The Radford Family #57 Only famous for how much they breed, will the next Radford baby be named “Sweed”

[Shinealight]

But they stayed together it’s and built this Amazing hard working family how anyone can defend that and it’s mostly women with families that’s the scariest bit!

“Hard working family”
Where TF do they get that from?
They’re far from hard working, in fact they’re one of the laziest set of people I’ve seen.
Total attention seeking grifters, they should be shunned, not lauded.

 

[Blue_ocean]

All the episodes, filming, holidays and weekends away really show how much time noel takes off work
Everyone says how hard working they are well she has nothing to do with the business outside of sending mouthy replies and he is never working but that doesn't seem to register with viewers.

 

[lissy8219]

All the episodes, filming, holidays and weekends away really show how much time noel takes off work
Everyone says how hard working they are well she has nothing to do with the business outside of sending mouthy replies and he is never working but that doesn't seem to register with viewers.

Agreed, how they get orders made and out on time is baffling, oh yeah, that's right , they don't!

 

[Daisydreaming]

This reminds me of Inghams, got all involved when a friends child had cancer. Said they would help, they did nothing. They don’t give to anyone at all. At least people like RGR for all the can be annoying do give so much back.

 

[wowee22]

“Hard working family”
Where TF do they get that from?
They’re far from hard working, in fact they’re one of the laziest set of people I’ve seen.
Total attention seeking grifters, they should be shunned, not lauded.

Too lazy to parent to teach their kids to be independent. How can that lad not know how to cook even a microwave meal? Do they just live on just eat deliveries? They’ve left them so many times before that episode..what a does he eat all those times??? It’s clearly not an “amazing” microwave chicken curry.

 

[AliceInWanderLost]

The amount of posters on Ok's Facebook page when they posted the article about how young Scratty was when she first fell pregnant of people saying "it takes 2" made me feel sick. She was 13!! 13!!

the worst comment i saw was someone arguing that it was totally acceptable for a 17 year old to groom and abuse a 13 year old back in the late 80s, as statutory rape is a "woke" term and people wouldn't have had an issue with it "back then", because teens grew up far more quickly etc etc,

and when someone highlighted that statutory rape very much WAS a crime in the UK in 1989 and that the overwhelming majority of society would NOT have condoned kids being sexually abused, the reply was "do you know what rape is?", and then claiming that the crime of statutory rape takes away the meaning of TRUE rape, as it would mean there are thousands of rapists out in society. well yeah, because there ARE?! just because someone hasn't been accused of rape, held accountable for their crime or prosecuted etc doesn't magically mean they aren't a rapist! what in the Radford-loving logic is this?! how is rape involving a child victim not "TRUE" rape, ffs?! the lengths these idiots will go to defend the Radford predator is beyond belief - not to mention the disgusting amount of victim blaming because "it takes two to make a baby" - she was THIRTEEN!

 

[Blue_ocean]

the worst comment i saw was someone arguing that it was totally acceptable for a 17 year old to groom and abuse a 13 year old back in the late 80s, as statutory rape is a "woke" term and people wouldn't have had an issue with it "back then", because teens grew up far more quickly etc etc,

and when someone highlighted that statutory rape very much WAS a crime in the UK in 1989 and that the overwhelming majority of society would NOT have condoned kids being sexually abused, the reply was "do you know what rape is?", and then claiming that the crime of statutory rape takes away the meaning of TRUE rape, as it would mean there are thousands of rapists out in society. well yeah, because there ARE?! just because someone hasn't been accused of rape, held accountable for their crime or prosecuted etc doesn't magically mean they aren't a rapist! what in the Radford-loving logic is this?! how is rape involving a child victim not "TRUE" rape, ffs?! the lengths these idiots will go to defend the Radford predator is beyond belief - not to mention the disgusting amount of victim blaming because "it takes two to make a baby" - she was THIRTEEN!

View attachment 2708755View attachment 2708756

That describes what noel did to a T and yet that person refuses to believe it
I can't actually believe how defensive they are nothing excuses an adult sniffing around young teenagers/children much less getting one pregnant!!!

 

[AllieBee]

Too lazy to parent to teach their kids to be independent. How can that lad not know how to cook even a microwave meal? Do they just live on just eat deliveries? They’ve left them so many times before that episode..what a does he eat all those times??? It’s clearly not an “amazing” microwave chicken curry.

