Darth Crooks Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Technically he's a haebephile I.e pubescent. Still illegal of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 He scores goals He likes underage hole’s He’s worse than a thousand Jimmy’s and Noels He courts young girls (Also known as grooming) He downloads kiddie porn ( I’m also assuming) I'll bet you've done most of the above too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 He scores goals He likes underage hole’s He’s worse than a thousand Jimmy’s and Noels He courts young girls (Also known as grooming) He downloads kiddie porn ( I’m also assuming) I'll bet you've done most of the above too. Not very nice accusation to make pet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 There's a thread on RTG with videos of their fans and going on about how great their fans are. Anyone want to post the he shags who he wants video? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Mackem Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Interesting to see RTG deleting any post relating to this citing legal consequences when they'll happily discuss how best to get the 3pm kick-offs every week. How are these two things even related? The reason why it's unwise to comment on an ongoing court case of this nature is simple, it's called contempt. Websites, just like any other media, are liable to prosecution for anything which is posted that may be prejudicial to the case . I'll comment fully when the case concludes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Any pics of her? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Interesting to see RTG deleting any post relating to this citing legal consequences when they'll happily discuss how best to get the 3pm kick-offs every week. How are these two things even related? The reason why it's unwise to comment on an ongoing court case of this nature is simple, it's called contempt. Websites, just like any other media, are liable to prosecution for anything which is posted that may be prejudicial to the case . I'll comment fully when the case concludes. Both are questionable from a legal standpoint but only one is frowned upon massively on there and threatened with a ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsley Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Redcafe have locked their thread on the matter until the trial's over FWIW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 It's definitely the right call by RTG, it's loosely moderated at best, never know what some of those people would say in one of the 30 threads they'd have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Yeah contempt of court is a very serious matter so rtg is sensible to lock any threads down. It is very unlikely that such a series of events would occur, but if a juror decided to look at what the Newcastle fans were saying and something they saw on here prejudiced their decision, and caused problems with the trial, the causant posters and website owners could well be dragged before a judge. Contempt of court might well be why Sunderland were forced to unsuspend him in the first place Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Yeah contempt of court is a very serious matter so rtg is sensible to lock any threads down. It is very unlikely that such a series of events would occur, but if a juror decided to look at what the Newcastle fans were saying and something they saw on here prejudiced their decision, and caused problems with the trial, the causant posters and website owners could well be dragged before a judge. Contempt of court might well be why Sunderland were forced to unsuspend him in the first place There's a difference between unsuspending someone, and then actually playing them though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Don't think locking the thread is necessary on here, there are plenty of moderators around to pull anything shifty, and I feel (hope) the vast majority aren't daft enough to post anything suspect anyway. Just use your common sense - that includes Twitter links to anyone speculating about the case since they embed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Ban for joeyt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Yeah contempt of court is a very serious matter so rtg is sensible to lock any threads down. It is very unlikely that such a series of events would occur, but if a juror decided to look at what the Newcastle fans were saying and something they saw on here prejudiced their decision, and caused problems with the trial, the causant posters and website owners could well be dragged before a judge. Contempt of court might well be why Sunderland were forced to unsuspend him in the first place There's a difference between unsuspending someone, and then actually playing them though. By playing him they put the threat of relegation ahead of the feelings of the victim and her family. Make no mistake if he'd been a youth player his contact would have been terminated immediately. They will forever be known as the club who harboured a paedophile for their own gains, with a fanbase, who previously had been ambivalent towards him, begin to hero worship him when the news first broke. One thing's for sure they'll never, ever be able to claim the moral high ground or talk about "class" to us again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 IIRC the victim didn't want him prosecuted... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Fucks sake :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Absolutely nothing could be said to justify Sunderland's actions throughout this whole saga. Whether he was telling Sunderland he was innocent or what, there is simply no reason why he should have been unsuspended. The bloke was charged with sexual activity with a child, a suspension is not a punishment and would have been the appropriate action in this instance until the trial had been concluded. It is simply disgraceful that they continued to play him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I mean, this doesn't really mean he's a paedophile, it does mean he's a bit of a slime with no self control mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ElCid Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I mean, this doesn't really mean he's a paedophile, it does mean he's a bit of a slime with no self control mind. How doesn't it it means exactly that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugazi Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I mean, this doesn't really mean he's a paedophile, it does mean he's a bit of a slime with no self control mind. How doesn't it it means exactly that Hebephile Still massively wrong, obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phillipealbert Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I mean, this doesn't really mean he's a paedophile, it does mean he's a bit of a slime with no self control mind. I think you'll find that knowingly engaging in sexual activity with someone under the age of consent is the very much being a paedophile... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phillipealbert Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I mean, this doesn't really mean he's a paedophile, it does mean he's a bit of a slime with no self control mind. How doesn't it it means exactly that Hebephile Still massively wrong, obviously. Subset of being a paedo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 He pursued sexual activity with a 15 year old. He's 28. It's disgusting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts