SNP Finance Minister Derek Mackay resigns after grooming a 16 year old boy with 270 online messages

The Scottish Finance Minister tipped to be Nicola Sturgeon’s successor was forced to resign this morning after admitting telling a schoolboy that he was “cute” while bombarding him with 270 online messages.

SNP MSP Derek Mackay, 42, invited the 16-year-old boy out for dinner in private messages on social media over a period of six months after contacting him out of the blue.

In one conversation, the top SNP politician asked: “Are our chats between us?” before telling the teenager, “I think you are really cute.”


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/06/snp-finance-minister-derek-mackay-resigns-telling-boy-16-cute/

When I think of how many times I've said someone is "really cute", I shudder. I always thought that was a statement of fact.

Now when I look at a newborn baby, I'll say 'Well Mum, he isn't a monster'.

Is quill really trying to downplay the sustained online attempted grooming of this schoolboy by the SNP finance minister, by comparing it to being out in a social environment and passing a brief polite comment to a new mother that her baby was "cute"...!?


Unbelievable!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Is quill really trying to downplay the sustained online attempted grooming of this schoolboy by the SNP finance minister, by comparing it to being out in a social environment and passing a brief polite comment to a new mother that her baby was "cute"...!?


Unbelievable!!!

I don't know the guy. It's the situation that is ridiculous.

He's a Lawyer, supposed to be intelligent !

nicko wrote:He's a Lawyer, supposed to be intelligent !

Pleeeeeze...

His behaviour fits the official description of what constitutes child grooming... He has resigned already too...

The SNPs Alex Salmons is in court soon on sex charges too...


https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-trial-when-court-date-what-are-charges-and-whos-judge-1364743



Oh dear ..

Tommy Monk wrote:


His behaviour fits the official description of what constitutes child grooming... He has resigned already too...

Tenuous at best. Tom, patterns are indirect or inferential evidence, at best. They are not a smoking gun. They are not a video tape. They are not even a confession.

His resignation might mean that he wants to concentrate on fighting the charges. Perhaps he feels that they are slanderous and deserve his undivided attention.

You'd argue Black was white and Vice-Versa !

nicko wrote:You'd argue Black was white and Vice-Versa !

Red-herring argument.

You just don't have an answer for the real argument. There's no evidence.

Stabbed in the back by two men with Knives, and you say no evidence ? Unbelievable !

The police are investigating...


The boy has been interviewed by police...


Criminal charges could be seen very soon...


Maybe quill thinks it is normal to start messahing and trying to chat up young boys on the internet and asking them to meet up...?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


His behaviour fits the official description of what constitutes child grooming... He has resigned already too...

Tenuous at best.  Tom, patterns are indirect or inferential evidence, at best.  They are not a smoking gun.  They are not a video tape.  They are not even a confession.

His resignation might mean that he wants to concentrate on fighting the charges.  Perhaps he feels that they are slanderous and deserve his undivided attention.

Do you understand what grooming is?

As even adults can be groomed, especially those with children that have allowed the abuse of their children to happen

He targeted a 16 year old, just barely legal in the eyes of the law

If you cannot grasp the aspect of what turns this sick fuck on. Then you fail to read between the lines here quill

Again nobody can control who or what they are attracted to, but to actively seek to groom this boy for the one said reason to use and have sex with. Shows you fail to grasp the vulnerability of children at this age. Legally he has done no wrong, but morally has. As he knowingly knew he was taking advantage of someone, who's is still mentally/intellectually immature

Its taking advantage of a boy who at this age seeks recognition. Hence driven by self esteem

This sick fuck was attempting to take advantage of that with this boy

He didn't know the boy but just started messaging him 'out of the blue'... and as this has been going on for several months, it is likely the boy may have been 15 when the grooming started...

It seems that any communication between an adult and a young boy or girl is now viewed as "grooming". If that is the case, any contact between minors and an adult not the parent, should be a criminal act.

This will pose some difficulties in schools, where teachers are necessarily adults, but technology to the rescue: body cams on all teachers and students.

Gad! ... PC run amuck.

The NSPCC definition of child grooming...


"Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust, and emotional connection with a young person so they can manipulate, exploit or abuse them.

"Young people can be groomed online by someone who has targeted them.

"This could be a dominant and persistent figure through the use of social media networks, text messages and apps like WhatsApp and whether online or in person groomers can use tactics like taking them on trips or outings or holidays.

"The young people may not understand they've been groomed. They may have complicated feelings like loyalty or admiration.

"That is the NSPCC definition on grooming.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5255339/derek-mackay-jackson-carlaw-snp-quit-texts-boy-grooming/

I think Quill should start reading his Law Books ,he seems to have forgotten a lot of it !

nicko wrote: I think Quill should start reading his Law Books ,he seems to have forgotten a lot of it !

Yes, I forgot the part where mob-rule replaces reasoned-rule. And, oh yes, I need to erase that part where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Perhaps you could send me a copy of your book...The Law According to Nicko. I especially like the part where rumor and innuendo replace truth...most fetching.

God Quill ,your like a long playing record stuck in the self satisfied groove. You need to step back and take a long look about how your coming across on this Forum !

nicko wrote: God Quill ,your like a long playing record stuck in the self satisfied groove. You need to step back and take a long look about how your coming across on this Forum !

Or a long-playing record (do they have these anymore), stuck on the well-reasoned groove.

How I come off is of no consequence. The fact of universal right is the only thing that counts.

Original Quill wrote:It seems that any communication between an adult and a young boy or girl is now viewed as "grooming".  If that is the case, any contact between minors and an adult not the parent, should be a criminal act.

This will pose some difficulties in schools, where teachers are necessarily adults, but technology to the rescue: body cams on all teachers and students.

Gad! ... PC run amuck.

For goodness sake

You think strange men seek out to befriend young boys for a different reason other than to have sex with them?

You never even read the article

I seriously despair at your stupidity at times and hence why its pointless debating this with you

You always seem to defend those who groom as well

Which is becoming a disconcerting pattern

I shall leave others to figure that one out also

+1

nicko wrote:Stabbed in the back by two men with Knives, and you say no evidence ? Unbelievable !

No evidence that it is terrorism. Big difference.

phil wrote:You think strange men seek out to befriend young boys for a different reason other than to have sex with them?

Why not?  Or, should all coaches or young men (or young women, for that matter) be suspect?

phil wrote:I seriously despair at your stupidity at times and hence why its pointless debating this with you

"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers."  -Socrates

phil wrote:You always seem to defend those who groom as well

Which is becoming a disconcerting pattern

I shall leave others to figure that one out also

I gather you are again talking about pǽdophilia. Why is this such a popular theme with you?

I shall leave others to figure that one out also.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:You think strange men seek out to befriend young boys for a different reason other than to have sex with them?

Why not?  Or, should all coaches or young men (or young women, for that matter) be suspect?

phil wrote:I seriously despair at your stupidity at times and hence why its pointless debating this with you

"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers."  -Socrates

Like I said, either you are being deliberately stupid or you constantly seek to defend those who groom

Please explain what other reason a person would have telling a 16 year old boy they are cute and inviting them to dinner?
After grooming someone vulnerable at such an impressionable age with countless messages to them?

Clearly Quill finds this normal for an adult to say to a child?

Maybe someone can explain what a sexual predator is to Quill, as I have not the time or patient to deal with such stupidity anymore

Thorin wrote:Maybe someone can explain what a sexual predator is to Quill, as I have not the time or patient to deal with such stupidity anymore

Thorin wrote:Like I said, either you are being deliberately stupid or you constantly seek to defend those who groom

"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers."  -Socrates

I fail to see any slander here.

As again when someone cannot recognise a predatory nature from someone
They either are incredible stupid/naive or seek to defend such behaviour

One last chance to answer


Please explain what other reason a person would have telling a 16 year old boy they are cute and inviting them to dinner?