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.
What victim? In what 'case ' ?
You're speculating that the girl in the case is lying without anything to back it up but you believe a man who preyed on a child when he was 27. Why is that?
I'm not clueless. She admitted to lying. That's the only case.
Not a tricky spot at all.
I don't like McDermott, but I also don't think anyone should be falsely accused of statutory rape.
But true to form, you frame a statement that because I am critical of this particular woman, that I like to vilify women.
Bullshit.
I know you're furious that I caught you out but if you can't explain what's in the solicitors letter that justifies your commentary on the victim in this case, then you've lost the argument badly.
Her age.
And we can't rely on any fact she stated in her initial social media post because afterwards she sends a solicitor's letter saying there was inaccuracies in the initial post. It all could have been bullshit yet you quote the initial post as if it was all fact. For instance you say he contacted her on twitter when she was 16. How do you know that was true when her solicitor's letter states the post starting that had inaccuracies.
Seems comprehension is the core issue.
List the lies. Why is that so difficult?
Funny how you can’t answer the actual question I posed.
As to your latest baseless accusation: nobody condoned an adult to child sexual relationship. That’s just your own twisted narrative.
As I said, speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't even back up what you think the solicitors letter says to justify vilifying the girl but you continue vilifying her anyway.
You admitted you are clueless about the case but yet decided the girl was to blame. Says a lot.
You're a troll aren't you?
I’ll answer the second part first, I don’t believe she is being vilified, though I think you believe she is. That pretty much makes the first part of your question redundant.
I can’t tell if your rage affects your comprehension, or your comprehension affects your rage.
What lies?
Clearly you don't think a 27 year old man preying on a child is scumbag behaviour, that says a lot.
What does the solicitors letter say that you think justifies having this woman vilified?
I just explained where the facts were published. By the woman involved, who has since stated she lied. Those are the facts.
unless you know about a whole lot of other facts...........
creeps all over the country be happy,,,, "at least we aint on National airwaves pontificating" 😊
Ya'd wonder how these non entities get a job in first place,, are there certain 'expectations' foisted upon them, as far as 'spreading the good word' goes.. tis all very strange this poster would opine,,, back in day, when priests were not exactly practicing what they were preaching themselves, they only had about ~ 500 people listening to them,, can only hope this chap is never seen nor heard about again on any broadcast medium
I think your logic is a zero sum game. As in if somebody criticises the girl for lieing and posting false allegations that then you think that they are similtainsly defending EMD.
If you read what most are saying here is that they think EMD is a creep and she is a liar. The only "defending" that is going on here is of you defending the girl for posting false allegations. One of which is very serious and implies rape.
Is that so? Please share because I wonder what “scumbag behaviour” I have condoned. It’s a bit difficult to gage given my lack of knowledge of what constitutes “scumbag behaviour”. It might just be a definition question really.
She does not deserve to be vilified, nor do I believe she has been. She certainly deserves criticism for publishing false allegations, which of course she acknowledges doing in the letter.
I've read your contributions before. I'm well aware of your stance in cases involving scumbag behaviour of men.
So you still haven't read the details of this case. That's your business but not sure why you think anyone should take your points seriously.
What exactly does it say that you think justifies vilifying the woman in this case?
What about assuming nobody was preying on anyone given the scarcity of clarification and evidence? Or does that not seem juicy enough for you?
A full on creep.
Should never be allowed on the airwaves again by any self respecting broadcaster.
C’mon Gusser, you are being absurd. There is no denying that some people are attracted to celebrity. No one is saying she preyed on him, but you are wrong to automatically assume he preyed on her. I’ve agreed with a lot of your moderate and well founded viewpoints, but you are straying back over into the nutter gang when you start picking up vibes like the above from peoples posts.
I never mentioned gender roles in my post. You filled in those gaps to suit your narrative.
Or is it only reprehensible if the younger partner is a woman, and the older one a man?
The only details of the 'case' were published on social media by the woman involved, who has since admitted to lying. So that's the facts of the 'case'
So it was the school child preying on Eoghan then? Ok.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9429a6e87ca90295fb14e1083556c0c3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)