Matt Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I can see now that this issue is too emotional for some to carry on this conversation respectfully and rationally. I think I'll quit now. It's a shame that it's come to this. Respect about this topic went out of the window half a page ago. *sigh* To summarise, a man sends pix of his knob to a 12 and a 14 y-o. He is aware of their age. He has been spoken to before allegedly about his "predatory behaviour". He gets found out, he doesn't get the chop. There's a bit of a rumpus and he gets suspended indefinitely with a view to sacking after pressure from sponsors, local schools, and parents. We'll leave the media out of this, it loves a witch hunt and it stinks. Let's also leave Hughes out of this - that's a different case which was dealt with separately. One cannot line up the two "offences" and compare potential outcomes, declaring that one maybe OTT and another just - for arguments sake. The fact of the matter is, earlier this month he pleaded :censored:ing guilty, he was fined and he was placed on the sex offenders register - as the law suggests - in relation to "inappropriate conduct towards two underage girls over the internet." Them's the rules. You can blow off all you want, however the facts still stand - and on the basis of the laws of child protection, he was lucky he didn't get strung up. Emotionally, if I was the father of the girls (speaking as a Father myself) I'd have ripped his paedo heart out. There you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Thanks Ackey and Rummy......as a father of twin girls (now 20), I was trying very hard not to bring my kids into the argument, but I agree with you both. To go back to the comparison and I haven't had time to research this next comment but believe it to be true. I think someone in Hughes's situation can be rehabilitated to see where he went wrong. I don't think you could ever say that for certainty about a paedophile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 The crucial difference is that hughes, although committing a serious crime, never intended to kill anyone. It looks like this bloke had every intention of nonceing kids. I'd not say he shouldnt be allowed to work but it is clearly in heart's interest not to be associated with him. They have enough on their plate being known Protestants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Just watched the youtube set Slurms....absolutely superb! Blimey thanks mate, any chance of promoting a tour for us down under Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I seriously cant believe anyone is sticking up for this sick :censored: . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 They have suffered because of the witch hunt attitude of the fans, media and general public alike. Well you can have your view but it will make little difference as most people will think you're wrong. I'm sure you will claim some moral victory all the same, enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 And I quote: A Lothian and Borders Police spokesman said: "We are making inquiries into the possibility that another person has grounds for complaint." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13973999 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.