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

Very odd.

He knew exactly who he'd be sharing a microphone with.

Annasopra

seamus wrote: »

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.

Ah to be honest. I'm not judging his apology. I take it at face value. I feel doubling down right now and kicking him when he is down isnt right at a personal or political level.

BattleCorp

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

Some apology. He's said what he said to get out of trouble. Turned it around so that he was the victim of discrimination and then blamed it on his mental health.

Connors is a w@nker.

Beechwoodspark

Some are saying he has a new movie coming out very soon hence the total 180 u turn?

paw patrol

BattleCorp wrote: »

Some apology. He's said what he said to get out of trouble. Turned it around so that he was the victim of discrimination and then blamed it on his mental health.

Connors is a w@nker.

I though he was a wanker who had redeemed himself

And after stating he wouldn't back down on this , he did.


clearly somebody got to him. maybe those precious state funds were threatened. cos i don't believe in this road to Damascus conversion.



disaster tbh

Gruffalux

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

But sure everyone on any of those platforms who presently associate with Tatchell has known for 25 years where Tatchell stands.
If I was a public persona on any issue how much leeway would I be allowed on my way to legendary rights activist status if I clapped for sex with children being not always abusive to those children or wrote public honorifics for the founder of PIE? Do I get a few chances for a little flirtation with such dark activity?
As the Dude said this (should not) stand, man.

paw patrol

Gruffalox wrote: »

But sure everyone on any of those platforms who presently associate with Tatchell has known for 25 years where Tatchell stands.
If I was a public persona on any issue how much leeway would I be allowed on my way to legendary rights activist status if I clapped for sex with children being not always abusive to those children or wrote public honorifics for the founder of PIE? Do I get a few chances for a little flirtation with such dark activity?
As the Dude said this (should not) stand, man.

yeah , that I don't get.

Its surprising as a person to the forefront of LGBT that other LGBT campaigners (not just O'Gorman tbf) didn't know of his other "unpopular" views.

Gruffalux

paw patrol wrote: »

yeah , that I don't get.

Its surprising as a person to the forefront of LGBT that other LGBT campaigners (not just O'Gorman tbf) didn't know of his other "unpopular" views.

Yeah I mean not just O Gorman.

Bannasidhe

paw patrol wrote: »

yeah , that I don't get.

Its surprising as a person to the forefront of LGBT that other LGBT campaigners (not just O'Gorman tbf) didn't know of his other "unpopular" views.

I first met Peter Tatchell as part of the Stop the Clause campaign in 1987. There are even photos of us 'together' - we look deep in conversation but I'm actually telling him to f right off.

I had no idea about this letter. I was far too busy in the late 1990s to be keeping track of what anyone wrote in the letters pages of a British newspaper, plus the internet was in it's infancy and not yet geared up to fuel pitchforks so unless it was brought directly to my attention there is no way I would have known.

Until I read what he has actually written rather than some one on the internets interpretation of what what he has written I make no comment on his views about anything.

If, imo, he condones sex with anyone under the age of consent in anyway I will utterly condemn him and those views.

If I believe his words have been taken out of context I will not condemn him for other people twisting his words.

seamus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If, imo, he condones sex with anyone under the age of consent in anyway I will utterly condemn him and those views.

If I believe his words have been taken out of context I will not condemn him for other people twisting his words.

I'm not going to try and tell you what you should think about it. But having read the letter as well as some other contributions he made on the topic to ill-advised publications, my personal interpretation is that he fell into the same honeytrap that David Norris did.

That is, he made the cardinal error of putting intellectual, hypothetical thoughts about the matter to paper. When everyone knows that unless you talk about sexuality and people under 17 in anything but a hypercritical tone, then you will be labelled a paedophile enabler.

I'd recommend you read it tbh, if for no other reason than to satisfy yourself in terms of what everyone is talking about.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I first met Peter Tatchell as part of the Stop the Clause campaign in 1987. There are even photos of us 'together' - we look deep in conversation but I'm actually telling him to f right off.

