Irish-Salem.com
Email Us My Blog

 

 

 

 

Colm O'Gorman Book Release for "Beyond Belief" (Discussion on website www.politics.ie) PART 2


This is a Part 2 of a discussion on "Colm O'Gorman Book Release" within the Chat forums, part of the Off-Topic category on Politics.ie. Former p.ie poster and 2007 election candidate Colm O'Gorman is releasing a book on his expereinces growing up in ireland ...

http://www.politics.ie/chat/66263-colm-ogorman-book-release.html

 

#61 12th May 2009 Andrew49
Politics.ie Member Join Date: Sep 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin
Well based upon that "suggestion" I think its pretty clear where you [Kilbarry1] are coming from. In your view it is possible for a 14,15,16 year old, regardless of their sexual orientation, to have an adult sexual relationship with someone twice their age and in a very powerful position. Ever hear of statutory rape?

You are a very shady character indeed. I only hope you are not in a position of authority or responsibility with regard to young people.

Perhaps Kilbarry1 should tell us whether he was affiliated to a particular Religious Order, and if he resigned from this Religious Order on the issue of apologising to people, in their care, who were abused ?
__________________

There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls.

#62 12th May 2009 flakie
Has anyone else read the book yet?

I finished it yesterday and was impressed. The first couple chapters were a bit too descriptive for my tastes but other than that, the writing was solid and the story exceptional.

I knew some of the story already (as most people do) but was surprised and horrified at so much of it -- mostly at how people seemed to have known what was going on and how nobody moved to stop it happening.

I think it takes a lot of courage to open your life up to the world the way he has. It's not like he doesn't expect comments like the above -- in the book he reveals plenty of the hate mail and threats he received when he first decided to go public.

The book is told from the perspective of a survivor and not a victim, so it is quite free of bitterness and resentment. At the same time, it is quite inspiring of anger and outrage that people can be so cold and calculating when they knew what was going on. I kept thinking: what were these lawyers thinking that were working for the vatican? How come they didn't end up hanging themselves? How do they live with themselves? How can the Vatican's actions be tolerated when any other state would be denounced for covering up the widespread abuse of so many innocent children?

I think that's what made that abuse so much worse, was that the institution of the church not only failed to protect children from predators but knowingly put children at risk. While the other pedophiles acted on their own, and without sanction from anyone, Sean Fortune acted with the full power and authority of the church.

Towards the end of the book, Colm makes the point that the church hasn't exactly pulled out all the stops to clean up it's act. I found that to be entirely outrageous.

And for whoever said that Colm's actions seemed inconsistent, I'd be more suspect if he painted his 18 year old self as anything but. I know I still (and moreso at that age) am perfectly capable of making an entirely mature and rational decision and in the next instant do something totally moronic. And I was well into my 20s when I knew I was gay... and that was in the 1990s Canada (post-Ellen, even). There are people today who figure it out in their fourties.

#63 14th May 2009 Kilbarry1

Sex Crimes and the Vatican - by Colm O'Gorman
________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by flakie
At the same time, it is quite inspiring of anger and outrage that people can be so cold and calculating when they knew what was going on. I kept thinking: what were these lawyers thinking that were working for the vatican? How come they didn't end up hanging themselves? How do they live with themselves? How can the Vatican's actions be tolerated when any other state would be denounced for covering up the widespread abuse of so many innocent children?


A further example of Colm O'Gorman's credibility -or lack thereof-was the Panorama programme "Sex Crimes and the Vatican" broadcast by the BBC on 1st October 2006. Thomas Sutcliffe reviewed it in the UK Independent - a publication not known for its sympathy for the Catholic Church. Sutcliffe indeed wrote that he watched Panorama "because - in a grumbling, muttering, slightly knee-jerk way - I am hostile to the Catholic Church." Thus he was surprised to find that his indignation at the Church's handling of child abuse, was "mingling with a whispering disquiet at the editorial approach."

He went on in the article "Poor Journalism Saves A Guilty Church" http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ty-church-4185
Quote:
The first doubt occurred when O'Gorman broke down in tears, after visiting the site of an incident of abuse in Brazil. In television terms this was dramatic, and it certainly confirmed the deep trauma of O'Gorman's own past abuse at the hands of an Irish priest. But shouldn't his qualification as empathetic victim have disqualified him from the reporting role in this case?

"Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC", notes the corporation's editorial guidelines, "they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality". That was the problem here. Perceptions.

It wasn't that O'Gorman's investigations were necessarily untrue, but it was all too easy to dismiss him as an impartial weigher of contradictory evidence.

The second doubt occurred when I actually read Crimen Sollicitationis, the 1962 Vatican document which was summarised by one of Panorama's interviewees as "an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy". It took me close to an hour to get through it and, at a rough guess, would take another 20 years to fully comprehend. An abstruse, legalistic document of headache-inducing opacity it lays out the procedures to be followed in the case of a specific ecclesiastical crime- solicitation or using the confessional to tempt a penitent towards impure speech or deeds.

It is much preoccupied with secrecy. But much of this furtiveness seems to derive from the fact that the evidence and accusation occur under seal of the confessional, which must somehow be preserved through the subsequent investigation. Happy as I would have been to find hard evidence of a sinister cover-up by the Vatican, it simply won't bear the crude description which, for the sake of journalistic brevity, Panorama gave it.

Actually Sutcliffe is being too kind. "Journalistic brevity" had little to do with the "crude description" of the Vatican document. When O'Gorman denied in March 2006, that false allegations of child abuse constitute a problem, he was covering up the truth in the interests of an anti-clerical ideology. In October he and Panorama pulled the same stunt with Crimen Sollicitationis. It was deliberate misrepresentation of the document, NOT an unfortunate mistake.

#64 14th May 2009 KJ_C
Politics.ie Member Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 146

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
A further example of Colm O'Gorman's credibility -or lack thereof.....

Good Lord, you are truly obsessed! How close, exactly, are you to this case?

#65 14th May 2009 Kilbarry1

Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ_C
Good Lord, you are truly obsessed! How close, exactly, are you to this case?


I am an amateur historian - or perhaps researcher would be a better word. I have contributed to a couple of books about false allegations of child abuse but have yet to write one.

One of the books I contributed to is Richard Webster's "The Secret of Bryn Estyn" about a child abuse witch-hunt in North Wales. Webster is a cultural historian who has written mainly about allegations against (non-religious) child care workers in the UK. I think he is an atheist but he recognises the similarity with our anti-clerical scandals in Ireland. His book has sections on other countries and I provided the information on Ireland. He has published this seperately on his website as
'States of Fear', the redress board and Ireland's folly
and it is well worth reading for the way an outsider sees us.

He also wrote a second article (to which I contributed) called "The Christmas Spirit in Ireland" The Redress Board, Ireland and allegations of sexual abuse
In this he states in relation to the 15,000 claims to the Redress Board
Quote:
Unless Ireland proves to be a country whose citizens are entirely immune to the laws of human nature, it is almost certainly the case that a significant number of those now claiming money from the government are quite genuine victims of abuse who suffered in the manner they have claimed.

But it is also likely to be the case that a very large number of the claims received, perhaps as many as 90%, would prove, if it were possible to investigate them fully, entirely false.

If that is indeed the case then the Irish government has committed a protracted act of folly on a scale unprecedented in the entire history of sexual abuse compensation schemes.

When the hysteria finally dies down, this is how IRISH historians will be writing about our fake scandals.

#66 14th May 2009 Kilbarry1

Reporting False Claims to Gardai
________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wexfordman
Have you reported the false claims you allege cog made re fr fortune to the authorities yet kilbarry?


Many people have been found NOT guilty of child abuse by the courts over the past decade and more, but few accusers have been convicted of making false allegations. It is a very difficult thing to prove - unless the accuser actually confesses and maybe not even then. One of the two women who slandered Nora Wall admitted years later that she had lied and was duly forgiven by the former nun. The Gardai and the DPP took no action against her. (Having prosecuted and jailed Nora, they have would have looked a bit foolish going after their own witness.)

Strangely enough (or not so strangely) O'Gorman's organisation "One in Four" was involved in one of the few cases where a false accuser was convicted. This was Paul Anderson convicted in June 2007 of falsely accusing a priest of buggering him while giving him First Communion prayer tuition more than 20 years previously. Anderson had been sponsored by "One in Four".

#67 15th May 2009 benjamin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
Strangely enough (or not so strangely) O'Gorman's organisation "One in Four" was involved in one of the few cases where a false accuser was convicted. This was Paul Anderson convicted in June 2007 of falsely accusing a priest of buggering him while giving him First Communion prayer tuition more than 20 years previously. Anderson had been sponsored by "One in Four".

I had been somewhat interested in some of the things you had to say on this thread, but as your rants became increasingly hysterical I have come to the view that you are in fact, an agenda driven troll of the highest order.

I also think you are in serious danger of landing yourself or this site in serious legal difficulty with your poorly cloaked insinuations and attacks.

I googled Paul Anderson and Colm O'Gorman to see what if anything might be on the record re the case and found this:

From the letters page on the Independent.

Sir - The recent conviction of Paul Anderson for falsely accusing a Catholic priest of sexually abusing him has quite rightly raised questions about how we as a society respond to allegations of child abuse.
Mr Anderson received a four-year sentence for the offence, a sentence which sends a clear message about how seriously the courts will treat those who attempt to extort money through a false allegation of child abuse.

It is important to recognise the very great hurt done to the victim in this case; the falsely accused priest.

His clear and powerful testimony in his victim impact statement to the court clearly highlights that hurt.

In responding to this case, it is vital that all appropriate authorities properly and carefully consider his testimony.

More importantly however, his words should cause us all as a society to reflect upon how we respond to such allegations.

I was struck by the suggestion in last week's edition of this newspaper that this case might deter victims of child sexual abuse from coming forward to make a complaint for fear of not being believed.

There is no objective reason why any victim of sexual abuse should be deterred from coming forward because of this case. Mr Anderson's conviction proves that he was guilty of the crime he committed. It has no bearing upon the truth of any other allegation.

Your reporter, Jerome Reilly, suggests that the organisation's "unwitting complicity in championing Paul Anderson in his bid to extort money from the church has reduced its standing in the eyes of many".

It is ironic to be baselessly judged as having been complicit in a crime, in an article which expresses understandable and righteous outrage at the injustice of a person being falsely accused of another crime.

I must ask on what basis Mr Reilly judges One in Four as being complicit in the crime perpetrated by Mr Anderson? I can state for the record that Mr Reilly did not make any contact with this organisation to inform his judgment.

I, of course, accept that Mr Reilly's rush to judgment of One in Four was itself unwitting and without malice.

For that reason I am happy to have a chance to set the record straight.

When any person contacts One in Four and discloses an allegation of sexual abuse, we outline what therapeutic and advocacy options are available.

It is not for this organisation to set itself up as a judge as to the truth of any allegation it receives, that would obviously be entirely inappropriate.

In a case involving an allegation against a cleric we facilitate and encourage the reporting of the allegation to the diocese or religious order involved.

One in Four supports Mr Reilly's view that such allegations present a dilemma for the church, or indeed for any agency responding to such allegations. Best practice dictates that in such cases the person, who is the subject of the allegation, should step aside from their role whilst the allegation is investigated.

It also suggests that the stepping aside of a person, who has been the subject of an allegation, should not be in any way seen as a judgment as to their guilt.

In our view, the accused person should be properly supported and cared for throughout any resulting investigation.

The stepping aside from ministry of a priest in such circumstances should not be viewed as a suspension but as an appropriate and responsible act on the part of that priest.

Mr Reilly asks, "If they [the church] immediately suspend a priest who may be innocent, are they not guilty of a rush to judgment?" The answer is to be found in his question.

Put simply, if society believes that the responsible and proper stepping aside of those accused of child sexual abuse is an indication of guilt, then there has indeed been a rush to judgment.

The answer is straightforward enough.

Any person who is the subject of a credible allegation of such abuse should step aside from their role if they are working with children or vulnerable adults. They should be treated with respect and compassion and properly supported throughout any investigation.

If the allegation is found to be groundless, they must be immediately restored to their position and their reputation must be properly protected throughout the process.

Most importantly, we must develop the collective capacity as a society to respond with maturity and compassion to all involved in such cases.

It would not be acceptable if we were to abandon best practice in child protection in order to counteract ill-informed gossip.

Colm O'Gorman,
Founder,
One in Four.

I think you should go away and take a long hard look at yourself. Seriously.

#68 15th May 2009 benjamin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
A further example of Colm O'Gorman's credibility -or lack thereof-was the Panorama programme "Sex Crimes and the Vatican" broadcast by the BBC on 1st October 2006. Thomas Sutcliffe reviewed it in the UK Independent - a publication not known for its sympathy for the Catholic Church. Sutcliffe indeed wrote that he watched Panorama "because - in a grumbling, muttering, slightly knee-jerk way - I am hostile to the Catholic Church." Thus he was surprised to find that his indignation at the Church's handling of child abuse, was "mingling with a whispering disquiet at the editorial approach."

He went on in the article "Poor Journalism Saves A Guilty Church" http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ty-church-4185

Actually Sutcliffe is being too kind. "Journalistic brevity" had little to do with the "crude description" of the Vatican document. When O'Gorman denied in March 2006, that false allegations of child abuse constitute a problem, he was covering up the truth in the interests of an anti-clerical ideology. In October he and Panorama pulled the same stunt with Crimen Sollicitationis. It was deliberate misrepresentation of the document, NOT an unfortunate mistake.

Again, you are being entirely disingenuous. I did a little more research, bless google.

It was in fact Mr Justice Frank Murphy, former Supreme Court Judge and chairman of the Ferns Report who made a finding that the document you mention was in fact official church policy in dealing with paedophile priests.

A former Supreme Court Judge and an inquiry established by this State or the ranting of an internet agenda driven crank?

I'm with Frank Murphy.

Troll.

#69 15th May 2009 manicstreetporter

And, of course, he'll be granted income tax exemption on this too.

#70 15th May 2009 wexfordman
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin
Again, you are being entirely disingenuous. I did a little more research, bless google.

It was in fact Mr Justice Frank Murphy, former Supreme Court Judge and chairman of the Ferns Report who made a finding that the document you mention was in fact official church policy in dealing with paedophile priests.

A former Supreme Court Judge and an inquiry established by this State or the ranting of an internet agenda driven crank?

I'm with Frank Murphy.

Troll.

It seems Kilbarry1 is correct on at least one front at least, when he called himself an amateur historian/researcher!!
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

16th May 2009 Kilbarry1 Politics.ie Member Join Date: Jul 2008

Bono and Colm

This is from the Irish Savant Blog - part of a discussion on Bono
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2009...-to-elvis.html

Kilbarry1 said...

You slander poor old Bono. In 2003 he saved Colm O'Gorman's group "One In Four" from extinction. The group started operations in Ireland that February, received a mere 600,000 Eur public funding and threatened to close down in October unless the Government paid an additional 80,000. (By an irrelevant co-incidence that was O'Gorman's annual salary). Bono saved them by donating 40,000 and so this Group of Victims are still with us.

Incidentally "One in Four" represents the % of Irish people who have been sexually abused as children. God Bless Bono!

One in Four head Colm O'Gorman earns €80k a year - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

13 May 2009 01:02

#72 16th May 2009 Andrew49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
This is from the Irish Savant Blog - part of a discussion on Bono
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2009...-to-elvis.html

Kilbarry1 said...

You slander poor old Bono. In 2003 he saved Colm O'Gorman's group "One In Four" from extinction. The group started operations in Ireland that February, received a mere 600,000 Eur public funding and threatened to close down in October unless the Government paid an additional 80,000. (By an irrelevant co-incidence that was O'Gorman's annual salary). Bono saved them by donating 40,000 and so this Group of Victims are still with us.

Incidentally "One in Four" represents the % of Irish people who have been sexually abused as children. God Bless Bono!

One in Four head Colm O'Gorman earns €80k a year - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

13 May 2009 01:02


To be worn in the vicinity of Kilbarry

 

There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls.

#73 16th May 2009 wexfordman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
This is from the Irish Savant Blog - part of a discussion on Bono
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2009...-to-elvis.html

Kilbarry1 said...

You slander poor old Bono. In 2003 he saved Colm O'Gorman's group "One In Four" from extinction. The group started operations in Ireland that February, received a mere 600,000 Eur public funding and threatened to close down in October unless the Government paid an additional 80,000. (By an irrelevant co-incidence that was O'Gorman's annual salary). Bono saved them by donating 40,000 and so this Group of Victims are still with us.

Incidentally "One in Four" represents the % of Irish people who have been sexually abused as children. God Bless Bono!

One in Four head Colm O'Gorman earns €80k a year - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

13 May 2009 01:02

Kilbarry, why dont you come out from behind the anonymous veil you have and make your allegations against a public figure publicly ?
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

#74 16th May 2009 Andrew49
The Catholic Church is facing one of the biggest sexual abuse compensation claims ever seen in this country. The action will be taken against two organisations under the direction of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough which managed the St William’s Community Home in Market Weighton, East Yorkshire between the early 1960s and 1992. They are the Catholic Child Welfare Society and the Middlesbrough Diocesan Rescue Society, and three branches of the De La Salle Brothers, a Catholic order of lay teachers.

The organisations are being sued by 140 men who were subjected to the brutal regime which ran unchecked for 30 years. During that time severe physical and sexual abuse was common and practised against some of the areas’ poorest and most vulnerable children.

Many of the claimants’ cases involve alleged rape which can result in compensation awards exceeding £50,000. David Greenwood, a lawyer specialising in child abuse, said: “Physical abuse was widespread. It was rare for boys to go through the St William’s system without being subjected to cruel punishment. But it appears that certain members of staff there selected boys for sexual abuse as well – often under the threat of violence or worse punishment.”

The former principal of the home, Brother James Carragher, is serving 14 years in prison after being convicted in 2004 of systematically abusing boys at the home between 1968 and 1992. He had already been given a seven-year term in 1993 for other offences of serious sexual abuse at the home. Sentencing him at the second trial, the judge said it had been “as bad a case of gross breach of trust as one can imagine.” Det Supt Richard Kerman, the experienced officer who led the inquiry, described Carragher as the “most evil man he had ever met.”

#75 16th May 2009 Kilbarry1
Quote:
Originally Posted by wexfordman
Kilbarry, why dont you come out from behind the anonymous veil you have and make your allegations against a public figure publicly ?


I have discussed this kind of issue in public on other websites and in public fora. However where other parties use aliases, so do I. My letter to the Irish Times (see contribution no 15) was of course sent under my own name. Also I was so convinced that the Times would not publish that I sent it to Colm O'Gorman on the same day (9 April 2006). So he knows my name.

#76 16th May 2009 jimmyjames
Politics.ie Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 362
"Incidentally "One in Four" represents the % of Irish people who have been sexually abused as children. God Bless Bono!"

Where is the evidence that 1 in 4 people in Ireland has been sexually abused? Population of Ireland in 2006 was 4,239,848 persons. According to this figure it would be over 1 million people abused as children. Maybe someone could explain this one to me?

#77 16th May 2009 Kilbarry1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
I have discussed this kind of issue in public on other websites and in public fora. However where other parties use aliases, so do I. My letter to the Irish Times (see contribution no 15) was of course sent under my own name. Also I was so convinced that the Times would not publish that I sent it to Colm O'Gorman on the same day (9 April 2006). So he knows my name.


OK my letter was a long time ago on this website - here it is again.
Quote:
Editor
Irish Times

9 April 2006

Madam,
Writing in the Irish Times on 29 March last, the director of "One in Four" Colm O'Gorman made some remarkable statements in an article headed "There is no evidence to show that the rights of those accused have been abused".

Mr O'Gorman stated: "In the past few months a number of commentators have suggested that grave injustice is being done to priests falsely accused of child sexual abuse. Such suggestions rightly concern fair minded people, but remarkably, no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused."

Did Mr. O'Gorman never hear of the case of Nora Wall, formerly Sister Dominic of the Sisters of Mercy? In 1999 she became the first woman in the history of the State to be convicted of raping a child AND the first person to get a life sentence for rape. She was also the first person to be convicted on the basis of "Recovered Memory Syndrome". (This kind of evidence is very rare in Ireland but has a long and infamous history in the USA).

Nora Wall was convicted on the word of two women Regina Walsh and her "witness" Patricia Phelan, BOTH of whom had made a string of allegations against other people (mainly relatives and boyfriends). The case started to collapse when they sold their story to The Star newspaper and one of the men who had been accused by Patricia Phelan read it and contacted Nora Wall's family. In December 2005 in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Patricia Phelan finally confessed publicly that she had lied.

In the same newspaper article Regina Walsh stated that she had also been raped by a "black man in Leicester Square". Again it was the first the Defence had heard of this allegation.

At the trial Regina Walsh claimed that one of the rapes occurred on her 12th birthday. She said that Nora Wall held her down while Pablo McCabe raped her. Pablo McCabe was in Mountjoy Prison on that date!! When this was pointed out to the jury they acquitted the two accused on that charge but convicted them on the other allegations. I believe that the only reason for this incredible decision is that Nora Wall had been a nun. Does Colm O'Gorman have an alternative explanation?

Mr. O'Gorman might like to look at the Judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the Nora Wall case. It is dated 16 December 2005 and is readily available on the Internet.

But perhaps the Nora Wall case is just an aberration? Consider the following.

There are wild claims that the Christian Brothers and other religious have murdered up to 'hundreds' of the boys in their care. (For example an interview with Mannix Flynn about Letterfrack Industrial School in the Sunday Independent on 22 December 2002). Gardai at Clifden, Co Galway, investigated claims that there were bodies of boys who had died as a result of foul play buried in the grounds of Letterfrack. Early in 2003, the Gardai reported that they had found no evidence to back this up. Superintendent Tony O'Dowd said: "There was no evidence available that would suggest that foul play led to the deaths of anybody buried inside or outside of the cemetery at the old Industrial School in Letterfrack." He added: "There was no evidence of a mass grave."

Then there was the case of former Letterfrack resident, Willie Delaney. His body was exhumed in April 2001 because of claims that he had died as a result of head wounds inflicted by a Christian Brother. The subsequent autopsy revealed that he had died from natural causes and that there was no evidence of a blow to the head.

The list goes on. Patrick Flaherty, who spent some years in the Holy Family School in Renmore, Co Galway said he made two allegations against members of the Brothers of Charity because of 'false memory syndrome'. He later withdrew the allegations. He has also said that while attending a public meeting of the Laffoy Commission in 2003 he overheard other former residents discussing among themselves whether or not to accuse a particular Brother. Some in the group said the Brother had never abused anyone. Others said he should be accused anyway.

The evidence of Patrick Flaherty was not widely reported in the media (I saw it in the Irish Independent on 1st November 2003 and nowhere else). However as head of "One in Four", surely Colm O'Gorman should be aware of it?

There is no way that Mr. O'Gorman can have missed the allegations about the "killing" of Willie Delaney . The media screamed obscenities at the Christian Brothers. About 20 April 2001, Evening Herald posters were all over the streets of Dublin proclaiming "Now it's Murder Enquiry". Then the autopsy report was published and the entire media dropped the story like a shot. Yet this was a Blood Libel against the Christian Brothers which was no different from Nazi Blood Libels about the Jews.

Did Colm O'Gorman have anything to say at the time? Will he say something now? How can he possibly maintain that "no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused."

#78 16th May 2009 uriah
Quote:
Originally Posted by swansandtyphus
Is anyone sick of Colm O'Gorman's whole because-I-got-raped-by-a-priest-please-vote-for-me-and-buy-my-book-and-oh-by-the-way-I'm-gay-too schtick?

I am.

No. But I am sickened by those who, in any way, try to silence those who experienced the abuse (see above)

Children who were suffering abuse were silenced by fear and the threats of their abusers. They were silenced because they didn't have the language to tell what was happening to them They were ignored and went unheard.

Even when they were believed the abuser was often moved on to continue his abuse elsewhere.

We should listrn - listen carefully, and go on listening for as long as it takes.
We must never stop listening to the victims of child abuse.

Those who try to silence them are adding to the abuse.

#79 16th May 2009 Andrew49


[Angry:>] In K's 'life' there is a "constant", it takes some finding but its there: A prolific letter writer, and "fierce" critic of the Institutionally abused and "false allegations".

K set out on his task, but left some "clues" behind, and his obsession with "false allegations" soon became apparent, and therein is the moot point of this obsessional drive of his to contest, denigrate, demean, belittle all and sundry who marched out of step with his drumbeat. Nowhere does he offer, in any manner, sympathy or understanding to the children of the gulags who were abused. In K's 'mind' "everybody" is and was a liar: from the Taoiseach down, K went on the rampage, Judiciary, Justice Department, Attorney General, Gardai, Redress Board, Laffoy commission, Ryan Commission, you name it, K hit at it. Everybody and Everything was "bent".

When stripped of his window dressing, K appears somewhat "alienated" as to the true intent of his "fight for the falsely accused", and the debilitating "false allegations" which occupies his complete psyche to the exclusion of reasoning and logic, whereby he becomes enmeshed in total denial.

Methinks K, this obsessional drive of yours in relation to "false allegations" may lie somewhere in your deep past. Is there any viable reason or explanation K of why you direct such animosity towards those who make "allegations" of sexual abuse

Has anybody ever levelled "false allegations" at you K? Is this the reason for your vile hatred of the institutionally abused?

K went to London TO "DIG UP DIRT" on Peter Tyrrell but came back with his tails between his legs. K, an ex christian brother of the DE LA SILLY order of numbskulls and wafer munchers spent THREE YEARS with these thugs and then threw his collar in the ring, along with the WHITE TOWEL.
________________________________________
Last edited by Andrew49; 3rd September 2009 at 07:09 PM. Reason: Peter Tyrrell Link

#80 16th May 2009 Andrew49 Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjames
"Incidentally "One in Four" represents the % of Irish people who have been sexually abused as children. God Bless Bono!"

Where is the evidence that 1 in 4 people in Ireland has been sexually abused? Population of Ireland in 2006 was 4,239,848 persons. According to this figure it would be over 1 million people abused as children. Maybe someone could explain this one to me?

One in Four - the statistic

This is based on both contact and non contact childhood sexual abuse percentages outlined in the SAVI Report (p.33).
'Prevalence of Sexual Violence Child Sexual Abuse (defined as sexual abuse of children and adolescents under age 17 years).
Girls: One in five women (20.4 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in ten (10.0 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In over a quarter of cases of contact abuse (i.e. 5.6 per cent of all girls), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either vaginal, anal or oral sex.
Boys: One in six men (16.2 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in four-teen (7.4 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In one of every six cases of contact abuse (i.e. 2.7 per cent of all boys), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either anal or oral sex.'
Source: McGee, H. Garavan, R., De Barra, M. Byrne, J and Conroy, R. (2002).The SAVI Report - Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland. Dublin: Liffey Press in Association with the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre.

17th May 2009 Odyessus
Politics.ie Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Dublin Posts: 6,889

Quote:
Originally Posted by uriah
No. But I am sickened by those who, in any way, try to silence those who experienced the abuse (see above)

Children who were suffering abuse were silenced by fear and the threats of their abusers. They were silenced because they didn't have the language to tell what was happening to them They were ignored and went unheard.

Even when they were believed the abuser was often moved on to continue his abuse elsewhere.

We should listrn - listen carefully, and go on listening for as long as it takes.
We must never stop listening to the victims of child abuse.

Those who try to silence them are adding to the abuse.

No one is arguing that child sexual abuse is not a dreadful crime, not that it should not be prosecuted and the culprits made answerable for their crimes.

However we should not let our natural repugnance of these vile crimes lead us into believing every accusation made. People have been falsely accused, and their lives have been destroyed as much as those children who really have been abused.

I know it is difficult for people to be dispassionate about the subject; nevertheless, we must always bear in mind that sometimes the victim is the accused, not the accuser.

#82 17th May 2009 uriah

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odyessus
No one is arguing that child sexual abuse is not a dreadful crime, not that it should not be prosecuted and the culprits made answerable for their crimes.

However we should not let our natural repugnance of these vile crimes lead us into believing every accusation made. People have been falsely accused, and their lives have been destroyed as much as those children who really have been abused.

I know it is difficult for people to be dispassionate about the subject; nevertheless, we must always bear in mind that sometimes the victim is the accused, not the accuser. .

I know that most people would agree with you. I do.
But when someone posts the following

Originally Posted by swansandtyphus
Is anyone sick of Colm O'Gorman's whole because-I-got-raped-by-a-priest-please-vote-for-me-and-buy-my-book-and-oh-by-the-way-I'm-gay-too schtick?

