[GoldHeart]

I don't know why Di Caprio is getting brought into this , all his relationships have been with consenting adults....and as far as I know he never knew any of his girlfriend's when they were children as he groomed them in his life ???! . A big age gap is one thing ,yes might still be a bit strange. But it's not the same.

[bots]

It's not as big a **** show as the Andrew interview, but it certainly had that vibe. People have become wise to these "set the record straight" type interviews

[Crimson Dynamo]

The interview was a PR stunt

nothing more

nothing less

[arista]

[arista]

Nice of Holly
to take her Mum on Holiday


[As the scandal over her co-host rumbles
on in the UK,
the mother-of-three, 42,
looked delighted to be on a break
in the Algarve where the sun was
shining, and the temperature hit 25C (77f).]

[Crimson Dynamo]

yes you are a GROOMER Phil

Youtube video

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

yes you are a GROOMER Phil

Youtube video

Not Pier having the same misunderstanding of what grooming is as Liam and Glenn . Three peas in a pod they are!

But yes in all seriousness, he does a good job here of outlining why it's still grooming regardless of whether Philip realised what he was doing, or if MM was over 16.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Not Pier having the same misunderstanding of what grooming is as Liam and Glenn . Three peas in a pod they are!

But yes in all seriousness, he does a good job here of outlining why it's still grooming regardless of whether Philip realised what he was doing, or if MM was over 16.

This is true.

Grooming and coercion are almost impossible to prove because so many people don't recognise it, realise it or understand it.

[Liam-]

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a person to defend themselves when they’re being publicly dragged through the mud by a vicious media and social media armchair detectives, accusing him of being a criminal without any evidence for or any actual accusations.

It’s completely irrational and unfair to automatically decide he’s guilty of something, without any factual basis, slag him off, call him all the names under the same, celebrate him losing his career and then continue to slag him off when he decides to share his side of the story and defend himself.

I can’t stand the man, I think he’s a pompous, arrogant asshole, but the way he’s being treated atm is appalling and will lead one way only.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Liam-

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a person to defend themselves when they’re being publicly dragged through the mud by a vicious media and social media armchair detectives, accusing him of being a criminal without any evidence for or any actual accusations.

It’s completely irrational and unfair to automatically decide he’s guilty of something, without any factual basis, slag him off, call him all the names under the same, celebrate him losing his career and then continue to slag him off when he decides to share his side of the story and defend himself.

I can’t stand the man, I think he’s a pompous, arrogant asshole, but the way he’s being treated atm is appalling and will lead one way only.

Of course he has the right to defend him self but he did totally the opposite. HE made himself look more dodgy and suspicious

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a person to defend themselves when they’re being publicly dragged through the mud by a vicious media and social media armchair detectives, accusing him of being a criminal without any evidence for or any actual accusations.

It’s completely irrational and unfair to automatically decide he’s guilty of something, without any factual basis, slag him off, call him all the names under the same, celebrate him losing his career and then continue to slag him off when he decides to share his side of the story and defend himself.

I can’t stand the man, I think he’s a pompous, arrogant asshole, but the way he’s being treated atm is appalling and will lead one way only.

Grooming isn't illegal. I'm not sure how many times that needs to be said. Yes I know people have thrown around "nonce" and "paedo" a bit flippantly but believe it or not, whether he was or wasn't interested in MM when he was underage, neither of those things are illegal either. So who is accusing him of being a criminal? "Paedophilia" isn't a crime, child molestation is a crime. Having (or attempting) sexual contact with a minor is a crime. VERY FEW people have insinuated that he did that.

On this thread I don't think I've seen anyone outright suggest he broke the law.

Again there seems to be this confusion that it's unfair to judge someone's actions unless they're illegal which I'm pretty sure you know is not the case.

[Liam-]

‘Reading between the lines’ of someone’s statement is just catering to your own already concluded narrative and doesn’t help anything but further your biases

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Liam-

‘Reading between the lines’ of someone’s statement is just catering to your own already concluded narrative and doesn’t help anything but further your biases

What biases. Explain please.

I see a situation where a middle aged wealthy and influential TV star dates a teenage colleague. Where's the bias.

If you want to make accusations please back them up

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

What biases. Explain please.

I see a situation where a middle aged wealthy and influential TV star dates a teenage colleague. Where's the bias.

If you want to make accusations please back them up

The bias that you already believe he’s guilty of some sort of grooming of a child, so you’re obviously going to pick out whatever you can to back that opinion up

It’s understandable because everybody wants to be right when they believe something, but I think in situations like these where there’s no evidence or an actual accusation, it’s a bit unfair to do so

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The bias that you already believe he’s guilty of some sort of grooming of a child, so you’re obviously going to pick out whatever you can to back that opinion up

It’s understandable because everybody wants to be right when they believe something, but I think in situations like these where there’s no evidence or an actual accusation, it’s a bit unfair to do so

He is guilty of grooming. You don't think he is, he probably doesn't think he is, but he is. By his own description of their relationship, he is. There's nothing to be "proven". It's not a crime.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

He is guilty of grooming. You don't think he is, he probably doesn't think he is, but he is. By his own description of their relationship, he is. There's nothing to be "proven". It's not a crime.

He just started shagging his young mate nothing to see here

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

He is guilty of grooming. You don't think he is, he probably doesn't think he is, but he is. By his own description of their relationship, he is. There's nothing to be "proven". It's not a crime.

Agreed.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The bias that you already believe he’s guilty of some sort of grooming of a child, so you’re obviously going to pick out whatever you can to back that opinion up

It’s understandable because everybody wants to be right when they believe something, but I think in situations like these where there’s no evidence or an actual accusation, it’s a bit unfair to do so

I've made it clear the age difference and the star status is my biggest issue. I would say the same if it was a heterosexual middle age woman with a teenage boy. If I am guilty of having a bias against middle age stars dating teenager then I'm guilty.

As for no evidence, both have admitted to the relationship

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I've made it clear the age difference and the star status is my biggest issue. I would say the same if it was a heterosexual middle age woman with a teenage boy. If I am guilty of having a bias against middle age stars dating teenager then I'm guilty.

As for no evidence, both have admitted to the relationship

Exactly GiRTh
I for one have always found the Cheryl Cole's and Elvis' of this world questionable and a little creepy.

I don't care if someone is male or female or gay or straight or trans , if you're being inappropriate with a minor and especially lying about it ...then I'm going to find it suspicious.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The bias that you already believe he’s guilty of some sort of grooming of a child, so you’re obviously going to pick out whatever you can to back that opinion up

It’s understandable because everybody wants to be right when they believe something, but I think in situations like these where there’s no evidence or an actual accusation, it’s a bit unfair to do so

And of course, you spoke up for Andrew Tate when he was being accused and persecuted for that with zero evidence, didn't you. Or did your bias get in the way?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The bias that you already believe he’s guilty of some sort of grooming of a child, so you’re obviously going to pick out whatever you can to back that opinion up

What is your understanding of grooming?

How can you think he didn't groom MM, when it's been outlined by several posters?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

What is your understanding of grooming?

How can you think he didn't groom MM, when it's been outlined by several posters?

It's fairly clear that there's an incorrect perception that "grooming" is "to catch a predator"-style approaching of an underage person with the intent of sexual activity and that if Philip didn't do that, then he didn't groom MM.

And a persistent, stubborn refusal to understand or admit that that's just one form of grooming.

I genuinely blame "The Stonewall Method" for a lot of this infuriating tactic. "If you don't like the information presented, just ignore it entirely and carry on".

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

‘Reading between the lines’ of someone’s statement is just catering to your own already concluded narrative and doesn’t help anything but further your biases

I didn't say reading between the lines, I said reading between the "I'm sorry" and "it was wrong" platitudes. As in, what he was actually saying, from his own mouth. His actual words. He threw in "Yes I know I did wrong but..." and "I am so so sorry, however..." but 90% of what he said was "You're all being unfair to me and I did nowt wrong anyway".

[Gusto Brunt]

He hsn't lost everything.

He has about £20M in the bank, plus property and investments. And I do think he will come back to TV.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Gusto Brunt

He hsn't lost everything.

He has about £20M in the bank, plus property and investments. And I do think he will come back to TV.

There’s no coming back from this .. his detractors and the media circus has ensured that … he’s already one of the most hated people on Earth

I don’t think there is any chance of him
EVER appearing on telly again ( apart from maybe a televised trial of some kind)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro