‘A Small Group Of People With A Very Clear Agenda’

at

Minister for Children, Disability, Equality and Integration Roderic O’Gorman

 

This morning.

Minister for Children rejects ‘ridiculous’ online claims over paedophilia (irish Times)

Previously: ‘Report, Report, Report’

Rollingnews

138 thoughts on “‘A Small Group Of People With A Very Clear Agenda’

  1. class wario

    I’m sure this will satisfy all the “We just want him to make a statement!” people

    1. GiggidyGoo

      It goes some way to explaining his situation.
      The MSM have suddenly become aware of the story now.
      But he’s failing to see that it’s not homophobia that is the root – it’s his suitability for the position he’s in, given his being proud to have been joined by Tatchell (given the views Tatchell wrote about).

      ‘I was surprised to read some of the quotes from the 90’s”. As one tweeter wrote back to him ‘We all use the same google’.

      As regards Tatchell – ‘I’m glad to see he’s clarified and explained what is being alleged isn’t his view’ What is Tatchell’s view then?

        1. GiggidyGoo

          Relating to his 1997 letter, Tatchell said “The printed version [of the letter] did not include my point that I oppose adults having sex with children. I empathise with victims of child sex abuse and agree for the vast majority of children, sex with adults is neither wanted nor joyful.” (“For the vast majority of children” – is that speaking from experience, or just heresay then?)

          But somehow, the full letter isn’t available.

          What do you take from this..?

          Tatchell advocates forcing parents that don’t want their kids in the new Sex Ed classes to pick up their kids from schools. He says this wears them down and forces the resistance rate for the classes down to 0

          I can’t believe you’re actually defending Tatchell Repro. That’s low.

          1. ReproBertie

            I’m not defending anyone. You asked what his view is. I answered your question with a link to his views.

          2. ReproBertie

            That’s right. I quoted his view and gave you a link to more in answer to your question “What is Tatchell’s view then?”

  2. Formerly known as @ireland.com

    “The allegations are rooted in homophobia.” I don’t agree. I think most people are OK with homosexuality but not OK with paedophilia.

      1. gallantman

        If you criticise somebody for paedophilia, and they claim that is homophobic ,then they who have created the equivalence.

        1. bisted

          …paedophilia is an abuse of power…paedophiles exploit children…the high profile case in the media for months now has nothing to do with homosexuals…

      2. patsy

        Yeah but that would only be relevant if you were trying to misdirect the issue to be about homphobia.

    1. ReproBertie

      There are a lot of people who are far from OK with homosexuality. When O’Gorman’s appointment was announced a photo of him kissing his husband in celebration at the count centre was widely distributed on social media as a blatant dog whistle to people who are not OK with homosexuality and they came a running, dragging their knuckles behind them.

      1. GiggidyGoo

        You’re making some long jumps there Repro
        That image of his kissing his partner was also shared on gcn.ie

        1. ReproBertie

          I’m not making any jumps at all. I saw some of those who shared it and I saw the level of idiot that reacted to it. You can choose to be as blind to the homophobia as you like. Just because you ignore it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

          1. GiggidyGoo

            And you’re still missing the point that from many people’s point of view, this is not about homophobia, but more paedophilia that people were worried about.

          2. ReproBertie

            I am directly responding to Formerly’s comment that they “think most people are OK with homosexuality”. I would have thought that was clear from the first line in my response. My response has to do with homophobia and has nothing to do with paedophilia. I mentioned the photo of O’Gorman kissing his husband to illustrate the prevalence of homophobia. I do not see a link between the photo of O’Gorman kissing his husband and paedophilia. Do you?

          3. Toby

            Repro, you know Peter Thatchell has stated
            -While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

            Do you share this view?

            Does Roderic share this view?

            See its simple. no need to bring anyones sexuality into it.

          4. ReproBertie

            Toby what has any of that got to do with me responding to a comment about most people being ok with homosexuality? I didn’t mention Thatchell, his views or paedophilia. I was commenting specifically on the idea that most people are ok with homosexuality.

          5. Toby

            Fair enough, im just pointing out that this is a very simple issue. Those making it about homophobia are doing an active disservice to the gay community.

          6. SOQ

            Absolute rubbish- the homophobia was writ large. The only thing they could pin on Zaccone was she followed Wicca and then according to these clowns, she became some sort of witch sacrificing babies.

            This did not just happen in the abstract- they have a track record. That they would attempt to present a tweeted promotional picture of Lady GaGa as some sort of sinister cult should be all you need to know.

          7. Toby

            It was wrong wrong wrong. Having homophobes comment on it doesn’t make it ok. If no one tweeted about it it would still be wrong.

            Thats a really dangerous route to take. just because Roderic and Peter are homosexual they don’t deserve to be held to the same standards as others?

            “Ah I won’t bother calling out that bad behaviour because sure he’s gay and I might offend him” …. Thats not the answer.

          8. SOQ

            But that is the point- Roderic was being held to DIFFERENT standards than others.

            Why should he be convicted of ‘guilt by association’ just because they both happen to be gay? Tatchell is a political figure who has met many many people over a thirty year period- why is it only Roderic who was being accused of holding similar views?

            Now you can say it is because of his ministerial position but when you look at the similar mud slinging that his predecessor endured- it is fairly obvious that there was and is double standards at play.

          9. Toby

            Fair enough, ill focus on the pedophilia, you focus on the homophobia. Use my shovel.

    2. patsy

      While that is correct you still need to follow his attempt at misdirection so that you see it from his point of view.

  3. Gay Fawkes

    Are you happy now?

    In GO’D we trust and all that…

    Poor guy, being called a pervert and someone who consorts with paedophiles by a sinister cohort online, who also posted pictures of two men on dog leashes and in bondage masks at some random Gay Pride march, suggesting that this is the way all gay people behave and implying that LGBT members like Roderic want to corrupt children in some way.

    That lie needs to stop now. Peter Tatchell and David Norris and whoever else you want to juxtapose with innocent people did a lot to progress human rights for gay people but their views (what ever they are) are not our views automatically. What they say does not mean anyone who has been pictured with them supports them in everything they’ve said or written

    All the while, same said individuals post tweets lauding Trump, who consorted with King of the Paedos, Epstein, a heterosexual man, and the same Trump who advocated grabbing women by their genitalia, and who drooled over his own daughter on two talk shows, saying “I would if I wasn’t her father”.

    We know who the real warped minds are in all of this. Their juxtaposition of articles/pictures and making grand leaps of factual inaccuracy about individuals and wanting them to answer questions that shouldn’t be asked is truly sinister and, yes, HOMOPHOBIC.

    They also targeted Katherine Zappone in all of this for happening to be another gay person who was granted the Children’s Ministry. You don’t have to have children of your own to care and advocate for them, as was suggested in a previous BS thread. That suggestion is homophobic because it hurts every gay person who reads it.

      1. Gay Fawkes

        I didn’t know of Tatchell’s views on this either until it was highlighted this week. Maybe give him the benefit of the doubt, academia aside?

        1. Johnny

          Agenda-since when is protecting children considered an agenda ?

          If you have highest office type ambitions which c’mon O’Gorman has had for a while, you have take responsibility for what YOU post on your social media under YOUR name in public,its your responsibility to know the views off public figures who you stand next to and post a selfie with-not mine.

          Our HR team runs social media checks for all employees as do most companies, we have interns with more cop on.

          I happen like him and belief he would do a great job, his work with disadvantaged children is outstanding, but cmon its 2020 run your social media like oh I don’t know one day other people may look at….who won’t give you the benefit of the doubt !

          1. Gay Fawkes

            Well, protecting children is an agenda. It’s a good agenda. And I reckon Roderic will do well with that agenda.

            But there’s also a homophobic agenda at the heart of this.

            They’re two separate issues and if you look at the threads you’ll find a lot of homophobia related to this picture being plucked from his past. Whether you want to recognise that is up to you.

            The only thing Roderic is guilty of here is not knowing of Tatchell’s views when he posted that pic. Perhaps he should have had someone with the impeccable ability like you to spot the bad eggs and be his social media adviser.

          2. Johnny

            ..or he could just grow up and dial back the selfies from the pride parade,perhaps exercise a little self self control and stop acting like a giddy teenager running into his hero’s……thats if he still wants be a minister !

          3. Johnny

            …don’t know Repo i work in a regulated industry (weed),none of us have the time or interest to take ‘selfies’ with all the celebs/sports starts/rock stars we meet.

            ..as far as i know two years ago-i don’t have or use insta/fb and anyone on my team posting pics,smoking splits or counting cash or cruising along 125st with a blunt is terminated on the spot for cause-we don’t do ‘selfies’ with the stars or our ‘heroes’ its just so cheesy and naff.

            …ok ok i took one with Martha Stewart and Snoop but that’s a whole other story:)

            …he has done incredible work with disadvantaged children,he’s eminently qualified its just his judgement is shaky and he appears lack common sense, perhaps too long stuck in his ivory tower on campus….

          4. ReproBertie

            The photo he tweeted was taken in 2018, almost 2 years before he became a TD, let alone a minister.

            The photo isn’t a selfie.

            He is smiling in the photo but I don’t know how that qualifies as “acting like a giddy teenager running into his hero’s”.

            Maybe you should climb down from your ivory tower to look at the details before sharing such a poorly informed opinion.

          5. Johnny

            Repo you always go for the ‘man’ play the ball,he was/is a tenured prof with a PHD at that time,a state employee in charge shaping and molding young minds…it never occurred him his students may follow him on his insta, maybe look into who’s he’s posting selfies with ?

            I can you dial it up-your move- maybe all this losing made him reckless…he failed to get elected as a TD at the 2007, 2011 and 2016-hes not exactly new at this.

            He was also a councillor since 2014 but shur lets take some selfies at pride for my followers (students?) on my insta lets get it lit-like WTF how many likes did he get for his pic…well its gone viral now Repo !

          6. GiggidyGoo

            Repro. He was chairman of the Green Party from 2011 to 2019. If the Green Party invited Tatchell over, then Roderic O’Gorman would have known about it and should have done due diligence.

          7. ReproBertie

            Pointing out the facts of the situation is playing the man not the ball? What part of playing the ball and not the man was advising him to “dial back the selfies” and “exercise a little self self control and stop acting like a giddy teenager running into his hero’s”?

            Once again, it wasn’t a selfie.

          8. Johnny

            To all my followers OH MY GOD what a day…
            … i had left my selfie stick at home with my sparking water…i also forgot my spare cell phone charger but oh i met most my heroes at the pride parade and omg what a day all my dreams came through and i met Peter Tatchell and I TOOK A PHOTO before i ran out battery and posted it on MY insta ac for all my followers…BEST DAY EVER !

            …yeah its not a selfie Repo just a photo he took himself with Peter in it…..

          9. GiggidyGoo

            Well, Repro, as far as I know, Today FM are not is a position to legislate or be responsible for children. What makes you even consider that they’ve questions to answer (apart from not grilling him on his views that we are discussing here)?

          10. ReproBertie

            If it is the photo in the “Consenting” article he’s referring to then it certainly doesn’t look like a selfie but I stand corrected.

          11. ReproBertie

            Well Giggidy you were happy to muse about Tatchell and O’Gorman sharing views based on nothing more than a photograph of them together. I didn”t realise you were only concerned about people’s views on sex between children and adults if those people were in a position to legislate or be responsible for children. Clearly the views of someone with a platform on National radio and TV are irrelevant in that case.

            Does it have to be the minister for children or would any politician have questions to answer?

          12. GiggidyGoo

            Well, Repro, tell me now. Are you questioning me as to why I am asking questions of Roderic O’Gorman in his position as legislator and being responsible for Children at Givernment level bigging up a person who doesn’t seem to have too many qualms about paedophilia or child rape? Everything hunky dory in your mind then?

            There’s a vast difference between two-bit excuses for journalists and actual ministers that have the power to legislate and be responsible for children’s welfare don’t you think?

            Comment away on your ‘media’ diversion. In the meantime while Roderic O”Gormans statement addresses somewhat the situation, I don’t see anywhere in it anything about his views of Tatchells many utterances. I mean how easy would it have been to say “I do not agree with Peter Tatchell’s views of underage sex”
            And Gorman is saying that Tatchell doesn’t hold those views?

            Bullpoo. And you know it.

    1. newsjustin

      I agree with much of what you say, but if a freshly-minted Minister for the Environment had a two year-old “delightful” photo of himself with a climate-change skeptic (even one who claims they were ‘taken out of context, etc, etc) at some march, the Minister would have to answer some questions.

      For example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/17/conor-lenihan-ireland-science-minister-anti-evolution-book

      Evolution and climate change are huge, important issues. But they don’t even come close (rightly) to the passion that child sex abuse engenders in people.

      1. Gay Fawkes

        I didn’t know of Tatchell’s views on this either until it was highlighted this week. Maybe give him the benefit of the doubt?

        He has never advocated for paedophilia and he said today that if he’d known of Tatchell’s views at the time of the photo at a Gay Pride march some years ago he would not have posed with him.

        This is a smear campaign, no two ways about it.

        1. newsjustin

          Actually, he’s quoted in the Irish Times as saying that if he read the letter last week he: “probably would have re-considered (taking a photo with him).” Which is about as vague and lame a response as you could get (why didn’t he just say he would not have welcomed his attendance at the march or that he definitely wouldn’t have posed for a photo with him?)

          I do agree with you, and think he should have been given the benefit of the doubt…and still should. But that need not have meant he should have made no clarrification for 5 days.

    2. Toby

      Oh go away with your sanctimonious whinging. Why did it take him 5 days to respond? The whole is it cos im gay/trans/ other schtick is getting tired and not a great place to be hiding behind when the issue is pedophilia.

      1. Gay Fawkes

        The issue is paedophilia, yes, but it is also being conflated with him being a gay Minister for Children.

        I guess it took him five days because it was a tiny cohort raising this and he probably thought and maybe was advised ‘this won’t grow legs because it’s an insane juxtaposition being made by people with homophobic agendas’. But it did gain traction and he released a statement when he felt his reputation was threatened.

        I’m sure he won’t ‘hide behind his sexuality’ (what ever that means?) as Minister for Children when he is tackling child sex abuse head-on. But we won’t hear anything about his sexuality when that happens, will we? And nor should we…

        1. Toby

          To be honest I think the Green Party were the first to conflate it with homosexuality, and the fact that it was at a pride event with a well known gay activist.

          Pedophilia doesn’t recognise orientation, it is bad by itself. it doesn’t need any other context.
          And any endorsement, excuse, contextualising, diminishing, justification or pedophilia is not acceptable by anyone of any gender or sexuality.

          So using homophobia as a defence is a severe injustice to all gay people.

          1. Gay Fawkes

            I agree with you that sexuality should not come into it but it was actually brought into it by the far right on Twitter. If you look at those threads you will find a hell of a lot of homophobic commentary and questioning of why there have been two gay Children’s Ministers in a row. There were also horrible pictures and footage of men in bondage gear at a gay Pride march. There were also issues made about Roderic’s kiss with his partner. To then throw in the Tatchell bombshell is most certainly part of a homophobic campaign. By all means question Tatchell but don’t go the ‘guilty by association’ route.

          2. Do I need a username?

            Can we please not play the game where the alt right try to brand their enemies (who for some reason tend to be gay or trans – I wonder why?!) as paedophiles or paedophile apologists and people take it as reasonable concerns posed in good faith? Maintain your critical faculties people, c’mon

            There are countless examples: Katherine Zappone had to put up with this, Colm O’Gorman had to put up with this from Farage’s childless ex-lap dog and take a quick look at Gemmaroids ravings…There is a clear trend.

  4. Vanessanelle

    Super statement
    In fairness

    You know after the Repeal Referendum there were plenty Love Both Vote No’ers particularly in Fianna Fail that were very quick to be seen and snapped with prominent members of the Tá campaign.

    One in particular springs to mind, and she’s now a Jnr Minister

    I stand alongside people who don’t share my views every day of the week
    and vice versa

    Do I need to be gay to advocate for equal rights
    or Black to be anti-racist
    or a Traveller
    or Disabled
    ye get my point

    Not two years ago a prominent Broadsheeter liked and retweeted a video implicating Leo Varadker’s Skin Tone I kid you not folks
    Skin Tone as a reason for his unsuitability for Taoiseach

    I have many times been in this persons company

    Do ye think I share that view?

    1. newsjustin

      “I stand alongside people who don’t share my views every day of the week
      and vice versa”

      Wait. Are you suggesting that there’s a legitimate “difference of opinion” diversity of views on the topic of child sex abuse? That people can “agree to differ” on the topic, but still be respectful to each other?

      1. ReproBertie

        ‘That people can “agree to differ” on the topic, but still be respectful to each other?’

        In the real world this is commonplace. Online it’s exceedingly rare.

        1. newsjustin

          “the topic” being child sex abuse.

          Is it commonplace on the topic of child sex abuse? Really?

          1. ReproBertie

            I’ve never met anyone who has opposing views to my own on child sex abuse so I can’t say.

          2. newsjustin

            And if you did, would you say, “ah fair enough, diversity of opinion is really important.”

          3. ReproBertie

            Come on Justin. You’re better than this. You know full well I was talking about people being able to tolerate differing opinions in real life and you know full well I wasn’t talking about child abuse. In an attempt to avoid confusion I even quoted that sentence from you specifically.

            Let me ask you something, would you consider two 15 year olds indulging in a bit of “heavy petting” child sex abuse?

          4. Cian

            Let me ask you something, would you consider two 15 year olds indulging in a bit of “heavy petting” child sex abuse?
            Not just “heavy petting” according to the Irish Times the average age in Ireland for losing virginity is 15½ – there is an awful lot of underage sex happening.

          5. newsjustin

            Older teenagers having consensual under-age sex with each other is not the same as adults having sex with nine year olds, as Tatchell has referenced (somewhat) approvingly in his letter.

          6. ReproBertie

            I didn’t mention Tatchell or his views.

            So you’re fine with two older teenagers having sex when they are both underage. If one of them then has a birthday and is now over age would it them having sex be child sex abuse?

          7. newsjustin

            I don’t. I’m not sure how it’s handled legally or practically.

            I do think it’s not the same as an adult abusing a nine year old, as in Tatchell’s example. But I’m not a Minister for Children or anything, so don’t take my word for it.

          8. ReproBertie

            Well since you completely lack an opinion on that matter maybe we can look at something you clearly have an opinion on.

