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.
How?
Because everything that is on social media is used by defence as a reason against a trial.
So what should we do about this?
Is 17 a suitable age of consent or not? What should it be? Should it be a graduated scale, like a Romeo and Juliet law? Where does the line get drawn?
What if you are 19 years of age and still in your Leaving Cert year? Does the fact you are still a "school child", mean no sexual relationships for you? Please drop out of school to enjoy physical love!
Maybe a matrix reckoner in your wallet, just to check. (Your age/2)+7. That way 27 year old men can only pursue 21.5 year old and upwards. Sounds legally sound to me. Or at least as sound as, yes 17 is the age of consent, but here's a big old asterix *
All rhetorical of course. But some people are going to Court here, and I'm reasonably certain that casual defamation is not going to pass muster.
Nothing illegal happened. Look if a 27yo bloke or woman wants to court or have sexual relationship with a school child who is over the age of consent then they can. However if they have been on a woke,metoo cancel culture crusade on national airwaves then they better be ready to be cancelled themselves when it comes out.
So he was to lose his job for subjective immorality and zero illegality?
An interesting precedent you advocate. When it happens to a loved one of yours, where will your head be?
Did you read the comments from the girl? You think she didn't mean those comments? You know how she really felt. Really pathetic stuff here, calling her a liar and defending the scumbag McDermott.
What lies?
Well the glaring one was the fact that she wasn't under the age of consent.
Barely above it but legal all the same. She shouldnt have made that mistake.
She was a school child at the time though so im willing to accept how the lines might have been fudged.
Purposely (and falsely) accusing someone of statutory rape is more than a mistake.
By law the age of consent is the age where a person is mature enough to consent to sex. That is why by law it makes no difference on the other person's age. The law basically says at 17 you are old enough to make your own decision in who you want to sleep with whether it be the same age or older.
The law could not work on a halve your age plus 7 rule as it would have no legal basis behind it.
Then from this case is the age of consent too young? If it was made higher because society does not like 27yo sleeping 17 yo it would also be making it illegal for 17 yo to be with another 17yo which society would not have a problem with. It is hard one for the law to get right.
Absolutely.
Still questions for him to answer around her accusation that he forced her to perform oral sex on him. It's not mentioned at all in the solicitor's letter.
As much as the Under Age component, that was always the stand-out part of her accusation.
In reality the only way he will have to clarify anything is if wants to make a comeback on the airwaves / TV. I'd assume from the lack of clarity so far means he will pursue other avenues.
I think you're wrong in that assumption, Gusser.
I could see him making a play to get back on the radio, at least, by the end of the year.
Yeh possibly. It'll be hugely interesting to see how that is handled. Not sure the ordinary man and woman would stomach it but RTE are totally out of touch with the general public. No doubt his PR team are in overdrive at the moment. As I have said the allegation is he was in a relationship with a school child. This hasn't been retracted or disputed by McDermott or his legal people. She was over the age of consent @ 17. He certainly was @ 27.
It would be some hypocrisy though. He driving the woke,metoo cancel culture shtik from his pulpit and then this comes out. What would his new narrative be?
While what he did, I find personally disgusting. I presume that she is now being prosecuted for a malicious allegation?
No, McDermott has put a line under it and wants to move on.
He's going after Twitter instead.
She should be but I think it's a civil matter. I also assume there is a reason why Eoghan and his legal team / PR team didn't go down that route. Payoff perhaps? NDA?
It's also been said here by other posters that he is trying to avoid having to answer some very awkward questions about what he was doing with a school child at 27yo.
I wonder how Twitter will deal with this. Not short of resources to fight it and I doubt they will settle up. It would set a precedence.
None of it good for either party.
That's what I asked further up the thread. Some very unsavoury stuff could come out about him if he follows through against Twitter. I doubt this is the only skeleton in his closet.
Why would that affect his case against Twitter? Presumably he is suing Twitter for what has been posted, not what will be in the future.
In relation to suing the near 30yr old woman, what would he gain apart from more scrutiny when the case would come to court in about 3 yrs? He has his letter stating false allegations were made, so I suspect the legal advice to both was to move on.
I'm sure that Twitter would be savvy enough to do background checks. If Mr McDermott had form for messaging teenage girls there may be one willing to come forward and state under oath that something sinister had happened. Or one of the females who were retweeted by the initial Twitter poster may be willing to come forward. Also, from the tone etc of the solicitors letter we've seen there seems to be a promise of Omerta between McDermott and the Twitterer, perhaps some form of NDA. Could this be overturned by a judge? Could Twitter call the girl as a witness?
I've also seen my share of sleazes over the years, and not one of them changes their spots. If McDermott's favourite predilection was teenage jailbait, he wouldn't have just do it once, would he want all of his misadventures, legal or not coming to light??
Yeh I agree with the legal teams telling both parties to move on Dav. However if I were Eoghan I would have wanted the letter to go further and categorically retract everything. Not just the potentially criminal activity. But there you guy. You know I wish both parties the best going forward but certain careers wouldn't be suitable for either of them .
And BTW I do think Twitter have a case to answer. There is no way they should be a platform for this kind of thing.
Was the collecting her from school part a lie ? I
What has any other got to do with ED’s case against Twitter?. The accusers letter has stated she made false allegations, Twitter published those allegations.
Jailbait? This is usually a derogatory term applied to underage people, sex with whom could lead to a criminal conviction/jail. You are another one making false allegations as it has been confirmed, by the girl that she was over the age of consent.
You want a judge to “overturn” any agreement which involves the girl confirming she was overage and made false allegations, to what? That she must say that she was underage and the allegations are true? You want the Judge to force her to lie?
Maybe she was asked to retract everything, but wasn't willing to go that far, as neither of them come out of this particularly well.
Some aspects of what was published on the Eleanor Bingley twitter feed may have been accurate so I'd guess that's why everything wasn't categorically retracted.
Regarding Twitter having a case to answer, it's not realistic to monitor every single word that's posted on it and investigate if those allegations are true or not. Same for Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp etc. The amount of info being published every minute is vast and cannot really be monitored. I'd be of the opinion that if a complaint was made, the best they can do is to take it down.
If I wrote "BattleCorp1 is a paedo because he slept with me when I was 16" on the wall of someone's house, would the home owner be prosecuted for allowing someone to write a defamatory statement on their wall? I think not. That's why I think it's being a bit harsh on Twitter to expect them to monitor everything, then investigate it, make a determination if it's true or not, and then decide whether to leave it there or not. It's not practical.
Not retracted and not denied. So infer from that what you will.
My assumption is that anything that was false and fabricated Eoghan contested and that was retracted.
If McDermott's favourite predilection was teenage jailbait,
Thus far this thread has, without any substance, accused McDermott of the following
If I were McDermott, I'd leave Twitter be and start suing boards.
![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://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)