dsr wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:52 pm

That's not relevant to the point I was making though. My point was that it is quite reasonable, as a general principle, that people can receive widespread public condemnation for legal sexual activity.

And mine was that I still see nothing in what you say that shows there's something to which the public are entitled to hold him. It's not a general principle; to make the condemnation valid they have to break some implicit committment.

SalouClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:16 am

As much as this makes my skin crawl, he hasn't actually done anything wrong legally. Although 270 messages is probably considered harassment.

Or grooming.

SalouClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:16 am

As much as this makes my skin crawl, he hasn't actually done anything wrong legally. Although 270 messages is probably considered harassment.

Harassment is unwanted behaviour. From what I can tell the lad engaged in conversation. If he'd told him to eff off and he continued, then yes, I would call it harassment.

The reporting, using words like "bombarding" doesn't really help.

All very odd. Presumably Mackay became infatuated with the lad, but not really sure why the lad continued the conversation. Maybe he enjoyed the attention or the fact that he had a figure of authority persuing him. Maybe he saw an opportunity to earn from it so kept it up.

bobinho wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:58 pm

Or grooming.

How is it grooming if the lad is legal?

Weird? Yes. A crime? No.

bobinho wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:58 pm

Or grooming.

You can't groom a 16-year old. Apart from that...

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:04 pm

Harassment is unwanted behaviour. From what I can tell the lad engaged in conversation. If he'd told him to eff off and he continued, then yes, I would call it harassment.

The reporting, using words like "bombarding" doesn't really help.

270 messages over 6 months is less than 2 messages a day... Not really a lot.

This really is tomorrow night’s chip paper.
Salacious, but looked at through the prism of a political week, ephemeral flim-flam.

SNP party full of sex predators and Republican anti English bigots.

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:04 pm

Harassment is unwanted behaviour. From what I can tell the lad engaged in conversation. If he'd told him to eff off and he continued, then yes, I would call it harassment.

The reporting, using words like "bombarding" doesn't really help.

They say "bombarded" with 270 messages in 6 months.

From the pings I hear in the other room, I'd say 270 messages is about 37 minutes' worth of messages on most teenagers' WhatsApp group...

thatdberight wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:09 pm

They say "bombarded" with 270 messages in 6 months.

From the pings I hear in the other room, I'd say 270 messages is about 37 minutes' worth of messages on most teenagers' WhatsApp group...

Exactly but wording like that gets the bfcboyos of this world all het up.

Some strange views on here . He is a school boy ffs. The woke are better at fishing than I thought.

Bfcboyo wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:18 pm

Some strange views on here . He is a school boy ffs. The woke are better at fishing than I thought.

I'm doing well. I'm garnering a wide range of insults on this board some of which seem inconsistent with each other. But 'woke' I did not expect...

thatdberight wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:08 pm

You can't groom a 16-year old. Apart from that...

One day you're 15, the next day you're 16. Yesterday you are a paedophile, today you're not.

I get your point, but I think we are all a little 'busy' trying to find somewhere to put this.
It's just bad. He OBVIOUSLY likes young boys in a sexual way. Seems the question about his age wasn't the first text... so all he knew at THAT stage was that he was a young boy... but because he WAS 16, everything's all legal and above board.

I realise there has to be a line drawn SOMEWHERE, but it just seems so wrong in instances like this.

bobinho wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:08 pm

He OBVIOUSLY likes young boys in a sexual way.

I'd be careful. "Young boys" is an entirely different category of people than the young man under discussion in this case and there is no suggestion in the public arena linking Mackay with any such behaviour.

I'm not getting into a line by line analysis of what he knew at various stages because I couldn't possibly know, other than that nothing so far in the public arena suggests he thought he was speaking to a child (in legal terms) at any stage.

I may be wrong but I thought the age of consent was 18. When one of the couple is in a position of trust over the person under 18. Assume this is for teachers, scout leaders etc not sure about politicians though.

Anyone can be groomed, regardless of age, but whether that strays into illegality is another matter.

Cardclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:34 pm

I may be wrong but I thought the age of consent was 18. When one of the couple is in a position of trust over the person under 18. Assume this is for teachers, scout leaders etc not sure about politicians though.

I don't believe any such specific age of consent exists. You'd be quite brave these days to start a relationship where you could at all be deemed to be in a position of authority or responsibility for the other person, regardless of age.
Certainly if a teacher started a relationship with a sixth former they'd get time for it. Or you might get to be "première dame" if you're lucky even if they were only 16 at the time.

fidelcastro wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:38 pm

Anyone can be groomed, regardless of age, but whether that strays into illegality is another matter.

Almost all of the dictionaries mention children in the definition (although not Collins, which I like). Like many relatively new uses (1985), its definition may not have absolutely settled.

Bfcboyo wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:32 pm

18 acceptable 16 schoolboy

MPs should be setting an example.

They're often setting examples. Here is a case in point.

thatdberight wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:28 pm

I'd be careful. "Young boys" is an entirely different category of people than the young man under discussion in this case and there is no suggestion in the public arena linking Mackay with any such behaviour.

I'm not getting into a line by line analysis of what he knew at various stages because I couldn't possibly know, other than that nothing so far in the public arena suggests he thought he was speaking to a child (in legal terms) at any stage.

Young boys, older boys... How about moral terms? I was once a 16 year old schoolboy. A schoolboy non the less. There are 16 year old schoolboys out there now. Would that be ok? 16 after all.... just a rhetorical question, I know you won’t think that’s ok.

This is a terrible situation.... but it’s one of his own making, but admitting he’s been stupid or foolish is one thing... he could quite easily have been answering some very serious charges. That shouldn’t come down to luck....I wonder what his reaction would’ve been if the answer to the age question was 15?

Messages started on 2nd August. He asked him his age on 18th September. In between he told the lad he was gay, asked for his mobile number (twice) and offered to take him to a rugby match.

Just googled it for you Thatdberight. The age of consent is 18, where there is a position of trust scenario under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The “ 18 rule” applies to teachers/social workers /medical /police/etc etc pretty damn sure MP’s don’t fall into that category . He’ll lose his job (unlucky but has to be) He’s lost his career over stupidity rather than buggery.

Cardclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:50 pm

Just googled it for you Thatdberight. The age of consent is 18, where there is a position of trust scenario under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

What is this Google of which you speak? Sounds useful.

Thanks for the detail. I'd be even more circumspect. Even among older adults in some work environments it's either very heavily regulated or banned.

SNP = Sexual nuisance party.

Bfcboyo wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:54 pm

Just this which I presumed was legitimate. I will stand by my beliefs even if it turns out to be untrue. If he is 15 / 16 he is a 42 year old. It reeks.

It will all come out and whatever happens would you want him texting your 16yr old niece,nephew,son or daughter.

I totally agree it reeks which is why all the opposition parties in Holyrood are calling for him to resign his seat,and it's probable he'll be kicked out of the SNP,this happened over a long period and he clearly knew it was wrong,hence why he didn't want the conservations to come to light,whether he's broken any laws is up to the police to decide,but morally surely no-one can defend his behaviour,and he'll have to take the consequences whatever they might be.

No i wouldn't want any middle-aged man/woman texting my young relatives,especially if they were a stranger,which i presume Mr Mackay was initially.

There is no suggestion that Derek Mackay has engaged in any physical sexual contact with the unnamed boy,but his messages are creepy at best,and obsence at worst.

Just as an aside i note there is no SNP representation on QT tonight,purely a coincidence i'm sure.

More allegations in the Scottish press https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/poli ... -21447119

dsr wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:52 pm

That's not relevant to the point I was making though. My point was that it is quite reasonable, as a general principle, that people can receive widespread public condemnation for legal sexual activity.

I take your point, an example being I suppose someone who is married having an affair (or even several). It is not illegal but nevertheless wrong, but surely that is the business of those affected and not one for the general public to get concerned about? I suppose this is what I mean about people getting a bit precious about things that, in the end are no concern of theirs. Someone above posted about 'people defending his actions', I think the point missed is that people aren't 'defending' him (there is as yet nothing to defend legally) but they are simply pointing out that in the eyes of the law he has done no wrong and their condemnation is all to do with imposing their moral values on others.
For what it's worth I don't agree with what he has done but it is not for me or anyone else to condemn him until such time (if that time comes) that he is proven to have broken the law.

Right_winger wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:56 pm

Horrible horrible party run by bigots

Oh the irony!

He’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy.

Best we wait to find out just how naughty by letting the law decide.

Nota good look for the SNP... on the back of Salmond... serf serving, abuse of power is political dynamite. The SNP are in danger of imploding as so many do, just when they seem to be on a roll. It happened time after time with Irish home rule organisations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries..... clever Westminster undermining or lack of integrity of those in control?

Fact is he's aleading Polititico - well in Scotland anyway and really shouldn't be chatting up young men.

Does anyone know what the content of these messages was?

There's a full transcript in the Scottish Sun.

Not sure why I got banned tbh.

I wondered why this guy hadn't been in the press recently, this is he's still entitled to claim expenses despite not attending Holyrood since February, this is taking liberties with the Scottish taxpayers https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... -54365258

Looks like they've got a lot bigger problems than expense claims after Margaret Ferrier actions this week. Surely she should resign but disgraced MPs resigning doesnt seem to be the done thing these days

The press are gunning for her after she went after Cummings in a big way but has done something far far worse.

I'm far from into all these rules in place but the first one that should be put in place is anyone having a test because they have symptoms should have to isolate until test results are known.

The sad thing is now we'll see lots of people who defended Cummings to the hilt suddenly outraged by this MP. I think Cummings should have resigned or been sacked and I think Ferrier should resign or be sacked but unfortunately many will treat differently because of their tribal allegiances

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 01, 2020 7:32 pm

The sad thing is now we'll see lots of people who defended Cummings to the hilt suddenly outraged by this MP. I think Cummings should have resigned or been sacked and I think Ferrier should resign or be sacked but unfortunately many will treat differently because of their tribal allegiances

The difference is, that its debatable that Cummings did anything wrong, where as this person has deliberately broke every rule in the book.
Anyway, I'm not sure most people are outraged.
Probably more amused than anything

"its debatable that Cummings did anything wrong"

Damo wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 01, 2020 7:40 pm

The difference is, that its debatable that Cummings did anything wrong, where as this person has deliberately broke every rule in the book.
Anyway, I'm not sure most people are outraged.
Probably more amused than anything

Cummings went back in to work after being with his wife suffering from Covid symptoms. He then drove the length of the country with an infected family. You can defend all the crappy excuses all you want but you are just proving my point how people will treat the two differently.

Both put MPs at risk, both travelled when they should have stayed put and both shouldnt have kept their job. Its pretty simple if you dont let your political bias cloud your judgement

Get the big net lads

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 01, 2020 7:59 pm

Cummings went back in to work after being with his wife suffering from Covid symptoms. He then drove the length of the country with an infected family. You can defend all the crappy excuses all you want but you are just proving my point how people will treat the two differently.

Both put MPs at risk, both travelled when they should have stayed put and both shouldnt have kept their job. Its pretty simple if you dont let your political bias cloud your judgement

And you will be wanting Corbyn to resign as well?

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:08 pm

And you will be wanting Corbyn to resign as well?

Probably not as Id say his actions probably fall in to a less serious breach than knowingly travelling with Covid symptoms. Id say Cotbyns actions more sit alongside those of Jenrick, Kinnock, Stanley Johnson, Farage and quite a few other people in public office.

Thats not to defend him as its just another example of the hypocrisy of these MPs and prominent figures who preach at us but again if you try to look at it objectively there is a difference between meeting up with more than 6 healthy people and going to work and travelling the country with the virus

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:08 pm

And you will be wanting Corbyn to resign as well?

I don’t. But I’d love to know how many Labour politicians that called for Cummings to be sacked will be doing the same now that Corbyn has been photographed breaking the rules (I mean, how daft).

Think this SNP lady is the worst of the lot. She wrote in the Daily Record calling for Cummings to resign so presumably she will now be doing the same?

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:08 pm

I don’t. But I’d love to know how many Labour politicians that called for Cummings to be sacked will be doing the same now that Corbyn has been photographed breaking the rules (I mean, how daft).

Think this SNP lady is the worst of the lot. She wrote in the Daily Record calling for Cummings to resign so presumably she will now be doing the same?

TBF to the SNP they've removed the whip ASAP, and that's all they can do, and both them and the Labour party are calling on her to resign, sadly I doubt she will, nobody whatever their political views has the honour to fall on their sword anymore, her case isn't helped by her call for Dominic Cummings to quit when his 'mistake' came to light, the one thing the electorate hate more than anything is hypocrisy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54379026

The main and obvious difference between all the other cases mentioned and the Cummings case is that they’ve all realised they’ve done wrong and apologised rather than take the public for idiots by concocting some cock and bull story.

The SNP MP’s case I think is serious enough for her to resign, Corbyn and Johnson Snr should not escape the law and should receive the appropriate fine.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:40 pm

The main and obvious difference between all the other cases mentioned and the Cummings case is that they’ve all realised they’ve done wrong and apologised rather than take the public for idiots by concocting some cock and bull story.

The SNP MP’s case I think is serious enough for her to resign, Corbyn and Johnson Snr should not escape the law and should receive the appropriate fine.

Agree he should’ve apologised, she should resign and Corbyn/Johnson get a fine.

tiger76 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:33 pm

TBF to the SNP they've removed the whip ASAP, and that's all they can do, and both them and the Labour party are calling on her to resign, sadly I doubt she will, nobody whatever their political views has the honour to fall on their sword anymore, her case isn't helped by her call for Dominic Cummings to quit when his 'mistake' came to light, the one thing the electorate hate more than anything is hypocrisy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54379026

Yes, SNP have dealt with it annoyingly well

Given her words about Cummings, and that her actions were far more irresponsible, it will be the highest possible hypocrisy if she doesn’t resign. Credibility in tatters.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 02, 2020 12:06 am

Yes, SNP have dealt with it annoyingly well

Given her words about Cummings, and that her actions were far more irresponsible, it will be the highest possible hypocrisy if she doesn’t resign. Credibility in tatters.

Yes it would, but another take on this it a that the government set the standard for how this should be dealt with so she’s already gone too far by apologising.

Are these people arrogant or just stupid?

She ought to be sacked immediately. Really bad exposing people to risk including on public transport with symptoms and then worse still after a positive test. Disgraceful.