Well it probably does taste amazing if all you've ever eaten is Sue's home 'cooking'!

 

[Pastymuncher]

the worst comment i saw was someone arguing that it was totally acceptable for a 17 year old to groom and abuse a 13 year old back in the late 80s, as statutory rape is a "woke" term and people wouldn't have had an issue with it "back then", because teens grew up far more quickly etc etc,

and when someone highlighted that statutory rape very much WAS a crime in the UK in 1989 and that the overwhelming majority of society would NOT have condoned kids being sexually abused, the reply was "do you know what rape is?", and then claiming that the crime of statutory rape takes away the meaning of TRUE rape, as it would mean there are thousands of rapists out in society. well yeah, because there ARE?! just because someone hasn't been accused of rape, held accountable for their crime or prosecuted etc doesn't magically mean they aren't a rapist! what in the Radford-loving logic is this?! how is rape involving a child victim not "TRUE" rape, ffs?! the lengths these idiots will go to defend the Radford predator is beyond belief - not to mention the disgusting amount of victim blaming because "it takes two to make a baby" - she was THIRTEEN!

View attachment 2708755View attachment 2708756

Well he certainly knew she was 13 so statutory rape doesnt apply then.

 

[Finallyarrivedatlast]

I wonder if the powers that be have decided it's not in the public interest to prosecute for historical?

 

[Shinealight]

That describes what noel did to a T and yet that person refuses to believe it
I can't actually believe how defensive they are nothing excuses an adult sniffing around young teenagers/children much less getting one pregnant!!!

As far as I’m concerned, anyone that makes excuses and condones Noel’s behaviour is as bad as he is.
Since when was “staying together and getting married” a get out clause in the eyes of the law?

 

[sebanna]

The scary thing was Sue was thirteen and five months when she got pregnant but there's no way of knowing how old she was when she first started having sex. She was potentially even younger when she was first groomed. Wonder how the book will document this chapter of Sue's story?

 

[Pastymuncher]

The scary thing was Sue was thirteen and five months when she got pregnant but there's no way of knowing how old she was when she first started having sex. She was potentially even younger when she was first groomed. Wonder how the book will document this chapter of Sue's story?

Abused by the pie man: My life of motorhomes and holidays

 

[AliceInWanderLost]

The scary thing was Sue was thirteen and five months when she got pregnant but there's no way of knowing how old she was when she first started having sex. She was potentially even younger when she was first groomed. Wonder how the book will document this chapter of Sue's story?

especially as Noel and Sue first met when Sue was 7. he obvs felt comfortable raping a child, so i doubt he would have waited specifically for her to be 13. it really is awful to even think about - although even if it did emerge that he had been abusing her from an even younger age, you can guarantee the Radfraud fans would find a long list of reasons to defend Noel and justify his crimes.

 

[AliceInWanderLost]

genuinely loving all the recent Entertainment Daily articles on FB, as they all seem to make a point of specifying that Sue was 13 when she became pregnant with her first child and that Noel was 18 - and as a result, so many of the comments are calling out his pedalo behaviour, as more people are realising the age gap. between the two of them and just how young Sue was when Noel began abusing her. i really hope this is the beginning of the end for them - and also that Channel 5 are held accountable for working with them, despite being full aware of all the details, actively going out of their way to keep them hidden.

 

[airwolf97]

All those people defending it are automatically a nonce in my eyes because why are they going to such lengths to defend it, guilty of the same thing perhaps?

 

[wowee22]

Dear god. Every week churning out the same lies and shite. We have to live with this for how many more episodes???

 

[NoHintOfDrama]

I’m the same age as Sue and it didn’t ’just happen’ to my peers when I was 13. There was one girl in my year who got pregnant just before we left school and she was already 16.
Sue was undoubtedly groomed from a very young age.

 

[Shinealight]

I’m the same age as Sue and it didn’t ’just happen’ to my peers when I was 13. There was one girl in my year who got pregnant just before we left school and she was already 16.
Sue was undoubtedly groomed from a very young age.

Exactly, it so annoys me how she seems to intimate that it was happening to quite a lot of girls at the time.
It absolutely wasn’t.

 

[K4040]

Has anyone ever questioned Noel as to what attracted him to a 13 year old when he was 18?! Surely he should have been hanging round nightclubs and pubs not the school gates