Garda facing child porn charges loses anonymity

Caonima wrote: »

How does that make me innocent? We're not all closeted keyboard warriors. I've seen my share. But I (A) worked as a journalist, and (B) have been to RTE during live shows, and know that the producers have a habit of "preparing" their guests (avoiding using the word sensationalising).

Perhaps you prefer the word 'naive'?

Just because tv chat shows do what tv chat shows do, doesn't mean that that particular guy wasn't telling the truth, either.

Which in itself is a moot point, even if he lied through his teeth for fun, because these kind of things DO exist. Otherwise there would be no pedophiles, rapists, murderers, and barely any need for Gardai. Just ask the parents of the two little girls who went to a birthday party recently.

I am kind of interested in why you would try to deny reality?

linky

That Guard lost his anonyimity through the action of the Courts, the Irish Judicial System. They decided this person should be named!

That Guard is currently suspended too. I would not be surprised if more Gardaí were named and shamed in the public for their behaviour too, as a result of this and their own actions as serving full-time members. It goes to show that no-one is above the law and all should be treated the same regardless of any contacts.

I agree with the Defence Solicitor Mr. Kenny that

the book of evidence to be served within four weeks to allow the case to be sent forward for trial as soon as possible as the allegations were a cause of stress and anxiety to his client.

For the sake of all concerned, including the Guard himself; his family and any vulnerable person who ever approached him in his line of work as an alleged trustworthy, honest, reliable member of An Garda Síochána.

lahalane wrote: »

I'd imagine the children don't upload the photos themselves...

He's referring to images created by CGI or hand drawn.

Newaglish wrote: »

I know it's not very pleasant but... why is it illegal to have computer graphic images of such things? I'd imagine it's a fairly victimless crime?

Child porn hysteria.

Probably has some basis in a nonsense "gateway theory" that looking at any image depicting child pornography, whether it's real or not, will cause the viewer to become a violent sex offender. The same theory on which some people want to ban porn because apparently it creates rapists.

Interestingly, any form of artwork, be it visual, auditory or text, which depicts a child in any act of a sexual nature, is child pornorgraphy in Irish law. A lot of Japanese people would be fncked.

Of course it needs amendment to something more sensible, but naturally nobody gives a fnck about people who like to view child porn, it's not exactly a burning debate which will contribute anything of benefit to society. If you get off on child porn, go seek out help, not imagery.

I am a little disappointed by the ruling. As came up with the Michael LaVell case, everyone should be entitled to anonymity unless they're proven guilty of the crimes they're accused of.

Interestingly, the guy charged with the child assaults in Athlone has been granted anonymity.

Sounsd a bit like double standards in reverse: either both are intitled to anonymity or neither of them is.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Interestingly, the guy charged with the child assaults in Athlone has been granted anonymity.

Sounsd a bit like double standards in reverse: either both are intitled to anonymity or neither of them is.

That's because he has known victims. They cannot be named in a rape case.

seamus wrote: »

In this case it is most likely to protect the identities of the girls involved. Very typical when the man is a relative or friend.

Myself and my wife were discussing this and she was perplexed as to how a man got into a party and took two kids without anyone noticing. Of course the man was probably there by invite - a family member or neighbour, who thought he could slip out and back without being noticed

He's reportedly homeless and not known to them (I'd like to know wh a 9 year old is going off with a stranger, but I don't want to finger-point).

I see your point about the kids' anonymity, but I'd imagine that their identity s probably known already by more locals than the accused.

Listen it took two years to get to court. The book of evidence will not be produced for a month. Do you think your name should be exposed under those circumstances. You are not guilty until proven guilty. So in a months time if guilty then yes expose the guy and if bot found guilty do not. The press and rte are the scum of the earth. i rest my case