I had no idea about this letter. I was far too busy in the late 1990s to be keeping track of what anyone wrote in the letters pages of a British newspaper, plus the internet was in it's infancy and not yet geared up to fuel pitchforks so unless it was brought directly to my attention there is no way I would have known.

Until I read what he has actually written rather than some one on the internets interpretation of what what he has written I make no comment on his views about anything.

If, imo, he condones sex with anyone under the age of consent in anyway I will utterly condemn him and those views.

If I believe his words have been taken out of context I will not condemn him for other people twisting his words.

Glad you were telling him to f right off. It was prepayment on the account of all the f rights off you might like to send his way when you do get around to reading about him. Julie Bindel, lesbian founder of Justice for Women has had Tatchell to her back teeth and you might find her summary of his activities useful https://www.thearticle.com/peter-tatchell-dismisses-feminists-like-me-as-transphobes-but-he-has-his-own-skeleton-in-the-closet

I don't know if she even mentions Tatchells glowing obituary for Ian Campbell Dunn in the Independent (UK) in 1996 where he omits to mention Dunn cofounded PIE and was convicted of child abise.

Gruffalux

seamus wrote: »

I'm not going to try and tell you what you should think about it. But having read the letter as well as some other contributions he made on the topic to ill-advised publications, my personal interpretation is that he fell into the same honeytrap that David Norris did.

That is, he made the cardinal error of putting intellectual, hypothetical thoughts about the matter to paper. When everyone knows that unless you talk about sexuality and people under 17 in anything but a hypercritical tone, then you will be labelled a paedophile enabler.

I'd recommend you read it tbh, if for no other reason than to satisfy yourself in terms of what everyone is talking about.

Gosh that is a generous and even sympathetic interpretation of Tatchells pro paedophilia flirtations over long years. If I ever decide to go down those dark roads and suggest some children might find some sex with some adults to be enjoyable I will have you on my PR Team.

AllForIt

Newbie20 wrote: »

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.

I think it completely obvious that in making a public apology that would be accepted he had to included in it that he was influenced by this online 'far right' group. Any explanation as to why he fell for it was entirely up to him and he used his mental health and family bereavement as the excuse.


Surely no one thinks Connors had a personal change of heart all of a sudden after giving an impassioned speech at the rally one week ago. To be giving him any credit at all is to wilfully misread this development. I think he'll be lying low for quite some time.

jammiedodgers

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

Courageous my hole. He either received a solicitors letter or is thinking about his upcoming movie.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

Glad you were telling him to f right off. It was prepayment on the account of all the f rights off you might like to send his way when you do get around to reading about him. Julie Bindel, lesbian founder of Justice for Women has had Tatchell to her back teeth and you might find her summary of his activities useful https://www.thearticle.com/peter-tatchell-dismisses-feminists-like-me-as-transphobes-but-he-has-his-own-skeleton-in-the-closet

I don't know if she even mentions Tatchells glowing obituary for Ian Campbell Dunn in the Independent (UK) in 1996 where he omits to mention Dunn cofounded PIE and was convicted of child abise.

I told Peter to F off because I was trying to organise things and he was distracting me. I was also hung over and his enthusiasm was melting my head.

I don't need to Read Bindel's opinion on Tatchell, I am perfectly capable of reading his words, using my personal experience of him, and deciding for myself.

I have little time for Radical Feminists tbh - I have been telling them to F right off since 1981. They always struck me as thought policing holier than thou kill joys.
I especially have no time for radical feminists who use their platform against transgender people.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I told Peter to F off because I was trying to organise things and he was distracting me. I was also hung over and his enthusiasm was melting my head.

I don't need to Read Bindel's opinion on Tatchell, I am perfectly capable of reading his words, using my personal experience of him, and deciding for myself.

I have little time for Radical Feminists tbh - I have been telling them to F right off since 1981. They always struck me as thought policing holier than thou kill joys.
I especially have no time for radical feminists who use their platform against transgender people.

