but why? he doesn't know he is innocent and he pleaded guilty in court.
not everyone who claims innocence is telling the truth.
maybe if they had a conversation about it then, mick might be more inclined to believe his innocence but he is just going on what he knows
But what does he actually know? All he knows is that Jay pleaded guilty; if that's his argument then Mick himself must concede that he too is Guilty as per his conviction. all I'm saying is that Mick found actually give Jay the chance to explain given his past unfortunate predicament. And as this post says
Mick admitted to serving Linzi/Star, meaning she fooled him too.
Mick is also pleaded guilty to a sexual offense he was innocent of.
Mick served Linzi in the pub so he thought she was at least 18 years of age. Again, this should mean he could at least listen to what Jay has to say before making his mind up.
Good on you. The storyline in some way will be an eye opener to young men. Because it could happen to anyone.
Of course. Looks make you immune to anything. The world we live in today.
It happened to one of my friends a couple of years ago. It's really not a nice thing to see anyone go through. When you are around the turning 18 range any relationship can be dangerous. Most people date someone a couple years older/younger and that age range is dangerous.
It makes me glad that I haven't bothered much with going out with people. Plus I won't hop straight into bed with anyone.
Jay has a pretty good defence to be fair. He never hid Linzey away. They had dates in the pub, he brought her home to meet Ben and Abi. Not one person in the pub or anywhere pulled Jay up about her age. They were all happy to believe she was 18.
Indeed
Many people are at fault
It would of been a great idea if Thelma had gotten The Carters in trouble for serving an underage girl. Would of been put The Vic's future at stake and possibly The Carters losing their liquor licence.
It happened to one of my friends a couple of years ago. It's really not a nice thing to see anyone go through. When you are around the turning 18 range any relationship can be dangerous. Most people date someone a couple years older/younger and that age range is dangerous.
It makes me glad that I haven't bothered much with going out with people. Plus I won't hop straight into bed with anyone.
Recent Mick scenes have really shown him up as a character. If he left tomorrow (wishful thinking) he would not be missed. The Vic needs need blood, it's as boring as hell there now.
Mick admitted to serving Linzi/Star, meaning she fooled him too.
Mick is also pleaded guilty to a sexual offense he was innocent of.
He may have served her but was Jay with her at the time, or did Jay buy the drinks and she drank them. even if she fooled him into thinking she was older, with Jay pleading guilty to Mick he could be lying about not knowing her age.
It would of been a great idea if Thelma had gotten The Carters in trouble for serving an underage girl. Would of been put The Vic's future at stake and possibly The Carters losing their liquor licence.
Thelma would not do that as she has probs done it herself. did Linz actually buy drinks or did others alway buy them for her?
But what does he actually know? All he knows is that Jay pleaded guilty; if that's his argument then Mick himself must concede that he too is Guilty as per his conviction. all I'm saying is that Mick found actually give Jay the chance to explain given his past unfortunate predicament. And as this post says
Mick served Linzi in the pub so he thought she was at least 18 years of age. Again, this should mean he could at least listen to what Jay has to say before making his mind up.
You can not compare Mick and Jay's cases. He pleaded guilty to protect Ian. Jay had no need to. Again did we actually see Mick serve Linzi? All the time she had Alcohol Jay seemed to provide it, like Champaigne in the Arches.
I know Babe said she saw them in the pub together but i do not remember Mick serving her. Even if he did serve her does not mean he has to believe Jay did not know.
I know what you mean LHolmes but it's not as if Mick doesn't know who Jay is and he is aware of the situation and how it played out between Linzi and Jay. So you would think he would give Jay a chance. As for outsiders who don't know Jay, of course they will react in a negative way.
Exactly.
He is nt a complete stranger. He knows him, his sister helped to raise him. He met the girl, knows she looked older than she was, his own family didn't ask her for ID when she came into his Pub.
He is talking as though Jay groomed the girl, knowing she was underage and that just isn't the case. He doesn't need to know all the details, he knows enough.
As for being convicted, as pointed out, he pleaded guilty to a sex offence he was innocent of to spare going through a trial so should know that sometimes there is more to a situation than meets the eye. Also, he might want to remember that not only was he having sex with Linda when she was only 14, she he was getting her pregnant as well. Fair enough he was underage as well but it goes to show that underage people can be willingly, sexually active and abuse isn't necessarily involved.
I have a feeling they're portraying Mick this way so that another character, possibly Shieley, can call him up on it, show him that he's being a hypocrite. We all like to see people get a dressing down when they deserve it. Soaps would be boring if everyone behaved nicely and always did and said the right things.
He is nt a complete stranger. He knows him, his sister helped to raise him.
Shirley's defence of Jay has been feeble at best, consisting of 'he's a good kid' and nothing more than that. What does that tell Mick?
Mick has only lived on the Square a few years and you could probably count the number of times, if any, he's interacted with Jay on one hand in that time. I only remember Linzi being in the Vic once on Ben's birthday. Was Mick behind the bar then?
Someone always has to be the fall guy. Mick is in this storyline, Peggy was with Mark's HIV and Shirley was over Linda's rape. Although other people have judged Jay and don't seem to have had threads started about them.
This isn't related to you kitkat1971, but if anyone wants to address points I raise this forum I'd rather they joined it to do so than post elsewhere. For the record, I don't think Phil has been much of a dad to Jay either, it's not a relationship the show has ever been particularly interested in, but nonetheless that's what the show pushes them as when it suits.
Before Phil went to punch Jay the other week he said 'I've treated you like a son for the last 3 or 4 years' it made me scoff too but that's how we're supposed to see them. A lot of relationships on the show are underexplored on-screen. Phil is certainly closer to him than Mick is at any rate.
He is nt a complete stranger. He knows him, his sister helped to raise him. He met the girl, knows she looked older than she was, his own family didn't ask her for ID when she came into his Pub.
He is talking as though Jay groomed the girl, knowing she was underage and that just isn't the case. He doesn't need to know all the details, he knows enough.
As for being convicted, as pointed out, he pleaded guilty to a sex offence he was innocent of to spare going through a trial so should know that sometimes there is more to a situation than meets the eye. Also, he might want to remember that not only was he having sex with Linda when she was only 14, she he was getting her pregnant as well. Fair enough he was underage as well but it goes to show that underage people can be willingly, sexually active and abuse isn't necessarily involved.
He is nt a complete stranger. He knows him, his sister helped to raise him. He met the girl, knows she looked older than she was, his own family didn't ask her for ID when she came into his Pub.
He is talking as though Jay groomed the girl, knowing she was underage and that just isn't the case. He doesn't need to know all the details, he knows enough.
As for being convicted, as pointed out, he pleaded guilty to a sex offence he was innocent of to spare going through a trial so should know that sometimes there is more to a situation than meets the eye. Also, he might want to remember that not only was he having sex with Linda when she was only 14, she he was getting her pregnant as well. Fair enough he was underage as well but it goes to show that underage people can be willingly, sexually active and abuse isn't necessarily involved.
I could be wrong but I'm sure in England we don't prosecute two teens of or about the same age consenting to sex. It is a bit different to a 21/22 year old man dating a 14 year old girl and having suggestive pictures of her on his phone.
We don't know how much Mick or anyone knows as the storyline keeps going on the backburner. Like everything it's poorly paced and hasn't been gone into in any great amount of detail.
If we saw Jay explain himself to Mick properly and then Mick still picking on him, I would agree with slating Mick for it. Jay has even been turfed out of his own house so Mick isn't the only one who has reacted negatively.
Even Phil who is like a surrogate father to Jay has turned his back on him. People are naturally wary and judgemental where stuff like this is concerned.
Phil was a moron for not hearing Jay's side of the story. Everything's black and white with Phil. He could have easily stayed in court to hear Jay telling the court what happened.
Mick admitted to serving Linzi/Star, meaning she fooled him too.
Mick is also pleaded guilty to a sexual offense he was innocent of.
That doesn't mean he can't think Jay was aware of her true age and is now denying it.
It's difficult to believe you could go out with someone for months without finding out basic things about them - or looking at their social media profiles, as is standard nowadays.
As viewers we know Jay better than Mick. We also have a full oversight of the storyline. He's reacting based mostly on hearsay. It's nothing that wouldn't have come out of the mouths of past landlords.
Comments
This is a strange concept of 'fit' IMO.
