Cathal O'Searcaigh on NewsTalk

InkSlinger67 · 13-08-2009 10:43pm #1

Mr. O'Searcaigh is being interviewed on Culture Shock on NewsTalk at the moment trying to explain his role / relations in Nepal and his attack on the Fairytale in Katmandu documentary.

Sounds a bit too much like Michael Jackson in his interview with Bashir when talking about sleeping with the locals - i.e. people who think it wrong are ignorant.

Creepy chap!

Jeebus · 13-08-2009 10:45pm

To be honest, if he sounds like Michael Jackson does now, then paedophilia is not his biggest problem.

tallus · 13-08-2009 10:46pm

I heard him on the last word yesterday evening and he didn't do himself any favours.

galwayrush · 13-08-2009 10:47pm

Why are they giving him air time, to defend his love - abuse whichever word is suitable for young boys in Nepal?

meenmore · 13-08-2009 10:47pm

Thanks for letting us know. Just tuned in now.

Rev. BlueJeans · 13-08-2009 10:47pm

Neither did the state subsidised, braying Aos Dana idiots who supported him last time.

Sleipnir · 13-08-2009 10:47pm

Jeebus wrote: »

To be honest, if he sounds like Michael Jackson does now, then paedophilia is not his biggest problem.

If he sounds like Michael Jackson did before, he should have a record contract.

meenmore · 13-08-2009 10:49pm

If he looks like Michael Jackson now....wtf was he George Clinton before?

MikeC101 · 13-08-2009 10:51pm

InkSlinger67 wrote: »

Mr. O'Searcaigh is being interviewed on Culture Shock on NewsTalk at the moment trying to explain his role / relations in Nepal and his attack on the Fairytale in Katmandu documentary.

Sounds a bit too much like Michael Jackson in his interview with Bashir when talking about sleeping with the locals - i.e. people who think it wrong are ignorant.

Creepy chap!

I can't quite decide about this.

On the one hand, he's in a position of authority (by virtue of sponsoring their education) over these boys - it seems exploitative in the extreme. Then again, is it any worse than the hordes who descend on Thailand to take advantage of poor young girls?

He's claimed it's consensual and legal, but weren't some of the boys below the Irish age of consent, and can't he be held accountable under the law here?

You have to wonder if half the people supporting him over this would be doing so if he was just a 50 something year old man shagging 16 year old schoolgirls in Donegal?

Prof.Badass · 13-08-2009 10:54pm

This thread needs more pedobear.

http://www.cdupload.com/files/13786_ujhro/pedobear_drool.jpg

El Weirdo · 13-08-2009 11:11pm

galwayrush wrote: »

Why are they giving him air time, to defend his love - abuse whichever word is suitable for young boys in Nepal?

I think it would be the same word that is suitable for any young boys, whatever their nationality tbh.

galwayrush · 13-08-2009 11:14pm

el_weirdo wrote: »

I think it would be the same word that is suitable for any young boys, whatever their nationality tbh.

Very true.
I only mentioned Nepal because obviously finds it easier there to get what he wants.

El Weirdo · 13-08-2009 11:25pm

galwayrush wrote: »

Very true.
I only mentioned Nepal because obviously finds it easier there to get what he wants.

Exactly. It may be legal there but its all very... creepy. Can't think of another word that describes it really.

sceptre · 13-08-2009 11:51pm

Slightly leading question with a half mix of devil's advocate: is it creepy because these people he's admitted to having had sexual relations with but not penetrative intercourse[1] are 16 or because they're 16 and the same sex as him?

This well-known individual was also having relations but not penetrative intercourse with someone who was 16 when he was 26. Is that better or worse? Is it better or worse that it was a female someone? Is it better or worse that they've been married since she was 18?

Of course there are age gaps and there are age gaps. Ross and Goldman have been married for 21 years, she's now 39 and he's still 4 years younger than O'Searcaigh is now (a quick wikipedia search indicates that Ross was born in 1960, O'Searcaigh in 1956).

[1] This is apparently the official statement. I'm working from that for reasons of legality, libel-absence and simple practicality.

Yes, I know this is After Hours and realise that I may or may not get a sensible response with no implied warranty. Goods may not be returned.

legendal · 13-08-2009 11:54pm

tallus wrote: »

I heard him on the last word yesterday evening and he didn't do himself any favours.

Go to 31:40
http://www.radioireland.ie/lastword/1282009-17.wmv

El Weirdo · 14-08-2009 12:18am

sceptre wrote: »

Slightly leading question with a half mix of devil's advocate: is it creepy because these people he's admitted to having had sexual relations with but not penetrative intercourse[1] are 16 or because they're 16 and the same sex as him?

This well-known individual was also having relations but not penetrative intercourse with someone who was 16 when he was 26. Is that better or worse? Is it better or worse that it was a female someone? Is it better or worse that they've been married since she was 18?

Of course there are age gaps and there are age gaps. Ross and Goldman have been married for 21 years, she's not 39 and he's still 4 years younger than O'Searcaigh is now (a quick wikipedia search indicates that Ross was born in 1960, O'Searcaigh in 1956).

[1] This is apparently the official statement. I'm working from that for reasons of legality, libel-absence and simple practicality.

Yes, I know this is After Hours and realise that I may or may not get a sensible response with no implied warranty. Goods may not be returned.

But it seems that O'Searcaigh is doing this on a regular basis with more than one young boy, whereas Ross and Goldman began a relationship which ended up in them getting married.

If Ross was making a habit of dating a string of girls, ten years his junior, then I'm sure people would have a problem with that (Maybe he was, I don't know).

The fact that they are the same sex isn't an issue for me personally, but as you say, there are age gaps and there are age gaps.

Spore · 14-08-2009 1:15am

Surely the issue has to revolve around under-age sex, otherwise it's not an issue, right? And as a futher caveat, it has to accord with the laws as they perceive them (not ours), i.e tibetan or wherever the chap is from. For example, we cannot try the Nazis according to our laws now, but the laws at the time the crimes were committed (i.e. the Third Reich).

SoWatchaWant · 14-08-2009 1:24am

Paedophile cunt, he'll get little sympathy from me.

Rebelheart · 14-08-2009 1:37am

Jeebus wrote: »

To be honest, if he sounds like Michael Jackson does now, then paedophilia is not his biggest problem.

galwayrush wrote: »

Why are they giving him air time, to defend his love - abuse whichever word is suitable for young boys in Nepal?

SoWatchaWant wrote: »

Paedophile cunt, he'll get little sympathy from me.

It's so reassuring to know the concept of innocent until proven guilty is still alive and well among so many of the posters on this thread.

Let's just lynch Ó Searcaigh and be done with it.

MikeC101 · 14-08-2009 12:22pm

Spore wrote: »

Surely the issue has to revolve around under-age sex, otherwise it's not an issue, right? And as a futher caveat, it has to accord with the laws as they perceive them (not ours), i.e tibetan or wherever the chap is from. For example, we cannot try the Nazis according to our laws now, but the laws at the time the crimes were committed (i.e. the Third Reich).

As far as I'm aware, an Irish citizen can be tried in Ireland for crimes committed abroad - crimes under Irish law that is. I know it's the case in Britain, and was introduced to crack down on illegal sex tourism. The gardaí are / have been investigating the case. (And it's in Nepal btw, not Tibet)

Mr.Obvious · 14-08-2009 12:38pm

My irish teacher loved Cathal o searcaigh. I'd have loved to be still in school when the news first came out

.

El Siglo · 14-08-2009 12:48pm

Now we can use Cathal O'Searcaigh as a sort of 'boogey man':

"If you don't eat your vegetables Jimmy Crazy Cathal will get ya!":D

General Zod · 14-08-2009 12:49pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, an Irish citizen can be tried in Ireland for crimes committed abroad - crimes under Irish law that is. I know it's the case in Britain, and was introduced to crack down on illegal sex tourism. The gardaí are / have been investigating the case. (And it's in Nepal btw, not Tibet)

It would have to be a crime in both countries. If it wasn't the Gardai would be arresting 80% of the people coming back from an Amsterdam weekender.

CantGetNoSleep · 14-08-2009 12:56pm

Rebelheart wrote: »

It's so reassuring to know the concept of innocent until proven guilty is still alive and well among so many of the posters on this thread.

Let's just lynch Ó Searcaigh and be done with it.

I think people are using his own video taped confessions in a documentary to expunge the idea of innocent til proven guilty here

oeb · 14-08-2009 12:57pm

General Zod wrote: »

It would have to be a crime in both countries. If it wasn't the Gardai would be arresting 80% of the people coming back from an Amsterdam weekender.

It specificially deals with the age of consent laws.

MikeC101 · 14-08-2009 1:52pm

General Zod wrote: »

It would have to be a crime in both countries. If it wasn't the Gardai would be arresting 80% of the people coming back from an Amsterdam weekender.

Should have been more specific - as previous poster has noted, it's with regards to age of consent. So it doesn't necessarily need to be a crime in both countries.

Aidric · 14-08-2009 1:53pm

Out of sight, out of mind is his favourite expression I gather.

tallus · 14-08-2009 2:10pm

legendal wrote: »

Go to 31:40
http://www.radioireland.ie/lastword/1282009-17.wmv

Couldn't get it to open, but thanks for the link.

lostexpectation · 14-08-2009 2:35pm

does he still think hes' 13 in his head

deadhead13 · 14-08-2009 3:54pm

O'Searcaigh was a sex tourist masquerading as a philanthropist.

Nodin · 14-08-2009 4:14pm

sceptre wrote: »

Slightly leading question with a half mix of devil's advocate: is it creepy because these people he's admitted to having had sexual relations with but not penetrative intercourse[1] are 16 or because they're 16 and the same sex as him?

This well-known individual was also having relations but not penetrative intercourse with someone who was 16 when he was 26. Is that better or worse? Is it better or worse that it was a female someone? Is it better or worse that they've been married since she was 18?

Of course there are age gaps and there are age gaps. Ross and Goldman have been married for 21 years, she's now 39 and he's still 4 years younger than O'Searcaigh is now (a quick wikipedia search indicates that Ross was born in 1960, O'Searcaigh in 1956).

[1] This is apparently the official statement. I'm working from that for reasons of legality, libel-absence and simple practicality.

Yes, I know this is After Hours and realise that I may or may not get a sensible response with no implied warranty. Goods may not be returned.

Tis not the fact that he's shagging 'young people' but that he turns up on their doorsteps waving cash, like the proverbial sugar daddy, in a very poor country, where theres a considerable degree of naivete about that kind of thing. If he turned up looking for the daughters there, for instance, he'd have his nadgers in a bag around his neck on the flight home.

He's not a paedo, as some seem to think either - wrong age group.

Cathal O'Searcaigh on NewsTalk

Comments