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.
I think you might be the only person saying that.
It's a tricky spot you're in. You don't like McDermott for some of the things he's said in the past but you also like to vilify girls/women in scenarios like in this case.
I’m rather amused that people think relationships with this age difference are rare for older teenagers.
And that the younger person is automatically the one who is being exploited, despite having their own reasons for being in the relationship.
This is fantastic, please keep going.
Have you read up on the details of the case yet? Or decided why McDermott should be excused for his behaviour?
I know what I am, but not what you are trying to make out. Sorry and better luck next time.
You're saying no one is defending him yet you are trying to exaggerate the statement from the solicitor to vilify the woman in this case. Speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
It's always the girl/women's fault! Stick with the incel mantra.
An older teenager would be 19 ish as opposed to starting conversing with a 16 year old and a full relationship following on. Huge difference in those 2 years. And there's a big difference in 17 year olds maturity too.
But what would a 17 year old in secondary school have in common with a 27 year old, as I said 3 or 4 years out of college? If you're secondary school 17 year old daughter came home with EMD you probably wouldn't mind, but there's a large percentage of us would.
The solicitors letter speaks for itself, I don’t need to exaggerate anything in it.
So it was the school child preying on Eoghan then? Ok.
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'
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?
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.
A full on creep.
Should never be allowed on the airwaves again by any self respecting broadcaster.
What about assuming nobody was preying on anyone given the scarcity of clarification and evidence? Or does that not seem juicy enough for you?
What exactly does it say that you think justifies vilifying the woman in this case?
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.
I've read your contributions before. I'm well aware of your stance in cases involving scumbag behaviour of men.
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.
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.
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.
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 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...........
What does the solicitors letter say that you think justifies having this woman vilified?
Clearly you don't think a 27 year old man preying on a child is scumbag behaviour, that says a lot.
What lies?
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.
You're a troll aren't you?
You admitted you are clueless about the case but yet decided the girl was to blame. Says a lot.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9429a6e87ca90295fb14e1083556c0c3.svg)
