Irish media closing ranks to protect one of their own

krd

As everyone is aware, there's a major news story concerning the indiscretions Irish journalist current at the minute. A small handful of outlets have chosen to run it. But most are not. Making claims about fear of libel (blah blah blah blah - no fear of libel when it comes to crucifying members of the public. And since they're all covered for libel insurance, y'd wonder what they're on about - similarly the argument about potentially prejudicing a possible court case)

I've heard before, there's an unspoken code in the Irish media world, that they don't go after one of their own.

The journalist on the hot seat at the moment, would not be the first Irish journalist to do something along those lines. It's happened before and usually it gets buried. You'll only hear about it if you personally know people connected - or get it on the grapevine.

I've even heard the argument, that statistically, Irish journalists have proportionally the same inclination towards pedophilia as Catholic priests. That argument I've actually heard from a Catholic priest - who was spittin' at what he believed was the double standards in the Irish media.

What's happening now?

What interests me, is the media reaction or omerta, at seeing one of their own thrown to the wolves. And it would seem the gentlemanly rules are breaking down.

What's happening to the world.

flogen

krd wrote: »

As everyone is aware, there's a major news story concerning the indiscretions Irish journalist current at the minute. A small handful of outlets have chosen to run it. But most are not. Making claims about fear of libel (blah blah blah blah - no fear of libel when it comes to crucifying members of the public. And since they're all covered for libel insurance, y'd wonder what they're on about - similarly the argument about potentially prejudicing a possible court case)

I've heard before, there's an unspoken code in the Irish media world, that they don't go after one of their own.

The News Of The World, The Irish Times, The Irish Independent, The Evening Herald, The Sunday World, Newstalk, RTÉ & Today FM have all run the story and/or discussed - some have run multiple stories.

I've not seen them but I'm guessing The Sindo, Sun and TV3 have also run stories in relation to it.

What newspapers have adhered to this 'unspoken code' you speak of?

The journalist on the hot seat at the moment, would not be the first Irish journalist to do something along those lines. It's happened before and usually it gets buried. You'll only hear about it if you personally know people connected - or get it on the grapevine.

Have you examples of this?

I've even heard the argument, that statistically, Irish journalists have proportionally the same inclination towards pedophilia as Catholic priests. That argument I've actually heard from a Catholic priest - who was spittin' at what he believed was the double standards in the Irish media.

That's probably the most absurd claim of a statistic I've ever heard. If you're not making it up then the person who said it is.

IgnatiusJ

krd wrote: »

I've even heard the argument, that statistically, Irish journalists have proportionally the same inclination towards pedophilia as Catholic priests.

Yeah, but I heard that 69% of journalists lied on the 'are you a peado' questionnaire.

Raging_Ninja

Look at it this way. The journalist allegedly involved with the girl has been named by the Sunday World. If the case goes to court (remember nobody has been charged yet) the defendent could argue that he can't get a fair trial, and charges could be dropped against him, whether he did anything or not.

The Sunday World are idiots, and have probably just compromised the case.

amen

The Irish Times

I must have missed that. I read the Irish times every day and apart from a very small item a few weeks ago there has been very little detail.

flogen

amen wrote: »

I must have missed that. I read the Irish times every day and apart from a very small item a few weeks ago there has been very little detail.

It was in the 'In Short' section on the 12th - not sure if it was covered other than that in the newspaper.

the anser

Don't agree with your claim at all......the press have a fine line to tread here. As has been pointed out the Sunday World gave this story the full treatment yesterday - as only they can - and could have blown any prosecution out of the water. This is not the USA.

Your contention re journos/paedos is hilarious......

krd

flogen wrote: »

The News Of The World, The Irish Times, The Irish Independent, The Evening Herald, The Sunday World, Newstalk, RTÉ & Today FM have all run the story and/or discussed - some have run multiple stories.

It's been slow to come fully up to the surface.

I heard Eamon Dunphy wouldn't even discuss it on his Newstalk show - the journalist was named by one paper yesterday. A second one today. In the next few days every outlet will name names.

And yes there is an omerta. Journalists have been prosecuted for sexually abusing children. There is one case I know, I do not want to go into, but the journalist was not given the full glare of publicity that would have been dished out to a member of the public. And not only that. Their character was defended by their colleagues. Even though this persons character would be hard to consider defensible. A journalist broke ranks and wrote a scathing piece - that was very close to the truth. And they were then attack by other journalists for doing so. This could be an Irish thing though - like the good pedophile and the bad pedophile; the bad pedophile is working class and is deserving of any punishment, whereas the good pedophile likes rugby and is a regular at Aviva stadium, and sure aren't we all only human. Like how Tim Allen of Ballymaloe House only received a fine whereas others caught under Operation Amethyst got jail sentences.

Raging_Ninja

Its not unusual for the identities of those convicted of child abuse to remain secret in order to protect the identities of the abused.

Then there's the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. Again, so far there have been no charges filed, and nobody has been found guilty of anything yet.

PCPhoto

krd wrote: »

It's been slow to come fully up to the surface.

I heard Eamon Dunphy wouldn't even discuss it on his Newstalk show - the journalist was named by one paper yesterday. A second one today. In the next few days every outlet will name names.

And yes there is an omerta. Journalists have been prosecuted for sexually abusing children. There is one case I know, I do not want to go into, but the journalist was not given the full glare of publicity that would have been dished out to a member of the public. And not only that. Their character was defended by their colleagues. Even though this persons character would be hard to consider defensible. A journalist broke ranks and wrote a scathing piece - that was very close to the truth. And they were then attack by other journalists for doing so. This could be an Irish thing though - like the good pedophile and the bad pedophile; the bad pedophile is working class and is deserving of any punishment, whereas the good pedophile likes rugby and is a regular at Aviva stadium, and sure aren't we all only human. Like how Tim Allen of Ballymaloe House only received a fine whereas others caught under Operation Amethyst got jail sentences.

my memory of the event was that the son accepted responsibility ....

I believe there was a mess-up when judge curtain was charged .... which is the reason why he was not brought to justice ... a technicality .... which is one of the flaws of our judicial system ...we have too many loopholes and protocol .... which results in criminals evading prosecution ..on technicalities.

examples include ... using excuses such as the humidity in the room when a breathalizer is performed at the station, machines not calibrated, etc etc

thebullkf

flogen wrote: »

The News Of The World, The Irish Times, The Irish Independent, The Evening Herald, The Sunday World, Newstalk, RTÉ & Today FM have all run the story and/or discussed - some have run multiple stories.

I've not seen them but I'm guessing The Sindo, Sun and TV3 have also run stories in relation to it.

What newspapers have adhered to this 'unspoken code' you speak of?



Have you examples of this?



That's probably the most absurd claim of a statistic I've ever heard. If you're not making it up then the person who said it is.

yet its not allowed here, on boards.... strange?




I agree with the OP.

krd

the anser wrote: »

Don't agree with your claim at all......the press have a fine line to tread here. As has been pointed out the Sunday World gave this story the full treatment yesterday - as only they can - and could have blown any prosecution out of the water. This is not the USA.

It's kind of weird though. As this has been rumbling along for weeks.

Your contention re journos/paedos is hilarious......

It's not my contention. It goes back to the height of the clerical child abuse scandal. The clergy had their own little propaganda machine in operation - it was one of their fables. But the media or de medija weren't playing ball. The Irish media at one time were very compliant when it came to the church - then the tide turned. But - the Irish media actually sat on the clerical abuse stories for years. At heart they're very conservative.

krd

PCPhoto wrote: »

my memory of the event was that the son accepted responsibility ....

No it was Tim. http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0116/porn.html

John Deasy said it demonstrated a class distinction in the justice system and said anyone else convicted of a similar crime would undoubtedly have ended up with a jail sentence, if they did not have the means to pay such a fine.

Mr Allen, 52, who was at the court with his wife Darina and their four children, told the court he was horrified by what he had done.

Weren't we all Tim, weren't. we. all.

And in case you think it was just one or two images, viewed out of curiosity

Earlier, the court heard that almost a thousand pornographic images of children, some as young as five years old, were recovered from computers

Snickers Man

krd wrote: »

This could be an Irish thing though - like the good pedophile and the bad pedophile; the bad pedophile is working class and is deserving of any punishment, whereas the good pedophile likes rugby and is a regular at Aviva stadium, and sure aren't we all only human.

I think with all due respect you need to wind your neck in and stop trying to indulge your own prejudices. You're not doing any good at all.

Although this journalist can't be named here, his identity is well known thanks to the Sunday World. If, like me, you were a regular reader of his columns you would know that your assertion that "good paedos like rugby" is certainly not true in this case.

The man is a northsider and a GAA fan, primarily. He has been sneeringly hostile to rugby in the past. If that doesn't feed your bile, that's your problem. Don't try and massage spurious assertions to construct an incorrect stereotype of what you imagine a paedophile must be.

Actually if anything beneficial can come out of this it might be a more rounded view of how we recognise and deal with paedophilia in this country. While not for a second alleging that this man is guilty of anything yet, something which nobody can say until legal proceedings have run their course, the whole episode makes me very sad.

I don't know the man personally, I have never met him. But I have long admired his written work. He has a great talent, and one which reveals a love of sport and a fine sense for what is important and what is overblown hype. In as much as one can "know" somebody through their written work without ever having met or spoken to them, I feel I know and like him. Even though I disagree with much of what he said, especially with regard to rugby for example, I warmed to his preferences about sport. And to his talent in expressing it.

That such a person MIGHT be guilty of inappropriate behaviour towards a young girl (to put it no more strongly than that for the time being) presents any of us involved in the organisation of sport for the young with a huge challenge.

Of course we all like to pretend that we can spot a paedophile at 50 paces. They will be sneaky, obvious, unlikeable, and have unattractive personalities. Identifying a paedophile on the street or on the sideline should be as easy as recognising that Graham Norton, say, is gay.

Well not all gay men are as "out" and transparent as Mr Norton and not all paedophiles are as slimy and predictable as we would like to think. I know of another case from some years ago of a senior administrator of a popular sport in this country who had to resign his job after allegations were made about inappropriate behaviour. As it happened, I remember him as a teacher where I went to school fado fado.

He was the most likeable and enthusiastic of teachers, well liked by his pupils both in the classroom and on the playing fields, where he was devoted to his game. People who knew him are still shocked by his story. It's not that they disbelieve it or "Closed Ranks" to defend him. It's that the loss of innocence that comes with the knowledge that such a nice man could have been guilty of such things is simply hard for people to bear.

So what do we do, once we find that "nice guys can be paedos"? Sit at home and hide our children away and not let them participate in any external sporting activity lest they be molested by some charming rogue?

Or put in place safeguards that attempt to identify opportunities for these people to indulge their darker instincts and then nullify them by making things more difficult for them? To be fair, it seems that many sports have started to take this seriously and have codes of practice that may seem strange at first but actually do make children safer.

Such as no going into the changing room or shower while children are present, or no giving lifts to solitary kids who are not your own. All things that were tolerated in my day.

But we've grown up a bit since then.

flogen

krd wrote: »

It's been slow to come fully up to the surface.

Has it? The NOTW had the story first (as far as I know) on Sunday last. RTÉ covered it that day. The Evening Herald & Indo covered it the next day. The Irish Times covered it the day after that.

That seems relatively normal to me.

I heard Eamon Dunphy wouldn't even discuss it on his Newstalk show - the journalist was named by one paper yesterday. A second one today. In the next few days every outlet will name names.

AFAIK Dunphy wouldn't discuss The Sunday World story on his show because he felt it could open the station up to legal action. That's the same reason why the name of journalist under investigation cannot be named here.

