Hehe... this makes me laugh for some reason.

... this disguests me for some reason, perhaps because i see that there's nothing hilarious that can be found in a situation where a teenage girl had sex with a child of 12.
at some point all of this could've been prevented, parental discussion etc. Also I think the police should look into possible rape charges for the older girl, since she did have unprotected sex with a 12 year old and by that stage should really know better.

What really disturbs me is how much older she looks than him. Looks like she's more than 2 years older than him.

I don't even know if I should even take this with a grain of salt or not. Seriously. :[

Dude looks like he's 10, NOT 13. Anyway, this is morally wrong blah blah yadda yadda etc.

Go here to see the full article and pictures

Baby-faced boy Alfie Patten is father at 13

BOY dad Alfie Patten yesterday admitted he does not know how much nappies cost - but said: "I think it's a lot."
Baby-faced Alfie, who is 13 but looks more like eight, became a father four days ago when his girlfriend Chantelle Steadman gave birth to 7lb 3oz Maisie Roxanne.

He told how he and Chantelle, 15, decided against an abortion after discovering she was pregnant.
The shy lad, whose voice has not yet broken, said: "I thought it would be good to have a baby.
"I didn't think about how we would afford it. I don't really get pocket money. My dad sometimes gives me £10."

Alfie's story, broken exclusively by The Sun today has sparked a huge political storm with Tory leader David Cameron saying: "When I saw these pictures this morning, I just thought how worrying that in Britain today children are having children.
"I hope that somehow these children grow up into responsible parents but the truth is parenthood is just not something they should be thinking about right now."

Alfie's dad Dennis yesterday told how the lad does not really understand the enormity of his situation - but seemed desperate to be a devoted and responsible father.
He wanted to be the first to hold Maisie after the hospital birth. He tenderly kisses the baby and gives her a bottle.
And Dennis, 45, said: "He could have shrugged his shoulders and sat at home on his Playstation. But he has been at the hospital every day."

Maisie was conceived after Chantelle and Alfie - just 12 at the time - had a single night of unprotected sex.
They found out about the baby when Chantelle was 12 weeks pregnant.
But they kept it a secret until six weeks later when Chantelle's mum Penny, 38, became suspicious about her weight gain and confronted her.

Today Sussex Police and the local council's children services said they have investigated the case and pledged continued support for the young parents.
Britain's youngest known father is Sean Stewart. He became a dad at 12 when the girl next door, 15-year-old Emma Webster, gave birth in Sharnbrook, Bedford, in 1998. They split six months later.

He looks like he's holding his sister not his daughter. When you look at them together you think: "those two had sex?". What is wrong with society today? When I worked in the maternity ward we got a 13 yr old having a baby... Makes me think what was I doing at 12 and I believe sex was the last thing on my mind seriously...

*Cough*

http://sonichqcommunity.yuku.com/topic/8698

Sorry, dude. ^_^;;

And yes, it's disturbing.

yeah just saw it XD and I can't find how to delete the post... Sorry!

*merges topics*

(and o.o@article *not sure what to say, though I guess good luck to them o.o*)

I believe the police and CPS decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute either of them. I imagine it was because both of them were minors. I would say the girl had a lucky escape though, cos if she were sixteen at the time, the decision might have gone the other way.

I will mightily resist a comment about my tax being put to good use...

Darn, too late.

DW

The age gap is too close to be charged with rape, I'd think. Either way, the fact that they're actually having the kid is...Yeah. What the hell is wrong with their parents?

What the hell is wrong with their parents?

Taught 'em young?

The age gap is too close to be charged with rape, I'd think. Either way, the fact that they're actually having the kid is...Yeah. What the hell is wrong with their parents?

This. Despite society's assumptions about how repsonsible people of certain ages are can be, I think it's reasonable to say th at in a way, Alfie is probably more responsible than Dennis. It's disturbing that a 45-year-old would be with a 21-year-old; the age gap is bigger than the younger partner's age. Of course, he'd get away with it since both are above age of consent, while someone just above the age of consent having sex with someone just below the age of consent does not. Some would say you have to draw the line somewhere, but I find the idea that it even should be a line questionable to begin with.

