nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Rallying around a rapist

Zebra3

Seriously wtf is wrong with people in this country?

A child rapist getting support from his sports club and employer in court?

I'm at an absolute loss for words.

What do they say?

"Ah yeah, he may have been abusing that young child but sure we'd a great laugh with him in the pub"?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/local-football-club-and-employers-rally-around-man-convicted-of-raping-a-child-court-hears-31411016.html

Find more posts tagged with

child abuse

rape

scum

rapist

Quick Links

Comments

VisibleGorilla

MrWalsh wrote: »

Your views on pedophilia are disturbing.

The majority of people who sexually abuse children are not pedophiles? Words fail me.

These are facts, not views.

MrWalsh

Memory Orb wrote: »

So what should be done with people who are attracted to children? Should they be locked away for life?

Having the attraction is no worse than having any mental health problem. Acting on it is.

Thought crime isnt crime.

MrWalsh

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

These are facts, not views.

You need help.

FactCheck

HalloweenJack wrote: »

However, as has been explained, the character testaments would have been collected BEFORE he was convicted so it's perfectly understandable that a lot of people would simply believe he was wrongly accused and wanted to support him.

No, there are a bunch of posts on the first page claiming this but those people are quite wrong. Character references are gathered after conviction. The articles states that the petition was gathered and submitted "since" the conviction earlier this month.

I wish the people who wrote completely inaccurate things on the first page would have the grace to come back and edit their posts because it's not right that everybody thinks this is all a big misunderstanding when the actual facts of the matter are that dozens of people, just like in Listowel, know perfectly well that he's been found guilty and have decided to support him anyway.

VisibleGorilla

MrWalsh wrote: »

You need help.

Great input to the discussion there, really, fantastic.

Barely There

MrWalsh wrote: »

You need help.

A lot of tiresome White Knighting going on.

HalloweenJack

FactCheck wrote: »

No, there are a bunch of posts on the first page claiming this but those people are quite wrong. Character references are gathered after conviction. The articles states that the petition was gathered and submitted "since" the conviction earlier this month.

I wish the people who wrote completely inaccurate things on the first page would have the grace to come back and edit their posts because it's not right that everybody thinks this is all a big misunderstanding when the actual facts of the matter are that dozens of people, just like in Listowel, know perfectly well that he's been found guilty and have decided to support him anyway.

Ah ok.

Well then the people are complete dicks.

FactCheck

Barely There wrote: »

A lot of tiresome White Knighting going on.

You were actually one of the people who put up a post saying that these references would have been given before he was found guilty - any chance you'd edit your post now that you know that's not true?

Barely There wrote: »

I see the facts of the issue can be conveniently forgotten in the haste to become outraged.

There's a presumption of innocence in this country until actually convicted of a crime.
None of these people rallied around a rapist - they rallied around a still innocent man charged with an offense.

Doubt there's too much rallying around him now - but why let the facts get in the way of a good old rant?

It's kind of ironic that here you were actually the one not letting the facts get in the way of a (inaccurate and misleading) rant.

MrWalsh

Barely There wrote: »

A lot of tiresome White Knighting going on.

Im sorry if you find the condemnation of pedophilia and those who think that people who sexually abuse children are not pedophiles tiresome, you need to look inside yourself to figure out why this is.

Neyite

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Disturbing why? As I have a different view? That his punishment is not in fact lenient?

Is he even a pedophile? Does he have a medical diagnoses? He was in his early 20's when he attacked a 12 year old girl. A pedophile is someone with an exclusive attraction to pre-pubescent children. If you read the stats you'll see the majority of people who sexually abuse children are not actual pedophiles.

Sure, technically those are hebephiles. All the same though. Hebephile is a fairly new term. Do you call all sticky tape 'sticky-backed plastic' or call it Sellotape? Or call a vacuum cleaner a Hoover?

It means the same thing: being attracted to a person too young to legally consent to sexual acts. You don't need a medical diagnosis for that, just a conviction. We dont depend on doctors to declare a murderer a murderer, we rely on evidence to prove that they are what they are.

Barely There

FactCheck wrote: »

any chance you'd edit your post now that you know that's not true?

About the same chance as you stopping the backseat thread modding I'd imagine.

VisibleGorilla

Neyite wrote: »

Sure, technically those are hebephiles. All the same though. Hebephile is a fairly new term. Do you call all sticky tape 'sticky-backed plastic' or call it Sellotape? Or call a vacuum cleaner a Hoover?

It means the same thing: being attracted to a person too young to legally consent to sexual acts. You don't need a medical diagnosis for that, just a conviction. We dont depend on doctors to declare a murderer a murderer, we rely on evidence to prove that they are what they are.

Sorry but yes you do.

You cannot be convicted of having a mental illness, just an illegal action.

FactCheck

Barely There wrote: »

About the same chance as you stopping the backseat thread modding I'd imagine.

I'm not modding anything. I don't think your post should be edited for you. I just think that it's a sign of good faith and intelligence to update your opinion when you're presented with facts you weren't aware of.

I mean, you just look silly and uninformed claiming something that's the opposite of true. So why wouldn't you want to change it?

Nodin

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Ah ok.

Well then the people are complete dicks.

Considering that he not only raped one child but sexually assaulted her sister, yes indeed they are.

Barely There

FactCheck wrote: »

. So why wouldn't you want to change it?

Because I'd hate to deprive you of the opportunity to further grandstand on this issue.

You seem to enjoy it so much.

NachoBusiness

QuinDixie wrote: »

Is that enough punishment for such a heinous crime.

Comparatively, no, it's not. 70 year old recently got five years (with three suspended) for asking two 12 year olds to sleep with him for a fiver. They legged it away from him, thankfully, but then you look at this case and the courts are sending the message that you can rape a child repeatedly over many years (at least eight times) and be out in seven years or thereabouts.

Seems to very little consistency in sentencing in our courts, that's for sure.

El_Duderino 09

AudreyHepburn wrote:

I wasn't complaining about them giving their experiences with him as evidence....they were character witnesses by the sounds of it, that's what they were there for.

AudreyHepburn wrote:

I was complaining about the fact that they continue to support him now that he has been convicted....that's what I have a problem with.

Oh right. Has he stopped being a hard worker and a team player since being convicted?

It's appealing to see the world in black and white but it's not so simple in reality.

I'm friends with a guy who claims he was abused. I'm also friends with a friend of the abuser. I believe my friend is telling the truth and the abuse took place and my friend believes his friend is telling the truth and the abuse didn't take place. The case never went to court.

People believe their friends they could be wrong but friends stick together when it's rational and when it isn't.

Why are you so worried that he still has some friends? Most people will despise him. So what if a few people's stick by him? Criminal justice has taken place and its no skin off your nose.

Trent Houseboat

Wasn't there a similar occurrence in Kerry a few years back when half the town showed up in court to shake the guilty man's hand before sentencing?

AudreyHepburn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh right. Has he stopped being a hard worker and a team player since being convicted?

It's appealing to see the world in black and white but it's not so simple in reality.

I'm friends with a guy who claims he was abused. I'm also friends with a friend of the abuser. I believe my friend is telling the truth and the abuse took place and my friend believes his friend is telling the truth and the abuse didn't take place. The case never went to court.

People believe their friends they could be wrong but friends stick together when it's rational and when it isn't.

Why are you so worried that he still has some friends? Most people will despise him. So what if a few people's stick by him? Criminal justice has taken place and its no skin off your nose.

I'm not worried by it, I just think it's wrong and I don't understand why anyone would stand by such a man.

Does his being a hard worker and team player somehow lessen what he did?

Son Of A Vidic

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Playing devils advocate, I suspect many of those people will have since changed their minds once evidence of his crimes became known. They, naively, signed the petition before the case started on the basis that he proclaimed his innocence and probably did do the good things mentioned. If they were all contacted now and asked if they still hold the same belief, I'd say most if not them all would have changed their minds.