I am absolutely disgusted. This poster is not expressing concern for those wrongly accused. S/he simply wants Colm O'Gorman to stop talking about his abuse because s/he 'is sick..' of hearing it.

#83 17th May 2009 Andrew49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odyessus
However we should not let our natural repugnance of these vile crimes lead us into believing every accusation made. People have been falsely accused, and their lives have been destroyed as much as those children who really have been abused.

I know it is difficult for people to be dispassionate about the subject; nevertheless, we must always bear in mind that sometimes the victim is the accused, not the accuser.

Of course you are right - but there is a huge huge difference between an accusation of rape and rape. And in the case of the rape of a child it is often the case that it only comes to light long after the outrage.

47% of those who disclosed experiences of sexual violence as past or the SAVI research had never told anyone about their experiences of abuse.

60% of all young men, i.e. under age 30, had not previously disclosed the sexual abuse they experienced in childhood.

Only 1% of all men and 7.8% of all women who have experienced sexual violence as adults have reported such abuse to the Gardai. This means that 95.7% of all sexual assaults of adults go unreported to the Gardai.

Only 8% of all cases of sexual abuse in childhood are reported to the Gardai.

Once an allegation of rape or sexual abuse is made the Justice system takes over, but when an incident of rape or sexual abuse occurs the Justice system doesn't become involved at all unless and until it is reported and for over 92% of those who have suffered some kind of sexual abuse or sexual violence the Justice system is never involved at all.

The stigmatisation of people who have experienced sexual abuse continues to be the dominant factor that silences victims and prevents them from reporting crimes and seeking help.

All stats from the SAVI report

#84 18th May 2009 Odyessus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew49
Of course you are right - but there is a huge huge difference between an accusation of rape and rape. And in the case of the rape of a child it is often the case that it only comes to light long after the outrage.

47% of those who disclosed experiences of sexual violence as past or the SAVI research had never told anyone about their experiences of abuse.

60% of all young men, i.e. under age 30, had not previously disclosed the sexual abuse they experienced in childhood.

Only 1% of all men and 7.8% of all women who have experienced sexual violence as adults have reported such abuse to the Gardai. This means that 95.7% of all sexual assaults of adults go unreported to the Gardai.

Only 8% of all cases of sexual abuse in childhood are reported to the Gardai.

Once an allegation of rape or sexual abuse is made the Justice system takes over, but when an incident of rape or sexual abuse occurs the Justice system doesn't become involved at all unless and until it is reported and for over 92% of those who have suffered some kind of sexual abuse or sexual violence the Justice system is never involved at all.

The stigmatisation of people who have experienced sexual abuse continues to be the dominant factor that silences victims and prevents them from reporting crimes and seeking help.

All stats from the SAVI report

Quote:
...... there is a huge huge difference between an accusation of rape and rape. And in the case of the rape of a child it is often the case that it only comes to light long after the outrage.

But the point I'm making is the accusation itself is not the "coming to light" of a rape, rather it is just an accusation until it is proven.

We should not let our horror at the crime alleged prejudice us against the accused, nor as is unfortunately often the case, impute sinister motives to those who call for a calm examination of the facts.

#85 18th May 2009 uriah
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odyessus
But the point I'm making is the accusation itself is not the "coming to light" of a rape, rather it is just an accusation until it is proven.

We should not let our horror at the crime alleged prejudice us against the accused, nor as is unfortunately often the case, impute sinister motives to those who call for a calm examination of the facts.

Agre 100%. But the following is NOT a call for calm examination of th facts.

Originally Posted by swansandtyphus
Is anyone sick of Colm O'Gorman's whole because-I-got-raped-by-a-priest-please-vote-for-me-and-buy-my-book-and-oh-by-the-way-I'm-gay-too schtick?

#86 18th May 2009 Mr.De-Regulation
Ex-Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 3,316

I wonder does his book mention I think he is a twat. I met him at an event. He cept going on and on how famous he is, and kept making jokes that related to things that happened in his life. I didnt know anything about him at all. I only knew his name, because I was interested in won in Wicklow.

I hate Amesty International.

#87 18th May 2009 Kilbarry1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew49
The stigmatisation of people who have experienced sexual abuse continues to be the dominant factor that silences victims and prevents them from reporting crimes and seeking help.


The idea that people who experienced sexual abuse are stigmatised is almost the opposite of the truth. There is a thread in the Justice section of Politics.ie about Michael Hannon who was falsely accused of abuse in February 1997. There had been a thread about Patrick McGlinchey the teacher whose 12 year suspension has just been lifted by the High Court. (It was deleted when one contributor posted slanders but hopefully it has restarted). Mr. McGlinchey was accused in March 1997 - a month after Michael Hannon.

The former Sister of Mercy, Nora Wall was accused in late 1996 as was Michael Fitzpatrick. The case against Nora Wall eventually collapsed when her two accusers gave a paid interview to the Irish Star and Michael Fitzpatrick recognised one of them as his own accuser!

What was behind this outbreak of lunacy in 1996? One possible suggestion is RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February of that year (re Christine Buckley and Goldenbridge). It led people to believe that all their problems were due to sex abuse.

ALSO one of Nora Wall's defence team told me that she was convicted in a climate of hysteria caused by the broadcast of Mary Raftery's "States of Fear" series in April/May 1999. Nora Wall was convicted in June 1999 and if her accusers had not been so stupid as to give that interview to the Irish Star, she would probably be in jail still.

Colm O'Gorman has made a name for himself out of TV documentaries and now a book - and he is by no means the only one. So what is all stigma about? It does not affect the people who have broadcast their tales of abuse to the world. It does however affect people like Patsy McGlinchey who was suspended from teaching for 12 years after the false allegation and for 7 years after he was acquitted in 2002!

#88 18th May 2009 wexfordman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
The idea that people who experienced sexual abuse are stigmatised is almost the opposite of the truth.

Thats really disturbing, whats ironic is that you can make statements like the above, and then doubt other peoples credibility.

Your a crank kilbarry, and a dangerous one, and your approach will garner no support, not because it does not have its merits, but because ofyour total disregard for the victims and your belittling of thier plight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
There is a thread in the Justice section of Politics.ie about Michael Hannon who was falsely accused of abuse in February 1997. There had been a thread about Patrick McGlinchey the teacher whose 12 year suspension has just been lifted by the High Court. (It was deleted when one contributor posted slanders but hopefully it has restarted).

.

Slanders l;ike your own agains colm o'gorman when you stated that he falsely accsued fortune of abuse agains him, and said that he was only having an affair with him ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
What was behind this outbreak of lunacy in 1996? One possible suggestion is RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February of that year (re Christine Buckley and Goldenbridge). It led people to believe that all their problems were due to sex abuse.


Yes indeed, much better that we brush all this stuff under the carpet, is that what you are saying ? Are you harking for the good old days when child abuse was not reported, when abusers were allowed continue risk free, when victims were left to suffer in silence ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
Colm O'Gorman has made a name for himself out of TV documentaries and now a book - and he is by no means the only one. So what is all stigma about? It does not affect the people who have broadcast their tales of abuse to the world.

.
How exactly has it not affected the people who chose to speak out ?
Seriously, you are again imlpying that it is best not to speak out ?
I think your grudge against Colm O'Gorman is that he dared to speak out, and that he is particularly good at getting his message across ?

If I were to say to you, that I think the vitcims of injustice, or false acusations shuold keep quite, what would be your response ?
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"
________________________________________
Last edited by wexfordman; 18th May 2009 at 11:37 AM.

#89 18th May 2009 Andrew49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
The idea that people who experienced sexual abuse are stigmatised is almost the opposite of the truth. ....

What was behind this outbreak of lunacy in 1996? One possible suggestion is RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February of that year (re Christine Buckley and Goldenbridge). It led people to believe that all their problems were due to sex abuse.

Did the Christian Brothers know about Brother Maurice Tobin's sexual acts against boys? At Tobin's trial the judge wondered 'how such violent sexual assaults were allowed to go unchecked' Tobin was described in court by his barrister as being of below average intelligence, just a cook who did menial jobs - information obviously provided by the Christian Brothers. Yet in internal Christian Brother documents this monster is described as "sub-superior" or second-in-command of Letterfrack who had also held the senior post of "councillor" within the same community?

Far from engaging merely in menial work, Brother Tobin had become a senior leading figure within Letterfrack - between the years 1959 and 1974.

The Christian Brothers have, of course, resolutely refused to release any of their voluminous archive on industrial schools into the public domain. I warrant they contain thousands of instances of child abuse both physical and sexual abuse. The Christian Brothers won't even release such basic information as which Brothers served in particular institutions and schools at specific times. But contained with those documents are references to the monster Tobin: he was reported as being very devout. He was praised for his efficient stewardship of the kitchens. He was also in charge of the poultry farm, worked by the boys, which had at one stage almost 500 chickens. It was a small industry, with produce sold around the county.

Brother Tobin exerts "complete control" over the boys. He is described as living "an almost hermetical life", supervising the boys' meals and eating alone. Chillingly his other duty "is to supervise the boys' showers". The report continues: "He maintains good discipline though his methods may be a little crude at times". Also he must have supervised the smaller boys who were forced to run endlessly around a bare stone yard for hours in the wet and the cold, holding their sheets above their heads. These were the bed-wetters, and the idea was that they had to run until their sheets were dry. If they slowed or flagged, they were beaten. The problem, of course, was that in the persistent rain and mist of Connemara, the sheets just got wetter and heavier. But still the children were made to run for hours. This kind of warped, sadistic cruelty was the hallmark of Letterfrack and the Christian Brothers.

It is concluded that he "seems ripe for a total change of environment", and a transfer is recommended. That's Christian Brother code for: 'He's raped and battered every boy here and we should move him on to fresher pastures'

In testimony given the care provided at Letterfrack industrial school in Co Galway was "the best that was available" at the time, said Brother David Gibson.

Did "the best" care have to include sexual abuse, savage beatings, brutal floggings, communal punishment, routine degradation, paltry education, gross overwork, inedible food, consistent hunger, exposure to the elements on the school's farm without adequate nourishment or clothing, silence from without and an overall climate of cruelty and dread within? Did it?

If that list constitutes aspects of "the best" - the Rolls Royce of care available then - what might an inferior version entail? No doubt, Br Gibson would dispute that such depravity typified Letterfrack. But many men, detained there as boys, have repeatedly reported that that's the way it was.

Either they are exaggerating wildly or Br Gibson is, at best, seriously deluded.

We know, for instance, that Brother Maurice Tobin, who was in Letterfrack from 1959 until its closure in 1974, pleaded guilty in 2003 to 25 sample counts of sexually abusing boys. He was jailed for 12 years, with the final four suspended. More than 100 complaints of sexual abuse were made to Gardaí against Tobin. During the hearing in Galway, at which he was sentenced, the court was told how he systematically molested, abused and buggered boys aged 11-14. Some victims recounted the devastating impact of the abuse on their lives. They're unlikely to believe Br Tobin dispensed the "best care".

And then there's Peter Tyrell's story: He had described his own rape as a child by a Christian Brother at Letterfrack. He also spoke of how he had witnessed other boys being beaten naked for long periods. He told a priest in Confession at the time about the rape. The priest's response was to ask him how dared he tell such lies about the Brothers, without whom he would not have a roof over his head.

In Kilbarry1's world Peter would have been better off if he had kept his mouth shut.

In 1967, with no indication that anyone had taken his accounts of brutality and rape in Letterfrack seriously, Peter Tyrell committed suicide by setting himself on fire in London's Hampstead Heath. He was so badly burned that it took London police almost a year to identify his body. They traced the unburned corner of a postcard in his pocket to his friend Dr Owen Sheehy-Skeffington, himself a noted campaigner for reform in this area. Sheehy-Skeffington was able to confirm that he had indeed sent the postcard, and that the body was that of Peter Tyrell.
- - - - - - -
Most of the above from sworn testimony at the Child Abuse Commission and court reports.

#90 19th May 2009 KJ_C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
When the hysteria finally dies down, this is how IRISH historians will be writing about our fake scandals.


Out of interest, do you believe any of the child abuse allegations in Ireland, through the years, were true?

#91 19th May 2009 Andrew49
Quote:
The cruelty inflicted on boys in industrial schools is perhaps the darkest stain on our history since independence. Boys, who were frequently incarcerated at the schools simply because they were orphans, were routinely flogged naked, and many were sexually abused by Christian Brothers. Those in powerful positions in the Catholic church and in government turned a blind eye to the evils inflicted in institutions that have been aptly described as the "Irish gulags''.
What happened to the boy they couldn't break?
Quote:
The fact that the reports of 1936 and 1962 were covered up, is a far greater tragedy when we learn of the accomplices -- civil servants.
Cover ups
Quote:
CHRISTIAN Brothers who admitted to acts of sexual abuse in industrial schools were given senior positions in other institutions run by the order, it was claimed yesterday.
Religious Order protected and promoted known abusers
Quote:
THE new secretary general of the Department of Education has admitted "significant failings" in the way department inspectors investigated how children were being maltreated in industrial schools. Brigid McManus told the Child Abuse Commission yesterday the department deeply regretted that many complaints about conditions in industrial and reformatory schools were not taken seriously. "It is clear the department was not effective in ensuring a satisfactory level of care," she said in a statement to the commission. "Indeed, the very need to establish a commission of inquiry testified to this."
Abuse claims ignored

- - - - - - - -

In years to come Ciaran Morrison and Mick O'Hara, the low-profile puppeteers behind Podge and Rodge, may come to see it as the high point of their careers. It was the week when they received a sharp belt of an Archbishop's crozier. No less a figure than Archbishop Sean Brady, the mild-mannered Catholic primate of All Ireland, stepped out of the shadows to attack the smutty pair as the epitome of a modern, degenerate society.

Sean Brady warns that there is a deep concern, particularly among parents, about the direction in which the nation is travelling, both morally and spiritually. "Do we want a culture of Podge and Rodge or one of decency and respect?" said the archbishop. And the cynical younger generation is likely to respond, "We'll take Podge and Rodge, please." This increasing coarseness and aggression of Irish society were evident, according to the Primate, "on the roads, in drinking, the increase in sexualisation of children at an earlier age, stress, excess generally". In short, he was delivering a message, beloved of Conservatives in every era: we're going to hell in a handcart.

In creating this nightmarish vision of a modern 21st Century Ireland, where expletive-spewing puppets talk of masturbation at the blink of an eye on national television without reproach, and motorists shout at each other in traffic jams, the archbishop appeared to hark back to an earlier, apparently more innocent, age when the church was in its pomp.

In December 1966, Irish Independent writers complained of the hustle and bustle of the modern Christmas. Frances Condell said the traditional Christmas was in decline as people faced the "never-ending shuffling and jostling from shop to shop". The overly extravagant spending on presents was also noted. The image of a more mannerly, gentlemanly society may also be somewhat false, if we are to believe an Irish Independent editorial of December 1966. Echoing the archbishop's modern-day concerns about road rage, a 1966 Christmas editorial expressed concern about "anger on our roads". "What impulse led you to hoot your horn in a traffic jam, to flash lights in front of a tardy driver, or to shoot impatiently past a slow coach in front?"

The country may have been poorer, but there is little evidence to suggest that holy Catholic Ireland was any less materialistic than brash, secular 21st century Ireland. In the Sixties, the writer Alan Bestic observed the gulf between the rich and the poor, as he described Dublin's "scampi belt, the Bacardi brigade": "They own a house in Foxrock and have a Mercedes on the firm. The wife has a Mini for shopping and a swimming pool in the garden is on order. Then, as now, there was soul-searching about "road carnage", drunk driving, raging alcoholism, marital breakdown and unruly adolescents. Cardinal Conway was warning of "a flood of obscenity and near pornography" coming into the country.
Decades earlier, WB Yeats complained about the dominant materialism of Dublin's affluent classes:
"What need you, being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till
And add the halfpence to the pence
And prayer to shivering prayer."

All that is missing now is the shivering prayer. Archbishop Brady might argue with some justification that violent crime was largely absent from the streets in the mid-Sixties. That is probably the Church's strongest suit. Street quarrels tended to be sorted with fists rather than the switchblade and the pistol.

But the much-vaunted respect and decency seemed to be in short supply when it came to dealing with children, young women who "got into trouble", and others who did not conform to the church's expectations. Thousands of children were shut away in industrial schools or reformatories - the sort of cruel and inhumane institutions that had long since been shut down in more secular societies. The treatment of children in these hell-holes almost turned the term Christian Brother into an oxymoron.

The Fianna Fail cabinet minister, Brian Lenihan, famously visited the Artane Industrial School and heard of weekly beatings. To which he responded: "Get me out of this f**king place." But it was many years before these indecencies were exposed. In the late Sixties, a visiting journalist from the Conservative Daily Telegraph was astonished at the public thrashings endured in Irish Church schools "which, in England, would be enough to close the school and start an inquiry".

The worst advertisement for a society where the Church's authority held sway were the Magdalen laundries. In his book The Transformation of Ireland, Diarmaid Ferriter tells how up to 30,000 women were incarcerated as virtual slaves, mainly for the heinous crimes of being unmarried mothers, simple-minded, assertive or just too damn pretty for their own good.

What were we complaining about 40 years ago? Drink, traffic jams, porn, unruly teens, materialism ...
__________________

There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls.

#92 19th May 2009 Andrew49
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieInExile
Thank you Kilbarry.

For all the publicity that O'Gorman has won, for all his well paid efforts, for all the professional research and support behind him, for all your difficulties being heard, up to not even being published in the letters page of the Irish Times, it is nonetheless the case that now, in Google, "o'gorman" and almost any keyword related to the issues you have raised here returns one of your posts as the number one result.

So I did a search on Colm O'Gorman and got 41,000 results

Then I did a search on Colm O'Gorman Kilbarry1 and got ...... 2 results

O'Gorman child abuse brings up 10,000 results

O'Gorman child abuse kilbarry1 brings up 2 results

Kilbarry1 and Ferns Diocese gets 32 results

Colm O'Gorman and Ferns Diocese gets 1,140 results-----

#93 19th May 2009 wexfordman

DId you try kilbarry1 and book ?

Or kilbarry1 person of the year award ?
Or KIlbarry1 jim larkin justice award ?

How about kilbarry1 documentories ?
Or KIlbarry1 newspaper articles ?

 

WAy to go kilbarry!!!
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

#94 19th May 2009 Andrew49
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieInExile
Thank you Kilbarry.

respect you, for what that's worth, and have absolute confidence in your statement that history will see things from your perspective.

Beir bua.

P.S. Write that book!

__________________

There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls.

#95 19th May 2009 conservative green
Politics.ie Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,065

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbysands81
A new low for this website.


Agreed. I don't think I've read a viler post here than what Swansandtypus posted.

#96 23rd May 2009 wexfordman

Kilbarry1 seems to have gone very quite these, days, perhaps reality has sunk in having listened to the media over the last few days. Your book btw kilbarry1 will need to be good, BEYOND BELIEF is a Best Seller according to this mornings examiner!!
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

#97 23rd May 2009 benjamin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.De-Regulation
I wonder does his book mention I think he is a twat. I met him at an event. He cept going on and on how famous he is, and kept making jokes that related to things that happened in his life. I didnt know anything about him at all. I only knew his name, because I was interested in won in Wicklow.

I hate Amesty International.

What event did you meet him at? And whats the wicklow connection?

Haven't read the book, doubt if he mentions that you think he is a twat though. Shockingly enough.

He made jokes about things that happened in his life? Sounds like he doesn't take himself too seriously so. Good for him.

#98 23rd May 2009 cactusflower
Ex-Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 8,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
The idea that people who experienced sexual abuse are stigmatised is almost the opposite of the truth. There is a thread in the Justice section of Politics.ie about Michael Hannon who was falsely accused of abuse in February 1997. There had been a thread about Patrick McGlinchey the teacher whose 12 year suspension has just been lifted by the High Court. (It was deleted when one contributor posted slanders but hopefully it has restarted). Mr. McGlinchey was accused in March 1997 - a month after Michael Hannon.

The former Sister of Mercy, Nora Wall was accused in late 1996 as was Michael Fitzpatrick. The case against Nora Wall eventually collapsed when her two accusers gave a paid interview to the Irish Star and Michael Fitzpatrick recognised one of them as his own accuser!

What was behind this outbreak of lunacy in 1996? One possible suggestion is RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February of that year (re Christine Buckley and Goldenbridge). It led people to believe that all their problems were due to sex abuse.

ALSO one of Nora Wall's defence team told me that she was convicted in a climate of hysteria caused by the broadcast of Mary Raftery's "States of Fear" series in April/May 1999. Nora Wall was convicted in June 1999 and if her accusers had not been so stupid as to give that interview to the Irish Star, she would probably be in jail still.

Colm O'Gorman has made a name for himself out of TV documentaries and now a book - and he is by no means the only one. So what is all stigma about? It does not affect the people who have broadcast their tales of abuse to the world. It does however affect people like Patsy McGlinchey who was suspended from teaching for 12 years after the false allegation and for 7 years after he was acquitted in 2002!

Those convictions should never have happened: reading the evidence re Nora Wall it was pretty obvious that it was a fabricated story. Courts and juries are not perfect and there was a witch hunt atmosphere as with Catherine Nevin and other women defendants.

That does not in any way justify criticism of Colm Gorman. He has gone a difficult road. Your resentment at his having achieved a position hopefully of security and respect is palpable. Not attractive.

#99 23rd May 2009 benjamin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
A few months after Nora Wall (formerly Sister Dominic of the Sisters of Mercy) had got a miscarriage of justice certificate from the Court of Criminal Appeal, Colm O'Gorman announced in the Irish Times that:

"In the past few months a number of commentators have suggested that grave injustice is being done to priests falsely accused of child sexual abuse. Such suggestions rightly concern fair minded people, but remarkably, no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused."

This was published on 29 March 2006. The Court of Criminal Appeal judgement regarding Nora Wall was published in mid-December 2005. It made it clear that both of her accusers had made several other false allegations. True their other claims were not directed at Catholic clergy but O'Gorman's words were still remarkable.

I wrote a letter to the Irish Times at the time. It wasn't published (I didn't expect it to be) but here it is anyway.

 

I was so sure that the Irish Times would not publish this that I sent it to Mr. O'Gorman on the same day saying that I did not expect publication and requesting his comments. Maybe he would care to give them now?

Killbarry has indeed gone very quiet. Unsurprisingly.

He might find the following interesting given his repeated mentions of the Nora Wall case. Go to the 'Newsmakers' section and listen carefully to the first five minutes or so as Mary Wilson goes through the Ryan Report findings on a childrens home in Waterford. Very disturbing stuff indeed. It sickened me.

RTÉ News: Drivetime

#100 23rd May 2009 cactusflower
Ex-Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 8,522

If the accused are to get their rights, they should be named and if there is evidence against them, brought to trial.

#101 25th May 2009 TommyO'Brien
Politics.ie Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 6,051

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
My suggestion: Colm O'Gorman was gay and had been having an affair with Father Fortune!

You sick, evil twisted b*stard.

Even by your pathetic standard that comment is beneath contempt.

You are a scumbag.

#102 25th May 2009
121.5 Ex-Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,086

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyO'Brien
You sick, evil twisted b*stard.

Even by your pathetic standard that comment is beneath contempt.

You are a scumbag.

Tommy, calm down

Colm is gay.

You can criticise the rest of Kilbarry's theory but there is no need to go crazy.

everyone chill.

#103 26th May 2009 wexfordman
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121.5
Tommy, calm down

Colm is gay.

You can criticise the rest of Kilbarry's theory but there is no need to go crazy.

everyone chill.

WTF does he being gay have to do with it ?
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

#104 26th May 2009 121.5

Quote:
Originally Posted by wexfordman
WTF does he being gay have to do with it ?


You need to read the 2 posts before mine.

The quote is not copied in my post.

There is nothing wrong with Colm being gay, why do you ask?

#105 26th May 2009 TommyO'Brien
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121.5
Tommy, calm down

Colm is gay.

You can criticise the rest of Kilbarry's theory but there is no need to go crazy.

everyone chill.

I know Colm is gay. He is a friend of mine.

But to turn around and suggest that a 14 year rape victim of a paedophile priest had chosen to have sex with the rapist is beneath contempt. But then I expect nothing else from Kilbarry.

And no, when someone accuses a fourteen year old rape victim of being in effect the author of the abuse, I will not calm down. Frankly, if Kilbarry was in front of me right now I'd kick the sh*t out of him. A member of my own family had to fight off an attempt to by a local curate once to abuse him, but in the Ireland of the time could not dare tell anyone about it because no-one would believe that a priest would do that. My only regret was that I found out about what had happened from another family member after that relative, and that priest, had died. If I ever find out where that priest is buried I will p*ss on his grave to show what I think of him, and what he tried to do to that family member, and did to other kids in the parish.

#106 26th May 2009 wexfordman

Quote:
Originally Posted by 121.5
You need to read the 2 posts before mine.

The quote is not copied in my post.

There is nothing wrong with Colm being gay, why do you ask?

Youe posts make no sense, If there is nothing wrong with him being gay, why is it relevent ?
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

#107 26th May 2009 Odyessus
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactusflower
If the accused are to get their rights, they should be named and if there is evidence against them, brought to trial.

Most of the allegations against individuals would probably not meet the standard of evidence usually required by the DPP in other cases.

Even in cases where the DPP feels a conviction could be secured, it would involve a court case where the accused could defend himself and the complainant cross-examined on his evidence.

Multiply this by several thousand and you can imagine the length of time this would take and the distress caused to victims.

Simply naming people as guilty because they have been accused would not serve justice.

#108 31st May 2009 kimble
Ex-Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: portlaoise Posts: 1,114

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyO'Brien
I know Colm is gay. He is a friend of mine.

But to turn around and suggest that a 14 year rape victim of a paedophile priest had chosen to have sex with the rapist is beneath contempt. But then I expect nothing else from Kilbarry.

And no, when someone accuses a fourteen year old rape victim of being in effect the author of the abuse, I will not calm down. Frankly, if Kilbarry was in front of me right now I'd kick the sh*t out of him. A member of my own family had to fight off an attempt to by a local curate once to abuse him, but in the Ireland of the time could not dare tell anyone about it because no-one would believe that a priest would do that. My only regret was that I found out about what had happened from another family member after that relative, and that priest, had died. If I ever find out where that priest is buried I will p*ss on his grave to show what I think of him, and what he tried to do to that family member, and did to other kids in the parish.

Well said bud.....with you one hundred percent Kilbarry1 is a sick twisted indevisual....have you seen his thread CHILD ABUSE WITCH HUNT....disgraceful

#109 1st June 2009 Kilbarry1
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyO'Brien
I know Colm is gay. He is a friend of mine.

But to turn around and suggest that a 14 year rape victim of a paedophile priest had chosen to have sex with the rapist is beneath contempt. But then I expect nothing else from Kilbarry.

And no, when someone accuses a fourteen year old rape victim of being in effect the author of the abuse, I will not calm down. Frankly, if Kilbarry was in front of me right now I'd kick the sh*t out of him. A member of my own family had to fight off an attempt to by a local curate once to abuse him, but in the Ireland of the time could not dare tell anyone about it because no-one would believe that a priest would do that. My only regret was that I found out about what had happened from another family member after that relative, and that priest, had died. If I ever find out where that priest is buried I will p*ss on his grave to show what I think of him, and what he tried to do to that family member, and did to other kids in the parish.

Are threats of violence OK on this website now Tommy? It doesn't surprise me that you are a friend of Colm. Does he agree with you?

The following is from the Chicago Tribune article by columnist Mary Schmich, dated 23 May 2008. it's about the trial of R&B singer R. Kelly then aged 41, who tried in Chicago last year for allegedly having sex with an under-age girl. Ms Schmich talked to a number of under-age girls (and women who started sex early) who wondered what the fuss was about!

R. Kelly was accused of having sex with a girl of 13 or 14 while videotaping himself. He denied that it was him on the tape. The girl denied it was her. The jury "believed" them and acquitted him. I put "believed" in inverted commas because I suspect that some of the jury felt "well if she doesn't object, why should we". The article is called To Many Girls, Sex With Adults Just Part Of Life

Chicago news columnists: Find and follow your favorite Chicago Tribune news columnists -- chicagotribune.com chi-schmich-23-may23,0,5015409.column

Sha'Dawn Young is not a lawyer. She is not a certified expert on teenage sex. She's not an R. Kelly protester or a groupie. Precisely because she had no agenda, I found her opinions on sex, law and Chicago's infamous R&B singer especially insightful when I met her Thursday outside the Cook County Criminal Courts Building.

"I understand the statutory rape law," said Young, who was leaning on the gray metal barricades of a media holding pen, chatting with three idle cameramen. Rhinestones glittered on the back pocket of her blue jeans. "But it happens every day. When I was 15, I was having sex with a 25-year-old man. Why's R. Kelly's crime magnified?" She quickly added, "If he even did it."

Inside, up on the fifth floor, R. Kelly was on trial, accused of videotaping himself having sex with a girl of 13 or 14. He says that's not him on the tape. The girl says that's not her. But if he did do it, Young would understand. It's a crime with ample context.

"Some teenage girls out here put themselves in adult situations," she said. "They do it for the thrill of the ride. Just take a poll of teenage girls. Being with an older man is something teenage girls brag about: 'He chose me.' "

Young looked at Melanie Ijaoba. They'd met that morning on the bus to the courthouse. "When you were 15," Young asked, "how many older men came at you?" "Lots." "Did you have sex with them?" "No," Ijaoba said. "Because God said no."

Young laughed. "I went to a Catholic school and God said no." What she learned at school couldn't counter what she saw at home, which included a grandmother who started having children at age 12.

Both women said there are two kinds of older men who hit on underage girls. One is "Chester Molester." "He's the one the girls don't want to be around," Young said, "who doesn't have the cool clothes. For girls to want you, you have to have the cute car with the rims." "The cell phone and money in the pocket," Ijaoba said. "You buy the girl a pair of gym shoes," Young said. "A pair of jeans," Ijaoba said.

Young is 33 now, but remembers how her mind worked at 15: "It was, like, he's the adult. He's doing something wrong. It wasn't a risk to me." She was pregnant at 16, though in her family that was no crime. In the South, she said, where her mother and grandmother grew up, girls often got pregnant even younger, the difference being that girls there brought the man home to their parents; marriage was enforced.

"A lot of time now there is no father to bring the young man home to," she said. "More than likely, the young woman is looking for something she's missing at home."

I liked Young. She was frank, friendly. And she was undoubtedly correct that what R. Kelly is accused of doing on that videotape - whether or not he did it - isn't all that different from what goes on in many parts of Chicago. Girls, and not only poor ones, are growing up in a world where it makes sense to them to trade their bodies for a pair of jeans or gym shoes.

But just because it's common doesn't make it right. Even Young knows that now.

"Now I don't think people should have sex until right before they're married. But I couldn't know it before I knew it." She glanced at her cell phone clock. She had to go. Her boyfriend was inside at a drug hearing. As she wheeled through the courthouse door, I thought how the thing R. Kelly is accused of doing runs so much deeper than the act of a single celebrity."

MY COMMENT: The cynicism of the girls is incredible. The only difference between "Chester Molester" and consensual sex is the kind of presents that the older man gives the girl. However it is clear that these girls are deliberately going into these relationships with much older men and even glorying in it. That fact goes a long way towards explaining the jury's verdict. Following a three week trial, the jury took less than a day of deliberations, on June 13, 2008 to find R. Kelly not guilty of all 14 counts of videotaping himself having sex with an underage girl.

So stop fooling yourself Tommy and recognise what's going on in the real world
________________________________________
Last edited by Kilbarry1; 1st June 2009 at 01:50 AM.

#110 1st June 2009 kimble

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
Are threats of violence OK on this website now Tommy? It doesn't surprise me that you are a friend of Colm. Does he agree with you?

The following is from the Chicago Tribune article by columnist Mary Schmich, dated 23 May 2008. it's about the trial of R&B singer R. Kelly then aged 41, who tried in Chicago last year for allegedly having sex with an under-age girl. Ms Schmich talked to a number of under-age girls (and women who started sex early) who wondered what the fuss was about!

R. Kelly was accused of having sex with a girl of 13 or 14 while videotaping himself. He denied that it was him on the tape. The girl denied it was her. The jury "believed" them and acquitted him. I put "believed" in inverted commas because I suspect that some of the jury felt "well if she doesn't object, why should we". The article is called To Many Girls, Sex With Adults Just Part Of Life .....................................


MY COMMENT: The cynicism of the girls is incredible. The only difference between "Chester Molester" and consensual sex is the kind of presents that the older man gives the girl. However it is clear that these girls are deliberately going into these relationships with much older men and even glorying in it. That fact goes a long way towards explaining the jury's verdict. Following a three week trial, the jury took less than a day of deliberations, on June 13, 2008 to find R. Kelly not guilty of all 14 counts of videotaping himself having sex with an underage girl.

So stop fooling yourself Tommy and recognize what's going on in the real world

GET A LIFE YOU EVIL SON OF A B-I-T-C-H. go look a all the coroners reports in the past 30 years or so and see how many ex industrial school inmates have died due to alcohol related illnesses and suicide. These monsters are responsible for all does deaths.....plus there responsible for the ******************** lives that the survivors have to live HOW MANY UNDERAGE GIRLS HAVE YOU HAD SEX WITH THEN COME ON BUD......YOU SEEN TO BE THE EXPERT ON THESE THINGS
________________________________________
Last edited by kimble; 1st June 2009 at 09:01 AM.

#111 1st June 2009 VTOO
Ex-Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 53

Rejected by the Electorate

Colm O Gorman is not the first person to be rejected by the electorate who thought he was still worth reading about....

#112 1st June 2009 Andrew49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimble
GET A LIFE YOU EVIL SON OF A B-I-T-C-H. go look a all the coroners reports in the past 30 years or so and see how many ex industrial school inmates have died due to alcohol related illnesses and suicide. These monsters are responsible for all does deaths.....plus there responsible for the ******************** lives that the survivors have to live HOW MANY UNDERAGE GIRLS HAVE YOU HAD SEX WITH THEN COME ON BUD......YOU SEEN TO BE THE EXPERT ON THESE THINGS

Many children who were placed into Residential Institutes were never heard of again, they never came home. It was as if they had been spirited away, vanished from the face of the earth & this indeed is most odd as it states in the "KENNEDY REPORT" published in 1970 that 238 children absconded from these hell-holes over a period of 19 years & were never traced or found at all, this is in itself most strange as the majority of these Residential Institutes were so remote that it beggars belief how small children could escape, remain at large & ultimately never be discovered.

It's possible that some of them were spirited away to foreign climes - I was able to trace one individual to Scotland, taken there by the religious order illegally ... he should have been 'released' one day before his 16th birthday after been in child detention from the age of three. By the time i traced hime he was 25 years of age and he had no little or no knowledge of his family.

#113 1st June 2009 wexfordman

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTOO
Colm O Gorman is not the first person to be rejected by the electorate who thought he was still worth reading about....

By all accounts many think he is worth reading about, it was an irish best seller first week in release.
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

#114 (permalink) 1st June 2009 wexfordman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
Are threats of violence OK on this website now Tommy? It doesn't surprise me that you are a friend of Colm. Does he agree with you?

The following is from the Chicago Tribune article by columnist Mary Schmich, dated 23 May 2008. it's about the trial of R&B singer R. Kelly then aged 41, who tried in Chicago last year for allegedly having sex with an under-age girl. Ms Schmich talked to a number of under-age girls (and women who started sex early) who wondered what the fuss was about!

R. Kelly was accused of having sex with a girl of 13 or 14 while videotaping himself. He denied that it was him on the tape. The girl denied it was her. The jury "believed" them and acquitted him. I put "believed" in inverted commas because I suspect that some of the jury felt "well if she doesn't object, why should we". The article is called To Many Girls, Sex With Adults Just Part Of Life ............

MY COMMENT: The cynicism of the girls is incredible. The only difference between "Chester Molester" and consensual sex is the kind of presents that the older man gives the girl. However it is clear that these girls are deliberately going into these relationships with much older men and even glorying in it. That fact goes a long way towards explaining the jury's verdict. Following a three week trial, the jury took less than a day of deliberations, on June 13, 2008 to find R. Kelly not guilty of all 14 counts of videotaping himself having sex with an underage girl.

So stop fooling yourself Tommy and recognise what's going on in the real world

Keep oginmg kilbarry1, the more you do, the more of a twisted warped fncker you revreal yourself to be.

You now state that children are capable of having affairs with grown mature adults. I am begining to understand your background more and more, I honestly would be veryt concerned if you are ever allowed near kids of any age.

If I knew who you were publicly, I would consider reporting you to the authorities, I think you are a distrubed individual
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

#115 2nd June 2009 Kilbarry1

Reporting Me to The Authorities
Quote:
Originally Posted by wexfordman
Keep oginmg kilbarry1, the more you do, the more of a twisted warped fncker you revreal yourself to be.

You now state that children are capable of having affairs with grown mature adults. I am begining to understand your background more and more, I honestly would be veryt concerned if you are ever allowed near kids of any age.

If I knew who you were publicly, I would consider reporting you to the authorities, I think you are a distrubed individual

Go ahead Wexfordman. I think you know very well who I am. Incidentally do you support Tommy's threats of violence also?

#116 2nd June 2009 wexfordman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilbarry1
Go ahead Wexfordman. I think you know very well who I am. Incidentally do you support Tommy's threats of violence also?


No, I dont know who you are, care to announce it ?

I dont support threats of violence, can you spot irony ?
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

#117 2nd June 2009 wexfordman
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieInExile
Finally something we can agree on.
It's obviously made an impression on you too..


That is kilbarry1's quote not mine, and if it is something tht you are in agreement with, I fear for you. Are you saying that a child can have an affair with a grown adult ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieInExile
I've two questions.

One. What is the difference between the crimes of Father Fortune, national embodiment of evil, and Cathal O'Searcaigh, poet and member of Aosdána?

Kilbarry1's point was that a child is capable of having an affair with a grown adult, and he insinuated that a grown adult in a position of authority, raping and buggering a yoiung boy, was not what it was, but merely the two individuals having an affair.

Explains a lot of kilbarry1's perceptions to b honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieInExile
Two. I think Kilbarry may have mentioned this. In the Colm O'Gorman story, the first person to stautorily rape him was a friend of his father's. Has this man been named and prosecuted?

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if these questions have been answered already.
I dont think it was a friend of his fathers, but one quote from the book, was from a local in his home town of adamstown, the local said to Colm after the ferns report etc "the men who hurt you, they are all dead now"

So perhaps this answers your question, but the point about it was, that people were aware of who and what was going on at the time.
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"
________________________________________
Last edited by wexfordman; 2nd June 2009 at 09:33 PM.

#118 2nd June 2009 wexfordman
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieInExile
What happened between Colm O'Gorman and Fr. Fortune was definitely stautory rape. And definitely wrong.

Kilbarry has made this point too.
Colm O'Gorman book release
"Father Sean Fortune was certainly not innocent. I made it clear that he was at least guilty of statutory rape."

I've a feeling the three of us are on the wrong side of public opinion though..

Lets just get one thing straight cos I would hate to be confused with anybody such as youself or kilbarry who defend child abusers, Fr fortune molested, raped and abused children, including colm o'gorman, anyone who tries to defend or belittle this is a sick fncker in my opinion. What went on was not statutary rape, it was far worse.

So a priest takes a young person out to his house, molests and rapes him, and you perceive this to be nothing more than statutary rape ? Is it your opinion that fortune was not a child abuser ?

Tell me, which of fr fortunes victims do you think were actually abused, and which ones do you think were having affairs with the man ?
Which young boys do you think were willingly buggered, and which were not ?
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"
________________________________________
Last edited by wexfordman; 3rd June 2009 at 12:19 AM.

#119 1st December 2009 an deo raí
Politics.ie Newbie Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2

According to both Andrew Madden and Colm O Gorman what happened between each of them and their abusers was a long term, non violent, non coercive, homosexual relationship. (O Gorman had a similar encounters with two men before Fortune, both of whom he refuses even to name.)
It seems the majority of the abuse outlined in the Murphy report is of this kind.
Both Madden and O'Gorman looked for money.
Madden got E35,000 at 1992 prices, Fortune refused to pay anything to O'Gorman.

What made both their encounters illegal was their age.
I used to post on this site as BertieInExile. I was banned for offending P.ie's gay sharia, principally by quoting verbatim a Magill interview in which David Norris refused to consider any age limit for homosexual consent.

(I was also the only one on here who backed NAMA from the start, said Lenihan was doing a good job, proposed Honohan for the Central Bank, and banged on and on about "It's how much of the banks we end up owning stupid." i.e. all of them. Naturally I just got ... abuse.)
And I'm going to get banned again.

There is a need for something like P.ie. And something that isn't a hysterical echo chamber for Irish Times attitudes will probably take its place. Voting comments up/down anyone?

As anyone who's bothered, knows, Andrew Madden is Andrew49. He put a lot of effort in to publicising Kilbarry's identity.
With the attention that is being given to him at present it's funny to look at his wounded dignity and the concerned counsel he offers us members of the church, and think of the odd sexual stuff and bigoted anti catholicism he has posted here.

#120 1st December 2009 an deo raí
According to both Andrew Madden and Colm O Gorman what happened between each of them and their abusers was a long term, non violent, non coercive, homosexual relationship. (O Gorman had a similar encounters with two men before Fortune, both of whom he refuses even to name.)
It seems the majority of the abuse outlined in the Murphy report is of this kind.
Both Madden and O'Gorman looked for money.
Madden got E35,000 at 1992 prices, Fortune refused to pay anything to O'Gorman.

What made both their encounters illegal was their age.
I used to post on this site as BertieInExile. I was banned for offending P.ie's gay sharia, principally by quoting verbatim a Magill interview in which David Norris refused to consider any age limit for homosexual consent.

(I was also the only one on here who backed NAMA from the start, said Lenihan was doing a good job, proposed Honohan for the Central Bank, and banged on and on about "It's how much of the banks we end up owning stupid." i.e. all of them. Naturally I just got ... abuse.)
And I'm going to get banned again.
There is a need for something like P.ie. And something that isn't a hysterical echo chamber for Irish Times attitudes will probably take its place. Voting comments up/down anyone?

As anyone who's bothered, knows, Andrew Madden is Andrew49. He put a lot of effort in to publicising Kilbarry's identity.
With the attention that is being given to him at present it's funny to look at his wounded dignity and the concerned counsel he offers us members of the church and think that of the odd sexual stuff and bigoted anti catholicism he has posted here.

#121 1st December 2009 brennanonmoor
Politics.ie Newbie Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 14

Anyone that thinks sex between a child and adult is consensual is way out there! I suppose to think otherwise in your depraved minds is too much to bear even for your levels of depravity?

#122 2nd December 2009 wexfordman Quote:
Originally Posted by an deo raí
Both Madden and O'Gorman looked for money.
Madden got E35,000 at 1992 prices, Fortune refused to pay anything to O'Gorman.

e.
Care to clarify this, it seems you are alledging that o'goman attempted to get money directly off of fortune and he refused. I was not aware that he had made any approach to fortune for money, or that fortune had actually refused. I may be wrong, but perhaps you could clarify and point to the source of this ?
__________________
The greens..... "Got a problem ? There's a tax for that!!"

#123 2nd December 2009 benjamin
Quote:
Originally Posted by an deo raí
According to both Andrew Madden and Colm O Gorman what happened between each of them and their abusers was a long term, non violent, non coercive, homosexual relationship. (O Gorman had a similar encounters with two men before Fortune, both of whom he refuses even to name.)
It seems the majority of the abuse outlined in the Murphy report is of this kind.
Both Madden and O'Gorman looked for money.
Madden got E35,000 at 1992 prices, Fortune refused to pay anything to O'Gorman.

What made both their encounters illegal was their age.
I used to post on this site as BertieInExile. I was banned for offending P.ie's gay sharia, principally by quoting verbatim a Magill interview in which David Norris refused to consider any age limit for homosexual consent.

(I was also the only one on here who backed NAMA from the start, said Lenihan was doing a good job, proposed Honohan for the Central Bank, and banged on and on about "It's how much of the banks we end up owning stupid." i.e. all of them. Naturally I just got ... abuse.)
And I'm going to get banned again.
There is a need for something like P.ie. And something that isn't a hysterical echo chamber for Irish Times attitudes will probably take its place. Voting comments up/down anyone?

As anyone who's bothered, knows, Andrew Madden is Andrew49. He put a lot of effort in to publicising Kilbarry's identity.
With the attention that is being given to him at present it's funny to look at his wounded dignity and the concerned counsel he offers us members of the church, and think of the odd sexual stuff and bigoted anti catholicism he has posted here.

You are one sad bast*rd.

I feel sorry for you.

#124 2nd December 2009 Qui Bono
Politics.ie Newbie Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin
You are one sad bast*rd.

I feel sorry for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by an deo raí
According to both Andrew Madden and Colm O Gorman what happened between each of them and their abusers was a long term, non violent, non coercive, homosexual relationship. (O Gorman had a similar encounters with two men before Fortune, both of whom he refuses even to name.)
It seems the majority of the abuse outlined in the Murphy report is of this kind.
Both Madden and O'Gorman looked for money.
Madden got E35,000 at 1992 prices, Fortune refused to pay anything to O'Gorman.

What made both their encounters illegal was their age.
I used to post on this site as BertieInExile. I was banned for offending P.ie's gay sharia, principally by quoting verbatim a Magill interview in which David Norris refused to consider any age limit for homosexual consent.

(I was also the only one on here who backed NAMA from the start, said Lenihan was doing a good job, proposed Honohan for the Central Bank, and banged on and on about "It's how much of the banks we end up owning stupid." i.e. all of them. Naturally I just got ... abuse.)
And I'm going to get banned again.
There is a need for something like P.ie. And something that isn't a hysterical echo chamber for Irish Times attitudes will probably take its place. Voting comments up/down anyone?

As anyone who's bothered, knows, Andrew Madden is Andrew49. He put a lot of effort in to publicising Kilbarry's identity.
With the attention that is being given to him at present it's funny to look at his wounded dignity and the concerned counsel he offers us members of the church and think that of the odd sexual stuff and bigoted anti catholicism he has posted here.


And no doubt you are heading for exile again . You talk c**p . Andrew49 is not Andrew Madden .....If I may advise you in relation to Kilbarry 1 , AKA Rory Connor , the ex De La Silly christian brother was discovered ""hiding"" out here some two years ago by myself , and I posted his ""whereabouts"" on other websites infected with like minded church apologists as this wimp, whom Andrew 49 and myself have actively pursued for some years ........ ...........Its quite apparent that the distance between your ears resembles a long stretch of lonely moor .........You`ll never make the grade as a bigot , much too simple .....

#125 5th December 2009 Andrew49
Quote:
Originally Posted by an deo raí
As anyone who's bothered, knows, Andrew Madden is Andrew49. He put a lot of effort in to publicising Kilbarry's identity.


1. I'm not Andrew Madden. I have already identified myself on this site - you're just too lazy to look for it - or perhaps it's yourself that's not 'bothered'.

2. I didn't put a whole lot of effort into identifying Kilbarry1 as an ex-Christian Brother as he had done that himself in the print media, on websites and to strangers in London and Dublin long before he was on this site.
You on the other hand appear to have multiple identities - probably equal to the number of cassocks you try on everyday.


__________________

There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls.

#126 19th April 2010 brennanonmoor

Andrew49 is Andrew Brennan. Very facile with the pen but in person - a pussy! Hasn't the balls of a gnat!