Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

McDermott is to sue Twitter.

Options
145791046

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Nobody is saying he is marvelous. I doubt anyone on here even likes him. I just think it is ok to say that it's absolutely not right to accuse people of statutory rape when it is not true.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Swaine


    No fan of the guy but he's done nothing wrong here. Trial by social media yet again.

    That girl should be hauled in front of the courts and made an example of.

    Having your heart broken is not a reason to ruin a man's life and career.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Grooming is a term associated with peadophiles implies he did something wrong. If she was above the age of consent there is neither any illegality relating to age, nor any grooming for illegal purpose. The guy might be a sleaze, but that is not illegal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,958 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    2 law firms coming to reach agreement doesn't absolve anyone from criminal wrong doing, nor should it. There was never any criminal complaint.

    There was a 'story' anonymously released on social media, this 'story' on the face of it seems at least in part largely fabricated.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    Massively important to stress that he has been cleared of criminal wrong doing in relation to the statutory rape allegation. She was 17 so at the age of consent by days regardless of the fact she was still a school going child.

    Was he messaging her at 16?

    Also as I keep stressing this fella has painted himself into a corner regarding the woke movement. He was actively involved in promoting the me too movement in Ireland also. He was pontificating and lecturing how us men should be doing better and speaking out against poor behavior to women.

    In order for him to make a comeback I think he still has clarifications to make about this whole thing. I think he should start with the following


    1. Were you messaging a girl of 16 years of age?
    2. Was she in school at the time?
    3. Exactly what parts of her account are incorrect?


    From what I can see regarding the letter he released only 3 inaccuracies were admitted to and withdrawn. I'm at pains to see he is not guilty of anything illegal but from a moral point of view and for the reasons I have explained above he can't make a comeback.

    Make no mistake about it folks, if it were me or you accused of this he would slaughter us under the guise of me too.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    Why didn't his law firm insist that all aspects of her account were withdrawn though? Like the sexual relations which he is accused of. Like the messaging to her when she was 16.

    If I were Eoghan I'd have been pushing for a full retraction of everything in that. The statement and letter he released create a lot of questions as well as answering some.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Gusser, messaging her is only an issue if it contained sexual content, messaging her in itself is not in any way an indication of wrongdoing if it did not. Also, I’m not sure what bearing her being at school has, age of consent is not related to school attendance. I’m sure he will argue all points that are illegal are incorrect, the parts that are legal, I am sure he will argue are private.



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Completely disagree. A 26/27 year old person messaging a 16 year old with the intention of having sexual contact with them at 17 is really, really weird.

    As I said earlier, a boy or girl at 16/17 is in a completely different stage of their lives. They haven’t found their place in the world, they’re still living by rules which dictate how they should dress and behave with zero concept or experience of independence and possibly very little experience of a healthy relationship.

    No matter how mature they seem, they’re nowhere near the level of an average 26/27 year old person, who has likely found their place in the world, done the whole college thing and learned the concept of living for themselves and how to use their money, while also experiencing relationships.

    To many people using the law to justify things here. While it isn’t illegal, if you don’t have any questions about the character of that person then I don’t know what else to say.

    If we do want to use the law though, let’s not forget 17 is still a child. While above the age of consent can anybody here truly tell me that this relationship throws up zero red flags?

    I don’t want any responses of ‘there’s nothing LEGALLY wrong’, I’m well aware of that. I want to know if there are any people there that have zero issues with a 27 year old person having a physical relationship with what is legally a child.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    That's fine. I'm not arguing about the legality of it. I'm saying if the guy wants to make a comeback to the national airwaves and drive his woke and me too content then those questions should be answered. I absolutely think that a guy at 27 messaging my school going 16 year old daughter is wrong regardless of the content. The fact that he went on to have a sexual relationship with her when she was 17 lends to this. It's not illegal but it's disgusting and wrong. A 16 year old child isn't mature enough to handle aspects of an adult relationship. Neither is a 17 year old.

    The sex with a person under the age of consent was withdrawn and the accusation shouldn't have been made. However it seems that a lot of the other accusations aren't being contested. Whilst most are not illegal they were everything that Eoghan seemed to make a stand against.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    I'm not sure him being removed from the was by his choice realistically. RTE probably took him off & then his contract wasn't renewed. I don't think he was given a chance to go back on the airwaves. And honestly if your reputation was being dragged through the mud like that, would you not want to go to ground a bit?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,958 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    If you want the pertinent answers you need to ask the pertinent questions and usually that begins at the start.

    So that pertinent question is why was their a concerted effort to anonymously spread lies about this individual?

    Work you way up from that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 85,935 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Has anyone successfully sued a social media platform previously, this case could set a precedent

    I'm still confused why he won't sue and name her also since it started from her "allegations"

    Did Eoghan start his career on kids TV maybe on TG4?



