George Hook and That Old Time Religion

George Hook

[Or I could have entitled this "George Hook and the Four Cardinal Virtues"]

A few of my so-called friends have suggested to me that - while, they agree with some of my views [traitors!]- they feel I am being too extreme and alienating potential supporters. One even quoted to me the words of St Francis de Sales: "You can catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a hundred barrels of vinegar".  OK I looked up the quote and St. Francis de Sales was Bishop of Geneva from 1602 to his death in 1622 but was never able to reside there because the area was firmly under Calvinist control. I have no doubt that he was a very holy man but the "spoonful of honey" approach was the only possible one he could have adopted in the circumstances! And apparently he had some success.

So taking inspiration from the Saint, I will quote some of my more "moderate" comments from the Politics.ie discussion on George Hook.

The Meaning of the word "Responsible" [1]

Originally posted by owedtojoy
 22-year-old man raped in an alleyway after leaving Glasgow nightclub   The Independent 25/09/17

Was he a "slag"? A "slapper"? Was he drunk? Wear his jeans too tight? Shouldn't he stay out of alleyways?

 What did he do to get himself raped?

Reply by Pabilito to owedtojoy:
Well yes he put himself in a dangerous situation wandering alone around dark alleyways in the early hours. He certainly does bear some personal responsibility however that doesn’t detract any blame for the crime from the rapist.

I once worked for an American multinational and sometimes would take visiting engineers out for a meal and a few drinks in Dublin, one particular guy insisted on staying on late in Temple Bar when we all went home and I told him to be careful and gave him money for a Taxi. Following morning I learned that he’d been stabbed several times in a laneway behind Pearse Street. Fortunately he survived and when I visited him in hospital before I could say anything he said “I know, I know I was stupid .. I got drunk and went up the lane for a pee”.

Reply by Kilbarry1 - to owedtojoy and Pablito
Leaving the fanatical man-haters aside for a minute, SOME of these disagreements are about the meaning of words and in particular the word "responsibility":

(a) "Responsibility" can relate to the concept of Justice - and so we have criminal responsibility. A criminal is always fully responsible for the crime he or she commits - and this applies even if the victim has been careless e.g. wandering the streets late and drunk.

(b) The other meaning is more closely related to the virtue of Prudence. Every person has a duty (responsibility) to take reasonable  care of their own safety.

When I was at school, we were taught that the four cardinal virtues were Prudence, Justice, Fortitude (Courage) and Temperance. Our very orthodox teachers also told us there might appear to be contradictions between the four but "properly understood" the contradictions disappeared. One topic we discussed in religion class about 1965 was Prudence vs Fortitude e.g. if you were a soldier in wartime just what did "Prudence" mean. Of course we came to the conclusion that the virtue was still valid but it didn't mean the same kind of behaviour as in civilian life!

 As young teenagers, we had no great problem making that kind of distinction. I went to an all-male school but I'm sure that girls of the same age had the same ability to apply logical reasoning.  Nowadays many adults - especially women - seem unable to understand the concept of "responsibility" and the fact that it doesn't mean exactly the same thing in relation to Justice as it does in relation to Prudence. It is quite possible for a criminal to be 100% responsible for committing a crime AND for the victim to have facilitated the crime by stupid or careless behaviour!

The Meaning of the word "Responsible" [2]

Of course we came to the conclusion that the virtue was still valid but it didn't mean the same kind of behaviour as in civilian life!

And the reason for the "of course" was that it was a directed discussion with the adult teacher very much in charge. If the discussion had veered in the direction of "Prudence is meaningless in wartime" or "Prudence is only cowardice" then the adult would have stepped in to correct us. Nowadays it is the adults who are leading the hysterical mob against someone who probably has much the same values that we teenagers accepted in 1965.

I recall a comment by George Orwell when he was writing dismissively about Spiritualism - which was the New Age Philosophy of his own time. He wrote something to the effect that "It may well be true to say that organised  religion is a defence against superstition".  It is also a defence against the kind of hysteria directed against Kevin Myers and now George Hook. (Let's not forget that Kevin Myers was denounced as an anti-Semite and our Taoiseach and Tanaiste joined in the chorus of abuse.)