            Could you show me where Tatchell was somewhat approving of adults having sex with 9 year olds?

          9. newsjustin

            In Tatchell’s 1997 letter to the Guardian on the subject of a book review (Dares to Speak, published by Gay Men’s Press) he says:

            “The positive nature of some child-adultsexual relationships isnot confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends, gay and straight, male and female, had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.”

            He goes on…”While it is impossible to condone paedophilia,it is time society acknowledged the truth, whatnot all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive, and harmful.”

            Broadsheet reproduced the letter a few days ago. https://www.broadsheet.ie/2020/07/01/consenting/

          10. ReproBertie

            Hypothetically, if I said that many of my friends had taken heroin and they all said it was a conscious choice and brought them great joy but it is impossible to condone heroin use would that be me somewhat approving of heroin use? Because, while I can see how it could be misconstrued to be, I don’t think it would be the only possible interpretation of that statement.

            If I then went on to emphatically state that I did not condone the use of heroin, would that be sufficient to cancel out any misinterpretations of the initial statement?

          11. Toby

            Ah, so someone doing heroin by their own choice is somehow like someone raping a kid?
            In what universe is this even relative or relevant?

          12. ReproBertie

            Did I say that Toby? Did I mention raping a kid anywhere in my comment? Did I say that raping a kid is a bit like doing heroin?

            Just to be 100% clear. I am not trying to launch a defence of Tatchell. I am trying to get my head around why a man’s repeated and emphatic denials are ignored.

          13. Toby

            You conflated the two in some kind of convoluted defence of I don’t know what.,
            This is the bit Thatchell said that’s worrying-

            “While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

            Usually people would welcome the chance to distance themselves from these views. Its not that complicated.

          14. newsjustin

            +1 What Tatchell wrote is wrong. It will always be wrong. And no amount of claiming he was taken out of context will make it now right.

      2. Vanessanelle

        It that what you read NewsJust

        Is that what you think

        I have posted jaysus knows many comments over most of Broadsheet’s life
        I have contributed numerous articles
        and appeared on BS.tv

        and you’ve contrived Are you suggesting that there’s a legitimate “difference of opinion” diversity of views on the topic of child sex abuse?

        I don’t need to know anything more about you
        You are completely devoid of tolerance and empathy,
        and therefore not capable of sincerity
        about anything

        humanity is a stranger to you

        1. newsjustin

          Your comment suggested that child sex abuse was one of many areas where people hold different positions.

          1. Vanessanelle

            No
            It didn’t

            my post exampled some issues – ye get my point was more than ample

            parsing and nit combing my words from a single post to establish your ugly prejudices,
            and to try and use me to sustain your agenda,

            makes you even more repulsive

            Stay the f::: away from me

          2. newsjustin

            Clearly I misunderstood so.

            You didn’t give examples of where people could have respectful differences of opinion but not be deemed to share those opinions just because they shared a stage, on a thread about opinions on child sex abuse.

          3. Vanessanelle

            your bias and influence is blinding you

            If it wasn’t impeccably clear from my post
            my archives here should have been persuasive

            Just because I stand beside someone, at a public and open invitation event doesn’t make me their ally
            Nor am I responsible for them

            I support Gay Rights even though I am not Gay
            I am related to man with a history of domestic violence, and violence against women and children – does that make me violent too, and or am I to be held responsible for them
            I am related to a convicted tax evader, does that make me a tax cheat too

            As it turns out, and don’t make me go into it please folks, I have been in the company of several convicted paedophiles.
            but by your sick bastardised thinking, I’m to expect to be scalded, defamed, and harassed, my livelihood threatened and my family & friends dragged into it

            And its not like people that think like you didn’t try that one before

            But you know, there’s a cracking photo of me and Senator David Norris wrapped around each other in Dublin Castle, out and about somewhere,
            Enjoy!

          4. newsjustin

            Being related to our knowing paedophiles is not something I hold against anyone. Nobody can help who they are related to, meet, or bump into, knowingly or unknowingly.

            What is an issue for Minister O’Gorman is that he tweeted that he was delighted to be in the company of an *advocate* for (to use Tatchell’s own phrase) child-adult sexual relationships.

            And what surprised me about your posts is that you seem to suggest that somebody holding Tatchell’s views simply represent a diversity of opinion on the matter. Personally, I think Tatchell’s views are abhorrent and not acceptable. Not even in a theoretical, let’s hear all sides kind of way. But I accept, obviously, that you don’t share Tatchell’s views.

          5. Vanessanelle

            What you have just done there
            …. he tweeted that he was delighted to be in the company of an *advocate* for (to use Tatchell’s own phrase) child-adult sexual relationships.

