Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Calls for Minister for Children Roderic O'Gorman to resign..

Options
1…79111213

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    take everything
    Registered Users Posts: 9,804 ✭✭✭take everything


    bennyl10 wrote: »
    That is the one photo and tweet multiple times?

    So No is the answer

    Absolutely zero actual association

    **** me.
    Clown world is real


  • Options
    #243
    bennyl10
    Registered Users Posts: 5,514 ✭✭✭bennyl10


    take everything wrote: »
    **** me.
    Clown world is real

    On that ‘link’

    We have the same tweet multiple times

    A picture of J.Waters, a picture of Gemma odoherty


    That really says all you need to know

    This is a non story being peddled my a)homophobes and b) far right social media


  • Options
    #244
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I didn't but I'd assume prominent people in the community would, I think it's a nothing burger but I can see how some people are making the long stretch.
    Personally when I spotted it I thought people have gone bat **** crazy, it's a map.

    Why should a person "in the community" know of it? He's in the LGBTQ community, I'm lost on why they should know of such an out there acronym that has nothing to do with the LGBTQ community.


  • Options
    #245
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,912 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I didn't but I'd assume prominent people in the community would, I think it's a nothing burger but I can see how some people are making the long stretch.
    Personally when I spotted it I thought people have gone bat **** crazy, it's a map.

    It's an obscure little known reference now turned into a conspiraloon screaming point and you're giving credence to it and suggesting it's true (kinda, sorta, not really but maybe) :D. Either say it or dont say it. This drivel of well - "Oh well I'm saying it but I'm not really saying it but you know what I really mean" is laughable. You can't be taken seriously giving credence to Gemmaroid Conspiraloon Shyte.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #246
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,564 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I didn't but I'd assume prominent people in the community would, I think it's a nothing burger but I can see how some people are making the long stretch.
    Personally when I spotted it I thought people have gone bat **** crazy, it's a map.
    Why would you assume that people in the gay community would know the meaning of an acronym about paedophilia that you didn't know.


    Why are they any more likely to know it than anybody else, in your mind?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    This is it
    Registered Users Posts: 5,240 ✭✭✭This is it


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I didn't but I'd assume prominent people in the community would, I think it's a nothing burger but I can see how some people are making the long stretch.
    Personally when I spotted it I thought people have gone bat **** crazy, it's a map.

    Dig up.


  • Options
    #248
    noddy69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭noddy69


    bennyl10 wrote: »
    On that ‘link’

    We have the same tweet multiple times

    A picture of J.Waters, a picture of Gemma odoherty


    That really says all you need to know

    This is a non story being peddled my a)homophobes and b) far right social media

    A show of public support for a Paedo apologist is not a nothing story....what do you not understand about the public support bit ? This wasn't a random photo he got caught in. Tatchells views are widely know and he publically supported him and voiced it on a social media platform.

    What is the nothing story about that exactly ? Just because it's two years ago doesn't mean it didn't happen.
    The man voicing public support on a social media platform for a person who holds the view that not all sex between Adults and young children is wrong is now minister for children …..and we should all be ok with that, and only Nazis would think differently or even question it ?

    FFS I give up on the world


  • Options
    #249
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,119 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    osarusan wrote: »
    Why would you assume that people in the gay community would know the meaning of an acronym about paedophilia that you didn't know.


    Why are they any more likely to know it than anybody else, in your mind?

    You just hear of trouble in the community with the P's trying to attach themselves to the trads, so an outsider would assume they'd know a few of their tla's when they come up.


  • Options
    #250
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,912 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    You just hear of trouble in the community with the P's trying to attach themselves to the trads, so an outsider would assume they'd know a few of their tla's when they come up.

    :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Give over - you've been promoting Gemmaroid far right conspiraloon shyte screaming points and you are now trying to backtrack with drivel because you've been called out on it

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #251
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,205 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    You just hear of trouble in the community with the P's trying to attach themselves to the trads, so an outsider would assume they'd know a few of their tla's when they come up.

    trads? what nonsense is that? and what special knowledge of paedophilia do you think your average gay person has?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    noddy69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭noddy69


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Give over - you've been promoting Gemmaroid far right conspiraloon shyte screaming points and you are now trying to backtrack with drivel because you've been called out on it

    The only difference being the public support for a paedo apologist, which then makes the mmmmm, Map porn reference a little dubious.

    It hinges on did he or didn't he know the reference. If you believe he didn't then its ok. If you think he did, and that isn't a stretch given the public pic, which shows he understands who Tatchell is, then the theory has merit to it.

    Unfortunately both are on social media, unfortunately people are saying its GOD and co crying wolf again.

    At the very least he needs to explain the tweets. I still don't believe they sit comfortably with the position of Minister for children.


  • Options
    #253
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    noddy69 wrote: »
    The only difference being the public support for a paedo apologist, which then makes the mmmmm, Map porn reference a little dubious.

    It hinges on did he or didn't he know the reference. If you believe he didn't then its ok. If you think he did, and that isn't a stretch given the public pic, which shows he understands who Tatchell is, then the theory has merit to it.

    Unfortunately both are on social media, unfortunately people are saying its GOD and co crying wolf again.

    At the very least he needs to explain the tweets. I still don't believe they sit comfortably with the position of Minister for children.

    It's a massive stretch to assume he knew the reference. He posted a picture of a literal map, LGBTQ people would tend to look at it as a map. Most people tend to view it as a map. Those who tend to read it as something else are the Qanon types.


  • Options
    #254
    KaneToad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭KaneToad


    The idea that O'Gorman has to explain his map porn or Goya painting tweet is ridiculous.

    I don't think its outrageous that he clarify his position on Peter Tatchell. I doubt they're closely associated or affiliated. However O'Gorman was "delighted" with the appearance of someone "legendary" at the event. Tatchells stance on some matters is problematic.

    I don't think this is a right wing pile on. Maybe they were the first to raise it but, that alone, is no reason to dismiss it.

    What I would like to see is a clarification statement and for O'Gorman to go on to be a successful minister. A refusal to clarify, is not the end of the world, but it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.


  • Options
    #255
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,912 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    noddy69 wrote: »
    The only difference being the public support for a paedo apologist, which then makes the mmmmm, Map porn reference a little dubious.

    It hinges on did he or didn't he know the reference. If you believe he didn't then its ok. If you think he did, and that isn't a stretch given the public pic, which shows he understands who Tatchell is, then the theory has merit to it.

    Unfortunately both are on social media, unfortunately people are saying its GOD and co crying wolf again.

    At the very least he needs to explain the tweets. I still don't believe they sit comfortably with the position of Minister for children.

    And again we have the conspiraloon cartography drivel being referenced as plausible :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #256
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,119 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Give over - you've been promoting Gemmaroid far right conspiraloon shyte screaming points and you are now trying to backtrack with drivel because you've been called out on it

    I haven't been promoting her, not once have I said she's on the button with this one. I don't follow her.
    This isn't a about me but your constantly trying to make it so to deflect from the conversation. People are free to question people in public office.
    Your opinion that it's because he is gay he's attracting this attention has been blown out of the water. The Maps is nonsense, support for Tatchell rightly deserves to be questioned, thats not just a question for O'Gorman it's one for the Greens in general.


  • Options
    #257
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    And again we have the conspiraloon cartography drivel being referenced as plausible :pac::pac::pac::pac:


    Did you ever follow up on the mod request to show proof of people inciting violence against children awhile back, Joey? You know those fictional claims you made up, that you never responded to when asked. It's hilarious that you're mocking others for making leaps, when you've made up outright lies about posters you don't like in the past.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Options
    #258
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,119 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    trads? what nonsense is that? and what special knowledge of paedophilia do you think your average gay person has?