Lucky I am not a feminist of any description so!

And I thought you would have been interested in a summary of Tatchells activities since you are collaterally involved in some kind of a soft defense of him along with other people here who even though we often disagree I would otherwise think are grand sorts. And yet here they are being morally relativistic about paedophilia.
But since you are not really interested in knowing about him at all I suppose this may partially answer my earlier question as to why on earth anyone with his seedy background could possibly have been elevated to legendary status in any rights movements. The people in the movement simply chose to look away.
It is a pity because there are such great people available in that movement who could legitimately be called legendary.
Not him. He is a bloody disgrace. Full stop.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Until I read what he has actually written rather than some one on the internets interpretation of what what he has written I make no comment on his views about anything.

If, imo, he condones sex with anyone under the age of consent in anyway I will utterly condemn him and those views.

If I believe his words have been taken out of context I will not condemn him for other people twisting his words.

Gruffalox wrote: »

you are collaterally involved in some kind of a soft defense of him along with other people here who even though we often disagree I would otherwise think are grand sorts. And yet here they are being morally relativistic about paedophilia.

Well now. What a telling response.

I rejected the idea of filtering my opinion through the lens of a radical feminist with her own agenda, made it clear that any suggestion of condoning any kind of sexual activity with anyone below the age of consent is anathema to me, but suddenly I am accused of defending paedophilia.

Anyone here who has refused to immediately climb aboard the Pitchfork Express based on what it says on d'internet, and has instead said we wish to read what Tatchell wrote before deciding for ourselves is being categorised as "morally relativistic about paedophilia".

And that is how witch hunts start.

1800_Ladladlad

To be honest, I'm not surprised by him coming out and issuing an apology. He's not the brightest. The excessive groveling & the victimhood shows that he must've been coercively pressured or threatened legally. What I find funny is the usual progressives smugly forgiving him. The use of words like brave and courage being used in response to his so-called apology is equally as funny. Alot of people using it as a victory on twitter like children. It's in their best interests to be seen as having empathy for a traveler since O'conner used discrimination in his own community as a key reason for acknowledging what he had done etc

This was damage control under the guise of self-reflection and other PR sh*te. Its all very strange.

DelaneyIn

What was John Connors threatened with?

From "dying on this hill", to "sorry, Mr O'Gorman, sir. My grandfather died, sir.” In the space of two week. It doesn't make any sense.

Annasopra

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not surprised by him coming out and issuing an apology. He's not the brightest. The excessive groveling & the victimhood shows that he must've been coercively pressured or threatened legally. What I find funny is the usual progressives smugly forgiving him. The use of words like brave and courage being used in response to his so-called apology is equally as funny. Alot of people using it as a victory on twitter like children. It's in their best interests to be seen as having empathy for a traveler since O'conner used discrimination in his own community as a key reason for acknowledging what he had done etc

This was damage control under the guise of self-reflection and other PR sh*te. Its all very strange.

Perhaps he doesnt really mean it - time will probably tell. As I said - right now I take it what he says face value. It's interesting that people who thought nothing wrong occurred now believe damage limitation is necessary.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well now. What a telling response.

I rejected the idea of filtering my opinion through the lens of a radical feminist with her own agenda, made it clear that any suggestion of condoning any kind of sexual activity with anyone below the age of consent is anathema to me, but suddenly I am accused of defending paedophilia.

Anyone here who has refused to immediately climb aboard the Pitchfork Express based on what it says on d'internet, and has instead said we wish to read what Tatchell wrote before deciding for ourselves is being categorised as "morally relativistic about paedophilia".

And that is how witch hunts start.

You would not even bother to research him and yet here you are on a thread about O Gorman and Tatchell.

Edgware

jammiedodgers wrote: »

Courageous my hole. He either received a solicitors letter or is thinking about his upcoming movie.

"his upcoming movie"
That's a laugh

It's great to see all the crew that jumped on the O Connor bandwagon caught out the same way as the Gemma luvvies

Gruffalux

If I heard for the first time about some randomer being a pro paedophile apologist and especially if they are in the public eye I would read up about it and them BEFORE going on a website to say - hey his words might have been twisted or taken out of context. I would actually like to know the truth of it BEFORE making any attempt at situational or contextual allowances.
All the more so if this randomer was someone I had met for the first time 33 years ago, thus suggesting I had shared their company during other times over those 3 decades. I would be like Whoa what did this fcuker I have met actually do and say...

Tokyo

Gruffalox wrote: »

And I thought you would have been interested in a summary of Tatchells activities since you are collaterally involved in some kind of a soft defense of him along with other people here who even though we often disagree I would otherwise think are grand sorts. And yet here they are being morally relativistic about paedophilia.

Mod: You're smart enough to know that one does not equate to the other. Choose your next line of debate more carefully please.

hetuzozaho

Anyone got a link to the unedited letter he speaks of?

Right here.

Gruffalux

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-ian-dunn-1151494.html%3famp

Peter Tatchell wrote the above obituary for Ian Campbell Dunn.

Dunn co founded the Paedophile Information Exchange.

From wikipedia
"Dunn co-founded the Paedophile Information Exchange in 1974. The organisation campaigned to legalise sex between adults and children, and to promote acceptance and understanding of adults having sex with children, with Dunn considered to be an influential member of the campaign. A number of key PIE figures were jailed in 1984 and the group was closed down shortly afterwards.

Dunn organised and advertised openly pro-paedophile meetings in both Glasgow and Edinburgh. He stated of the subject: “I am not one of those homosexuals who get cross or nervous when the subject of love between men and boys is raised.” He also allowed his home in Edinburgh to be used as the contact address for paedophile magazine Minor Problems."

Minor Problems was a magazine whose stated theme was intergenerational and child sexuality.

AllForIt

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not surprised by him coming out and issuing an apology. He's not the brightest. The excessive groveling & the victimhood shows that he must've been coercively pressured or threatened legally. What I find funny is the usual progressives smugly forgiving him. The use of words like brave and courage being used in response to his so-called apology is equally as funny. Alot of people using it as a victory on twitter like children. It's in their best interests to be seen as having empathy for a traveler since O'conner used discrimination in his own community as a key reason for acknowledging what he had done etc

This was damage control under the guise of self-reflection and other PR sh*te. Its all very strange.

The more I think of it this has been a right screw up by Connors. I wouldn't know much about him if it wasn't for the dedicated thread on him here, but he has been lauded in the media, especially by RTE, as a traveller rights poster boy. From what I observe he talks about traveller discrimination at every available opportunity which is what I hear from them all my life - but there he was last week doing exactly the same thing to other minority groups that he has been fighting against for his own minority group - by his own admission.

How can he possibly ever run on that ticket again, and how could RTE ever have him on the LLS giving him a platform to tell us how racist we all are towards travellers? This incident has shown he's full of guff, isn't very bright and prolly shouldn't represent the travelling community ever again the way he has done till now, because how can he be taken seriously after this! If he wasn't an actor but had some public service job he'd have to resign.

But you get the feeling RTE will find a way to bring him back into the fold - because of his minority status. The doesn't sound like equality to me.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think everyone can agree ...

I think everyone can agree that you're not a spokesperson for everyone.

paw patrol wrote: »

I though he was a wanker who had redeemed himself

And after stating he wouldn't back down on this , he did.


clearly somebody got to him. maybe those precious state funds were threatened. cos i don't believe in this road to Damascus conversion.

What state funds are you referring to?

paw patrol

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think everyone can agree that you're not a spokesperson for everyone.

What state funds are you referring to?

any state funds....pick one.. unless you are suggesting he isn't state (or quango ) funded in any way?

cardboard gangster was funded by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland which is state funded...so lets start with that.