robbiex wrote:

Its not just the fact that this girl saw a todger, it is the fact that someone deliberately sent the picture to her. This is a threatening statement. Most civilised people don't believe that flashing to a child is acceptable. Also what has the fact that she was wearing leggings got anything to do with it? Many children wear leggings because they are comfortable, it is not an invitation to receive physical or verbal abuse. This man is in a privileged position as a highly paid footballer in the limelight and he has abused his position by trying to groom children.

You're comparing a guy flashing his willie at a little girl in the park, to a teenage boy showing a large breasted leggings wearing real life friend, who was about to turn 13, a photo of his penis.

I think large breasted young girls who go about in skin-tight leggings regularly are aware that they will attract the eyes of guys. In fact in that sordid interview she was groomed into givng to the Scottish paper she stated that she STOPPED wearing leggings in order that he wouldn't pay so much attention to her. I guess you believe the reason every female 12 - 30 was wearing bottom pinching thongs a few years back was because they were 'comfortable'?

And what's with the 'grooming' accusation? I thought that was supposed to be 40 year old men pretending to be teenage boys online in order to meet up with children, not teenage boys talking dirty online to their real life teenage girl friends? He was charged with 'lewd conduct to a child' not grooming.

Innocent Accused wrote:
angel wrote:
edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Po...s-against.6793667.jp

Yes Angel,the winds of publicity have brought out the wannabies.
Before we know it the floodgates will be open,filled by publicity seekers,compensation gold diggers,and just complete nut cases who the cps will throw in to make the numbers sound better!
Thank the lord I was so unimportant they forgot to put me in the papers,god only knows what could have happened?

Could it be that the accusers are now coming forward because now that he has been exposed their possibly valid claims would be taken seriously. Remember that sexual abusers rarely commit their crimes only once. Women that have been abused usually don't like to talk about their abuse, they feel that they won't be believed. The exposure of their perpertrator would add more validity to their case. Would you possibly consider this possibility. This is the Edinburgh news, not the sun or the star. Its unlikely that there would be much money in this story, if any.

robbiex wrote:
veritas wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Blackit wrote:
www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/pr...h-sex-pest-1.1108579

Now a sponsor of the club are terminating their contract :

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news...ndal-86908-23230507/

Basically, a teenager talked dirty online to a largebreasted leggins wearing 12 year old daughter of a friend. The entire fabric of Scottish society is going to collapse if Hearts keep him on, or if another club signs him. Meanwhile, footballers who rape and assault are given contracts at other clubs.

I just knew people on this site would be jumping to the defence of the latest high profile paedophile case. The guy knew what he was doing and tried to corrupt an 11/12 year old girl. How would you feel, if it was your daughter/niece/sister?

the bar of 'corruption' is moved up and down by the media and especially those who drive this pedo hysteria.

Do you think many young boys who can access the internet will be corrupted by this photograph there for all the world to see :

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/

that is accompanied by the thigh slapping caption "even superstars like Rihnanna suffer the occasional embarrassing itch" as she appears to finger her cunt (why be modest?) in a skimpy costume ?

Tongue in cheek ( ) it may be but they are deliberating drawing attention to her fanny yet where is the child 'protection' industry-those partisan shysters ?. Cosying up to soft core pornographers like The Sun of course.

Do you really think a 12 year old will be corrupted by seeing a todger ?. If they are on the net it would almost be impossible not to have seen a 1000 by now, and..believe it or not, young girls are just as curious as young boys.

Its not just the fact that this girl saw a todger, it is the fact that someone deliberately sent the picture to her. This is a threatening statement. Most civilised people don't believe that flashing to a child is acceptable. Also what has the fact that she was wearing leggings got anything to do with it? Many children wear leggings because they are comfortable, it is not an invitation to receive physical or verbal abuse. This man is in a privileged position as a highly paid footballer in the limelight and he has abused his position by trying to groom children.

you seem to completely miss the point.

he has already been punished.

now he is being punished again.

we could also quibble forever about what constitutes 'grooming'

I think a good case could be made that a newspaper-that claims to be a family newspaper-publishes for profit photographs of a woman fingering her fanny (and that is what she is doing-simulating sex in a stage act) and knows that thousands of young girls and boys will see that photograph....is 'grooming' young people to keep reading that newspaper and to seek out more porn

A sliver of fabric between her fanny and finger means nothing. It's soft pornography.

where are the 'child' safety campaigners ?..they join forces with that publisher of porn.

If you cannot see that societies values are totally fucked and hypocritical then we have a problem.

But let's string up a hapless footballer even after he has been punished.

robbiex wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:
angel wrote:
edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Po...s-against.6793667.jp

Yes Angel,the winds of publicity have brought out the wannabies.
Before we know it the floodgates will be open,filled by publicity seekers,compensation gold diggers,and just complete nut cases who the cps will throw in to make the numbers sound better!
Thank the lord I was so unimportant they forgot to put me in the papers,god only knows what could have happened?

Could it be that the accusers are now coming forward because now that he has been exposed their possibly valid claims would be taken seriously. Remember that sexual abusers rarely commit their crimes only once. Women that have been abused usually don't like to talk about their abuse, they feel that they won't be believed. The exposure of their perpertrator would add more validity to their case. Would you possibly consider this possibility. This is the Edinburgh news, not the sun or the star. Its unlikely that there would be much money in this story, if any.

It's quite possible that he's shown his willy and left other teengage girl giggling their heads off before, and they'd probably forgotten all about it, but now they fancy thier place in the sun as an 'abused victim' of a celebrity footballer and are queing up to give interveiws to the Daily Record.

And no wonder sex abuse victims aren't believed when men are being falsely accused every single day and having their lives destroyed.

you seem to completely miss the point.

he has already been punished.

now he is being punished again.

we could also quibble forever about what constitutes 'grooming'

I think a good case could be made that a newspaper-that claims to be a family newspaper-publishes for profit photographs of a woman fingering her fanny (and that is what she is doing-simulating sex in a stage act) and knows that thousands of young girls and boys will see that photograph....is 'grooming' young people to keep reading that newspaper and to seek out more porn

A sliver of fabric between her fanny and finger means nothing. It's soft pornography.

where are the 'child' safety campaigners ?..they join forces with that publisher of porn.

If you cannot see that societies values are totally fucked and hypocritical then we have a problem.

But let's string up a hapless footballer even after he has been punished.

The main difference here is firstly that Rihanna is a grown woman and not a child, as a 12/13 year old girl is. Secondly although I haven't seen the pictures, nothing was shown on the pictures (i.e. no sexual organs), therefore it isn't indecent.

Also 19 year old boys/men shouldn't be be-freinding 12/13 year old girls, and if they are they certainly shouldn't be talking about sex and definitely not sending pics of his penis. This is not only stepping over the line, but leaping over the line with a big run up.

Your point seems to be that she is nearly 13 and wears leggings and has big breasts, therefore she is an adult or as good as!!!


With regard to your comment about the girl been big breasted and wearing leggings. This is not an invitation for sexual abuse. Ok They may be wearing leggings to look attractive, this doesn't mean that any old pervert can abuse her verbally or otherwise (even if they are a real life "friend", some friend). Blame the victim as usual. I'm well aware that there is a peado-hysteria in the press over the last few years, but this doesn't mean that we should go in completely the oppossite direction.

Most people can look at a child(she is 3-4 years from been away from an adult) and not abuse them physically or verbally.
This footballer should be sacked, if for no other reason than the fact that he has cost the club £4000 in sponsorship, and probably 1000's more in bums on seats. If he was Wayne Rooney and vital to the clubs success then no doubt they would make some excuse to keep him, otherwise he would be a liability. A teacher, doctor, lawyer, policeman or anyone else in public view would be sacked for such an incident, therefore he should fall on his sword.

Do any of us know the full facts?
As so often in these cases 'plead guilty' robs us of a chance to see the truth.Also lack of disclosure does the rest,you can make allegations with impunity,without any realistic chance of having these exposed to public scrutiny,unlike the person you have accused.

Oh the joys of being a nobody at a time like this

If you were to ask me whether this crime is as bad as that of Joey Bartons, I would have to categorically say that it isn't. He stubbed a cigar in someone's eye by the way. Unpleasant as it is to salaciously talk dirty to children and send obscene pics, the lasting damages are not as bad as poor Mr Barton's victim. Joey continues to enjoy a first team place in a premier football team, earning more in a week, than most of us earn in a year. Wheres the justice?

Some crazy comments here.

Grooming. Means to comb a dog for example. Even to shave.

I was arrested - as I shared on here - very recently. Apparantly I'd said two sexual things to a 14 year old on Facebook who admitted she told people she was 18, eventually 'admitting' she was 16. Regardless, in a case of mistaken identity, I was linked to two text speak comments along the lines of "send me some sex" and "sit on me" and tortured for several weeks by the Police, including being stripped almost naked and locked in a dark cell for 2 hours with all buzzer calls ignored.

I am NO-WHERE near 40 years old and I have never lied about my age or posed as someone younger. However the Police called it grooming.

Bottom line I'd say. The Police are corrupt bullies. This footballer is pretty disgusting if he did actually send these pictures to young women online, especially considering his status.

The fact she has large breasts or wears certain leg wear is totally irrelevant. What next. Women wearing skirts deserve to be raped. Seriously people. Show some sense.

Any journalists reading...contact me. I'm sure I am not alone.

BarntheBarn wrote:
Some crazy comments here.

Grooming. Means to comb a dog for example. Even to shave.

I was arrested - as I shared on here - very recently. Apparantly I'd said two sexual things to a 14 year old on Facebook who admitted she told people she was 18, eventually 'admitting' she was 16. Regardless, in a case of mistaken identity, I was linked to two text speak comments along the lines of "send me some sex" and "sit on me" and tortured for several weeks by the Police, including being stripped almost naked and locked in a dark cell for 2 hours with all buzzer calls ignored.

I am NO-WHERE near 40 years old and I have never lied about my age or posed as someone younger. However the Police called it grooming.

Bottom line I'd say. The Police are corrupt bullies. This footballer is pretty disgusting if he did actually send these pictures to young women online, especially considering his status.

The fact she has large breasts or wears certain leg wear is totally irrelevant. What next. Women wearing skirts deserve to be raped. Seriously people. Show some sense.

Any journalists reading...contact me. I'm sure I am not alone.

It's certainly not fun when the police get their hands into you Barry,been there myself.
Anyway on the plus side it's over now,and I try to block out the worst bits,surprisingly easy at times.Good luck.

robbiex wrote:
[quote]
Your point seems to be that she is nearly 13 and wears leggings and has big breasts, therefore she is an adult or as good as!!!
quote]

The main point I was making actually was that those facts were made clear by the newspaper interviewing the traumatised little girl - clearly to titilate their male readers while they scream for the boy to be hanged.

The other point was she has clearly started puberty some time ago, that and her dress sense suggests she is no more of a child than she is an adult, whatever the law says, and she's hardly going to be traumatised by the sight of a willy when she's clearly a sexual being.

You seem unable to grasp that the girl seemed quite happy to be talking dirty to him at the time. Last time I checked, you cannot recieve a photo of a man's penis on MSN or Facebook unless you click accept.

19 year olds should be able to befriend who they want. In fact we should be encouraging young people to mix with people of all ages instead of ghettoizing them into an infantilized bubble in the hope of preserving an unnatural innocence that we feel they should have.

Your point seems to be that you anyone under 18 is a sexually innocent helpless thing who will be damaged for life at the sight of a reproductive organ, and that anyone over 18 is a fully aware depraved adult who children must be protected from at all costs!

BarntheBarn wrote:
Some crazy comments here.

Grooming. Means to comb a dog for example. Even to shave.

I was arrested - as I shared on here - very recently. Apparantly I'd said two sexual things to a 14 year old on Facebook who admitted she told people she was 18, eventually 'admitting' she was 16. Regardless, in a case of mistaken identity, I was linked to two text speak comments along the lines of "send me some sex" and "sit on me" and tortured for several weeks by the Police, including being stripped almost naked and locked in a dark cell for 2 hours with all buzzer calls ignored.

I am NO-WHERE near 40 years old and I have never lied about my age or posed as someone younger. However the Police called it grooming.

Bottom line I'd say. The Police are corrupt bullies. This footballer is pretty disgusting if he did actually send these pictures to young women online, especially considering his status.

The fact she has large breasts or wears certain leg wear is totally irrelevant. What next. Women wearing skirts deserve to be raped. Seriously people. Show some sense.

Any journalists reading...contact me. I'm sure I am not alone.

Seems you haven't read people's comments very well.

I gave the original definition of grooming used by the child abuse industry, and noted that it has been inflated by those same people to now include cases such as this : a teenage boy talking dirty online to a younger girl.

The fact that she wears leggings is relevant to the extent that she happily recieved those photos at the time, and so the supposition that she was 'abused' is based on the assumption that she is an innocent child and has had that innocence in some way destroyed. All I'm suggesting is that it is pretty unlikely in today's society that an online leggings wearing large breasted 12 year old girl turning 13 is going to be destroyed by seeing a pic of a man's willie, and that any harm that she did suffer is miniscule to what this stupid laddie is now going through.

earth to robbiex :

" The main difference here is firstly that Rihanna is a grown woman and not a child, as a 12/13 year old girl is. Secondly although I haven't seen the pictures, nothing was shown on the pictures (i.e. no sexual organs), therefore it isn't indecent."

(you are mixing up my answers with someone elses regarding leggings !)

your answer confirms what I am saying.

Yes Rhianna is an adult, as was the footballer.

Rhianna is simulating (?) masturbation in an erotic pose for thousands of concert-goers that most likely includes children and then The Sun publishes that raunchy photo knowing tens of thousands of young boys and girls will see it.

And let's not forget The Sun wanted to pay 12 year old Alfie in order to publish tales of his sex life.

As I say...society's values are totally and truly fucked.