I'm not sure if it's true to say that Dunphy has not discussed the story at all (I don't listen to his show) and clearly from this thread people are free to discuss the story in general terms.

As for every other outlet naming names in the next few days, I don't think you could be more wrong.

And yes there is an omerta.

But just not in this case?

Journalists have been prosecuted for sexually abusing children.

I don't doubt that - in fact I doubt there is a profession that you could not say the same for.

There is one case I know, I do not want to go into, but the journalist was not given the full glare of publicity that would have been dished out to a member of the public.

I don't know the case you're referring to so I can't comment on it specifically - I find it interesting that you want to use it to prove your point but you don't want to "go into it" at the same time.

However I would take issue with you saying the person in question did not come under the full glare of publicity like a member of the public one. As much as you might think otherwise people accused or charged with sexual offences against children don't get all that much publicity, often because the media are legally obliged to keep their identity hidden for the protection of the alleged victim.

That is not always the case, of course, and there have been the likes of priests identified before a judgement or even charges were brought against them (or a journalist in this case), but it is not the typical way it's done.

And not only that. Their character was defended by their colleagues. Even though this persons character would be hard to consider defensible. A journalist broke ranks and wrote a scathing piece - that was very close to the truth. And they were then attack by other journalists for doing so.

What do you expect? Take any profession and you'll find that people will often defend individuals when accusations are made. That's because they may know them personally and cannot imagine them being guilty of such horrible crimes (which ties in to what Snickers Man is saying above)

QUOTE=thebullkf;71759863]yet its not allowed here, on boards.... strange?[/QUOTE]

You can discuss the story, you just can't name the person alleged to be under investigation.

goose2005

Even an accusation of crimes such as this can make a person into a social pariah, so it makes sense that their name should not be mentioned until they've actually been convicted.

krd

goose2005 wrote: »

Even an accusation of crimes such as this can make a person into a social pariah, so it makes sense that their name should not be mentioned until they've actually been convicted.

Then what could the newspapers print, if no one's name or address could be given before they were processed through the courts?

The media are very selective in who and what they chose. Most sexual abuse cases are not given that much publicity. Occasionally the media will pick one and play it for entertainment.

Raging_Ninja

krd wrote: »

Then what could the newspapers print, if no one's name or address could be given before they were processed through the courts?

The media are very selective in who and what they chose. Most sexual abuse cases are not given that much publicity. Occasionally the media will pick one and play it for entertainment.

Sexual assault crimes, family cases etc usually do not allow names to be given out in order to protect the victims.

WalterMitty

a man having a relationship with a physically developed 14/15/16 year old girl/female/woman is nothing new, and not paedophilia although inappropriate and illegal. Media full of paedophilia references over this which makes it seem a lot worse than it is in reality.

krd

Snickers Man wrote: »

Although this journalist can't be named here, his identity is well known thanks to the Sunday World. If, like me, you were a regular reader of his columns you would know that your assertion that "good paedos like rugby" is certainly not true in this case.

I was making a general point. Not specific to one person.

In general terms. Historically, we've had a strange experience with pedophilia. Once upon at time - not a very long time ago - it was something most people got away with.

And I have come across the "good paedo" attitude.

IRE60

Perhaps they didn't close ranks but their leagal advice did.

The reality is that he hasn't been charged with anything. The Garda will begin their investigation regarding the allegations as soon as he can be interviewed. So, up to that point, he is as innocent of any any crime as the next man/woman.

People can ideally speculate as much as they want, but until he is charged with a crime - its still, in reality, shakey to print and be dammed.

If for some reason the man is not convicted of the alleged crime (and there could be a myriad of reasons for that) the said paper could really be in the manure business.

and krd: your theory that the media having a code is laughable - and as such doesn't warrant comment IMO. I trawled back on some of your other posts and see that this attitude extends to other bodies you have a beef with and, off late, An Garda Síochána. Is it media week?

thebullkf

flogen wrote: »

Has it? The NOTW had the story first (as far as I know) on Sunday last. RTÉ covered it that day. The Evening Herald & Indo covered it the next day. The Irish Times covered it the day after that.

That seems relatively normal to me.



AFAIK Dunphy wouldn't discuss The Sunday World story on his show because he felt it could open the station up to legal action. That's the same reason why the name of journalist under investigation cannot be named here.

I'm not sure if it's true to say that Dunphy has not discussed the story at all (I don't listen to his show) and clearly from this thread people are free to discuss the story in general terms.

As for every other outlet naming names in the next few days, I don't think you could be more wrong.



But just not in this case?



I don't doubt that - in fact I doubt there is a profession that you could not say the same for.



I don't know the case you're referring to so I can't comment on it specifically - I find it interesting that you want to use it to prove your point but you don't want to "go into it" at the same time.

However I would take issue with you saying the person in question did not come under the full glare of publicity like a member of the public one. As much as you might think otherwise people accused or charged with sexual offences against children don't get all that much publicity, often because the media are legally obliged to keep their identity hidden for the protection of the alleged victim.

That is not always the case, of course, and there have been the likes of priests identified before a judgement or even charges were brought against them (or a journalist in this case), but it is not the typical way it's done.




What do you expect? Take any profession and you'll find that people will often defend individuals when accusations are made. That's because they may know them personally and cannot imagine them being guilty of such horrible crimes (which ties in to what Snickers Man is saying above)

QUOTE=thebullkf;71759863]yet its not allowed here, on boards.... strange?

You can discuss the story, you just can't name the person alleged to be under investigation.[/QUOTE]


Excellent post, i agree with most of it tbh. I just find it strange that Giggs can be mentioned on Boards {as the Apparent Premier league footballer who's gotten the injunction to prevent his name being published, re_sex with big bro celebrity} but yet the 'alleged' irish journo, can't be

I'm being genuine here i'm not likening infidelity to paedophilia or any nonsense like that but the fact that the journo was already named by a Sunday Paper, the club was named in more than one {even though it was clarified that the girl in question wasn't a member of the club,and the 'alleged' offence took place outside their grounds} ..

.so why can a GAA club be named/linked with such a heinous crime but when the accuser is named theres censure...all in the name of money?. . . or lookin after their own?

Riskymove

thebullkf wrote: »

I just find it strange that Giggs can be mentioned on Boards {as the Apparent Premier league footballer who's gotten the injunction to prevent his name being published, re_sex with big bro celebrity} but yet the 'alleged' irish journo, can't be

why are you confused?

What crime would have been committed in the Giggs example?

.so why can a GAA club be named/linked with such a heinous crime but when the accuser is named theres censure...all in the name of money?. . . or lookin after their own?

because its a fact that someone involved in the GAA club has been accused of this and that a lot of kids involved in the club will be spoken to about it

what has actually happened regarding the accusation is not yet fully investigated

when someone is charged this is all likely to change

IRE60

This is the type of bandwagon stuff that has to be dealt with in cases like these. What has the GAA club got to do with the alleged crime - nothing, nothing at all. The fact that he was involved with a GAA club - you have tarred it with an particular brush - and unfairly. I'd fully understand them trying to distance themselves for the allegations, but comments here keep dragging it back in

To take this to a conclusion: Is his local a "den of iniquity" on the back of him having a pint there?

People should, in cases where there is no charge and minors involved, cop fcuking on. So of the comments here belong in the dark ages. Were does pediophelia some into this alleged case? It doesn't nor do many of the allegations and assertions mentioned here.

mike65

flogen wrote: »

Has it? The NOTW had the story first (as far as I know) on Sunday last. RTÉ covered it that day. The Evening Herald & Indo covered it the next day. The Irish Times covered it the day after that.

Three very short paragraphs is the extent of the IT coverage http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0412/1224294483022.html.

flogen

mike65 wrote: »

Three very short paragraphs is the extent of the IT coverage http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0412/1224294483022.html.