            Is put Peter Thachell’s words into Roderic O’Gorman’s tweet

            Good luck trying to say there isn’t a “small group of people with a very clear agenda”
            And that you’re not one of them

            In the meantime
            Stay the ploppy away from me

      3. Cian

        What is worse than child sex abuse? Murder? Abortion – the intentional killing of children.
        Lets look at what you wrote and make one small change:

        “Wait. Are you suggesting that there’s a legitimate “difference of opinion” diversity of views on the topic of child sex abuse abortion? That people can “agree to differ” on the topic, but still be respectful to each other?”

        Could *you* stand alongside someone that had an abortion? Could you “agree to differ” with them?

        Could you worship a deity that murdered all the firstborn sons in Eqypt?

  5. Gay Fawkes

    I agree with you that sexuality should not come into it but it was actually brought into it by the far right on Twitter. If you look at those threads you will find a hell of a lot of homophobic commentary and questioning of why there have been two gay Children’s Ministers in a row. There were also horrible pictures and footage of men in bondage gear at a gay Pride march. There were also issues made about Roderic’s kiss with his partner. To then throw in the Tatchell bombshell is most certainly part of a homophobic campaign. By all means question Tatchell but don’t go the ‘guilty by association’ route.

    1. SOQ

      There is also a picture of Tatchelll with Theresa May doing the rounds- was she ever asked about his views or is it only gay people who get judged by association?

        1. GiggidyGoo

          I didn’t know Matt Cooper was a minister with responsibility for Children Repro. If he is, he should clarify his position.

          That is an interesting link though. I liked the way Cooper pressed him about his 1997 letter and his various utterances in relation to underage sex. Nothing like a good interviewer to get to the real story.

          1. ReproBertie

            Ah, I didn’t realise it was only the Minister with responsibility for Children that had to comment on the opinions of people they were photographed with 2 years ago. My mistake. Presumably now that he has done so you’re happy to let it go and move on, right?

            Getting arrested in Moscow, anti-gay witch hunts in Chechnya, Russia being a police state, campaigning against Apartheid, overturning the historic convictions of gay people in Britain for homosexual acts, the homophobia of the DUP, the homophobia of those who voted NO in the SSM referendum, the Asher’s cake case, the right of gay people to donate blood, Leo’ being Taoiseach as evidence of Ireland’s progress,

            Nothing in there about letters. Did you listen to a different interview maybe? Can you share the link to that?

          2. GiggidyGoo

            You’re trying to throw so many diversionary laneways into the discussion that i’m beginning to wonder your motives.

            Get back to the subject matter. A Minister For Children is happy that a proponent of underage sex and child rape is accompanying him (and the Green Party) in a Pride parade. That Minister is responsible for the welfare of children, and any new legislation that pertains to the welfare of children.

            Media people are (and we have seen it by their reluctance to do their job this past week) actually scum. The journalists and their paymasters. Their apologists, here and elsewhere. Running with the official flow. Shameful.

          3. ReproBertie

            Three questions for you on the topic then.
            1) O’Gorman has issued a statement that “any of these views would be abhorrent” to him. Is that the end of the matter?

            2) Ignoring that he wasn’t minister until last week and that the photo is two years old, does it not trouble you at all that you portray as “a proponent of underage sex and child rape” a man who clearly and repeatedly states that he does not condone adults having sex with children?

            3) Is it that you don’t believe his denial and his publicly stated position (as I linked to above) over an edited letter?

          4. GiggidyGoo

            A) ‘Would be’ as distinct from ‘is’? Choice of wording.
            B) I think you need to research Tatchell a bit more.
            C) So where is the original of the edited letter, and why hasn’t he sued over it?

            Quit the apologetic stance Represent. You’re in Cian territory now.

          5. GiggidyGoo

            ‘repro’ not represent.

            and as an addendum to B. Roderic O Gorman was chairman of the Green Party 2011 to 2019. If the Green Party invited Tatchell over in 2018, then Roderic O Gorman knew what he was inviting. If he didn’t, then it doesn’t say much about his decision-making capabilities.

          6. GiggidyGoo

            a) FFS = point made.
            b) I’ve just enlightened you above
            c) No I don’t believe Tatchell.

            So
            a) So wasn’t the language clearer? Prone-ish language. Does it fulfill your needs!
            b) As chairman of the Green Party 2011-2019, what do you think?
            c);Do you believe Tatchell?

          7. ReproBertie

            For B you said that I need to research Tatchell but you’ve posted loads about O’Gorman. Was that a typo in the initial answer?

            C) Fair enough, you don’t believe him. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong so, yes, I lean towards believing his clarifications and repeated statements. Obviously I in no way condone adults having sex with children.

