Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cathal O'Searcaigh on NewsTalk

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    jor el
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    goldenbrown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 444 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #35
    994
    Closed Accounts Posts: 911 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭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....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement