Paedophiles are all around us!

Fuinseog

Does anyone thing we have lost the run of ourselves regarding paedophilia and child abuse?

I will give you a few example. A man in his sixties was hauled before the court having exposed himself to an eleven year old boy. It happened in the changing rooms of the local swimming pool and the man was walking naked and the boy took fright at the sight of a naked body and told his parents who brought a case.

on the Joe Duffy show a woman rang in to complain that a picture of her son had been put on the facebook page of his scout group.

I believe photographing children was discussed here about a year ago but the hysteria seems to be spreading to ridiculous levels.

Boskowski

I agree it's gone totally bonkers and it's obvious to see who's at fault here. The people who have to sell a 'good' story every day.
This topic is just one of many. The media jump on everything and anything and turn it into a hysteria these days - simply because it sells.
This topic is a particularly good one for it cos a) it deals with with parents most awful nightmare and almost everyone is a parent at one stage and b) the sensitivity of the subject. One couldn't even argue with the hysteria in fear of being viewed as a facilitator or something.

mikemac1

Yes, I read about that story in The Gentlemans Club
Elderly man being naked in the changing rooms and showers.
Child runs to the parents and they go to the gardaí.
The man must have been traumatized, people have taken their own lives over less then this.
And no doubt a few local loudmouths were talking as if something actually happened
Shame on the DPP for even getting it to court.

When google street view launched in Ireland a few years ago, Joe Duffy show was jammed with concerned mothers as their children were captured out walking around either on their own or with friends.
Big deal but you'd think this was the worst thing ever


The media plays a role but some people are very quick to spread these stories.
When I was a kid fadó fadó every now and again you'd hear about the man in the white van going around tempting children with sweets and tossing them into his van.
"Careful walking home from GAA training, the man with the van is around"

And now years later on boards.ie you'll read the same stories in the regional forums, I've seen it a few times in Fingal and for Carlow too
How do these stories even start? Always a van and it's always white. Didn't see it myself but a friend of a friend told me

The latest one is thieves walking into schools, saying random names and the teachers shift them on and kick them off the premises. They are there just to check out the school.
But somehow the story got around that men were coming to school, giving names and then leading children away.
The country is awash with thieves, kidnapping is rare thankfully

Lastly I'm not a teacher but I'm garda vetted and do GAA coaching. Well I used to, not realy anymore.
And we never ever go into the lads changing room on our own. There will always be another adult with us.
That's not to protect the children, that's to protect the coaches.
One remark or some lad brushes off you or you grab someone to break up horse play and fighting and boom, you could be facing court and ruin like the man above

Fuinseog

mikemac1 wrote: »

Yes, I read about that story in The Gentlemans Club
Elderly man being naked in the changing rooms and showers.
Child runs to the parents and they go to the gardaí.
The man must have been traumatized, people have taken their own lives over less then this.
And no doubt a few local loudmouths were talking as if something actually happened
Shame on the DPP for even getting it to court.

When google street view launched in Ireland a few years ago, Joe Duffy show was jammed with concerned mothers as their children were captured out walking around either on their own or with friends.
Big deal but you'd think this was the worst thing ever


The media plays a role but some people are very quick to spread these stories.
When I was a kid fadó fadó every now and again you'd hear about the man in the white van going around tempting children with sweets and tossing them into his van.
"Careful walking home from GAA training, the man with the van is around"

And now years later on boards.ie you'll read the same stories in the regional forums, I've seen it a few times in Fingal and for Carlow too
How do these stories even start? Always a van and it's always white. Didn't see it myself but a friend of a friend told me

The latest one is thieves walking into schools, saying random names and the teachers shift them on and kick them off the premises. They are there just to check out the school.
But somehow the story got around that men were coming to school, giving names and then leading children away.
The country is awash with thieves, kidnapping is rare thankfully