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    If I was innocent of any wrongdoing, absolutely not. He may not have had a choice in leaving his job but there was nothing stopping him from releasing a statement very clearly denying the allegations and saying it is being dealt with legally. The way he just disappeared into the night left everything very much up in the air; and without a clear acknowledgement or denial either way in the last year, a lot of people just made up their own minds.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    I think that has been answered though. We now know and accept that he is not guilty of having sex with a person under the age of consent. As a public figure and a lad who told us men that we should do better when it comes to me too and the way we treat women he has to answer questions in a satisfactory manner to make a come back. That woman also needs to answer questions for her motivations but that doesn't absolve McDermott of his part in it. Yes he is absolved of any criminal wrong doing when it comes to the underage sex. Let's not forget that Paddy jackson and co were cancelled in Ireland even though they were found not guilty.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,308 ✭✭✭newhouse87


    His reputation he ruined with his actions, may have not been illegal but i guarantee you he wouldn't have went public dating a 17year old because he knows its messed up and is 100% wrong in any sane persons eyes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,138 ✭✭✭mistersifter


    You'd imagine that if she was under 18 when they were involved with each other, that Eoghan would want allegations relating to alcohol confirmed as false along with the very specific points mentioned in the letter.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    Does anybody know what happened from the time the posts from here were posted online?

    I only remember him disappearing and some talk of Australia. Did he instead just contact his solicitors, who in turn started contacting her with presumably threatening letters or is that all undisclosed information?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭thefallingman




  • Registered Users Posts: 85,935 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That kind of "joke" would be enough to get you cancelled.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,958 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    It hasn't been answered at all. Because no one has asked the question.

    I had never heard of him and haven't listen to 2fm in decades so I am coming at this from a completely neutral prospect looking at the actual facts of what has been verified in the public domain, I understand he isn't liked, but that is moot.

    The fact is there was a concerted effort to ruin this guy anonymously and anonymously only, that requires a motive. What was the motive?

    The main question at the time I imagine was why doesn't she go straight to the police, there was a further and no less serious fabricated embellishment that they did but due to influence from his family they wouldn't investigate.

    That for me is a pretty massive red flag, we are into an another level of malice. For that reason I would take those posts as a work of fiction designed with only the intent of hurting the individual.

    In an actual criminal trial an individual does not need to prove themselves innocent, trial my social media cannot be allowed to have a higher threshold then that, that is absolutely nuts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    I'm not saying he done anything illegal. That's been cleared up.

    He hasn't denied having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old school child though. That wasn't retracted by the womans solicitor. If that weren't true and in order to clear his name he should have insisted on that being retracted also. But he didn't so here we are.

    I wouldn't have listened to him all that much but do recall he help shape the way 2FM became wokeFM. He was a massive supporter of the ME TOO movement.

    He is innocent of sex with an underage girl. But as far as ME TOO and woke go he is cancelled it would appear. Who knows with RTE though.

    Trial by media? It doesn't have a higher threshold than our courts. He isn't going to prison for a crime he didn't commit. But he in my view is rightly losing his public standing for having a sexual relationship with a school going 17YO. That hasn't been denied nor retracted. Just that him and the woman have a differing version of facets of their relationship.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    17 yr old who has reached the age of consent. Not sure why you think that would need to be retracted.

    You and I might not like this creep dating our 17 yr old daughter, but any problem with have with that is emotional/moral, he doesn’t need to retract anything just because we don’t like him or his behaviour.



  • Registered Users Posts: 897 ✭✭✭Mike Murdock


    Maybe she had been in love with the guy, thought that they were in a relationship and he just used her for sex and that was it. More than likely he knew they could not be in a relationship anyway, because the optics of a 27 year old grown man going out with a 17 year old girl would not be good. To say the least. Particularly if you are trying to build a career in the media, which he was.

    Perhaps she then harbored resentment and decided to get revenge by reputation destruction. 10 years later, yes. But possibly she was seething for that long and maybe it was triggered by some event we're not aware of. Such as them bumping into each other socially and he blanking her or mocking her or something like that.

    This is all conjecture of course. Only person who knows their motives is the woman herself.



  • Registered Users Posts: 39,958 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    He disputes the version of events. Many of these events now admitted to as being a complete fabrication.

    He doesn't have to really deny anything does he?

    It seems to me she has admitted to lying only about the things that would have been relatively easy to debunk anyway.

    Like I said, this is a concerted malicious effort to hurt him anonymously and on that basis for me at least it needs to be treated as a complete work of fiction, which it actually reads like, unless further information is released.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Like the Paddy Jackson issue all over again, people twist themselves in knots trying to keep false/inaccurate statements going.


    If you've issue with the age of consent them get the law changed or get an age gap limit applied.

    This is why there are calls for anonymity until a verdict is reached



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Nobody has an issue with the age of consent.

    They have an issue with a 27 year old person having a physical relationship with a child.

    There are plenty of people tying themselves in knots trying to deflect from that point or try to justify that it's perfectly ok.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    While you're at it, get Macron's wife cancelled too.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Then get the law changed. What you find distasteful is of no matter, legally.

    There are plenty of "no smoke without fire" comments on this thread.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That seems like an issue with the age of consent.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement