Convicted abuser who kept school job raped children again

LenaClaire · 12-07-2011 09:07AM #1

Do you think the school should be held liable for this? In 2002 the man was convicted of assaulting students there in the 80's - got 6 months suspended sentence (WTF?!) and was kept on staff. Then went on to rape and take photos of more students.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/convicted-abuser-who-kept-school-job-raped-children-again-2818451.html

1. Why did the school keep him on staff?

2. Why was he only given a suspended sentence for child molestation?

I just can't understand why adults are protecting other adults at the cost of children.

FatherLen · 12-07-2011 09:12AM

the school is to blame as well. no school should hire someone convicted of a sexual crime, especially one towards children.

WindSock · 12-07-2011 09:14AM

At the very least they could have had a sign up saying 'Do not touch Willie'

FatherLen · 12-07-2011 09:19AM

^^^^
for him or the kids

stephen_k · 12-07-2011 09:19AM

The court was told the accused had studied for the priesthood in Maynooth from 1974 to 1979 but did not graduate after "a disagreeable event took place which caused him to leave".

Why am I not surprised....

NoDice · 12-07-2011 09:22AM

I can't even read the article. There are some f*cked up reportings lately in the news. So sad. Poor, poor kids.

There should be a good news paper!

CardBordWindow · 12-07-2011 09:28AM

The school has a lot of questions to answer! It's not like they didn't know about him. Also, the courts are at fault. No child molestation conviction should ever be given a suspended sentence IMO. :mad: Ridiculous!!

mackg · 12-07-2011 09:31AM

He was abusing one fella all the way up til his leaving cert, basically molesting a full grown man. The kind of psychological hold on someone this would require is sickening. The story talks of the victims alcohol/drug abuse and suicide attempts. How can this crime carry a sentence of anything less then LIFE inprisionment.

the school is to blame as well. no school should hire someone convicted of a sexual crime, especially one towards children.

He was convicted while he was working there, the original crimes took place at the school from what I gather, he probably had to get time off work for the trial ffs.:mad:

Esoteric_ · 12-07-2011 09:32AM

The school should definitely be held liable. I'm not one of these people that encourage suing, but the parents should sue the school because their kid is gonna need therapy for years to come.

Handsome Bob · 12-07-2011 09:37AM

Saw this in the metro this morning, words fail. He said to one of them imagine that it's a woman doing it while molesting him. Dirty fcuker.

As for the school, knowingly taking a convicted sex offender back? Heads should roll.

Akrasia · 12-07-2011 10:28AM

Unbelievable. A lot of people need to be fired from their jobs for this, and there should be criminal negligence charges brought against anyone who made any kind of decision to knowingly keep a child molester in employment at a school.

What the hell is wrong with our country?

WindSock · 12-07-2011 10:56AM

Well it was the 80s. 2 decades before any of this stuff was taken seriously.

prinz · 12-07-2011 11:18AM

WindSock wrote: »

Well it was the 80s. 2 decades before any of this stuff was taken seriously.

Indeed, unfortunately.

Neither it is nothing new or out of the ordinary, just yesterday a man was convicted of the rape and abuse of his own daughter when she was 8, and another of the abuse of his niece when she was around 5. It's an almost daily occurrence to see these cases before the courts.

jimthemental · 12-07-2011 11:23AM

Were his pedo skills not up to scratch for the priesthood or what?

If the church knew something about his leanings the school should have been warned before he initially started working there. He certainly shouldn't have been let near the place after his conviction.

mackg · 12-07-2011 12:17PM

WindSock wrote: »

Well it was the 80s. 2 decades before any of this stuff was taken seriously.

The abuse took place in the 80s but he was convicted in 2002.

prinz · 12-07-2011 12:24PM

stephen_k wrote: »

Why am I not surprised....

Probably because you suffer from the serious misconception that only priests abuse kids. That or you are trying desperately to be funny on a thread about child abuse. Which is worse..

Show Time · 12-07-2011 12:30PM

Not a school i would send any kids of mine to attend.

SamuelFox · 12-07-2011 12:46PM

stephen_k wrote: »

The court was told the accused had studied for the priesthood in Maynooth from 1974 to 1979 but did not graduate after "a disagreeable event took place which caused him to leave".

Why am I not surprised....

I'm amazed - it must have been something very serious, since lots of known paedos were still ordained. I'm not any sort of anti-Catholic person at all, but the fact is that paedophiles were common in the priesthood at that time, and for whatever reason they were not dealt with.

mackg · 12-07-2011 12:52PM

SamuelFox wrote: »

I'm amazed - it must have been something very serious, since lots of known paedos were still ordained. I'm not any sort of anti-Catholic person at all, but the fact is that paedophiles were common in the priesthood at that time, and for whatever reason they were not dealt with.

In fairness it says nothing about the event being paedo related, could have been anything. Maybe he had a falling out with the head of the seminary, who knows

Nodin · 12-07-2011 12:58PM

stephen_k wrote: »

Why am I not surprised....

...should be. The rest managed to stay on.

SamuelFox · 12-07-2011 12:59PM

mackg wrote: »

In fairness it says nothing about the event being paedo related, could have been anything. Maybe he had a falling out with the head of the seminary, who knows

Fair point.

holystungun9 · 12-07-2011 01:34PM

NoDice wrote: »

I can't even read the article. There are some f*cked up reportings lately in the news. So sad. Poor, poor kids.

There should be a good news paper!

Yeah, I read the Indo online as soon as I get up every morning. This was the first story I read. Sure put me in a bad effing mood. It's just unthinkable that this guy returned to his old job. I just don't understand it at all.

stephen_k · 12-07-2011 01:45PM

prinz wrote: »

Probably because you suffer from the serious misconception that only priests abuse kids. That or you are trying desperately to be funny on a thread about child abuse. Which is worse..

No misconception, just contempt for an institution that repeatedly covered up and colluded with abusers, that there was some involvement of the "Church" in this case is no surprise, I wasn't trying to be funny, nothing funny about this thread...

SamuelFox wrote: »

I'm amazed - it must have been something very serious, since lots of known paedos were still ordained. I'm not any sort of anti-Catholic person at all, but the fact is that paedophiles were common in the priesthood at that time, and for whatever reason they were not dealt with.

Doesn't say whether he was the abuser or the abused when he left the priesthood, either way the Church was involved in creating another child abuser....

actuallylike · 12-07-2011 02:00PM

stephen_k wrote: »

either way the Church was involved in creating another child abuser....

I have to disagree with this. I don't think the church is responsible for creating child abusers. Back in those days, phychological issues were unheard of so anyone showing signs of inblance weren't treated accordingly. Instead, a child or young adult that showed worrying traits (isolation, antisocialism, violence, fear, confusion about sexuality, etc.) were sent off to the priesthood by their parents with the thought process of "Ah sure the priests will sort him out".

prinz · 12-07-2011 02:02PM

stephen_k wrote: »

No misconception, just contempt for an institution that repeatedly covered up and colluded with abusers, that there was some involvement of the "Church" in this case is no surprise, I wasn't trying to be funny, nothing funny about this thread.......

There was no involvement of the "Church" in this case. If the article noted he was a GAA player in his younger days would you say the GAA were involved in the case? Or that they were involved in "creating another child abuser"? 2+2 =/= 5. You contempt for an institution is fair enough, but this isn't the thread for it, for all you know he might have been kicked out of the seminary for some of his predilictions. You have no clue whether the later abuse and his time as a seminarian are in any way connected whatsoever.

stephen_k · 12-07-2011 02:02PM

actuallylike wrote: »

I have to disagree with this. I don't think the church is responsible for creating child abusers. Back in those days, phychological issues were unheard of so anyone showing signs of inblance weren't treated accordingly. Instead, a child or young adult that showed worrying traits (isolation, antisocialism, violence, fear, confusion about sexuality, etc.) were sent off to the priesthood by their parents with the thought process of "Ah sure the priests will sort him out".

I never said they were responsible, just involved...

actuallylike · 12-07-2011 02:07PM

stephen_k wrote: »

I never said they were responsible, just involved...

Okay, there's still no involvment. He tried to become a priest, he left. Did I miss something more about their involvment in his child abuse?

El Siglo · 12-07-2011 02:19PM

Anyone still think it's a good idea to not make the sex offenders register public?

mackg · 12-07-2011 02:22PM

prinz wrote: »

There was no involvement of the "Church" in this case. If the article noted he was a GAA player in his younger days would you say the GAA were involved in the case? Or that they were involved in "creating another child abuser"? 2+2 =/= 5. You contempt for an institution is fair enough, but this isn't the thread for it, for all you know he might have been kicked out of the seminary for some of his predilictions. You have no clue whether the later abuse and his time as a seminarian are in any way connected whatsoever.

Although i agree the church were not involved in this and knew nothing about what type of guy he was based on what I know of it it's not hard to make the leap based on the churches poor track record in the area. Back on topic who does responsibility here rest with, the school obviously to some extent, what about the department of education? Who actually has the responsibility of firing someone when this type of thing comes to light.

mackg · 12-07-2011 02:27PM

El Siglo wrote: »

Anyone still think it's a good idea to not make the sex offenders register public?

Yeah I do, this should have been handled by whoever had the responsibility of handling it. Every system relies on the parts functioning properly. This failure , as massive as it is, is not a reason to make huge knee jerk policy changes.

actuallylike · 12-07-2011 02:27PM

El Siglo wrote: »

Anyone still think it's a good idea to not make the sex offenders register public?

And risk people beating the hell out of people until they have no choice to go underground so the police have no idea where they are?

No, it's not a good idea.

Convicted abuser who kept school job raped children again

Comments