    You know what I mean, the ones who aren't happy with all the minorities jumping on the bandwagon.
    We're not talking about the average person in the street.


  • Options
    #259
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I haven't been promoting her, not once have I said she's on the button with this one. I don't follow her.
    This isn't a about me but your constantly trying to make it so to deflect from the conversation. People are free to question people in public office.
    Your opinion that it's because he is gay he's attracting this attention has been blown out of the water. The Maps is nonsense, support for Tatchell rightly deserves to be questioned, thats not just a question for O'Gorman it's one for the Greens in general.

    You literally claimed he should know what MAPs is because he's gay... If a minister of children is a fan of Richard Dawkins, should they be asked if they support the stupid views he has expressed on paedophilia? They're pretty similar and far more recent than Tatchell's letter from the 90s.

    The reality is that that people have trawled for reasons to be annoyed by O'Gorman. A tenuous link of a green party member being photographed with a member of the same party in the UK at pride, amounts to nothing.


  • Options
    #260
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,119 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You literally claimed he should know what MAPs is because he's gay... If a minister of children is a fan of Richard Dawkins, should they be asked if they support the stupid views he has expressed on paedophilia? They're pretty similar and far more recent than Tatchell's letter from the 90s.

    The reality is that that people have trawled for reasons to be annoyed by O'Gorman. A tenuous link of a green party member being photographed with a member of the same party in the UK at pride, amounts to nothing.

    I didn't claim that your putting worlds in my mouth, I never brought O'Gormans sexuality into it, that's what you and the rest of the community defence action group did to deflect and defend Tatchell.
    The Minster for Children should not be associated with him, that's blindingly obvious to a lot of people in this thread.


  • Options
    #261
    Rockbeast2
    Registered Users Posts: 798 ✭✭✭Rockbeast2


    If a heterosexual [male] new minister for children had the same connection to a heterosexual man who had opined similarly on record in the past, you can bet your house that there would be fcuking uproar in the media.

    I'm sure there is nothing untoward on Roderic's part but the optics are not good. I don't expect he will, but I'd prefer if he disassociates himself from this acquaintance.

    I'm not calling for him to resign.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I didn't claim that your putting worlds in my mouth, I never brought O'Gormans sexuality into it, that's what you and the rest of the community defence action group did to deflect and defend Tatchell.
    The Minster for Children should not be associated with him, that's blindingly obvious to a lot of people in this thread.

    Why didn't you answer my question? In addition, you did specifically say that you'd expect him to know a paedophilia related acronym because he's gay and a member of the LGBTQ community.

    Your link is extraordinarily tenuous, that's the reality. The only reason Gemma and the right wing loons dug it up is because he is gay.
    Rockbeast2 wrote: »
    If a heterosexual [male] new minister for children had the same connection to a heterosexual man who had opined similarly on record in the past, you can bet your house that there would be fcuking uproar in the media.

    I'm sure there is nothing untoward on Roderic's part but the optics are not good. I don't expect he will, but I'd prefer if he disassociates himself from this acquaintance.

    I'm not calling for him to resign.

    Guarantee you it wouldn't happen if a children's minister had a photo taken with Richard Dawkins who expressed the exact same stupid view.


  • Options
    #263
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,119 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why didn't you answer my question? In addition, you did specifically say that you'd expect him to know a paedophilia related acronym because he's gay and a member of the LGBTQ community.

    Your link is extraordinarily tenuous, that's the reality. The only reason Gemma and the right wing loons dug it up is because he is gay.

    It's because of his links to Tatchell, do you seriously expect me to believe O'Gorman is not aware of his past. Your assuming he posed for a picture with him and there's nothing more to it, a simple Google of Tatchell will bring up his links to PIE,MAP,AOA etc. O'Gorman is an educated man so it's fair to assume he has an understanding of Tatchelles way of thinking and some tla's associated with Tatchell.
    His links are worthy of discussion, your own defence of Tatchell is questionable, are you also of the opinion he's a legend as it's coming across as you are.


  • Options
    #264
    Truthvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Truthvader


    No fan of the Greens but this is a vile piece of work. The hatred drips off Gemma while Waters seems to be peddling a narrative that is simply untrue. i await evidence of his assertion that the Greens are promoting child abuse

    Nasty nasty stuff. I assume Gemma has no assets and is hoping for a defamation action so she can milk some publicity. Think this needs a Garda investigation and prosecution. Two years in jail required


  • Options
    #265
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    It's because of his links to Tatchell, do you seriously expect me to believe O'Gorman is not aware of his past. Your assuming he posed for a picture with him and there's nothing more to it, a simple Google of Tatchell will bring up his links to PIE,MAP,AOA etc. O'Gorman is an educated man so it's fair to assume he has an understanding of Tatchelles way of thinking and some tla's associated with Tatchell.
    His links are worthy of discussion, your own defence of Tatchell is questionable, are you also of the opinion he's a legend as it's coming across as you are.

    I think he's actually done a lot of good in his career but has expressed stupid views. He has clearly stated he doesn't condone paedophilia and appears to actually write a lot about combating child abuse. Generally the main thing that comes up is that letter and a load of conspiracies. Frankly, I didn't even know much about him until this thread and I'm educated.

    Your simple Googling seems to amount to weird blogs more than anything else I suspect. So do you condemn any children's minister who associates or praises Richard Dawkins?


  • Options
    #266
    Mr. Karate
    Registered Users Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭Mr. Karate


    79.17 wrote: »
    God forbid.

    Is this just some strange coincidence that we have yet another gay childrens minister?

    Nope, but that won't stop the virtue signalling media from saying we're a homophobic nation [despite having 2 successive openly gay Health Ministers, legalizing gay marriage and an openly gay Taoseaich {who will be again in 2 1/2 years}] once they've gotten over their "Ireland is a horribly racist Country" kick out of their system.


  • Options
    #267
    StupidLikeAFox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    Mr. Karate wrote: »
    How about a Children's Minister that actually actually has children.

    Next you'll be telling us that our Minister for Finance should have a bank account


  • Options
    #268
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Your simple Googling seems to amount to weird blogs more than anything else I suspect. So do you condemn any children's minister who associates or praises Richard Dawkins?
    It's a completely different situation. The controversy around Dawkins was because, in his autobiography, he mentioned in one paragraph a teacher in his school who groped several boys, including Dawkins, and subsequently killed himself. All Dawkins really said was he found news of the teacher's suicide more traumatic than the grope; and no time did he suggest any boy found this a joyful event - and I think its implicit that he feels the suicidal teacher didn't find much joy in the situation either.

    Tatchell, on the other hand, made comments that were quite different in nature. So, yes, a DCU law lecturer who expresses delight at meeting Tatchell and who now becomes Minister responsible for children should absolutely be asked what parts of the legendary Tatchell he particularly admires, and in particular if he admires his position on age of consent. Simples. Because his answers are now a matter of public interest.

    Any Minister should have to account for the views they have on their brief.


  • Options
    #269
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Tatchell said in the exact same letter that he didn't condone it and doesn't condone paedophilia. So while a dumb remark. It's not remotely supporting paedophilia.


  • Options
    #270
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Tatchell said in the exact same letter that he didn't condone it and doesn't condone paedophilia. So while a dumb remark. It's not remotely supporting paedophilia.
    Tatchell's "dumb remark", as you call it, is a million miles from Dawkins simple human reflection on his teacher's suicide. Your equation of the two is wrong, and if we agree on that we can move on.

    I'd be glad of our new Minister's views on what he thinks of this "dumb remark" by a "legend" that he was "delighted" to meet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Truthvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭Truthvader


    Is Tatchell a Minister? So far all I have seen is a one off photograph.

    On this evidence this witch has alleged that Roderick supports child abuse and should resign.

    An evil allegation to make against anyone from a person already practised in evil


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement