Paedophiles are all around us!

drkpower

marienbad wrote: »

The fact that the DPP lost would indicate that the case was not the strongest and it is reasonable to speculate than other factors may have been in play. You don't have to agree with that - but there it is.

And you still fail to understand the process! Perhaps before replying next time, you might have a read of the DPP guidelines and come back with what will surely be a more educated response.

That the DPP lost says nothing as to whether the case was properly prosecuted.
The job the DPP does and the guidelines by which he does it do not require that the DPP's case be the 'strongest'.

Therefore, neither of the points you made do anything to support your argument.

What the DPP must do is to ensure there is a prime facie case and that there is sufficient evidence so that the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged.

All the evidence points to both of those criteria being met. No evidence supports your view.

marienbad wrote: »

I am not concerned with you and I giving or not giving the same weight as the jury or dpp

I commented on this because your comment that the jury must have given less weight to the witness evidence as the jury was simply incorrect and further demonstrated your lack of understanding of the process.

P. Breathnach

drkpower wrote: »

I still dont think you are getting it.

Wrong. Don't question my knowledge or intelligence unless I give you clear grounds for doing so. Disagreeing with what you say does not mean that I am not "getting it"

The DPP has publically available guidelines which outline what must be present for him to bring a prosecution.

And also a notable freedom from having to give public justification for his/her decisions.

Evidence of the complainant along with independent corroborative evidence clearly fulfils those criteria unless there are serious questions as to the credibility of either.

Check back on the facts of the case. Who initiated the complaint? You make much of the supposed "independent corroborative evidence", yet it may be that all this happened because of one person's interpretation of a set of circumstances.

There is no evidence in the media reportage of the case to suggest that there was any serious questions as to the credibility of the witnesses. In fact, the media reportage indicates that even after cross examination of both, the complainant and the independent witnesses evidence continued to be in substance, the same. Therefore, the evidence tends to heavily support the thesis that a prime facie case was made against the accused and that the DPP was right to conclude, as he must, that the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged. That is the evidence in support of my contention.

This argument comes perilously close to trial by media. The essential fact is that the jury did not accept the evidence as being sufficient to bring in a guilty charge.

You suggest that the DPP erred in bringing the matter to court on the basis that he was pressurised (by who, you havent reallly clarified) into bringing the matter forward and that the evidence gathered could not have enabled a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged.

No, I didn't. I suggested that the DPP could have been in a difficult position if he formed the opinion that the case did not have substance. And if you don't see where the pressure comes from, then I can claim that you you are not getting it, because I did identify the source of the pressure.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever for that/those assertions.

What assertions?

drkpower

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wrong. Don't question my knowledge or intelligence unless I give you clear grounds for doing so.

There is clear grounds in previous posts; and more just now.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The essential fact is that the jury did not accept the evidence as being sufficient to bring in a guilty charge..

That you consider this to be the 'essential fact' perfectly illustrates your lack of understanding. The fact that the jury did not find the evidence sufficient (to ground a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt) says nothing as to whether the DPP was correct to prosecute the case. The DPP has to show a prime facie case, and has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence so that the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged. Do you see the difference?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, I didn't. I suggested that the DPP could have been in a difficult position if he formed the opinion that the case did not have substance. And if you don't see where the pressure comes from, then I can claim that you you are not getting it, because I did identify the source of the pressure.

But there was clearly sufficient evidence for the DPP to prosecute the case, the evidence of the complainant and the corroborative evidence of the independent witness. So therefore he was not in a difficult position; so therefore the question of pressure doesnt come into it.

P. Breathnach

Selective snipping so as to distort the import of what I said.

I'm outta here.

Fuinseog

my thread seems to have been swallowed in legalese. I started it because i wondered aloud if we have not become too over protective and obsessed with paedos. i have received some interesting replies and my thread should not be focused on one particular issue. my knowledge of the case is limited to what was reported in the indo and its seemed ridiculous.

drkpower

Fuinseog wrote: »

my thread seems to have been swallowed in legalese. I started it because i wondered aloud if we have not become too over protective and obsessed with paedos. i have received some interesting replies and my thread should not be focused on one particular issue.

The question is a fair one, worth discussing. The difficulty was using a case which actually appears to have been properly brought as an illustration of your fear.

MY own belief is that society has definitely become over protective and to a degree over-obsessed with a fear of paedophilia. This is not that recent a phenomenon (see the brilliant Brass Eye episode from the mid 90s). But I havent seen that fear result in the taking of criminal prosecutions which should not have been taken. I suspect it has resulted in many entirely unfounded allegations though.

Fuinseog wrote: »

my knowledge of the case is limited to what was reported in the indo and its seemed ridiculous.

I think the indo, for some reason, did not reference the critical independent witness. I hope that the links to other news sources has helped to provide a little bit of context.

marienbad

drkpower wrote: »

And you still fail to understand the process! Perhaps before replying next time, you might have a read of the DPP guidelines and come back with what will surely be a more educated response.

That the DPP lost says nothing as to whether the case was properly prosecuted.
The job the DPP does and the guidelines by which he does it do not require that the DPP's case be the 'strongest'.

Therefore, neither of the points you made do anything to support your argument.

What the DPP must do is to ensure there is a prime facie case and that there is sufficient evidence so that the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged.

All the evidence points to both of those criteria being met. No evidence supports your view.


I commented on this because your comment that the jury must have given less weight to the witness evidence as the jury was simply incorrect and further demonstrated your lack of understanding of the process.

Condescend triple much ! It is you that refuse to get it, there is little evidence to support either view- and I am familiar with the dpp guidelines- I just don't see them as you do in this particular case. There were a number of factors at play in this case as far as I understand it, it was the mother that raised the issue originally,not the boy and not the witness. The boy had lived a relatively sheltered life and had rarely if ever..... a fcuk it , why bother , here we are taking a man's good name a second time .

The OP opines if the climate of the times coloured the thinking of the DPP, I think that is a valid opinion and there is evidence in lots of areas that this has now become the norm as has been pointed out by other posters.
You seem to have a problem with that opinion , if so - just ignore it.

drkpower

marienbad wrote: »

Condescend triple much ! It is you that refuse to get it, there is little evidence to support either view- and I am familiar with the dpp guidelines- I just don't see them as you do in this particular case. There were a number of factors at play in this case as far as I understand it, it was the mother that raised the issue originally,not the boy and not the witness. The boy had lived a relatively sheltered life and had rarely if ever..... a fcuk it , why bother , here we are taking a man's good name a second time .

I dont understand what the relevance of the mother raising the issue first is. Again, it simply demonstrates that you dont understand the process.

I dont think you have read the DPP guidelines, nevermind understood them. The reality is that the evidence of the complainant and corroborative independent evidence are clearly grounds for bringing a prosecution, unless there is serious issues as to the credibility of that evidence. There is no evidence from the media reportage or anywhere else that there were such serious concerns. Therefore all of the evidence available supports the DPPs decision. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your suggestion that he was pressurised/influenced by the public overreaction to paedophilia; none whatsoever.

Rather than playing the condescension/victim card, perhaps you might provide actual evidence for your assertion. Any kind of evidence; at all......

marienbad

drkpower wrote: »

I dont understand what the relevance of the mother raising the issue first is. Again, it simply demonstrates that you dont understand the process.

I dont think you have read the DPP guidelines, nevermind understood them. The reality is that the evidence of the complainant and corroborative independent evidence are clearly grounds for bringing a prosecution, unless there is serious issues as to the credibility of that evidence. There is no evidence from the media reportage or anywhere else that there were such serious concerns. Therefore all of the evidence available supports the DPPs decision. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your suggestion that he was pressurised/influenced by the public overreaction to paedophilia; none whatsoever.

Rather than playing the condescension/victim card, perhaps you might provide actual evidence for your assertion. Any kind of evidence; at all......

Not much point in having this discusssion ,none whatsoever.

nualahyland

I know where some paoeds live but the people beside them have no idea. This is very sad in society where we need to be so careful with our children.

All I would advise is to always keep a vigilent eye out on your children, you never know a person, they often can be so genuine when really they have a different motive. Please parents remember this.