As for natw's comment, I think at 15 she'd be below the age of consent herself, and it seems like society is much less inclined to punish children, even if for crimes committed against other children. Though if she is above the age of consent, it would happen to qualify. (Which, again, suggests something about how arbitrary the "draw the line somewhere" idea is.) Even then, it seems like the general tendency is for female pedophiles to be treated leniantly, since it would be perceived as them being sexually generous to younger boys. And it's understandable that people would see it that way; we're shaped by an evolutionary history in which eggs were expensive and sperm were cheap, so it isn't entirely unreasonable to assume that male sexual desires would tend to be more intense than female sexual desires. (For those who have yet to hear that apsect of evolutionary psychology in any biology/psychology course, this video explains it, though I don't agree with it putting gold-digging on the same level as rape.) But the issue is that if age of consent is supposed to be about what society deems the young as being too irresponsible to be allowed to have (and that is quite consistent with having age limits for other things in our society) then however much the younger person wanted it is irrelevant.

It's disturbing that a 45-year-old would be with a 21-year-old

Not really. They're both legal.

It's disturbing that a 45-year-old would be with a 21-year-old

Not really. They're both legal.

It being legal does not make it right, though. Especially when the younger partner is only a few years away from the legal limit and the older partner is decades away. o.o

It being legal does not make it right, though. Especially when the younger partner is only a few years away from the legal limit and the older partner is decades away. o.o

I vehemently disagree with your opinion of what is 'right'. Age is not of any concern to me when two or more people are above the legal age of consent. When you've reached that age, you can consent to sex in a mutual and informed manner. That's where I stand on this issue, that's where I'll always stand on this issue. Case closed.

It being legal does not make it right, though. Especially when the younger partner is only a few years away from the legal limit and the older partner is decades away. o.o

I vehemently disagree with your opinion of what is 'right'. Age is not of any concern to me when two or more people are above the legal age of consent. When you've reached that age, you can consent to sex in a mutual and informed manner. That's where I stand on this issue, that's where I'll always stand on this issue. Case closed.

The point is, if each partner had been a half a dozen years younger, the older partner would've been regarded by society as a disgusting middle-aged pedophile. To Catch A Predator humiliates 20-year-olds on national TV for coming to a house for sex with a 14-year old, and popular opinion applauds them. Yet a much more drastic age gap is considered a-ok because it doesn't quite transcend the age of consent boundary?

The point is, if each partner had been a half a dozen years younger, the older partner would've been regarded by society as a disgusting middle-aged pedophile.

IS each partner half a dozen years younger? NO! So why dwell on a hypothetical situation which has absolutely NO direct relevance to this particular issue of age?

To Catch A Predator humiliates 20-year-olds on national TV for coming to a house for sex with a 14-year old, and popular opinion applauds them.

Firstly, I've never watched this 'To Catch A Predator' TV show so I'm not fit to make any judgement about it. Secondly, popular opinion probably 'applauds' them (whoever 'them' is referring to) since, uh, 20 year olds having sex with 14 year olds is a kinda criminal act where you and I are from.

Yet a much more drastic age gap is considered a-ok because it doesn't quite transcend the age of consent boundary?

It might not necessarily be considered 'a-ok' (your term, not mine), but it IS accepted. And not only is it accepted, it is accepted almost UNIVERSALLY. And guess what? It'll CONTINUE to be UNIVERSALLY accepted. That includes me. Forever. Society as a whole has already utterly, utterly crucified the truest meaning of the word 'love' by forbidding people of the same gender from having their love officially recognised through the process of marriage. That alone is stupid enough, yet restricting one from expressing their love to another due to a 'drastic' age gap (albeit one which falls WITHIN the LEGAL age of consent)?! WHATTAHECK IS WITH THAT S**T?!? That's SLAVERY. Slavery to BARBARIC norms.

o.o

I could've sworn this was MF Central and not Marble Garden.

I'm sure of it.

This is the reasone why I want to wait till i'm married!

IS each partner half a dozen years younger? NO! So why dwell on a hypothetical situation which has absolutely NO direct relevance to this particular issue of age?

Before you dismiss it as irrelevant, it might be an idea to consider that it makes a point about the "draw a line" approach.

Firstly, I've never watched this 'To Catch A Predator' TV show

Here you go. There's more where that came from.

Secondly, popular opinion probably 'applauds' them (whoever 'them' is referring to) since, uh, 20 year olds having sex with 14 year olds is a kinda criminal act where you and I are from.

But not all criminal acts are considered reasons for making the arrests of those involved into national entertainment.

It might not necessarily be considered 'a-ok' (your term, not mine)

Not like I was even saying it was yours in the first place.

Society as a whole has already utterly, utterly crucified the truest meaning of the word 'love' by forbidding people of the same gender from having their love officially recognised through the process of marriage.

Well yes, the notion that what our society does has to revolve around one particular religion (or in the case of homosexuality, a religion that condemns it, like Christianity or Islam) would tend to do that. And by the way, it happens to be society that gets to say which acts are labelled criminal or not.

That alone is stupid enough, yet restricting one from expressing their love to another due to a 'drastic' age gap

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it should be restricted, I was saying it was disturbing. And how can you be so sure it's love? Do you mean to say that a 45-year-old actively pursuing a sexual relationship with a 21-year-old doesn't sound somewhat suspicious to you?

I guess age of consent was established based on the assumption that at 18, or 21 in some places, a person will have the maturity necessary to make certain decisions and deal with the consequences.

This kid is asked what he will do for financial support and his reply is "what is financial?".

I guess age of consent was established based on the assumption that at 18, or 21 in some places, a person will have the maturity necessary to make certain decisions and deal with the consequences.

I agree that it seems to be based on that assumption (I think the age of consent is 16 though) but it's just that the idea of setting such an age boundary for which whether you cross it determines criminality regardless of the age gap sounds inflexible. Couldn't people come up with a better system?

Sure. In the middle ages, you expected your daughter to marry at about 12, since she was going to be dead before she was 40. Get those heirs sorted quickly, don't you know...

On a more serious note, there will always be arbitrary lines. For example, you can legally have sex at 16, but you can't get married without your parents' consent and (generally speaking) you cannot be trusted with a car, you can't buy cigarettes (UK anyway - I think that law has now come in) and you can't legally drink. Neither can you vote. So basically, society is currently saying pro-create as much as you like and do have fun trying to bring up a child; but you're not mature enough to handle politics, alcohol, tobacco or a car, or even decide whether you'd like to have the kid in or out of wedlock.

On this particular matter, however, I think we're agreed that the parents in this case appear a tad young for that responsibility, however you measure it. Mind you, 12 year old mothers are not unheard of and, let's face it, in that case it's the poor grandparents who will be doing all the raising. Or social services.

DW

Before you dismiss it as irrelevant, it might be an idea to consider that it makes a point about the "draw a line" approach.

I draw no such line and never will. Therefore, I do indeed dismiss it as irrelevant and consider it to be completely and utterly pointless in accordance with my own world-view.

Here you go. There's more where that came from.

Thanks, babe. <3

But not all criminal acts are considered reasons for making the arrests of those involved into national entertainment.

Um, did I ever say that all criminal acts are considered reasons for making the arrests of those involved into national entertainment? No. No, I did not. Don't put words in my mouth. Your point is moot!

Not like I was even saying it was yours in the first place.

Oh, I know. I know. I just felt like adding it in anyway.

Well yes, the notion that what our society does has to revolve around one particular religion (or in the case of homosexuality, a religion that condemns it, like Christianity or Islam) would tend to do that.

No arguments there!

And by the way, it happens to be society that gets to say which acts are labelled criminal or not.

Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious. I agree with some of the decisions collectively made by society as to what acts warrant a 'criminal' label, whilst I strongly disagree with certain other decisions about what acts constitute a crime.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I never did.

I didn't say it should be restricted, I was saying it was disturbing.

Why do you think it's 'disturbing'? Don't you think that's unfair? Such situations shouldn't be thrown into one pile, if you looked at this stuff on a case by case basis, you might not find this phenomenon to be as 'disturbing' as you currently believe.

And how can you be so sure it's love?

How can you be so sure that it's NOT love? My point exactly. We do NOT know either way, so might as well give 'them' the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I actually think it's none of our business what consenting adults get up to in their spare time. Unless their acts are released as porn films for all to see. Anyway, I digress. When you're an adult (well, a mentally sound one anyway), then you're capable of making your own decisions and facing the consequences of those particular decisions. So, really, I couldn't care less whether a 45 year old and a 21 year old are in a sexual relationship purely out of lust and/or as a way to express pure, unconditional love (BTW, I don't consider the latter option to be an utter impossibility).

Do you mean to say that a 45-year-old actively pursuing a sexual relationship with a 21-year-old doesn't sound somewhat suspicious to you?

It does not sound suspicious to me AT ALL. It sounds COMPLETELY AWESOME. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY support these kinds of people and their noble endeavours. =)

How can you be so sure that it's NOT love? My point exactly. We do NOT know either way, so might as well give 'them' the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I actually think it's none of our business what consenting adults get up to in their spare time. Unless their acts are released as porn films for all to see.

Hee-hee.

I draw no such line and never will.

Fine, but my point was more so about that line.

Um, did I ever say that all criminal acts are considered reasons for making the arrests of those involved into national entertainment? No. No, I did not.

You gave "it's a criminal act" as a reason for supporting shows that, in turn, make entertainment out of the arrests of a particular criminal act. That's close enough.

Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious.

Excuse me if I felt like reminding you that the same society whose standards you claim to despise is the same society that decides which acts to consider criminal or not.

Why do you think it's 'disturbing'?

Because a 45-year-old man abandoning his family to go after women so much younger than he is doesn't sound like a very good role model. Note the context; I was commenting on a story I linked to that's related to the story this thread was initially about.

Such situations shouldn't be thrown into one pile, if you looked at this stuff on a case by case basis

So what about looking at "statutory rape" on a case by case basis, then? What do you think of that?

I never did.

Oh really? Then how do you explain implying that I was "restricting one from expressing their love" based on me calling something disturbing?

How can you be so sure that it's NOT love?

I wasn't claiming to be sure. It's just that you saying it was love was suggesting that you were assuming it was love. I was pointing out that it MIGHT have been otherwise, not that it necessarily had to be.

When you're an adult (well, a mentally sound one anyway), then you're capable of making your own decisions and facing the consequences of those particular decisions.

But it's not like the transition magically occurs in a big leap at whatever the age of consent is. Again, that's part of what my point is about.

(BTW, I don't consider the latter option to be an utter impossibility)

I don't either. Were you suggesting I thought of it that way?

Fine, but my point was more so about that line.

Sure.

You gave "it's a criminal act" as a reason for supporting shows that, in turn, make entertainment out of the arrests of a particular criminal act. That's close enough.

Yes, as a reason for people IN GENERAL to support those kinds of shows. I wasn't specifically referring to myself, as I've never watched those kinds of shows before (and I certainly don't plan to either).

Excuse me if I felt like reminding you that the same society whose standards you claim to despise is the same society that decides which acts to consider criminal or not.

You are excused. Oh, and I never said that I despise ALL of the standards of our modern society. Some standards I despise, some I am neutral toward and some I outright support.

Because a 45-year-old man abandoning his family to go after women so much younger than he is doesn't sound like a very good role model. Note the context; I was commenting on a story I linked to that's related to the story this thread was initially about.

Is that the sound of back-peddling I hear? At first, you were mentioning how you thought it was 'disturbing' that a 45 year old could be in a sexual relationship with a 21 year old since the younger partner was still so close to the legal age of consent whilst the older partner was considerably further away from it. I've noted the context, but earlier in this thread, you never mentioned ANYTHING about being a 'role model'. That came outta nowhere. Besides, the concept of a 'role model' is SO very, very subjective and relative. Ideas of what constitutes an ideal 'role model' vary from culture to culture and from era to era. We differ on our conceptions of what an ideal 'role model' is, that much is certain.

So what about looking at "statutory rape" on a case by case basis, then? What do you think of that?

WTF? I've already explicitly conveyed in this thread that I do NOT condone under-age sex, so there's not really much of a point in looking at 'statutory rape' on a case by case basis. Yet another moot point! Some things can (and, arguably, should) be looked at on a case by case basis, while some things can't. Simple as that.

