He had a certain fan base here and some weren't gone on him.
He disappeared very fast last year and now he's about to sue Twitter.
Can you really call texts between adults with the intention of having sex grooming?
There was no conviction and there is no innocent or guilty because she never went to the guards, there are no complains pending and it was never brought to court. They seem to have formed an agreement that they both view what happened differently, and have settled on those terms. It is important to note however that she has only redacted her initial claim that she was under the AGE of consent, and not the ISSUE of consent itself.
You think that letter is an agreement that they view things “differently”?
It says as much in the statement:
”our client accepts that Mr Mc Dermott fundamentally disputes our clients version of events of what occurred between them during the course of their relationship”
retro, she acknowledged she published “serious falsehoods” and, importantly admits she made “false allegations” (plural). Can self confessed liars be trusted to tell the truth?
Yep she admitted to having a number of falsehoods in what she published (which includes re-tweets from third parties) she never said she fabricated anything and more importantly she never admitted to everything being a lie; nor did he, which is what I am interested in
Jesus wept, did you read the letter?
”Our client made false allegations against your client, Mr McDermott”
I haven’t denied that she made a number of falsehoods. My point is she never admitted to everything she stated being false. Nor did he. She also didn’t admit to fabricating what happened.
Its really not that hard to grasp.
This is getting very tedious now. I’m getting to the stage where I’m repeating myself and I’m bored 😐
And yet you can’t grasp it. There can be no expectation of truth when the accuser admits to lying.
Well there can be queries or assumptions made when there is an omission of other serious allegations that remain unchallenged and without redaction.
How can you base an assumption on the words of someone who just admitted to making false allegations? Should we now assume she is a truthful person? Of course not, she stated the opposite in her letter.
Yes.
Considering she was 16 when it started and a school child.
I’m merely questioning why some detailed specifics were redacted and stated as falsities and others not! We’ll have to leave it there Dav! Going round in circles ain’t the one
Gusser the post of mine you quoted was not a reply related to this girl, the poster was talking about texts between adults with the intention to exploit or manipulate rather than between an adult and a minor.
Also, again, why do you keep claiming it was grooming if any sexual contact happened after she was over the age of consent? Even if he was texting her, which I agree with you is creepy and disturbing given her age, there is now no allegation nor proof that it was with a view to engaging with her before she reached the age of consent.
Which allegations does she claim in the letter are true?
Making a false statement and fabricating something are two entirely different things. One suggests she was wrong about something, was perhaps misinformed or unable to verify specifics. The other suggests she deliberately invented false information in order to deceive. The nuance in the definition is important, and she never admitted to fabrication. That is a fact.
To fabricate means, 'to invent in order to deceive '
Sounds like lies, or false information to me
You don’t think she intended to deceive when she created that title on Reddit? She admitted to making false allegations, the rest is just semantics.
Minor nitpick Dav, but the idea of statutory rape was ruled unconstitutional in 2006 -
https://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0523/76569-sex/
We’ve no idea what he could or would have been charged with as what claims were made have been redacted and there’s no evidence of anything unlawful having taken place.
As regards whether or not a person who makes a claim can be trusted after an admission that allegations they made were falsehoods and all the rest of it, it doesn’t render them immediately untrustworthy. Certainly it presents something of a credibility issue, something which the Courts deal with every day, but since there was never any case before the Courts, any potential outcomes can only be speculative.
It appears as was suggested in the letter, that as a result of engagement with the woman’s legal representation, she would retain her anonymity, concluding with the effect that they would agree to disagree about their versions of events.
🙄
Thanks, didn’t look into it to deeply, I assumed wrongly it was always an offence for a person over the age of consent to have sex with someone under. Every day is a school day for me.
Agree it does not render her untrustworthy, but as I posted, there is no longer an expectation of truthfulness. We tend to believe what people tell us is true, unless we know they have form for making false statements.
There’s always an expectation at least, of truthfulness or honesty I would have thought? I don’t expect anyone to go prostrating themselves on the altar of public opinion though, that’s an entirely different expectation, one that I don’t share as I find it impossible to care about what appears to amount to nothing more than unfounded gossip.
Is grooming necessarily paedophile related? #notallmen
No. Id consider someone contacting a child with the intention of instigating a sexual relationship as grooming. Dont know if that happened here and not saying it did.
All the more sinister is staying in contact when you realise they are under age and waiting for your chance. Most men would run a mile from a school kid.
Eoghan mc didnt engage in a sexual realtionship with a person under the age of consent. I think that needs to be stressed constantly.
There’s 2 different stories going on here at the same time, neither reflects well on either of these people.
If it’s the 21st century and you’re a 27 year old educated man whose had a 1st world upbringing, and you find yourself in bed with a Leaving Cert student of either sex then what you are is a bo**ix who doesn’t deserve any sympathy or second chances.
If you were that 17 year old and 10 years later you feel (quite rightly) that the man who took advantage of you as a vulnerable teenager , used you for sex and possibly endangered you, is acting like a total hypocrite, has achieved a position of considerable influence and, worse, is possibly still taking 17 year old to bed, then you do not take to Twitter making exaggerated claims which will be easily overturned by him.
You raise your concerns with the public body who employs him via legal advice and allow natural justice to take its course.
Very true.
Trial by social media needs to stop.
There was no trial even in the realms of social media, people went straight to guilty on the back of completely anonymous fabricated claims and still maintain he is guilty of "something".
He is ruined, the group of people who made the claims retain their anonymity, jobs and good names.
Mad really.
No, it could be cult related, or religious, or terror group related. Or all three,
Don't know what the 'not all men' is about....
What group of people?
He’s not denying that at the time he was a teacher approaching 30 who was sleeping with a 5th year pupil from another school.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/24615175400ae675a1f589d8e5bd3285.svg)