The Corinthian

nualahyland wrote: »

I know where some paoeds live but the people beside them have no idea.

What a whole nest of them? Better sharpen those wooden stakes!

Ozymandius2011

I think people are paranoid because of 20 yrs of incessent sensationalist media coverage of the Catholic Church sex-abuse scandals. These abuses happened and were rampant but to extrapolate from this that it's rampant at a societal level is just not true. This paranoia in turn leads to false allegations being made, such as against a number of priests whoses cases I could name where the accuser was found to be lying.

In the past the problem was that children were never believed. Now the problem is that they are always believed. At that age there is all sorts of room for getting the wrong end of the stick and confusing things. A naked man in a swimming pool changing room on its own doesn't constitute abuse. If he was flashing then it's indecent exposure. But it's possible he was just drying himself and the child got the wrong end of the stick.

clairefontaine

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I think people are paranoid because of 20 yrs of incessent sensationalist media coverage of the Catholic Church sex-abuse scandals. These abuses happened and were rampant but to extrapolate from this that it's rampant at a societal level is just not true. This paranoia in turn leads to false allegations being made, such as against a number of priests whoses cases I could name where the accuser was found to be lying.

In the past the problem was that children were never believed. Now the problem is that they are always believed. At that age there is all sorts of room for getting the wrong end of the stick and confusing things. A naked man in a swimming pool changing room on its own doesn't constitute abuse. If he was flashing then it's indecent exposure. But it's possible he was just drying himself and the child got the wrong end of the stick.

In the US exposure to a minor, within a certain radius of a child, even if the child doesn't see you is an automatic felony and gets you on the sex offender registry. Yes this would include getting out of a pool naked. I can't remember the exact rules of the radius, but there is one.

Recently in my neighbourhood a streaker ran by a park. There was a playground and four little league games at play. Yes he was caught, automatic felony, probably prison time, and will be on the sex offenders registry. He was just a dumb naturist from a local liberal hippy dippy college making some kind of statement.

So do not go skinny dipping in public areas where there is a chance that kids will be around.

Standman

I think that as a man in this society, to say out loud that you love young children would raise a lot of eyebrows and would be very inadvisable.

An innocent statement that should be a display of good character, now regarded with suspicion if it comes from a mans mouth.

I find that very depressing.

clairefontaine

Standman wrote: »

I think that as a man in this society, to say out loud that you love young children would raise a lot of eyebrows and would be very inadvisable.

An innocent statement that should be a display of good character, now regarded with suspicion if it comes from a mans mouth.

I find that very depressing.

With all the scandals, the nation as a whole has lost it's innocence, and when you lose your innocence, everything takes on double meaning.

dsmythy

All around us might be hysterical but there's going to be a certain surprisingly large percentage of the population out there including those who get away with it and those who have the sexual perversion but don't act out on it.

clairefontaine

dsmythy wrote: »

All around us might be hysterical but there's going to be a certain surprisingly large percentage of the population out there including those who get away with it and those who have the sexual perversion but don't act out on it.

And then you have opportunists who are not pedos per se, but will just take what is ever there. Plus with all the medication and drugs people are on, or alcohol, you can be a sex offender and have committed a sex offence against a minor under the influence but not be a pedo.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine

Ah ok. Case closed then.

It's not necessary to call it paranoia when one out of five kids gets sexually assaulted. That's a lot of kids. Next time you pass a playground count the kids and divide by five and that will give you an approximation of the amount of kids in that playground who have been assaulted. Most common age for it to start is three, so count the kids from about that age up. Doesn't rule out babies, they get it too but not as common as three and up.

rumour

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ah ok. Case closed then.

It's not necessary to call it paranoia when one out of five kids gets sexually assaulted. That's a lot of kids. Next time you pass a playground count the kids and divide by five and that will give you an approximation of the amount of kids in that playground who have been assaulted. Most common age for it to start is three, so count the kids from about that age up. Doesn't rule out babies, they get it too but not as common as three and up.

Do you really believe these figures?

20% of the population.....I find it hard to believe but if you include exposure to a man drying himself in a peculiar manner then who knows!!

Emme

I often wonder about men who have a preference for very small slim women with childlike bodies and features. These men often choose women from countries where the general population is smaller as most European or indeed African women would be too well-developed for their tastes. There is nothing wrong with the people from those other countries, but it is sinister if the men are choosing the women because their faces and bodies are childlike.

OldNotWIse

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, and if they are worried about paedophiles, surely putting a bikini top on them is actually worse? Weirdy adult/kid line blurring!

OldNotWIse

rumour wrote: »

Do you really believe these figures?

20% of the population.....I find it hard to believe but if you include exposure to a man drying himself in a peculiar manner then who knows!!

I thought it was 1 in 4? I was one of the "1"'s. I knew only of two others in my class who were also victims. One was bravely in court during our second level career, trying to get the guy. Then again, there were probably more we didnt know about

The Corinthian

Emme wrote: »

I often wonder about men who have a preference for very small slim women with childlike bodies and features. These men often choose women from countries where the general population is smaller as most European or indeed African women would be too well-developed for their tastes. There is nothing wrong with the people from those other countries, but it is sinister if the men are choosing the women because their faces and bodies are childlike.

You'll get the same thing with some women who have a thing for hairless Asian men.

Emme

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'll get the same thing with some women who have a thing for hairless Asian men.

Disturbing.

rumour

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I thought it was 1 in 4? I was one of the "1"'s. I knew only of two others in my class who were also victims. One was bravely in court during our second level career, trying to get the guy. Then again, there were probably more we didnt know about

Being one of the four/five must be a harrowing experience.
Once or twice I had unwarranted quite physical advances when i was younger (non from the priests I might add but the rumours were there). When it happened I told my parents, my father addressed it quite swiftly. I do remember being astounded how even dealing with it had to be done in an almost subversive manner, no official organ of the state would deal with it. Which is why I find it disgusting how the Irish have somehow absolved their complicity in this by scapegoating the catholic church, which while guilty in so many cases are only the ones we know about.
I mean nobody in the media or state wants to bother finding out why 100 children died in state care in the last few years. the way I see it even today nobody really wants to deal with child abuse, they just want scapegoats or compensation.
At the same time, 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 is a frightful number and from I can read these figures are all conjecture and not fact. If however we accept them as true, how does one 5th or a quarter of the country become like this, is it the state, church or parent(s) that are responsible.
In todays Ireland blaming the church can hardly be the reason.

OldNotWIse

rumour wrote: »

Being one of the four/five must be a harrowing experience.
Once or twice I had unwarranted quite physical advances when i was younger (non from the priests I might add but the rumours were there). When it happened I told my parents, my father addressed it quite swiftly. I do remember being astounded how even dealing with it had to be done in an almost subversive manner, no official organ of the state would deal with it. Which is why I find it disgusting how the Irish have somehow absolved their complicity in this by scapegoating the catholic church, which while guilty in so many cases are only the ones we know about.
I mean nobody in the media or state wants to bother finding out why 100 children died in state care in the last few years. the way I see it even today nobody really wants to deal with child abuse, they just want scapegoats or compensation.
At the same time, 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 is a frightful number and from I can read these figures are all conjecture and not fact. If however we accept them as true, how does one 5th or a quarter of the country become like this, is it the state, church or parent(s) that are responsible.
In todays Ireland blaming the church can hardly be the reason.

I think its a combination that are responsible. Certainly mine wasn't a member of the church. I feel angry at my parents for not protecting me, but then again how would they know if I didnt tell them? The only good I'll take from it is that when I have children I will turn myself inside out protecting them. I will never let anyone hurt them like that. It's remarkable that everyone is so "outraged"/"shocked" etc with the church abuse. I dont mean that its not worthy of such a reaction, but when you think about it, a lot of people (especially our grandparents generation) knew about it or had their suspicions. Often willfull blindness played a part. My granny made it clear on a number of occasions that she had doubts about certain members of their church, and she thought they might have been "interfering with" some of her sons...but she didnt fuucking do anything about it! She said something like,"Oh I remember when X used to call in and bring the boys out for a walk etc, I often wondered what he was up to with them".

One of the most heartbreaking things I ever saw was my grown up uncle telling my granny that a certain priest had abused him and his brother, and my nanny just fobbed him off and said something like, "ah get away out of that, what are ya talking about?" - with attitudes like that, how did children ever stand a chance??

Snake Pliisken

Emme wrote: »

I often wonder about men who have a preference for very small slim women with childlike bodies and features. These men often choose women from countries where the general population is smaller as most European or indeed African women would be too well-developed for their tastes. There is nothing wrong with the people from those other countries, but it is sinister if the men are choosing the women because their faces and bodies are childlike.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'll get the same thing with some women who have a thing for hairless Asian men.

I think correlatory thinking isn't very helpful in this case, opinion not based in reality do nothing but fan the flames of paranoia surrounding this incredibly sensitive topic, creating hearsay and detracting from the real problem. I think it's also prudent to say anything that happens between two consenting adults is none of our business.

The evil in child abuse is that there are victims, not that an adult has a weird sexual fetish/orientation.

clairefontaine

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think its a combination that are responsible. Certainly mine wasn't a member of the church. I feel angry at my parents for not protecting me, but then again how would they know if I didnt tell them? The only good I'll take from it is that when I have children I will turn myself inside out protecting them. I will never let anyone hurt them like that. It's remarkable that everyone is so "outraged"/"shocked" etc with the church abuse. I dont mean that its not worthy of such a reaction, but when you think about it, a lot of people (especially our grandparents generation) knew about it or had their suspicions. Often willfull blindness played a part. My granny made it clear on a number of occasions that she had doubts about certain members of their church, and she thought they might have been "interfering with" some of her sons...but she didnt fuucking do anything about it! She said something like,"Oh I remember when X used to call in and bring the boys out for a walk etc, I often wondered what he was up to with them".

One of the most heartbreaking things I ever saw was my grown up uncle telling my granny that a certain priest had abused him and his brother, and my nanny just fobbed him off and said something like, "ah get away out of that, what are ya talking about?" - with attitudes like that, how did children ever stand a chance??

Major problem is adult denial, whether from parents or law enforcement.

Emme

Snake Pliisken wrote: »

I think correlatory thinking isn't very helpful in this case, opinion not based in reality do nothing but fan the flames of paranoia surrounding this incredibly sensitive topic, creating hearsay and detracting from the real problem. I think it's also prudent to say anything that happens between two consenting adults is none of our business.

The evil in child abuse is that there are victims, not that an adult has a weird sexual fetish/orientation.

Apologies. Unfortunately paedophilia is a particularly nasty fetish. Maybe those who sublimate it by finding adult partners with childlike bodies are dealing with it in their own way. Even so I find the fetish for people with hairless childlike bodies very disturbing because perhaps people with these fetishes have paedophile fantasies.

Writers such as Vladimir Nabokov and Michael Houllebecq who glorify very young girls do the campaign against paedophilia no favours. Nor do certain American clothing brands which featured very young looking sexually provocative female models in its advertising campaigns. The photographer in this campaign is considered creepy.

Go into a number of high street stores and look at clothing for little girls. Some of it is disgustingly sexual and in my opinion totally inappropriate. Children, particularly girls, are being sexualised at a disturbingly young age. Paedophilia is creeping into popular culture in an insidious way. It is as if paedophile fantasies are covertly encouraged by certain media despite the campaign against paedophilia.

Thankfully the paedophilia in the church was exposed but unfortunately paedophilia doesn't stop at the church. I often wonder if the figure "one in four" is an underestimate. The attempts to cover up the recent UK paedophile scandals were extremely disturbing. One wonders where it begins and ends. Unfortunately those who want to cover up child abuse are trying to push reports of it into conspiracy theory territory.

For more information about paedophilia check out film maker Bill Maloney's website Pie and Mash Films: www.pienmashfilms.com

aangirfan: aangirfan.blogspot.com This a blog which also reports alleged cases of child abuse.

No matter how long it is since the abuse, people shouldn't remain silent about child abuse. I would advise anyone in Ireland to contact the Rape Crisis Centre for help.