Mick admitted to serving Linzi/Star, meaning she fooled him too.
Mick is also pleaded guilty to a sexual offense he was innocent of.
But what does he actually know? All he knows is that Jay pleaded guilty; if that's his argument then Mick himself must concede that he too is Guilty as per his conviction. all I'm saying is that Mick found actually give Jay the chance to explain given his past unfortunate predicament. And as this post says
Mick served Linzi in the pub so he thought she was at least 18 years of age. Again, this should mean he could at least listen to what Jay has to say before making his mind up.
It happened to one of my friends a couple of years ago. It's really not a nice thing to see anyone go through. When you are around the turning 18 range any relationship can be dangerous. Most people date someone a couple years older/younger and that age range is dangerous.
It makes me glad that I haven't bothered much with going out with people. Plus I won't hop straight into bed with anyone.
Indeed
Many people are at fault
It would of been a great idea if Thelma had gotten The Carters in trouble for serving an underage girl. Would of been put The Vic's future at stake and possibly The Carters losing their liquor licence.
How awful. Sorry for your friend
BIB - Same here
He may have served her but was Jay with her at the time, or did Jay buy the drinks and she drank them. even if she fooled him into thinking she was older, with Jay pleading guilty to Mick he could be lying about not knowing her age.
Thelma would not do that as she has probs done it herself. did Linz actually buy drinks or did others alway buy them for her?
You can not compare Mick and Jay's cases. He pleaded guilty to protect Ian. Jay had no need to. Again did we actually see Mick serve Linzi? All the time she had Alcohol Jay seemed to provide it, like Champaigne in the Arches.
I know Babe said she saw them in the pub together but i do not remember Mick serving her. Even if he did serve her does not mean he has to believe Jay did not know.
Thanks.
Exactly.
He is nt a complete stranger. He knows him, his sister helped to raise him. He met the girl, knows she looked older than she was, his own family didn't ask her for ID when she came into his Pub.
He is talking as though Jay groomed the girl, knowing she was underage and that just isn't the case. He doesn't need to know all the details, he knows enough.
As for being convicted, as pointed out, he pleaded guilty to a sex offence he was innocent of to spare going through a trial so should know that sometimes there is more to a situation than meets the eye. Also, he might want to remember that not only was he having sex with Linda when she was only 14, she he was getting her pregnant as well. Fair enough he was underage as well but it goes to show that underage people can be willingly, sexually active and abuse isn't necessarily involved.
Thanks.
Mick has only lived on the Square a few years and you could probably count the number of times, if any, he's interacted with Jay on one hand in that time. I only remember Linzi being in the Vic once on Ben's birthday. Was Mick behind the bar then?
Someone always has to be the fall guy. Mick is in this storyline, Peggy was with Mark's HIV and Shirley was over Linda's rape. Although other people have judged Jay and don't seem to have had threads started about them.
This isn't related to you kitkat1971, but if anyone wants to address points I raise this forum I'd rather they joined it to do so than post elsewhere. For the record, I don't think Phil has been much of a dad to Jay either, it's not a relationship the show has ever been particularly interested in, but nonetheless that's what the show pushes them as when it suits.
Before Phil went to punch Jay the other week he said 'I've treated you like a son for the last 3 or 4 years' it made me scoff too but that's how we're supposed to see them. A lot of relationships on the show are underexplored on-screen. Phil is certainly closer to him than Mick is at any rate.
Good point
We don't know how much Mick or anyone knows as the storyline keeps going on the backburner. Like everything it's poorly paced and hasn't been gone into in any great amount of detail.
If we saw Jay explain himself to Mick properly and then Mick still picking on him, I would agree with slating Mick for it. Jay has even been turfed out of his own house so Mick isn't the only one who has reacted negatively.
Phil was a moron for not hearing Jay's side of the story. Everything's black and white with Phil. He could have easily stayed in court to hear Jay telling the court what happened.
That means that Mick is being very unfair to Jay then. I prefer Linda to Mick anyway.
It's difficult to believe you could go out with someone for months without finding out basic things about them - or looking at their social media profiles, as is standard nowadays.
As viewers we know Jay better than Mick. We also have a full oversight of the storyline. He's reacting based mostly on hearsay. It's nothing that wouldn't have come out of the mouths of past landlords.