Fair enough. But where is proof Noel is still chasing after young girls, texting them, telling them to drop towels etc or as you say ect.I want proof if he's a wrong un. In my, very humble, but to be very honest educated opinion, he's more than a bit wet and it would have been her jumping on his virgin bones to be impregnated. She's not as daft as makes out and knows exactly what she wanted.
As everyone else has said, he got a 13 year old pregnant (who he was possibly first sleeping with when she was even younger than this). He was 17, above the age of consent. She was not. Whether you think she wanted it or not, that is statutory rape as she was not legally old enough to consent. There's your 'proof' that he's a wrong'un.
I don't think there's ever been a doubt that Sue verbally consented at the time. Perhaps she did even initiate it at the time? We'll never know. But that is not enough to make it ok when she was underage and legally not old enough to consent. He was the adult, he should have known he had to say no.
It's irrelevant whether Noel is still a threat to young girls now. Personally I don't believe he he is, as he's shown no obvious interest or concerning behaviour towards young girls since. He's got his victim, he's still controlling her, he doesn't need another one. However, that doesn't take away the fact that, historically, he is guilty of statutory rape.
Suggesting the victim of statutory rape was asking for it and is therefore at fault for an adult taking advantage of them is beyond low.
A 20 year old with 2 kids isn’t shocking. Her mother started when she was 13, at least Mille was of decent age. Her baby seems happy enough. I don’t like her but that’s not to say she won’t be a good mum to both of her kids.
Where did I say it was 'shocking'? Or suggest she won't be a good mum? Your comments don't relate to what I said at all, did you mean to quote me?