Jay Donnelly

Started by downjim, January 11, 2019, 09:52:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

downjim

What's your views men? It looks brutal for Cliftonville, that wee girls life is ruined

screenexile

Horrible!! He sounds like a complete halfwit and deserves to be locked up because he was old enough to know better.

Surely Cliftonville have to let him go as well. . .

Tony Baloney

I have read varying reports on the age of the girl. What are the facts here? The various ghetto dwellers from Crusaders, Linfield etc are calling him a paedophile etc. but I believe the girl was 17 which is within the age of consent for sex (leaving aside the distribution of the photo). If this actually the case then how is the offence against "a child"?

GetOverTheBar

Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 11, 2019, 10:27:36 AM
I have read varying reports on the age of the girl. What are the facts here? The various ghetto dwellers from Crusaders, Linfield etc are calling him a paedophile etc. but I believe the girl was 17 which is within the age of consent for sex (leaving aside the distribution of the photo). If this actually the case then how is the offence against "a child"?

16 when photo was taken.

Tony Baloney

Quote from: GetOverTheBar on January 11, 2019, 10:30:14 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 11, 2019, 10:27:36 AM
I have read varying reports on the age of the girl. What are the facts here? The various ghetto dwellers from Crusaders, Linfield etc are calling him a paedophile etc. but I believe the girl was 17 which is within the age of consent for sex (leaving aside the distribution of the photo). If this actually the case then how is the offence against "a child"?

16 when photo was taken.
Ah right that makes more sense then. Certainly not a paedophile as the great unwashed as saying but a very foolish fella although sharing photos on Whatsapp is hardly unique these days.

toby47

Quote from: GetOverTheBar on January 11, 2019, 10:30:14 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 11, 2019, 10:27:36 AM
I have read varying reports on the age of the girl. What are the facts here? The various ghetto dwellers from Crusaders, Linfield etc are calling him a paedophile etc. but I believe the girl was 17 which is within the age of consent for sex (leaving aside the distribution of the photo). If this actually the case then how is the offence against "a child"?

16 when photo was taken.

Is 16 classified as under age, or is 15 and below under age? He was 20/21 at the time.

Sent the picture to his mates. 1 mate privately & 10 Cliftonville team mates in a groupchat.

Must be an eejit. The photos I seen she looked to be posing in one of them, but again once you send them around and they go viral your in bother.

GetOverTheBar

Not a great situation for the lad. Hard to defend it, but whoever in his group of mates then sent it to the wider public via facebook also deserves 4 months for me. The name is widely suspected but nothing will come of that I assume.

downjim

Reading stuff on twitter about him and the brother, hard to know what to believe but it's a lesson for all sports clubs

general_lee

The whole age thing isn't the (main) issue here for me, it's the fact he sent his mates the pictures. Doesn't matter if she was 16 or 36, it's a complete sc**bag act. 4 months is a let off, his defence are appealing and part of the basis is that he is of such low intelligence that he is bordering on having a learning difficulty  ::)

trailer

Very sad for the girl involved.

HiMucker

Quote from: general_lee on January 11, 2019, 10:57:48 AM
The whole age thing isn't the (main) issue here for me, it's the fact he sent his mates the pictures. Doesn't matter if she was 16 or 36, it's a complete sc**bag act. 4 months is a let off, his defence are appealing and part of the basis is that he is of such low intelligence that he is bordering on having a learning difficulty  ::)
This

Kidder81

Quote from: general_lee on January 11, 2019, 10:57:48 AM
The whole age thing isn't the (main) issue here for me, it's the fact he sent his mates the pictures. Doesn't matter if she was 16 or 36, it's a complete sc**bag act. 4 months is a let off, his defence are appealing and part of the basis is that he is of such low intelligence that he is bordering on having a learning difficulty  ::)

Mental health issues no doubt

johnnycool

Quote from: general_lee on January 11, 2019, 10:57:48 AM
The whole age thing isn't the (main) issue here for me, it's the fact he sent his mates the pictures. Doesn't matter if she was 16 or 36, it's a complete sc**bag act. 4 months is a let off, his defence are appealing and part of the basis is that he is of such low intelligence that he is bordering on having a learning difficulty  ::)

f**ker knew what he was at; A, having sex with a child and B, sending the pictures to his mates when she allegedly told him to delete it. sc**bag actions.

4 months getting the hole rid off him in prison will cure his willingness to share his dirty deeds on social media and maybe be a lesson to other scumbags inclined to do the same.


Kidder81

Is his Da the "commentator" Chris Donnelly ?

screenexile

Just asking a question maybe one of our legal experts can answer?

Why is she considered a child for the charge of distributing images but there is no issue with him having sex with her because she was the legal age for consent??!!