Very true but I am arguing about the "statement of fact" in this post

Assuming that was the case - there is the issue of him refusing to take responsibility for his own child. That is pretty despicable! If he really believed there was no chance he could be the father - he would take the appropriate test. And if he is - he should be a man - and be a father to his child!

with the information that we have about the whole thing, it's seems more likely to me that Sisqo (who was only 20 at the time) wrongly assumed she was older than she was rather than he is some raging paedophile whose other crimes are yet to be discovered!

yes, I agree with that 100%

That's not a fact. Nobody but Sisqo knows.

What we do know, as Wombai pointed out, is that he ran from the story scared of the press at the expense of the child.

Yes, but it was over a civil case, not a criminal one. So he is neither a convicted criminal nor a runaway defendent. The Swiss court's decision to declare Sisqo the dad after the long wait with no DNA test is fair enough and they gave Sisqo more than enough time to show up, but it seems plausible that Sisqo would figure he had nothing to gain by travelling to Switzerland if he had nothing to hide and there was no threat of extradition.

He didnt have to travel top Switzerland simply submit to a DNA test, he could have done that at an agreed hospital/centre/laboratory, the test results would have then been sent to him and also the Swiss Court.

Now he cant go back to Switzerland, because he owes in excess of $100,000. If he does he would get arrested, for non payment of child support and contempt of court, the ensuing publicity could force the Swiss authorities to initiate a prosecution

Then I'm amazed he hasn't done anything about this. Either he has a death wish or he wrongly believes he can get away with it.

Or he might thinks if he ignores it, it will go away. Guilty people often do. PMSL

+1000. Its rare to see a thread that is just so ignorant....

maybe its all these 'prioritys'

And you have a degree in Cognitive Psychology from which university?

And you have a degree in quick assumptions from which University?

There is no proof that he is a paedophile. None at all.

Utter fact.

:laugh2:

Apart from the fact the Swiss High Court has ruled he is the father of the child, that she says he fathered when she was 14 and he was 21? Technically a sex offence.

And paedophile is used in the states(where he was born and lives) when referring to an adult who commits a sex offence against a minor ( and a 14 year old is a minor regardless of how old she looked at the time, that doesnt change the fact she was still a minor.)

For once can you stop speaking in black and white legal jargon and respect the fact that there is no evidence to suggest he has an ongoing sexual attraction to young children?

Does that mean you accept the 'fact' that he could be classed as a paedophile or are you just changing the goalposts in the discussion?

Stop trying to catch me out and cop on. I'm talking about rational, common sense view and you know it. Not political technicalities.

There is no evidence to suggest he has an ongoing facination with kiddies.

I think it's quite clear by your fascination with paedophile's its in fact YOU who is a deeply troubled person..seek medical assistance you dirty peasant

You know if it was anyone on the forum other than you, I may have been insulted by that slur.

Just to let you know my service pension keeps me comfortably off thanks.