[user104658]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

I didn’t respond to her because she’s on ignore…

There’s no proof he groomed him, just everyone’s warped opinion. If it ever emerges that he did groom him then we’ll discuss it.

Not interested in make believe hyper-theoreticals.

Whether or not he groomed him is actually a matter of opinion and not fact; grooming in and of itself is not a crime.

Can a 50 year old man have a personal relationship with someone from childhood and start a sexual relationship barely into adulthood without there being an element of grooming, either planned or incidental? In my opinion, no.

Am I calling for jail assuming the kid did indeed consent and was "legal" when it went further, also no, because it's as had been repeatedly pointed out "not a crime".

Im confused about the sudden insistence that moral judgement should be aligned with and limited by the letter of the law though. You don't apply that principle on a myriad of other topics. You've cherry picked this one for whatever reason (fairly obvious reasons, realistically).

Again though, "make believe hyper theoretical" or not, I don't think anyone believes for a second that you wouldn't have the polar opposite opinion if it was Pier or any other TV gammon and a young girl. Blood would be pumping. You know that.

And again; you seem to lack the same restraint of judgement you insist on here when it comes to Prince Andrew and his New York adventures. 17 is "legal" in New York. What's the problem? That's not a hypothetical either: that's observed. Both you and Liam have commented plenty on Andrew.

But not Phil. No nono, we must wait and see.