More from Roderic O'Gorman (MOD NOTE IN OPENING POST)

AndrewJRenko

Former Former wrote: »

This is going to be the end of society.

When people unquestioningly take crazy lies as fact because an anonymous twitter handle said so, we're all fncked.

Strange that Castle2012 hasn't come back to withdraw his defamatory allegation, now that he knows that he was gullible enough to fall for some far right propaganda.

He'll probably try to blame my slight confusion over his incorrect quoting in this post again, to divert attention from his scraping the bottom of the barrel with years-old quotes taken out of context.

Beechwoodspark

excludedbin wrote: »

And considering the National Party's goons manufactured the controversy about O'Gorman, then this shower shows up at the Dáil immediately after it, all while still harping on about him being either a paedophile or "paedophile apologist"... Nah, I think it's pretty clear it was about O'Gorman. They could've picked any other time and place but they didn't and they whipped up this controversy before doing so. It's just too much to be mere coincidence.

Sorry now did you look at the video? I think you are misguided. They support the reintroduction of capital punishment. This is their policy regardless of ROG

AndrewJRenko

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sorry now did you look at the video? I think you are misguided. They support the reintroduction of capital punishment. This is their policy regardless of ROG

Though the opportunistic timing of the event would suggest that it's not 'regardless of ROG'.

Dyr

Former Former wrote: »

This is going to be the end of society.

When people unquestioningly take crazy lies as fact because an anonymous twitter handle said so, we're all fncked.

You mean like when we unquestionaly believe statements like "I'm a gay, Green Party Goverment Minister who didn't know who Peter Thatchell, the renowned gay rights campaigner and a Green Party member who has a ****ing foundaton named after him, is"

It's up there with Gerrys "I was never in the 'RA" statements

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

You mean like when we unquestionaly believe statements like "I'm a gay, Green Party Goverment Minister who didn't know who Peter Thatchell, the renowned gay rights campaigner and a Green Party member who has a ****ing foundaton named after him, is"

It's up there with Gerrys "I was never in the 'RA" statements

He said he wasn't aware of a letter written in 1997,which is pretty reasonable.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He said he wasn't aware of a letter written in 1997,which is pretty reasonable.

Given that ROG was 15 at the time the letter was written, yeah, it is quite reasonable.

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

You mean like when we unquestionaly believe statements like "I'm a gay, Green Party Goverment Minister who didn't know who Peter Thatchell, the renowned gay rights campaigner and a Green Party member who has a ****ing foundaton named after him, is"

It's up there with Gerrys "I was never in the 'RA" statements

Interesting to see how you have to twist what ROG said to find something to complain about. He didn't say that he didn't know who PT is. Quite the opposite - he knew well what he is. He wouldn't have posted a selfie with him if he didn't know him.

1800_Ladladlad

Former Former wrote: »

This is going to be the end of society.

When people unquestioningly take crazy lies as fact because an anonymous twitter handle said so, we're all fncked.

I feel this applies to everyone tho regardless of political alignment etc

excludedbin

Yeah, I think when you take into consideration the other posts I linked (and there's worse than that) that person's concern isn't over a convicted rapist but using it as ammunition for the usual cry of "all immigrants and asylum seekers are rapists".

These things don't exist in isolation. But given your "your cheer leading agenda" I think it's clear that your own is aligned with that individual's. And forgive me if I'm wrong but I see from your post history that you were threadbanned from another thread for posting the racist "dindu muffin" remark that racists love to use about black people.

I think you've already exposed your own racist agenda here. So save the auld crocodile tears, your only concern is using this case to push your own agenda.

Former Former

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I feel this applies to everyone tho regardless of political alignment etc

It applies to people from all sides, but it absolutely does not apply to everyone.

AndrewJRenko

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Ismail Akinade who played in the League of Ireland is a convicted sex offender. In 2014 he plead guilty and was convicted of sexual assault and attempted defilement of a child - a 14-year-old girl. Justice E Ring said the conviction was punishment enough, as it would likely follow him around and impact on employment opportunities, and for this reason, she suspended the two-year sentence. Yet he was recruited by Bohemians and in November 2017, he has been a popular and celebrated player Waterford FC's since joining them.

These teams holding up a convicted sex offender as a role model and local hero disrespects and disregards the life of his victim,

He seems like a nasty piece of work, though you weaken your point when you cut/paste materials from elsewhere;

https://www.change.org/p/waterford-football-club-alan-reynolds-waterford-fc-team-manager-fire-convicted-sex-offender-izzy-akinade

What proportion of rapes or sexual assaults in Ireland are carried out by immigrants, do you think?

Dyr

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting to see how you have to twist what ROG said to find something to complain about. He didn't say that he didn't know who PT is. Quite the opposite - he knew well what he is. He wouldn't have posted a selfie with him if he didn't know him.

He didnt post it though, did he? That was the Green Party .

Fascinating though, to see all these Irish LGBTQ politicians hanging around with Thatchell while being blissfully unaware of his views. Must be very strange to be part of a civil rights movement where a man can proselytise for paedophillia in a national newspaper and still be féted as a hero Need to do better, to use the paralance of the times.

excludedbin

Kind of funny that in spite of that "proselytising" we're only hearing about it now. Weird. Almost like it was all but forgotten about and relegated to the past before the usual muck rakers decided to bring it up in a pathetic attempt to use against O'Gorman. Even more like normal human beings don't vet every person they might at some point stand next to.

The most reasonable conclusion to draw is that Tatchell's views weren't actually well known, publicly (probably because the letter was written more than twenty years ago), and have only really become widely known of and commented on now that the far right need a thin pretext of credibility to organise a lynch mob.

What's fascinating is that they actually think people are stupid enough to fall for their tricks. Indeed, they do need to do better if this is the best they have.

TomTomTim

excludedbin wrote: »

Kind of funny that in spite of that "proselytising" we're only hearing about it now. Weird. Almost like it was all but forgotten about and relegated to the past before the usual muck rakers decided to bring it up in a pathetic attempt to use against O'Gorman. Even more like normal human beings don't vet every person they might at some point stand next to.

.

You're continuing on your tirade of dishonesty. He specifically praised Tatchell for being there, he wasn't just some randomer in the crowd that he happened to be near.

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

He didnt post it though, did he? That was the Green Party .

Fascinating though, to see all these Irish LGBTQ politicians hanging around with Thatchell while being blissfully unaware of his views. Must be very strange to be part of a civil rights movement where a man can proselytise for paedophillia in a national newspaper and still be féted as a hero Need to do better, to use the paralance of the times.

Nope, it was ROG himself who posted.



I'm not sure that you're being reasonable about the standard of vetting you expect prior to taking a selfie - a 20+ look back at every controversial, misquoted article?

If this is such a controversial action, how come it never came up when he was a Councillor or running for TD?

excludedbin

And he specifically said he only knew Tatchell as an LGBT rights activist. Which, as has been pointed out, is pretty damn reasonable considering he was a teenager when Tatchell wrote that letter. My point does still stand though - he knew of Tatchell as an LGBT activist and I'd say most people only knew him as that before the far right loonies started digging up whatever dirt they could on O'Gorman. Hasn't been the smoking gun they've made it out to be so of course they've had to start outright lying about it by saying O'Gorman's both "a paedophile" and "a paedophile apologist".

Deary me, I've no idea how he manages to fit time to engage in his ministerial position into all that...

Dyr

excludedbin wrote: »

Kind of funny that in spite of that "proselytising" we're only hearing about it now. Weird. Almost like it was all but forgotten about and relegated to the past before the usual muck rakers decided to bring it up in a pathetic attempt to use against O'Gorman. Even more like normal human beings don't vet every person they might at some point stand next to.

The most reasonable conclusion to draw is that Tatchell's views weren't actually well known, publicly (probably because the letter was written more than twenty years ago), and have only really become widely known of and commented on now that the far right need a thin pretext of credibility to organise a lynch mob.

What's fascinating is that they actually think people are stupid enough to fall for their tricks. Indeed, they do need to do better if this is the best they have.

It stirred up quite a bit of controversy at the time and followed Thatchell around like a bad smell. In most circles, writing an article like that result in you being made a pariah from that point onwards. Is the LGBTQ movement more tolerant of such reprehensible viewpoints than the mainstrem? It seems so

But you're right, why can't all these knuckle draggers be more like progressive movements such as the Greens or Pride and just ignore the fact that Thatchell was trying to "start a conversation" about normalising child abuse. It's very inconsiderate.

