Cathal O'Searcaigh on NewsTalk

InkSlinger67

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

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

tallus

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

galwayrush

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

meenmore

Thanks for letting us know. Just tuned in now.

Rev. BlueJeans

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

Sleipnir

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

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

MikeC101

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

This thread needs more pedobear.

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

El Weirdo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebelheart

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

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

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

El Siglo

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

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

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

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

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

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

tallus

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

does he still think hes' 13 in his head

deadhead13

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

Nodin

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.

jor el

SoWatchaWant wrote: »

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

Ephebophile actually, unless a 17 year old can be pre-pubescent now?

galwayrush wrote: »

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

16 and 17 year olds, not exactly young. A 17 year old would be legal in this country.

I don't see what the big hoop-la is. If he did anything wrong, then let him be prosecuted in the country in which he committed the crime, and under their laws.

deadhead13

jor el wrote: »

16 and 17 year olds, not exactly young. A 17 year old would be legal in this country.

I don't see what the big hoop-la is. If he did anything wrong, then let him be prosecuted in the country in which he committed the crime, and under their laws.

From want I remember reading about it at the time, the teenagers knew nothing about sex unil their encounters with O'Searcaigh. They were complete innocents. Neither are any of them gay. This was not a case of two consenting adults being sexually attracted to each other and having sex. There was a clear inbalance of power and it was a case of pure exploitation.

goldenbrown

this guy is warped, self absorbed mammy's boy dresses like a clown, manipulates underage youngsters...he is not a poet - :mad: -he is a sex tourist

994

deadhead13 wrote: »

From want I remember reading about it at the time, the teenagers knew nothing about sex unil their encounters with O'Searcaigh. They were complete innocents. Neither are any of them gay. This was not a case of two consenting adults being sexually attracted to each other and having sex. There was a clear inbalance of power and it was a case of pure exploitation.

I doubt 16/17 year olds could know nothing about sex, but it's conceivable that they were unaware of what homosexuality was or why exactly the nice Mr. Cathal was touching them like that.

Nodin

Truth be told, he's just a bit of a sad sleazy sack of shite, rather in denial of his own motives and desires. Whilst a kick in the arse might be appropriate, I don't think the noose is required.

yez can still bring torches and pitchforks though...its not the same without the torches....

deadhead13

994 wrote: »

I doubt 16/17 year olds could know nothing about sex, but it's conceivable that they were unaware of what homosexuality was or why exactly the nice Mr. Cathal was touching them like that.

I'm going on what people who know a lot more about Nepal than I do said at the time. Sex outside marriage is a big taboo, and Your typical Nepalese teenage is very navie in sexual matters. Culturally it is very different than the west. And the teenagers in question did actually claim to have known nothing about homosexuality until O'Searcaigh turned up.