I agree with you, but you certainly have to question the wisdom of people involving themselves in a case like this. Sexual predators and paedophiles seem to have an innate ability to earn trust and create smokescreens for their friends, family and their victims. And we've seen this repeating pattern in some horrific cases in recent years.

FactCheck

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I agree with you, but you certainly have to question the wisdom of people involving themselves in a case like this. Sexual predators and paedophiles seem to have an innate ability to earn trust and create smokescreens for their friends, family and their victims. And we've seen this repeating pattern in some horrific cases in recent years.

Again, the person you quoted was giving the benefit of the doubt to the mob, but it wasn't deserved. The references and petition came after the conviction. They would have known when they signed their names that this guy's "defence" of "the 12 year old had sex with me while I slept" had not been believed.

You're completely right about the trust and manipulation. I think it's a combination of not wanting to be wrong (if I thought they were a good person, but they are a bad person, am I also a bad person? No! I'm a good person! So they must be, too!) and a hangover from decade after decade of looking the other way when powerful, respected people abused the vulnerable. We like to think that all those people just dropped dead in the early 90s and Ireland is nothing like that any more, but you can't just shake off that mentality just like that. All the people who looked the other way when a priest or teacher was known to be inappropriate - many of them are still around. They shaped our laws, our media, and the attitudes of succeeding generations. We've come a long way but this stuff casts a long shadow.

Jon Stark

Neyite wrote: »

To be honest, I'd distance myself from someone brought up on charges of child sex abuse until I knew the outcome of the trial. After all, I wouldn't be privvy to the evidence. I'd want to believe that a friend is that innocent, but I've seen too many people affected by abuse and their abusers all grand upstanding members of society and local community who couldn't possibly have done those heinous things to little kids. Except they did.

In the UK, social services can and do threaten to take your kids off you if you refuse to leave an abusive partner or a partner who is facing trial for child sex offences. So ensuring that SS dont need to intervene in my family would be more of a priority than sticking up for a friend who presumably the DPP have enough evidence on to bring to trial.

For me, its not about being over emotive, just practical.

TBH, if I was falsely accused of a serious crime but be fortunate enough to be found to be innocent, I'd be quickly telling anyone who "distanced" themselves from me to quickly do one out of my life.

It's easy being a friend when a friendship is never tested; you only find out who your true friends are in times of difficulty.

Neyite

Jon Stark wrote: »

TBH, if I was falsely accused of a serious crime but be fortunate enough to be found to be innocent, I'd be quickly telling anyone who "distanced" themselves from me to quickly do one out of my life.

It's easy being a friend when a friendship is never tested; you only find out who your true friends are in times of difficulty.

And I'd totally understand that I was writing off the friendship by distancing myself from them. I'm a survivor of child sex abuse myself and it's a lifelong effect on a person. I'll die before I let my child/children experience what I went through and if that means someone getting the hump with me because I keep them at arms length then so be it.

I'm not talking about someone who was falsely accused though, I'm talking about someone like this person in the OP, who was guilty, admitted to a modified version of events, and who was found guilty in a court of law. I clearly stated that I'd distance myself from someone who was proceeding to trial, so presumably the Gardai and DPP who have access to all information that I would not be privvy to, had a strong enough amount of proof to the crime.

Guy:Incognito

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, those recommendations would have all been gathered before the trial. If you think about it; someone you know and think very highly of has been accused of this kind of thing, you think there's no way it can be true, he's a decent guy, etc etc, so you happily sign the letter of support.

This is kind of the point of character witnesses too though I suppose - to gather peoples' honest feelings about the person before it's tainted by a guilty verdict.

Unless I was their alibi so knew 100% its wasnt true theres no way I'd be putting my name to anything like that tbh. This isnt 30 years ago. It's been shown time and again that all sorts are up to things like this.

MrWalsh

Generally speaking the DPP do not prosecute a case unless they feel they have a rally good chance of winning it. Particularly in a case like this, that the guy actually admitted it was the reason it got to court.

I am aware of a family who are in denial about a boyfriend of someone in the family who has been charged with incest and is going before the courts. They simple refuse to believe that this nice man that they have seen make their family member happy for the past few decades could be capable of the monstrous abuse of multiple children that he is accused of. But the case is going ahead and he is still treated as a loved family member.

seamus

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Unless I was their alibi so knew 100% its wasnt true theres no way I'd be putting my name to anything like that tbh. This isnt 30 years ago. It's been shown time and again that all sorts are up to things like this.

Jaysus, nice to see how many people would abandon their mates when they're accused of things.

If I knew someone well enough to put pen to paper and vouch for their character in court, I would do it. I wouldn't wait to see the outcome of the trial. What I think of that person before the verdict has no reflection on me.

old_aussie

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

PIf they were all contacted now and asked if they still hold the same belief, I'd say most if not them all would have changed their minds.

By the sound of this they don't actually have a mind to change, mindless idiots.

Guy:Incognito

seamus wrote: »

Jaysus, nice to see how many people would abandon their mates when they're accused of things.

If I knew someone well enough to put pen to paper and vouch for their character in court, I would do it. I wouldn't wait to see the outcome of the trial. What I think of that person before the verdict has no reflection on me.

How many people "knew" priests, coaches , friend etc well enough to stand up for them in such cases only to be proven wrong?

The fact of the matter is, unless you're with someone all day every day, you dont know what they get up to behind closed doors. On the normal side of things, every one of us is going around not knowing some of the more "intimate" things our friends and their partners like to do with and to each other when alone in a bedroom. To decide you know someone isnt capable of child abuse because they are a close friend is naive tbh. People from all walks of life have been convicted of these things at this stage.

People lie to those closest to them all the time.

Drumpot

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How many people "knew" priests, coaches , friend etc well enough to stand up for them in such cases only to be proven wrong?

The fact of the matter is, unless you're with someone all day every day, you dont know what they get up to behind closed doors. On the normal side of things, every one of us is going around not knowing some of the more "intimate" things our friends and their partners like to do with and to each other when alone in a bedroom. To decide you know someone isnt capable of child abuse because they are a close friend is naive tbh. People from all walks of life have been convicted of these things at this stage.

People lie to those closest to them all the time.

That's a bit of a rigid stance to take.

If I vouch for the character of a person I know, I am basing this on my interactions with them. It doesn't matter how well or long you know a person, you can only know them as much as they allow you. I imagine we all know "bad" people whom as far as we are concerned are average Joe's.

So whether its a long term friend or somebody you met recently, your knowledge on their personal proclivities is limited. Even if its a parent or family member, how well do you think people really get to know their family? People allow others to see what they want about themselves and keep secret, shameful parts of them private. IN many cases, the more you know a person the less objective your personal views on them will probably be.

If I was to vouch for a friend who ultimately gets convicted of rape, why should my statement be anymore wrong? I am vouching for the person I know, its not excusing his actions.

That said, I am not sure how helpful these character statements can be in any serious crime situation (murder or rape or paedophilia). Anybody can do these crimes and as far as I am aware your public image/persona can be good/bad and have zero reflection on whether or not you are more/less guilty. These kind of People can be extremely manipulative, so why would a public image be used to give them leniency?

If a person keeps to themselves and has zero friends/family to support them, why should it make a difference to the facts of a case? On the flipside, if a really popular person has loads of support, why should this make any difference to the facts of their case?

FactCheck

seamus wrote: »

Jaysus, nice to see how many people would abandon their mates when they're accused of things.

If I knew someone well enough to put pen to paper and vouch for their character in court, I would do it. I wouldn't wait to see the outcome of the trial. What I think of that person before the verdict has no reflection on me.

Right but seamus this isn't how it actually works. Character references aren't gathered ahead of time. Everyone who gave this guy a reference knew his defence and they knew he'd been found guilty.