All of this starts to remind one of the days when the Catholic Church tried to vilify anyone who borught up clerical abuse.

excludedbin

Bambi wrote: »

It stirred up quite a bit of controversy at the time and followed Thatchell around like a bad smell. In most circles, writing an article like that result in you being made a pariah from that point onwards. Is the LGBTQ movement more tolerant of such reprehensible viewpoints than the mainstrem? It seems so

Insinuating a link between homosexuality and paedophilia? How droll. If you're homophobic you can just come out and say so, no one's going to bite you.

But you're right, why can't all these knuckle draggers be more like progressive movements such as the Greens or Pride and just ignore the fact that Thatchell was trying to "start a conversation" about normalising child abuse. It's very inconsiderate.

Yes, they should just lie through their teeth like the far right and then whip up a lynch mob on the back of those lies. All far more civilised and justifiable, of course. We can't have a gay person in government, they might even expect equal rights next! :eek:

All of this starts to remind one of the days when the Catholic Church tried to vilify anyone who borught up clerical abuse.

Reminds me of the days when homophobes thought they were clever by linking homosexuality to paedophilia. Oh wait, it's still happening. Perpetrated by people like you, no less. Nevermind.

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

It stirred up quite a bit of controversy at the time and followed Thatchell around like a bad smell. In most circles, writing an article like that result in you being made a pariah from that point onwards. Is the LGBTQ movement more tolerant of such reprehensible viewpoints than the mainstrem? It seems so

But you're right, why can't all these knuckle draggers be more like progressive movements such as the Greens or Pride and just ignore the fact that Thatchell was trying to "start a conversation" about normalising child abuse. It's very inconsiderate.

All of this starts to remind one of the days when the Catholic Church tried to vilify anyone who borught up clerical abuse.

It was all news to me, and I'd have followed UK politics fairly closely over those years. I recall some controversy about Tatchell in Moscow, but don't recall anything about this article. Maybe that's because most people saw how he had been misquoted?

And isn't it funny how for some people, often those who claim to be 'pro-life', it is apparently OK to 'open a conversation' about State-sponsored killing of people (capital punishment) and to bring gory imagery of same to public demonstrations targeting particular individuals, but the idea of 'opening a conversation' about the age of consent is anathema? Just a slight double-standard there, surely?

[Waiting for the attacks on me as being a 'paedo' because I even mentioned 'age of consent' in 3, 2, 2......]

Dyr

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It was all news to me, and I'd have followed UK politics fairly closely over those years. I recall some controversy about Tatchell in Moscow, but don't recall anything about this article. Maybe that's because most people saw how he had been misquoted?
][/SIZE]

He was misquoted, was he? What part of that letter was misquoted?

My understanding is that Thatchell claimed the letter was edited. Now a newpaper would have to do one hell of a hatchet job to edit a letter so it read like Thatchells, and if they did, they would be fairly swift about issuing a correction and aplogy before they had the arse sued off him. None of that happened.

I think we can take it that Thatchell was not misquoted.

Whats more interesting is this apparently did to not harm his standing in the LGBTQ rights movement. Paedophiles have tried to hitch their wagon to the LGBTQ rights movements since the 60s. You would imagine that community would be at pains to keep those types at arms length, instead there appears to be an ambivalence among many of the movements leading lights, as the David Norris tilt at the Áras showed Are you going to whinge that his comments didnt come under scrutiny until he ran for the Presidency? Standards are expected in high office and your sexual orientation doesn't grant you immunity from that, as the bould Roderic seems to think.

Still pretty irrelevant Bambi since he wasn't aware of the views. He was a teenager when the comments were made.

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

Now a newpaper would have to do one hell of a hatchet job to edit a letter so it read like Thatchells

Fully agree.

Polar101

https://twitter.com/johnconnors1990/status/1284966147100639234

A fairly bizarre turn of events, John Connors is now sorry about the comments he made. Make of that what you will.

AllForIt

Polar101 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/johnconnors1990/status/1284966147100639234

A fairly bizarre turn of events, John Connors is now sorry about the comments he made. Make of that what you will.

I said on another thread he had no idea what he was getting himself into. And now look how it has turned out for him.

This is how it all panned out as I seen it. Gearóid Murphy did a live-stream on Youtube about the Thatchell connection. It was this that sparked it all off. Murphy describes himself as a centrist I think but all his supporters are National Party types.

Anyway, the video Murphy did went like this. First he made reference to the fact we have a second gay minister for children, and said this was a big f**k you to normal people. "Sinister" for children, he said. He used the acronym LGBTP. He put a thumbnail on his video that read "Pedo". He talked about an issue of some graffiti on the outside wall of Panti Bar (gay bar Dublin) that is a bit rude (I agree) and dug up the story about drag queens doing storytime for kids that was cancelled. So threw all those things in the mix for effect, and suggested he has so so much more stuff to uncover - just the tip of the iceberg kinda thing. Whipping up a frenzy basically.

On Thatchell he pretended not to know who he is by mispronouncing his surname as if he never heard of him before then, yet he had all the backstory of Thatchell at hand ready for the livestream. Murphy is absorbed in the news by his own admission and knows full well that Thatchel is very well known in the UK and makes regular appearances on morning/daytime chat shows etc. However Murphy played it like Thatchell is some unknown and is primarily a pedo advocate, knowing full well that in all likelihood his audience would stuck up the narrative he was spinning.

And they did, but one of them was the one and only John Connors. Within minutes of Conners seeing this livestream, after either watching it live or via a Twitter link shortly after, (because you get feeds off the people you follow right!), he jumped on the bandwagon without giving it a seconds thought.

Now that the lawyers have stepped in Conners has issued an apology and Murphy had deleted the video from his channel, cuz he's trying to save his ass as well. There is no way whatsoever Conners could disassociate himself from the people who kicked all this off and say he's just acting of his own accord, so it's either make the apology or be sued AND be inextricably linked with this so called far-right group which would be extremely damaging for him.

Gearoid Murphy must be feeling sick with how this has turned out when he was so delighted with Connors getting on board, and was so gushing of the speech he gave at the protest. It will be really really interesting to see what he has to say about Conners now

Gruffalux

One question is how does a person who repeatedly writes in favour of no age of consent and who publicly praises and honours paedophiles get to be or remain a "legendary" rights figure?
Another question is this idea that 1997 was the defining moment needing remembering. It was not. Tatchell has long engaged in a very odd rights affiliation. But regardless if anyone mentioned Ben Dunne, cocaine and a call girl almost no one would go wha? And yet that was 1992.

Annasopra

Polar101 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/johnconnors1990/status/1284966147100639234

A fairly bizarre turn of events, John Connors is now sorry about the comments he made. Make of that what you will.

Quite courageous I think. Its difficult to admit you are wrong.

jam_mac_jam

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Quite courageous I think. Its difficult to admit you are wrong.

Fair play to him. It's quite a heartfelt apology.

Eric Cartman

Gruffalox wrote: »

One question is how does a person who repeatedly writes in favour of no age of consent and who publicly praises and honours paedophiles get to be or remain a "legendary" rights figure?
Another question is this idea that 1997 was the defining moment needing remembering. It was not. Tatchell has long engaged in a very odd rights affiliation. But regardless if anyone mentioned Ben Dunne, cocaine and a call girl almost no one would go wha? And yet that was 1992.

I think everyone can agree that Peter tatchell is a disturbed man with views on sexual relations with children so abhorrent that even the sands of time do not fix them. Whatever good work this man had done is now moot.

I do believe O'Gorman was unaware of this, However anyone in the sphere of influence in matters relating to children, lgbt rights for children etc... nobody in the public eye should continue to associate with tatchell. Everyone now knows and can't feign ignorance and appear with him / invite him to an event / share a platform with him again.

Newbie20

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Quite courageous I think. Its difficult to admit you are wrong.

Fair play to him for admitting he was wrong before it dragged on longer but I rolled my eyes when I was reading through and he mentioned that his mental health had suffered recently. I’m sick of this being used as an excuse for everything, just own your mistake.

seamus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Quite courageous I think. Its difficult to admit you are wrong.

I'll give him some kudos for the fullness of his apology.

I'm a little suspicious though given that he has a new film coming out in two weeks.

It's a quick change in mind, time will tell if it changes back as quickly. I have difficulty reconciling the extent of his hateful beahviour with the explanation he has given.