Oh really?

Then how do you explain implying that I was "restricting one from expressing their love" based on me calling something disturbing?

I never specifically stated that YOU were 'restricting one from expressing their love' nor was it genuinely my intention to imply such a thing. I was merely expanding on your point you made when you were calling that particular age gap 'disturbing'.

I wasn't claiming to be sure. It's just that you saying it was love was suggesting that you were assuming it was love. I was pointing out that it MIGHT have been otherwise, not that it necessarily had to be.

Fair enough. But just as I was assuming it was love, I know that it didn't HAVE to be love. I was constructing a hypothetical situation in which there was love to get my point across.

But it's not like the transition magically occurs in a big leap at whatever the age of consent is. Again, that's part of what my point is about.

I never said that the transition magically occurs in a big leap at whatever the age of consent is. I said that I accept and support the age of consent. I accept and support it because I feel that it is reasonably and rationally justifiable. Once again, moot point.

Were you suggesting I thought of it that way?

No.

Yes, as a reason for people IN GENERAL to support those kinds of shows. I wasn't specifically referring to myself

But it seemed like you were trying to defend their reasons.

Oh, and I never said that I despise ALL of the standards of our modern society.

I never said you said that. It's just that if you aren't that inclined to accept social standards for being social standards, "they're criminals" would sound like an odd justification to defend for something that isn't necessary in apprehending them.

At first, you were mentioning how you thought it was 'disturbing' that a 45 year old could be in a sexual relationship with a 21 year old since the younger partner was still so close to the legal age of consent whilst the older partner was considerably further away from it.

Yeah, you seemed to have some kind of fixation on that particular comment, but it was pointing to a PART of the story that highlighted the same problem (the "draw the line" problem) that I was commenting on in terms of the general story. (ie. boy with baby). Mentioning that was part of my comment on THE STORY I LINKED TO about the irresponsibility of at least one of the parents of Alfie (hence linking to it as a response to SX's "parents" comment) and despite that the article goes into different problems with the upbringing, you focused on that side-comment. So I tried a couple times to clarify the point I was trying to make, and then you suddenly lashed out at me with all kinds of ridiculous horse s*** about me supporting "slavery to barbaric norms" (where the hell did you get that idea?) and now you're suddenly accusing me of "backpedalling" for even so much as mentioning how he's doing that as a father of children, even though it was emphasized in the article I linked to and I didn't directly emphasize it until in response to a question you didn't ask earlier. Knock it off.

I've already explicitly conveyed in this thread that I do NOT condone under-age sex, so there's not really much of a point in looking at 'statutory rape' on a case by case basis.

Even though these age limits are arbitrary, and sex between the underage is allowed, sex between the of age is allowed, and sex between one who could be just of age and one who could be just underage is considered statutory rape? Why not consider a more flexible approach, which takes other factors like age gap into account?

I never specifically stated that YOU were 'restricting one from expressing their love' nor was it genuinely my intention to imply such a thing. I was merely expanding on your point you made when you were calling that particular age gap 'disturbing'.

What do you mean "expanding on the point"? It sounds to me like YOU'RE the one backpedalling here...

But it seemed like you were trying to defend their reasons.

Not everything is as it seems.

I never said you said that.

I never said you did.

It's just that if you aren't that inclined to accept social standards for being social standards, "they're criminals" would sound like an odd justification to defend for something that isn't necessary in apprehending them.

I accept some social standards as they are, whereas I'm not as inclined to accept certain other social standards. It depends on the social standard in question. I've already mentioned this. A person who has sex with someone under the legal age of consent is a 'criminal' as far as I'm concerned and as far as American and Australian law is concerned.

Yeah, you seemed to have some kind of fixation on that particular comment, but it was pointing to a PART of the story that highlighted the same problem (the "draw the line" problem) that I was commenting on in terms of the general story. (ie. boy with baby).

I focused on that particular comment simply because it was a comment which I vehemently disagreed with, yet I still addressed your other comments.

Mentioning that was part of my comment on THE STORY I LINKED TO about the irresponsibility of at least one of the parents of Alfie (hence linking to it as a response to SX's "parents" comment) and despite that the article goes into different problems with the upbringing, you focused on that side-comment.

Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot.

So I tried a couple times to clarify the point I was trying to make, and then you suddenly lashed out at me with all kinds of ridiculous horse s about me supporting "slavery to barbaric norms" (where the hell did you get that idea?)

I think it's precisely the opposite. YOU'RE the one lashing out at me with your ridiculous horse s accusation that I said that you support 'slavery to barbaric norms'. That comment was the MOST generalised comment out of ALL the comments I've made in this thread so far. I was not pointing the finger at you with that comment, I was merely venting in general about the completely ARBITRARY and ABSURD limitations and restrictions society places on relationships between two or more ADULTS. Where the hell did YOU get YOUR idea that I said you were a supporter of 'slavery to barbaric norms'?

and now you're suddenly accusing me of "backpedalling" for even so much as mentioning how he's doing that as a father of children, even though it was emphasized in the article I linked to and I didn't directly emphasize it until in response to a question you didn't ask earlier.

I didn't NEED to ask ANY particular question earlier. It's not my fault that you didn't make your point clear enough to me right from the beginning.

Knock it off.

No.

Even though these age limits are arbitrary, and sex between the underage is allowed, sex between the of age is allowed, and sex between one who could be just of age and one who could be just underage is considered statutory rape?

LOLWUT? Unintelligible question is unintelligible. More specifically:

sex between the underage is allowed

I hope for your own sake that you're not being serious here.....

Why not consider a more flexible approach, which takes other factors like age gap into account?

No. To me, that isn't a more flexible approach. It's an unnecessarily restrictive approach.

What do you mean "expanding on the point"?

Exactly what I was meant to mean. When you called that age gap 'disturbing', it prompted me to state why I personally DIDN'T find that age gap to be disturbing and also why I found that particular view of yours to be erroneous.

It sounds to me like YOU'RE the one backpedalling here...

No, not at all sweetie. Wanna try again?

The plot thickens!
http://www.newsoftheworld...DNA-test-to-prove-it.html

It's now alledged that not only did she sleep around with younger kids, but now an older teenager . This guy now claims the child is his, so yay for dna testing.

Off-topic:
Matt, Rishi, could you kindly take your quote war to PM or somewhere else please? It's starting to detract from this thread. Thanks.

On-topic:
I read this a few days ago and was somewhat disgusted... but not shocked.
Society these days as a whole doesn't seem to care so much about sexualisation of young people. I remember only ten years back when I was around the age these two were, although I may have known about sex and how it worked, I was actively encouraged not to act on said knowledge. Although there was mandatory sex ed at both primary and secondary school, the info we were given made it quite clear that although we were being notified how these things work, it would be a bad idea to do anything such as this before being over the age of consent.
Heck, even in my secondary school years when such lessons were given, they termed it along the lines of "if you absolutely must go and do it, then at least use some form of contraception".

On a tangent, I can't say this story in particular surprises me at all. I think the second article there about how one of the boy's sisters blames their father being a poor role model is entirely justified. He's clearly not been very responsible at all for looking after his children. Granted, some blame also falls on both the children involved in this case, but somehing like this happening in the first place means someone somewhere who should have been keeping an eye on them clearly hasn't been, or at least not during crucial moments.
The other main reason it doesn't surprise me is the other circumstances surrounding the case. Family on benefits, living in a council house in an area of some social depravation, single mother and a lot of kids. Hardly a prime example of a stable family unit. (Not that I'm saying that stability is completely impossible when those are the circumstances - for a good part of my childhood I was living with my three brothers and only my mother, who was surviving on state benefits.)

I suppose in the end this is yet another case of standards slipping as a whole in our society. The parents have let their kids do something technically illegal and definitely morally reprehensible (at least by the standards we profess to adhere to), it wouldn't surprise me if somewhere along the line the education system had made some sort of cock-up (as I do recall reading recently about how there was a proposal to allow sex education for children at a younger age, although that said I think it was being proposed as optional and not mandatory), but ultimately the failure lies with our society as a whole and the cultural attitude we currently have toward sex. I think if these kids had been given a better understanding of (and importantly, more respect for) the consequences of engaging in sexual activity then they'd have avoided it.
But that's just my take on the situation, and there're a number of other points I could raise with this, but I can't order my thoughts well enough to convey them without rambling on, so I'll leave it at that for now.

~SilverShadow.

This is getting ridiculous. Someone notify me when the DNA results come in.

Im rooting for the lil guy, btw >>

I'LL NOTIFY YOU.

...If I remember. >_>

Anyways, I wonder how they're going to take care of this baby together.
I think they're probably going to sleep over eachother`s house a lot and the baby will probably go between residences every so often. Though... if they're going to sleep over... THIS MEANS THIS COULD HAPPEN AGAIN.

Or one of them moves in with the other. Though that still means they might get romantic...

Maybe they'll sleep in different rooms or something. But the parents can't stay up forever...

And them not being together with the baby means that only one of them will take care of it and that'll be more stressful than usual for the one keeping the baby. Though I geuss their parents might help. Gee, I wish I knew...

I also haven't heard anything from Chantelle`s Family... I just remember hearing from Alfie`s family and some other teenagers who think they might be the father. They must not like talking to reporters or something.

Gosh, all this speculation but no facts... THOSE REPORTERS AREN'T INVESTIGATING WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. >_<

Tearful schoolgirl Chantelle Steadman hit out as TWO other youngsters bragged THEY could be the dads of newborn Maisie.
"I love Alfie and he took my virginity. There has been nobody else"

Delightful... now it's two

Tearful schoolgirl Chantelle Steadman hit out as TWO other youngsters bragged THEY could be the dads of newborn Maisie.
"I love Alfie and he took my virginity. There has been nobody else"

Delightful... now it's two

2x the disturbing

Hey matthayter700, !#%! you. I'm the guy you are sending private messages to, and I'm not the 'Rishi' above. Dumbass.

o_o

Well, this is a nice devlopment.

You are extremely welcome here, other Rishi! Feel free to post here when and if you want.

Matt's PMs:

Matt owes you an apology, other Rishi. Just as a friendly word of advice though, could you just link to those screenshots instead of directly posting them? They contain some naughty words forbidden on this forum.

wow... someone's a little angry.

Also, someone explain why there are 2 Rishis? Also, I can easily understand Matt's confusion. On this board we don't see the local accounts... and who would have known there were 2?

Clearly we have found a Superior version of rishi! We must upgrade to this rishi.u and purge the system of the .shq one 😛

Great Primus, now there's two of them. Someone must hate us.

Isn't there supposed to be some way to tell if someone has a universal account or a local account?

That there are two is indeed strange. And god, some of you need a chill pill. Jeez. o_O

Anyway, that chick is bragging? Good lord. Twice as disturbing indeed. How must those kids feel, learning they might be fathers? I'd crap bricks.

"Isn't there supposed to be some way to tell if someone has a universal account or a local account?"

I'd assume the whole ".u" and ".shq" thing.

you are so much more fun than the local rishi <3

Great Primus, now there's two of them. Someone must hate us.

Isn't there supposed to be some way to tell if someone has a universal account or a local account?

I registered the global account 'Rishi' years ago back when this system was still ezboard, because Rishi is my first name and I thought it might be useful someday. I've never posted with it until now. My main account is 'Tulkas Astaldo'. You can easily tell that this board's Rishi is a local account by looking at his profile, where it shows him as Rishi.sonichqcommunity.

To respond to the poster above, I understand how Matt could have gotten confused. That's why I asked him to look into the situation and verify that he was talking to the right person. He still doubts me, so now I'm pissed off. I don't like receiving heated PMs from some random jerk, so let's see how Matt feels with the shoe on the other foot.

Great Primus, now there's two of them. Someone must hate us.

Isn't there supposed to be some way to tell if someone has a universal account or a local account?

Hover over their user names and look at the url...

I learned two things here.

1. It's not just Craig. Apparently all UK males look half their age till their twenties.

2. Matthayter is a dick when he feels someone disagrees with him.

Wait, make that one thing. I already knew about matt from when he sent a volley of profanity at me for commenting on him talking a lot in chat. You know, I think he just made my watch list.

~Rico