Lastly I'm not a teacher but I'm garda vetted and do GAA coaching. Well I used to, not realy anymore.
And we never ever go into the lads changing room on our own. There will always be another adult with us.
That's not to protect the children, that's to protect the coaches.
One remark or some lad brushes off you or you grab someone to break up horse play and fighting and boom, you could be facing court and ruin like the man above

the man walking naked in the changing rooms had to wait four years before his name was cleared.
as regards GAA coaching or indeed teaching all it takes is one kid with a grudge against you to ruin your life. this can not be good for society.

stovelid

Arrant stupidity and hysteria have always been with us but these days, technology means that there is hyper-dissemination of folk devils and moral panics

The Corinthian

In my mind I would propose a number of factors at play:

Appeal to Emotion. We saw this with the X Case when as a country, which had consistently voted against Abortion, began to argue "if it was my daughter" as if this suddenly changed everything. And when brought home, to thoughts of your own son or daughter suffering such a scenario we do have a tendency to throw logic out the window in favour of protecting them.

Once this happens, those around us, not wanting to be left out, have to escalate the response - "me too, and I'd also think..." - and before long we have torches and pitchforks waving around.

Collective Guilt. Child abuse didn't suddenly appear twenty years ago; it was around a long time. I went to a boarding school, where one of these cases saw a conviction and remember vividly being warned by two of the other boarders within half an hour of arriving to keep away from priest X and Y long before it became 'known' publicly. So, given how long these things were going on, it's not too much of a stretch to conclude that this was something that was known of by the community in general - yet, as a community we kept silent.

Overreaction may well be a way of dealing with the collective guilt of that silence - "we stayed silent back then, but damned if we will now." What follows is an overreaction meant to make up for decades of inaction.

Anglophone Puritanism. English speakers don't like to have anything of a sexual nature out in the open. In France, Germany or Italy you'll see ads during children's programming with topless women; were that to occur in any English speaking country, it would cause a national scandal.

As such, we'll react more negatively towards anything to do with sex as a society - be it real or imaginary sex.

Ignorance and Plain Stupidity. Combined with the above factors, people have a tendency not to think. Or to jump to conclusions based upon flawed information - the case where a paediatrician was targeted being an excellent case in point.

As a result, people will shoot first and ask questions after, leading to cases such as the titular one here.

Ellis Dee

I assume the heading of this thread "Paedophiles are all around us!" is meant in an ironic sense.

It is regrettable that there are any paedophiles at all, but it would be better to try and establish just how many of them there are estimated to be rather than stirring up hysteria and creating an atmosphere of fear. In that atmosphere, persons who are innocent of any wrongdoing, or perhaps at most of absent-mindedly walking around naked or semi-naked and being unexpectedly seen by minors, end up having the characters blemished, while the real abusers - usually within family circles - remain undetected.

I think the Corinthian covers most points pretty well in his/her post, and all I would add to it is that a lot of Irish people are far too hung up about the human body, especially nudity. I have lived in the Nordic countries for decades and people there have far fewer hang-ups in that respect.


That said, what we need is sensible precautions and protection for children, and perhaps a greater participation by women, as equal partners with men, in activities that involve children.

We certainly don't want to go back to the old days when the paedophiles were able to operate with far less fear of being caught than is the case today.:eek:

Fuinseog

there seems to be a notion out there that women do not abuse children. my girlfriend worked in a creche and when she asked why there were no males changing nappies, she was told they might abuse the children.

the Garda clearance is somewhat farcical. you need a separate clearance for every group or organisation that involves young people. It also only covers Ireland and Britain. You could have been a serial abuser elsewhere

mikemac1

Fuinseog wrote: »

my girlfriend worked in a creche and when she asked why there were no males changing nappies, she was told they might abuse the children.

All too common attitude.

And if you as a man and asked to chip in and help some local club and supervise the lads in the swimming pool, tbh it's something you should decline.

You are one remark or innocent touch away from being destroyed.
Even if the gardaí don't charge you and even if they do and the court aquits you, mud sticks as they say

In work we save emails to cover your ass.
Have to take attitude outside work too

And yet some people then moan about lack of community spirit and nobody gets involved and volunteers anymore

drkpower

Fuinseog wrote: »

I will give you a few example. A man in his sixties was hauled before the court having exposed himself to an eleven year old boy. It happened in the changing rooms of the local swimming pool and the man was walking naked and the boy took fright at the sight of a naked body and told his parents who brought a case.

I dont know if paedophiles are all around us, but I know what is all around us; people who go off on rants without doing some basic research.

During the two day trial the jury heard from witness Gerard Treacy who said he saw an elderly man pleasuring himself through his towel as looked a 12 year old boy up and down in the changing area of St Enda's swimming pool.

http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-ite...3-ceb089408394

paddyandy

It's akin to Murder putting out rumours like that about some harmless fool .It can devastate a person .Destroy them utterly .

Fuinseog

drkpower wrote: »

I dont know if paedophiles are all around us, but I know what is all around us; people who go off on rants without doing some basic research.


http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-ite...3-ceb089408394

he was probably just drying himself.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fuinseog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

it was usual in the nineties for toddlers of both genders to run around the beach naked as the day they were born. has this changed? in America this would always have been a big no no.

our fear of naked bodies seems to stem more from British prudishness than the church.

Fuinseog

paddyandy wrote: »

It's akin to Murder putting out rumours like that about some harmless fool .It can devastate a person .Destroy them utterly .

he had to wait four years for his name to be cleared.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

Fuinseog wrote: »

he was probably just drying himself.

That may have been the case; and that may have been what the jury concluded. I dont know, the reasoning of the jury doesnt appear to have been reported.

But your initial post was entirely misleading. You could have made it more accurate, or at least contextualised, if you had done a bit of googling.

Kinski

Fuinseog wrote: »

I will give you a few example. A man in his sixties was hauled before the court having exposed himself to an eleven year old boy. It happened in the changing rooms of the local swimming pool and the man was walking naked and the boy took fright at the sight of a naked body and told his parents who brought a case.

Surely there must have been more to it than that?! I can't imagine that anyone would be charged merely for being naked in a changing room when a child walked in - perhaps he approached the boy or spoke to him or something.

P. Breathnach

Kinski wrote: »

Surely there must have been more to it than that?! I can't imagine that anyone would be charged merely for being naked in a changing room when a child walked in - perhaps he approached the boy or spoke to him or something.

So much for a "not guilty" verdict. It seems that you want us to consider him guilty, and are prepared to introduce into the discussion behaviour that was not, so far as I can see, observed or reported by anybody.

The Corinthian

Kinski wrote: »

Surely there must have been more to it than that?! I can't imagine that anyone would be charged merely for being naked in a changing room when a child walked in - perhaps he approached the boy or spoke to him or something.

That's what we've been discussing in this thread, that we've become so paranoid about this issue that there doesn't need to be more to it than that.

And to add insult onto injury, even if there is no more to it than that, we have a tendency to presume that there cannot be smoke without fire, as you have done.

Kinski

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So much for a "not guilty" verdict. It seems that you want us to consider him guilty, and are prepared to introduce into the discussion behaviour that was not, so far as I can see, observed or reported by anybody.

Where do I say that? He was found not guilty by a jury, so I accept that - and anyhow, I don't really care! But the claim that he was brought to trial just for being naked in a changing room (those places where people are naked all the time) I find hard to swallow, so I think the news reports may be leaving some significant detail(s) out. But even if that's so, the prosecution may still have had a pretty thin case.

Kinski

The Corinthian wrote: »

we have a tendency to presume that there cannot be smoke without fire, as you have done.

Arrrghhhh!!! Noooo!!! Stop reading things into my posts that aren't there. I said there "must be more", not "he probably did do something illegal."

P. Breathnach

Kinski wrote: »

Where do I say that? He was found not guilty by a jury, so I accept that - and anyhow, I don't really care! But the claim that he was brought to trial just for being naked in a changing room (those places where people are naked all the time) I find hard to swallow, so I think the news reports may be leaving some significant detail(s) out. But even if that's so, the prosecution may still have had a pretty thin case.

The man was found not guilty. In seeking to discuss the matter further, you are speculating that he did something inappropriate which justified prosecuting him, and in effect inviting us to see the accused in a bad light.

And it's disingenuous to use innuendo, and then pretend that you said nothing objectionable.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's what we've been discussing in this thread, that we've become so paranoid about this issue that there doesn't need to be more to it than that.

But there WAS more to it than that, in the sense that there was clear independent evidence of an act a little bit more serious than simply being naked in a changing room. Now, clearly, for reasons I dont know, the jury did not believe that evidence was sufficient to convict the man.

But to suggest, as you do that, 'there doesn't need to be more to it than' being naked in a changing room (to presumably ground a prosecution?) is baseless. Are you aware of anyone who has been prosecuted on the basis of being naked in a changing room, and being naked in a changing room only?

The Corinthian wrote: »

And to add insult onto injury, even if there is no more to it than that, we have a tendency to presume that there cannot be smoke without fire, as you have done.

We also have a tendency not to do our research as to what the actual facts are......

drkpower

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The man was found not guilty. In seeking to discuss the matter further, you are speculating that he did something inappropriate which justified prosecuting him, and in effect inviting us to see the accused in a bad light.

There WAS an allegation that he did something inappropriate which justified prosecuting him, a fact that many posters are ignorant of or chose not to reference. While clearly the jury did not consider it sufficient to convict, it is very relevant to the appropriateness of the decision to prosecute.

P. Breathnach

drkpower wrote: »

But there WAS more to it than that, in the sense that there was clear independent evidence of an act a little bit more serious than simply being naked in a changing room. Now, clearly, for reasons I dont know, the jury did not believe that evidence was sufficient to convict the man....

Perhaps they did not believe the evidence at all, seeing it as the sort of excessive mistrust of people that is the subject of this thread.

drkpower

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Perhaps they did not believe the evidence at all, seeing it as the sort of excessive mistrust of people that is the subject of this thread.

Perhaps; perhaps they didnt believe the independent witness at all; perhaps they did, but they werent satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that what the independent witness saw amounted to the accused masturbating under his towel. There are a few possibilities - i dont know the answer. But it appears that the Gardai and the DPP gave the independent's witness some significant weight.

So it appears that there was sufficient evidence to justify prosecuting him. That he was not convicted does not invalidate the decision to prosecute him.

Kinski

Oh, I missed the posts about the allegation that he was masturbating (the link in #10 is dead). So there was more to it - suddenly the positions of several posters on this thread appear rather ironic. People are so paranoid about paedophilia, they just totally ignore the facts and go off on mad rants, like.

The Corinthian

Kinski wrote: »

Arrrghhhh!!! Noooo!!! Stop reading things into my posts that aren't there. I said there "must be more", not "he probably did do something illegal."

Fair enough, it's just that what you wrote didn't come across in such a benign fashion.

drkpower wrote: »

Are you aware of anyone who has been prosecuted on the basis of being naked in a changing room, and being naked in a changing room only?

I'm certainly aware of cases (not necessarily like the above) of investigation where there is absolutely no evidence and it is hardly a stretch to presume that some go as far as formal prosecutions in an area so fraught with paranoia as this.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm certainly aware of cases (not necessarily like the above) of investigation where there is absolutely no evidence and it is hardly a stretch to presume that some go as far as formal prosecutions in an area so fraught with paranoia as this.

It is quite a stretch really. AGS will investigate all sorts of nonsense, they have to. But to take forward a prosecution involves a number of steps and checks and balances (including the involvement of the DPP).

Taking formal prosecutions in the absence of evidence is an utter waste of time for all concerned. It very very rarely happens. And to use the present case as the motivation for this thread is bizarre, given that it appears to have been a reasonably taken prosecution.

P. Breathnach

Kinski wrote: »

Oh, I missed the posts about the allegation that he was masturbating (the link in #10 is dead). So there was more to it - suddenly the positions of several posters on this thread appear rather ironic. People are so paranoid about paedophilia, they just totally ignore the facts and go off on mad rants, like.

So you posted without first doing any checking? Totally ignoring the facts and going off on a mad rant?

I was aware of the allegation. I was also aware that it was given in evidence. And I was aware that the jury did not treat it as sufficiently strong or credible to bring in a guilty verdict. I'm not in a position to gainsay the jury: if it is their view that the evidence did not stand up, I'll accept that.

It seems to me that the DPP might have been faced with a difficult problem. If the official dealing with the case had formed the view that the complaint was unreasonable, reflective of the paedophile paranoia that exists today, then the appropriate action would have been to decide not to prosecute. But the consequence might have been a media storm about the failure to prosecute somebody for a paedophile act. So even if the DPP had thought the prosecution likely to fail, there might have been some pressure to bring it anyway.

The Corinthian

drkpower wrote: »

Taking formal prosecutions in the absence of evidence is an utter waste of time for all concerned. It very very rarely happens.

But it does happen.

And to use the present case as the motivation for this thread is bizarre, given that it appears to have been a reasonably taken prosecution.

How so?

Kinski

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So you posted without first doing any checking? Totally ignoring the facts and going off an a mad rant?

I concede that I did neglect to check, and to read the thread properly...but I didn't go on any rant. That's the difference - I just pointed out that the OP's version of events didn't sound very likely. And I was right.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But the consequence might have been a media storm about the failure to prosecute somebody for a paedophile act. So even if the DPP had thought the prosecution likely to fail, there might have been some pressure to bring it anyway.

A "media storm" over this? Somehow I doubt it.

drkpower

The Corinthian wrote: »

But it does happen.

And paedophiles happen; but I think you would agree that we should not exaggerate our response to that reality, yes?

The Corinthian wrote: »

How so?

There was apparently clear independent corroborative evidence that the man was masturbating under his towel.

Would you suggest that crimes which have a clear independent corroborative witness should not ordinarily be prosecuted?

Fuinseog

drkpower wrote: »

There WAS an allegation that he did something inappropriate which justified prosecuting him, a fact that many posters are ignorant of or chose not to reference. While clearly the jury did not consider it sufficient to convict, it is very relevant to the appropriateness of the decision to prosecute.

if I recall the article correctly the boy was not used to seeing adults naked and that was the main reason for his discomfort. the parent more than likely jumped to conclusions. i cannot imagine the two them were alone in the changing rooms.

drkpower

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It seems to me that the DPP might have been faced with a difficult problem. If the official dealing with the case had formed the view that the complaint was unreasonable, reflective of the paedophile paranoia that exists today, then the appropriate action would have been to decide not to prosecute. But the consequence might have been a media storm about the failure to prosecute somebody for a paedophile act. So even if the DPP had thought the prosecution likely to fail, there might have been some pressure to bring it anyway.

That is just speculation based on little.

The DPP had an independent corroborative witness in a he said/she said case. Aside from CCTV evidence, that is the best evidence one could expect to have in a case of this nature. Unless he had critical doubts as to the evidence of the independent witness, he was obliged to bring the case forward.

Looking at the known facts, the latter explanation is more likely correct

actuallylike

drkpower wrote: »

I dont know if paedophiles are all around us, but I know what is all around us; people who go off on rants without doing some basic research.

Kinski wrote: »

Oh, I missed the posts about the allegation that he was masturbating (the link in #10 is dead). So there was more to it - suddenly the positions of several posters on this thread appear rather ironic. People are so paranoid about paedophilia, they just totally ignore the facts and go off on mad rants, like.

Don't worry everyone, I'VE GOT THE FACTS

I especially like this bit...

The boy now aged 16 also gave similar evidence but in his closing speech to the jury defence counsel Mark Nicholas suggested that Mr Treacy had transferred his concerns about what he thought was happening to the boy who he said would have had little or no knowledge or experience in these things.

I also like how the jury found him not guilty with all the facts but the people in this thread with limited information love to still point the finger.


http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-item/limerick-man-found-not-guilty-of-lewd-act-in-public-swimming-pool/6c7ae523-4fd7-4bc1-83a3-ceb089408394

Kinski

Fuinseog wrote: »

if I recall the article correctly the boy was not used to seeing adults naked and that was the main reason for his discomfort. the parent more than likely jumped to conclusions. i cannot imagine the two them were alone in the changing rooms.

Apparently they weren't - an independent witness reported that the man was moving his hand under his towel, in the area of his genitals, while eyeing up the boy. It could have been completely innocent, and a jury has decided that there was insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, but assuming what this witness said was true, that behaviour is still pretty weird.

Personally, I dislike common changing areas in swimming pools, and these days I won't use one. My local pool has private booths located in separate male and female areas - imo a good idea. In my experience of common ones, it is not unusual for individuals of both sexes to inadvertently enter the wrong changing room. And anyway, I prefer to have privacy while I'm undressed. But if a person is using a common one, I recommend that they keep their eyes to themselves.

actuallylike

Jesus Christ, the man has a family. He was drying his mickey and was looking in a particular direction, probably in a day dream. Would he really risk everything he has, wife, kids, job, life to have a **** in front of everyone?

Kinski

actuallylike wrote: »

Jesus Christ, the man has a family. He was drying his mickey and was looking in a particular direction, probably in a day dream. Would he really risk everything he has, wife, kids, job, life to have a **** in front of everyone?

That's pure speculation. Anyhow, he's been cleard by a jury. But the basis for a criminal investigation does not seem as wafer-thin as some here are suggesting.

Fuinseog

a culture of fear has developed out of this, which cannot be healthy.
when I was in the scouts the young leaders would engage in horseplay with the boys. You would call them by their nickname and they would chase after you. it was all a bit of craic. now they would not dare lest they be accused of something.

there are new child abuse guidelines for teachers and those working with young people. Apparently, it is considered inappropriate to masturbate in front of kids and that is written down in the new guidelines. i find it odd and disturbing that something like that needs to be stressed.

Kinski

Fuinseog wrote: »

when I was in the scouts the young leaders would engage in horseplay with the boys. You would call them by their nickname and they would chase after you. it was all a bit of craic. now they would not dare lest they be accused of something.

I agree that some of the changes we've seen in recent times are a shame, and yes, there is some paranoia around the whole paedophile thing.

But you have to weigh that up against the fact that abuse of children by adults in positions of authority was a problem in this country - a problem which was hidden from view, and many abusers got away with it for a long time.

marienbad

Kinski wrote: »

That's pure speculation. Anyhow, he's been cleard by a jury. But the basis for a criminal investigation does not seem as wafer-thin as some here are suggesting.

But the whole thread on this particular issue is speculation and you have speculated along with the best of them. The salient fact is that he was cleared by the jury but you seem determined to retry him.

Fuinseog

Kinski wrote: »

I agree that some of the changes we've seen in recent times are a shame, and yes, there is some paranoia around the whole paedophile thing.

But you have to weigh that up against the fact that abuse of children by adults in positions of authority was a problem in this country - a problem which was hidden from view, and many abusers got away with it for a long time.

it was a problem everywhere. the media led us to believe that only that catholic church was guilty of abuse, then we find out protestants had homes for fallen women where they were abused and kids were also abused in secular institutions.
vigilance is good but you can go too far.

Kinski

marienbad wrote: »

But the whole thread on this particular issue is speculation and you have speculated along with the best of them. The salient fact is that he was cleared by the jury but you seem determined to retry him.

Ok, this is starting to get annoying.

I'm not speculating. We've gone from the OP's claim ("we have lost the run of ourselves regarding paedophilia and child abuse...A man in his sixties was hauled before the court having exposed himself to an eleven year old boy. It happened in the changing rooms of the local swimming pool and the man was walking naked and the boy took fright at the sight of a naked body and told his parents who brought a case.") to finding out that a witness alleged that the man was masturbating while looking at the boy - a much more serious allegation.

The guy has been found not guilty; he's not a sex offender.

But I reject the OP's assertion that the DPP's decision to bring this case before the courts is evidence that "we have lost the run of ourselves regarding paedophilia", particularly given that the poster's account of the case left out several key aspects.

P. Breathnach

Kinski wrote: »

Ok, this is starting to get annoying....

Starting?

marienbad

Kinski wrote: »

Ok, this is starting to get annoying.

I'm not speculating. We've gone from the OP's claim ("we have lost the run of ourselves regarding paedophilia and child abuse...A man in his sixties was hauled before the court having exposed himself to an eleven year old boy. It happened in the changing rooms of the local swimming pool and the man was walking naked and the boy took fright at the sight of a naked body and told his parents who brought a case.") to finding out that a witness alleged that the man was masturbating while looking at the boy - a much more serious allegation.

The guy has been found not guilty; he's not a sex offender.

But I reject the OP's assertion that the DPP's decision to bring this case before the courts is evidence that "we have lost the run of ourselves regarding paedophilia", particularly given that the poster's account of the case left out several key aspects.

The original witness was the boy I believe, and by his mothers own admission had little sexual knowledge so this is a stretch at best.

I for one am certain that the current climate had everything to do with this case being brought to court.

This reminds me of the case in the US a few years back when a nude man was getting a drink of water at his kitchen sink and was seen through the window by a women ( can't recall if a child was with her or not) and he was tried for indecent exposure.

P. Breathnach

drkpower wrote: »

That is just speculation based on little.

Which is why I introduced it with the words "It seems to me that the DPP might have been faced with a difficult problem. If the official dealing with the case...". [Emphasis added.]

The DPP had an independent corroborative witness in a he said/she said case. Aside from CCTV evidence, that is the best evidence one could expect to have in a case of this nature. Unless he had critical doubts as to the evidence of the independent witness, he was obliged to bring the case forward.

It seems that the "independent corroborative witness" was not sufficient to convince the jury. I was looking at the possibility that he might have been equally unable to convince the DPP's staff, yet the DPP might have felt constrained to bring the prosecution anyway.

Looking at the known facts, the latter explanation is more likely correct

It's not the only plausible explanation.

Kinski

marienbad wrote: »

The original witness was the boy I believe, and by his mothers own admission had little sexual knowledge so this is a stretch at best.

I for one am certain that the current climate had everything to do with this case being brought to court.

I don't know what you mean by "original witness", but you are ignoring the fact that there was testimony from another, presumably adult witness. Why are you disregarding that in your assessment of the decision to take this to court?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Starting?

Yes.

marienbad

Kinski wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "original witness", but you are ignoring the fact that there was testimony from another, presumably adult witness. Why are you disregarding that in your assessment of the decision to take this to court?



Yes.

I am not disregarding it, I am agreeing with the jury and not giving it the same weight that you and the DPP are giving it.

Kinski

marienbad wrote: »

I am not disregarding it, I am agreeing with the jury and not giving it the same weight that you and the DPP are giving it.

You were privy to the jury's deliberations? All I'm trying to argue is that there appears to have been a rationale behind the authorities' decision to bring this case to trial - a solider one than the OP suggests. Do you disagree with that? By taking into account the claims of the boy, and those of this other witness, were the authorities acting incorrectly? Is the fact that this case went to trial evidence that "the hysteria seems to be spreading to ridiculous levels"?