McDermott is to sue Twitter.

A child legally but not a crime to get up to consensual sexual shennanigans with a child of 17. That's if the shennanigans were consensual because we've no way of knowing that for sure at the moment.

I actually don't know who to believe in this case. I thought it was interesting that only some of the accusations against McDermott were withdrawn in the solicitor's letter. If I was McDermott, I would have wanted everything withdrawn but that didn't happen.

Then you have to take the credibility of the girl into question. She admitted not telling the truth about being underage so that's her credibility blown out of the water. But just because she isn't credible, that doesn't necessarily mean that all of her accusations are false. Like I said, I don't know who to believe. It's a clusterfcuk with both of them coming out of this damaged.

I can't see it making it into court though. If it goes to court and is defended by Twitter, I think McDermott won't come out of it as well as he thinks he will even if he wins his case. If he loses his case, he's destroyed. It's risky for him.

Couldn’t take her to the boozer, though, she can’t, legally, be served.

To creeps and groomers.

More nonsense.

17 year olds are not children in this instance. They are young persons. Legal jargon doesn’t change that. We all know the “legal” definition of a child in Ireland.

Put your morality dictionary away and stop trying to label males as creeps and pervs because they can be attracted to females.

Nobody is trying to normalise anything, because there is nothing to normalise.

There is nothing weird, unnatural, creepy about males in their 20s being attracted to 17 year old females.

answer a simple question: is there something wrong with a male in his 20s being attracted to a 17 year old female? Yes or no? And maybe try answer this time.

Ok, lets put this to bed for good, no pun intended.

17 is the age of consent. A 17 year old may consent to sex with any person of any gender also above the age of 17. 28 or 49 or 87. It doesn't matter if you don't like the thought of it, its the law.

Yes, Tusla considers anyone under age 18, ie a maximum of 17, a child. And if they felt there was a possible case of sexual assault or exploitation of a 17 year old, they would assist them as a child in need, but not purely on an issue of consent. In other words, if a 17 year old individual gave clear and uncoerced testimony that there was consensual sexual contact, Tusla would walk away.

The 'proximity of age' defence, in cases of sexual abuse allegations, only affects the window of ages down to 15.

So, once there is clear consent and any other issues of concern notwithstanding, then:

A 15 year old may have sex with someone aged 15,16 or 17. But no older.

A 16 year old may have sex with someone aged 15,16,17,or 18. But no older.

A 17 year old may have sex with someone aged 15,16,17,18 or any age at all.

There are no circumstances where a person of 14 years old or younger can consent to any sexual activity whatsoever. That is statutory rape.

So yes, a 17 year old is a child. But a 17 year old also gains the legal standing of sexual consent. With anyone they freely want.

Would it be easier to end legal childhood at the turn of 17, or alternatively to raise the age of sexual consent to 18 and make things nice and tidy?

Probably, but it won't happen, because it is a fact of life that young people begin inheriting certain rights as they move through late adolescence, drinking smoking, driving, sex, marriage, become a business director etc at age 16,17,18, 21 or whatever.

It may offend you to think of a man nearing 30 in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old and I can understand why concerns of exploitation would be raised, but once consent is confirmed then it a matter between yourself and your morals thereafter.....

Yeah its legal to have sex with a 17 year old but someone that age still has a lot of growing up to do and its hard to see what someone 10 years older would have in common with a teenager.

I can't think of anyone I know in real life back when we were in our 20s who went looking to date someone who was still in school.

Just putting it out there so some of the lads saying there is nothing strange about it, would you be happy if a 27 year old was having it off with your 17 year old daughter?

While not illegal I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.

Of course 17 year olds have a lot of growing up to do. They do it through life experiences and making decisions, which is what she did when she entered in a relationship with him.

Unfortunately, she also decided that she was going to fabricate lies via social media. This decision has destroyed his life in a spectacular fashion because people lapped it up. This thread is an excellent example of it: people want him to suffer the consequences just because they don’t like him, and they prefer to side with an admitted liar. It’s fascinating to observe while also scary.

Can you stop trying to police the sex life of a young woman please!!! Young women can do what they like! It's none of your business what they do!!

You'd hope a 27 year old man would stay away from a young 17 year old woman as we all know how young women act around well known older males, but he has no legal obligation to stay away from her.

You have to remember, McDermott may be 27 at the time, but he was incredibly immature, he tried to get words banned from a song!!!! He was a male feminist, we aren't talking about an intellectual here, he was a popular DJ on a poxy parochial radio station that young women listen to!! He used that position to virtue signal at every chance believing himself to be some kind of moral guide for people....a moron in other words!!

“Like what is the actual appeal of a relationship? The only thing is the power dynamic and a god complex.“

What a bizarre way of looking at a relationship between 2 people who you know nothing about.

Remember, only the age at which it happened was retracted, not whether or not it happened.