        2. Gay Fawkes

          What a disgusting, depraved heterosexual that Matt Cooper is for posing smiling with Tatchell. Everybody boycott Matt Cooper now!!!!!

  6. SOQ

    Anyone who reads my comments on this site will know that I am hardly your typical hive-mind left winger but to me this was petty much an open and closed case. My first assumption was that this was a smear campaign and I have seen or heard nothing since to change my mind.

    The ‘guilt by association’ over a once off meeting was weak to begin with but when I looked at the characters involved, they are EXACTLY the same ones who had a serious problem with Zappone in the same role and they were banging on about her for years,.

    Why? Because she was also gay- that is it- no other reason. So please don’t insult my intelligence by telling me there was no homophobia involved this time around.

    They just don’t wants gays around children which is as homophobic as it gets and IMO they now have done more harm to themselves than anyone else.

    1. Do I need a username?

      Totally agree. The amount of times I saw anonymous “patriot” 2020 accounts tweeting a split photo of him kissing his husband on his election with the photo of him marching with Tatchell became so frequent that it was obvious what they were trying to infer. And of course one then looks at the main overt peddlers and ringleaders of this “scandal”- Gemmaroids the circus master, Farage’s ex-lap dog, the 50-something “army” creep still living with his mother, the Youth Defence spin unit Grift media one of whose stars effectively has a PhD in smear, the National Party’s pot-bellied goblin, the bring back John Charles McQuaid “Catholics” who speak for all Catholics…the usual motley crew of the dysfunctional, disturbed and diehard, told me all I needed to know.

      1. SOQ

        I kinda wonder about that crowd.

        In the UK you have the likes of Douglas Murray and Andrew Moore pushing against the woke and even the likes of Anne-Marie Waters who are all gay and all regarded as right wing- but people whom I would take time to listen to.

        And then here we have this weird mesh of anti-abortion anti-vaccine anti-gay rosary bead wavers who are so cliché that you’d have to wonder if half of them are not actually false flag operations.

        They certainly do not inspire a questioning mind or critical thinking that is for sure. I expect it is a case of ‘follow the money’- American money- so much for nationalism eh?

      2. class wario

        In fairness to McGawk, he did at least initially say that the wackier elements of the conspiracy were nonsense but he ended up joining the pile-on eventually in any case.

        The stuff about ‘map porn’ and that Goya painting are truly next level deranged

        1. SOQ

          I studied Geographical Information Systems from UCC if anyone wants to give me a job?

          1. italia'90

            have you experience with a Trimble R10?
            and know anything about Dark Fibre surveying and fibre optic terminating?
            I’m looking for 5 technicians to start immediately – advertised on Indeed if interested?

    2. ian-oh

      This thread and the moderation is why I barely post on here anymore.

      I’ve had posts removed for saying something quite innocuous but these far right ghouls can say pretty much whatever they like. As I said, I barely post here anymore and this is also why BS is no longer on my must read list anymore.

      Not even sure if I can post this without a ‘this post is awaiting moderation” message as I had been getting for a very long time. I clearly irritated someone with a petty personality.

      Anyway, see y’all in maybe 6-9 months.

      1. sidhe

        that’s a real pity ian-oh as I always found your contributions to the site very interesting, thoughtful and empathetic

        here’s hoping we’ll see you back again sooner rather than later

    3. class wario

      don’t think we see eye to eye on much SOQ but this I can heartily give a +1 to

    4. GiggidyGoo

      Looking back over this article and the comments.
      There seems to be an opinion in some quarters that this is all about homophobia. A lot of comments seem to conclude that any criticisms of Roderic O’Gorman are homophobic only.

      As far as I can see here, the comments that are negative towards Roderic O’Gorman’s / Green Party’s association with Tatchell are based on Tatchells views on paedophilia and rape of minors, and that Roderick O’Gorman, AND the Green Party are happy that this person is marching with them.

      Am I wrong?

      I know that SOQ wouldn’t condone what Tatchell has pushed as regards paedophilia and child rape.
      I know that Daisy Chainsaw wouldn’t either. (I probably know as much as DC as regards Flapper F for instance).

      But the problem for Roderic O Gorman here is that he has taken 5 days or so to come up with a press release and (in my view anyway) a lame excuse as to his knowledge of As chairman of the green party 2011 to 2019, he would have had an input into who would be invited to stand with him and the greens at 2018?

      ROG studied at the London School of Economics, and place where Tatchell has spoken a few times. I have my doubts that he hasn’t came across Tatchell and his views in the past.

      1. SOQ

        I met Tatchell twice- both in social circumstances in London where he always yapped on about gay rights.

        His willingness to front up the ”bash the bishops’ campaign was and is legend

        He does not believe children should have sex with adults.

        He stuck me as someone who now would be diagnosed as autistic.

          1. Charger Salmons

            @SOQ
            Like you I met him a few times.
            As I’ve mentioned before on here I found him brave,honest but somewhat infuriating.
            I put it down to the defence mechanism he protected himself with in the face of often violent verbal and physical abuse.
            I never once thought him a monster although your description of him registering on the autism scale seems appropriate.
            This current brouhaha would not bother him in the slightest considering what he has gone through in the past.
            He’s a big boy well able to defend himself.
            Particularly from the paper aeroplanes some of the keyboard warriors on here are launching in his direction.

        1. GiggidyGoo

          Thanks SOQ for your insight.
          I get his views on the gay aspect. I can’t find fault his involvement there.

          I’m not convinced on his views on adult/child sex. And that’s not discounting your views, I’m just not convinced.

  7. Ringsend Incinerator

    Trying to decide which has the greater chance of failure

    – Green Party wanting Twitter to stop “toxic emissions”

    Or

    – Green Party wanting Ireland to stop “toxic emissions”

    D6 dinner party numpty politics.

  8. Toby

    Few issues highlight the problems for the woke as this one does. Ultimately the prevarication, whataboutery and hypocrisy that has accompanied this will do them in. Because for the woke its not what was said, but who said it. Its like if a Catholic, a Fianna Failer or a Shinner says something- its fair game and the person is a target rather than the offence. But when its a woke bloke saying it or doing it… not the same story. John Connors for instance- does he get cancelled because he slammed Roger, or does he get a pass because he is a traveller. Sinn Fein funeral wrong, Garda funeral good. All the calling out re comedy- good….. but Glen Hansard?….. tumbleweed….

    Its the hypocrisy that will hang them in the end.

    1. SOQ

      It was a dirty trick to prevent a second gay minister for children- it really is that simple. This is exactly why I am so pro free speech- give the friggers enough rope to hang themselves- and in this case, they did.

  9. Do I need a username?

    That is some bull. Hypocrisy my botty. Look at those fronting the smear campaign against O’Gorman and you’ll find those with an unparalleled record of hypocrisy. If you are going to come and peddle this sort of thing, one needs to be clear one’s own hands are clean. So spare me the faux concern for honest public discourse – this is about the worst example you could choose.

    But of course you know this.

    And the “woke” claxon for added intellectual heft. Glorious.

      1. Do I need a username?

        Oh please. You’re accusing me of “whataboutery?! Reread your original post.

        All the de rigueur buzz words you can field (I‘m surprised not to have seen snowflake) only exemplify the redundancy of this affair to serve as an example for your faux perma-grievance.

        I’m decidedly not convinced.

  10. newsjustin

    As hard as it is to accept, there is a tiny cohort of people, and Tatchell, despite his backtracking, seems to be amongst them, who genuinely believe that adults having sex with children (aka child rape and sexual assault) is defensible and even desirable.

    It is right that these people are scrutinised, challenged and run to ground each and every time they surface, in whatever form or flag of convenience. And anyone who gives them succour needs to be challenged.

    This is true whether they exist in private or public, in political parties, churches or the media, wherever.

    1. Do I need a username?

      I don’t doubt that tiny cohort exist and reside primarily in the dark web. Don’t forget the stats though- the vast majority of children who are sexually abused are abused by those closest to them, generally their father in the own home. Abuse committed by Roman clerics falls far short of this as does stranger-abuse.

      I am not familiar with all of Tatchell’s views here although he has been quite categorical today on twitter and in the last few years stating his moral abhorrance of child-adult sexual relationships.

      1. Toby

        These are his words.

        Not dark web, not Catholic priest, not fathers- Just Tatchell. The guy Roderic was tweeting about.

        “Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

        So hopefully that clears things up for you.

        1. Do I need a username?

          @Tobes. I know those words of Tatchell dear. I was pointing out how he appears to have rowed back considerably since 1997 to the point of now declaring a moral abhorrence. See his tweets today.

          @Justin: It is up to you to choose to believe Tatchell or not and your probing is right and proper but to sweep away what was a concerted smear campaign by another dysfunctional tiny cohort built on nothing more than guilt-by-association so as to present the affair as a genuine and honest public interest question, is disingenuous and mendacious in the extreme. I do not for one minute believe the reaction would have been the same were we dealing with a straight minister married with kids with a similar factual matrix. No way in hell.

      2. newsjustin

        He’s categorical today becausd his 1997 letter was roundly criticized at the time, and continues to be.

        There is an element who don’t just dwell on the dark web, they emerge from time to time and try to make psedo-academic arguments about how paedophilia is fine and should be accepted. They were about in the 70s and 80s in the UK, attaching themselves to socialist politics.

Comments are closed.