I'm not being facetious but I was just pointing out who covered it - I wasn't referencing the 'quality', or otherwise, of the coverage.

It was purely in response to the suggestion that the majority of media outlets had kept quiet on the story. I was pointing out how inaccurate that suggestion was, though it's true that some may not be shouting about it nearly as loudly as others.

mike65

Fair enough, it was that stories brevity last Tuesday which basicly confirmed who the accused worked for in my own mind.

flogen

thebullkf wrote: »

Excellent post, i agree with most of it tbh. I just find it strange that Giggs can be mentioned on Boards {as the Apparent Premier league footballer who's gotten the injunction to prevent his name being published, re_sex with big bro celebrity} but yet the 'alleged' irish journo, can't be

As has already been said the Premier League player story is not the same as there's no crime alleged to have been committed - that said I can't speak for other mods on the site. I just look after this forum (along with others), and only make calls on what goes on within these walls.

I'm being genuine here i'm not likening infidelity to paedophilia or any nonsense like that but the fact that the journo was already named by a Sunday Paper, the club was named in more than one {even though it was clarified that the girl in question wasn't a member of the club,and the 'alleged' offence took place outside their grounds} ..

It's sketchy legally but there potentially is a risk of a publication (boards.ie being included in that definition) being sued for defamation by repeating a claim made elsewhere. I don't think the site is in a position to test the law in that regard and so the name cannot be repeated here. That's putting aside all ethical questions about connecting someone to such a crime before a charge has even been made.

.so why can a GAA club be named/linked with such a heinous crime but when the accuser is named theres censure...all in the name of money?. . . or lookin after their own?

The GAA club has been named in some cases as a way of narrowing down the deck - to name the person without naming them. The same goes for other details that have been published in newspapers.

Far from it being an attempt by other journalists to look after their own it is an attempt to reveal the identity of the accused without actually naming the name, thus making it arguably harder for them to face a defamation case should the allegations end up to be untrue.

Legally naming the GAA club is not a major problem either. No coverage has suggested the club actively facilitated any alleged crimes and naming it does not necessarily defame anyone as a result.

Android 666

WalterMitty wrote: »

a man having a relationship with a physically developed 14/15/16 year old girl/female/woman is nothing new, and not paedophilia although inappropriate and illegal. Media full of paedophilia references over this which makes it seem a lot worse than it is in reality.

So once a girl develops breasts they're ripe for the picking? I really can't see how you think a man in his forties having a sexual relationship with a girl 14-16 is merely inappropriate. Textbook Paedophilia it may not be (although there would seem to be the telltale signs of grooming in the story) and nothing new as you say but it is an outrageous breach of trust and decency and it is a scandal that is going to have a massive effect on the GAA I reckon…

expectationlost

it was about two weeks before the story came out, telling me people didnt know about the day he went to hospital?

the club statement is bs too.

Snickers Man

krd wrote: »

I was making a general point. Not specific to one person.

.

You mean you were stereotyping. Well done! :rolleyes:

Android 666

Snickers Man wrote: »

You mean you were stereotyping. Well done! :rolleyes:

Were you not the one comparing gays to paedophiles earlier?

Snickers Man

Android 666 wrote: »

Were you not the one comparing gays to paedophiles earlier?

I did nothing of the kind. How dare you!

Jimmy Bottlehead

Just to clarify, even repeating an allegation made in another publication WOULD allow Boards.ie to be prosecuted for defamatory comments about the accused.
Media law is restrictive in that regard, but about two minutes on Google will let you know the name of the accused.

Rigor Mortis

Snickers Man wrote: »

I did nothing of the kind. How dare you!

In fairness on the first read I thought this too. On second read I thought eek that is an unfortunate pairing to use considering some of the nonsense prejudices that people have.

thebullkf

IRE60 wrote: »

This is the type of bandwagon stuff that has to be dealt with in cases like these. What has the GAA club got to do with the alleged crime - nothing, nothing at all. The fact that he was involved with a GAA club - you have tarred it with an particular brush - and unfairly. I'd fully understand them trying to distance themselves for the allegations, but comments here keep dragging it back in

To take this to a conclusion: Is his local a "den of iniquity" on the back of him having a pint there?

People should, in cases where there is no charge and minors involved, cop fcuking on. So of the comments here belong in the dark ages. Were does pediophelia some into this alleged case? It doesn't nor do many of the allegations and assertions mentioned here.

he didn't just have a pint there, he mentored underage girls teams

if convicted every parent will be fearing the worst... Theres no smoke without fire my friend.

Even if her's not convicted of a sexual offence, a middle aged man texting a teen / preteen girl is plain wrong. The fact his own family turned him in to the garda suggests the texts were not innocent.

Also this happened pre- xmas, as it happens his family membership was not renewed by the club..... no smoke without fire.

Chips Lovell

He wasn't mentoring underaged girls teams in his local pub.

thebullkf

Riskymove wrote: »

why are you confused?

What crime would have been committed in the Giggs example?




because its a fact that someone involved in the GAA club has been accused of this and that a lot of kids involved in the club will be spoken to about it

what has actually happened regarding the accusation is not yet fully investigated

when someone is charged this is all likely to change

the point i'm making is, regardless of guilt or innocence, giggs was named. the other fella wasn't.

thebullkf

flogen wrote: »

As has already been said the Premier League player story is not the same as there's no crime alleged to have been committed - that said I can't speak for other mods on the site. I just look after this forum (along with others), and only make calls on what goes on within these walls.

i understand, see my prev. post. i was just curious:)

It's sketchy legally but there potentially is a risk of a publication (boards.ie being included in that definition) being sued for defamation by repeating a claim made elsewhere. I don't think the site is in a position to test the law in that regard and so the name cannot be repeated here. That's putting aside all ethical questions about connecting someone to such a crime before a charge has even been made.

again i assumed rightly or wrongly that once a nname was mentioned in the paper,thus in public, it could be discussed on this site, ie we're just commenting on information freely available to the public.

The GAA club has been named in some cases as a way of narrowing down the deck - to name the person without naming them. The same goes for other details that have been published in newspapers

i feel thats a bit sly no?

Far from it being an attempt by other journalists to look after their own it is an attempt to reveal the identity of the accused without actually naming the name, thus making it arguably harder for them to face a defamation case should the allegations end up to be untrue.

i don't agree.

Legally naming the GAA club is not a major problem either. No coverage has suggested the club actively facilitated any alleged crimes and naming it does not necessarily defame anyone as a result.

seems unfair to mar the name of the club, without naming tha actual 'alleged' perpetrator...

Chips Lovell

I think the first mention of the club's name was after they issued a statement. If that's the case, they named themselves.

thebullkf

el tonto wrote: »

He wasn't mentoring underaged girls teams in his local pub.

was that an attempt at humour

flogen

thebullkf wrote: »

i feel thats a bit sly no?

It is a bit but it's standard practice.

i don't agree.

With what?

seems unfair to mar the name of the club, without naming tha actual 'alleged' perpetrator...

I don't think the coverage has marred the name of the club, at least not what I've seen of it. If there was a suggestion that they ignored or condoned any inappropriate behaviour that would be a different story.

thebullkf wrote: »

if convicted every parent will be fearing the worst... Theres no smoke without fire my friend.

...

no smoke without fire.

That's an absolutely horrendous attitude to take and an extremely dangerous one. I'm sure many good people have had their lives destroyed by that kind of assumption in the past and many will in the future too.

thebullkf

flogen wrote: »

With what?

with your assumption

I don't think the coverage has marred the name of the club, at least not what I've seen of it. If there was a suggestion that they ignored or condoned any inappropriate behaviour that would be a different story.

i think it has to be fair (if it blows over,which i doubt-club that thrives on its youth has been associated with inappropriate behaviour between mentors and minors.

That's an absolutely horrendous attitude to take and an extremely dangerous one. I'm sure many good people have had their lives destroyed by that kind of assumption in the past and many will in the future too.

Do you have kids? Are you involved with a GAA club @ underage level?

why would his own family report him if there wasn't a case to answer?
Why is he on suicide watch (allegedly).

the very fact his own blood reported him supports my attitude- if there were allegations from an external source,maybe i wouldn't be so quick .

you obviously disagree,which i respect but if anyone can satisfactorily explain his own family shopping him to the garda,i'm all ears.
As i said earlier-even if no physical contact were made, he's astute enough to know you don't contact a teen you're invlved with through sport, in fact the club forbids it.

flogen

thebullkf wrote: »

Do you have kids? Are you involved with a GAA club @ underage level?

why would his own family report him if there wasn't a case to answer?
Why is he on suicide watch (allegedly).

the very fact his own blood reported him supports my attitude- if there were allegations from an external source,maybe i wouldn't be so quick .

you obviously disagree,which i respect but if anyone can satisfactorily explain his own family shopping him to the garda,i'm all ears.
As i said earlier-even if no physical contact were made, he's astute enough to know you don't contact a teen you're invlved with through sport, in fact the club forbids it.

I'm not talking about this case in particular, I'm talking about the attitude of 'there's no smoke without fire' which you showed in a previous post.

Riskymove

thebullkf wrote: »

again i assumed rightly or wrongly that once a nname was mentioned in the paper,thus in public, it could be discussed on this site, ie we're just commenting on information freely available to the public.

there is a massive difference between talking about some celebrity who may have shagged some other celebrity (in a different country) and talking about this situation here

it could lead to suggestions that he will not get a fair trial

BrianD

thebullkf wrote:

again i assumed rightly or wrongly that once a nname was mentioned in the paper,thus in public, it could be discussed on this site, ie we're just commenting on information freely available to the public.

You may think that you are discussing but in fact you are actually publishing when you hit 'submit reply'.

kevin99

It amazes me that the Sunday World and The Irish Sun on Monday last published the journo's name and photo on their front pages.
They have convicted the guy before he has even been charged by the DPP.
How can any juror say they are not aware of the story when questioned by the defence counsel?
Nearly everybody has heard or read this story, so naming the person I believe will make it more difficult to secure a conviction IF he is charged.

Ps. What is the Giggs story about?

thebullkf

flogen wrote: »

I'm not talking about this case in particular, I'm talking about the attitude of 'there's no smoke without fire' which you showed in a previous post.

but i am..

so therefore what you're talking about is nothing to do with me;)

thebullkf

kevin99 wrote: »

It amazes me that the Sunday World and The Irish Sun on Monday last published the journo's name and photo on their front pages.
They have convicted the guy before he has even been charged by the DPP.

i'm sure they've done their homework to an extent that their is substanceto this story, even if he only was texting, its wrong. and he should be lambasted.

How can any juror say they are not aware of the story when questioned by the defence counsel?
Nearly everybody has heard or read this story, so naming the person I believe will make it more difficult to secure a conviction IF he is charged.

Ps. What is the Giggs story about?

i spoke to someone today,who didn'tr hear it was him.

giggs apparently shagged some wannabe...

flogen

thebullkf wrote: »

but i am..

so therefore what you're talking about is nothing to do with me;)

So you see no problem in a 'no smoke without fire' attitude to accusations like this? Or is it just OK in this case?

Do you think it's fair for you to make an assumption based on the information that has been reported to date on this case?

thebullkf wrote: »

i'm sure they've done their homework to an extent that their is substanceto this story, even if he only was texting, its wrong. and he should be lambasted.

An adult texting a teenager is wrong full stop?

hatz7

I think the OP has a valid point, if the person in question wasn't one of their own the story would receive more air time regardless of the 'it could prejudice any future trial' line.