coaches engaging in legal ***ual activity

[John2]

Erm, John, not every reply, is solely a response to content you alone post. You do know that, don’t you?

OK, but in a previous post you said "There’s no benefit of the doubt applied on MM." implying that there had been no post giving the benefit of the doubt, which you're now accepting mine had.

Ragingpup has already asked my next question.

[millertop]

Sorry MT, I must be being thick as usual. When you wrote "Ffs, why didn’t they just say No", what exactly did you mean?

“Ffs “ was about the crime
The rest I obviously didn’t word it right,(Tbh I don’t know how to word it) I wasn’t blaming the kids at all, I just want them to not to be afraid to say No and speak up at the time so they know they don’t have to go through that.

[ragingpup]

“Ffs “ was about the crime
The rest I obviously didn’t word it right,(Tbh I don’t know how to word it) I wasn’t blaming the kids at all, I just want them to not to be afraid to say No and speak up at the time so they know they don’t have to go through that.

Yes I get that the whole thing was about the crime. But when you say "why didn't they just say no?", I presume that this is asking why the children didn't just say no to their pedophile groomer - is that what you meant?

[howdydoo]

OK, but in a previous post you said "There’s no benefit of the doubt applied on MM." implying that there had been no post giving the benefit of the doubt, which you're now accepting mine had.

Ragingpup has already asked my next question.

There’s very little benefit of the doubt applied by certain contributors on MM.

Is that OK?

[WanChaiMiller]

OK, but in a previous post you said "There’s no benefit of the doubt applied on MM." implying that there had been no post giving the benefit of the doubt, which you're now accepting mine had.

Ragingpup has already asked my next question.

I notice no benefit of doubt was afforded to any other posts.

[rolymiller]

Sometimes I wish I was given the benefit of the doubt on here when some folks respond to my comments. Instead i usually get a load of abuse. I must be the most abused poster on here and all i do is express my opinions. (So much for free speech!) Still, I suppose that must be some sort of accolade in itself

[Yak]

I could have written down who would be all over this.
What are people wanting millertop has explained what he meant so why the need to carry on.
Some people are professional protesters.

[KerrAvon]

Sometimes I wish I was given the benefit of the doubt on here when some folks respond to my comments. Instead i usually get a load of abuse. I must be the most abused poster on here and all i do is express my opinions. (So much for free speech!) Still, I suppose that must be some sort of accolade in itself

I think you are taking the victim culture of the left a little too far, Roly. I very much doubt whether you are the most abused poster on her, but maybe you should look at your own behaviour for an explanation for that which you do receive? I recently spent several weeks having you and your wing man, Mikey telling me that I am a criminal and a liar. And why? Because I have disagreed with the two of you.

As for free speech, are you the same Roly who has pestered Cam to ban various posters? And their 'offence'? Expressing views that you disagree with. As with many people with strong political views, you mistake a right to free speech with a right to agree with you.

Given the output of some of the posters on here, I am starting to wonder if rampant narcissism isn’t a left wing thing.

[John2]

“Ffs “ was about the crime
The rest I obviously didn’t word it right,(Tbh I don’t know how to word it) I wasn’t blaming the kids at all, I just want them to not to be afraid to say No and speak up at the time so they know they don’t have to go through that.

OK.

Just to clarify, when children are abused by *****philes, you don't understand why they don't "say no"?

Do you see how asking why they "didn't say no" might look like a suggestion it is in some way their responsibility and might be perceived as victim blaming?

A huge reason the child abuse scandal in Rotherham went on for so long was because these vulnerable young girls were perceived as "p*ki sh*ggers" - a commonly used term to suggest they were choosing these relationships consensually. White working class people in Rotherham judged these girls back then as being consenting participants, not as victims. This was the common position of the public and the authorities, it is why the abuse was tolerated back then. We (rightly) give the authorities a hard time, but many of the people now most vocally outraged were just as guilty as perceiving these victims as in some way "asking for it".

I just think we need to learn those lessons and not ever do anything that might suggest victims of ***ual assault could have done something to stop it, because that ignores the incredible power adults have over children as authority figures. Victims have to deal with not only the fall out of the ***ual assault, but also feeling like they are being judged to be responsible for not doing more about it. These 16 and 17 year old girls have enough to deal with as it is.

[KerrAvon]

I could have written down who would be all over this.
What are people wanting millertop has explained what he meant so why the need to carry on.
Some people are professional protesters.

It was very predictable. I think some people have nothing better to do.