 17. Its not just black and white where the age determined as a child is the same for all situations.
Not so #metoo in this one.
Not specifically. Many 17 year olds have healthy sexual relationships with those in and around their age group.
Others have healthy relationships with people in their early 20s who likely in college, still finding their way in the world etc.
And some have relationships with people who are well into their careers and adulthood, and I would question why anyone in the mid-late 20s would deem it appropriate to have a relationship with a 17 year old.
Again, all my opinion.
I think we have done a lot of babying young people in the last few years. Soon they will be children until they are 23.
Id fully agree.
However when it comes to a 17yo school kid id prefer if 27yo grown men werent having them perform oral sex. Its emotive the fact she was in school. Sickening actually considering the guy wanted to be a teacher.
.
Thankfully, the seriously awkward moment ended with laughter as Roz walked out of the room but then came back just moments later, and admitted that it was all just a joke
Yep, maybe read the whole article you link to before you get outraged.
🙄
I want him to clarify the circumstances around it.Especially the fact she was a 17yo school kid and he was 27 and high profile at the time. He hitched himself to me too and wokeness. He has put this out in the public domain and there are still questions to be answered. Especially if he appears on radio or tv again. He really needs to clarify the type of sexual relationship that took place and if it involved alcohol and was consensual. What parts of the account arent true. Because from what i read only 3 allegations were retracted. So from that we can assume the rest are accurate or not contested by Eoghan Mc.
But if it wasnt consensual he would be under investigation.
So it was consensual.
Well the fact hes not been investigated for rape would suggest so dont you think?
In reality only both of them know.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/alcohol_and_the_law.html
So the feminazi mob aren't happy unless they get their way. Even when it's bee shown what she said wasn't true they still won't accept it and she's still somehow the ''victim''
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5dc0c82bb5d5c9e7a358d7971a18240f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