The Churches and Personal Responsibility

No doubt it's because I'm getting old but I am saddened by the failure of the Catholic Church - and especially our own Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - to say anything about the hysteria generated by the media against anyone they dislike. I have quoted the following in a previous post but it is worth repeating:

The following is the beginning of an article by Church of Ireland Archbishop (and Primate) Richard Clarke in Irish Times on 12 September. In the PRINT version it is headed "Defensive Rage of Social Media is Horrifying" with sub-heading  "Reasoned persuasion has been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines"

"It is a truism that we are living in a culture of adversarial anger. We most readily discover our identity not by establishing what we are, but in finding and vilifying those who are against us. A cursory engagement with social media will horrify most of us. It reveals a pervasive if anonymised defensive rage. It is an inchoate anger that can also present itself – even more dangerously – in the casual savage violence visible throughout our island.

"In an apparent corollary, civic discourse (and not merely within political life) is likewise being steadily degraded as a stark binary pose on all issues becomes the predominant public mindset – no reasoned discussion, simply some new scheme presented with a minimum of nuance and a surfeit of self-righteous assertiveness

"The routes of reasoned persuasion have been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines. In the midst of this is it not sensible to suggest that more wholesome conversations are needed in our public discourse? In particular, we surely need to consider together not simply the latest momentary squabble but far deeper matters. .......

 [It seems to me that the remainder of the article is a bit disconnected from this beginning. Did the Archbishop do a last minute revision in order to take on board the hysteria surrounding George Hook -including the hysteria propagated by Fintan O'Toole?]

Has any Catholic Bishop said anything as powerful as that? I do understand that Catholic clergy feel they cannot speak out on this sort of issue without exposing themselves to the same torrent of rage that was directed at George Hook. BUT there is one exception -our own beloved Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin. Archbishop Diarmuid is a hero to secular liberals like Fintan O'Toole. It would be safe for him to speak out and condemn the hate-filled ranting. So why doesn't he do so. Maybe it's BECAUSE he is a hero to secular liberals (like Fintan O'Toole) - and wants to ensure that things stay that way?

Fintan O'Toole and the Two Archbishops

Fintan O'Toole

Archbishop Eamon Martin (Catholic) and Richard Clarke (Anglican)

Fintan O'Toole "columnist, literary editor and drama critic for the Irish Times" is described by Wikipedia as having "generally left-wing views" which is a curious way of putting it and might suggest that he occasionally expresses viewpoints that stray from the strictly orthodox. This is not correct!

The following is from a discussion on the politics.ie website regarding George Hook Note that the two Archbishops I refer to in the title, are John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973 and the current Church of Ireland Primate Richard Clarke. (For obvious reasons, there is no photo of those two  standing side by side but I'm sure that, given the opportunity, Fintan O'Toole would write a kindly review of a book that slandered Archbishop Eamon Martin!)

In his article of 12 September entitled "Why I will Not Appear on Newstalk Again" (subtitle "George Hook’s Rape Comments are the Result of the Station’s Flagrantly Sexist Strategy")
Fintan O'Toole begins as follows:
What I have to say is of no consequence. The organisation against which it is aimed will be no more conscious of it than a speeding car is of a fly mashed into the corner of its windscreen. But here it is anyway: from now on I won’t be appearing on any Newstalk programmes

O'Toole presents himself as a lone individual who is "speaking truth to power" and bravely taking a stance against "the powers that be". The opposite would be closer to the truth!


Fintan O'Toole and Believing Lies

Original Post by Surkov
There is a piece on this by Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times where he lambasts Newstalk. In his mind, he seems to imagine that the entire organisation is corrupt, hateful, etc. As though some cancer of hate had metasticised to an horrific extent.

Admittedly I don't listen to it all that much, but Newstalk seems pretty standard fare to me. Why does FOT hate it so much? Did they do something to him in the past that made it personal for him

Reply by Kilbarry1
I don't know the specifics of why Fintan O'Toole hates Newstalk. I have his article in front of me now and it is indeed grossly over the top.  One clue as to his attitude. In 1999 John Cooney former Religious Affairs correspondent for the IT (and future one for the Indo) published a biography of John Charles McQuaid that depicted him as a homosexual paedophile. The allegations were panned by every historian who reviewed the book and by ALMOST every journalist. (Guess who was the exception.) Reviewers who praised the remainder of the book said that Cooney should have omitted the Paedo claims. Most anti-clerics were annoyed and embarrassed; I recall one guy who REGRETTED that the accusation might create sympathy for the late Archbishop!

The exception was of course Fintan O'Toole. Not that he exactly believed the claims but he WANTED to believe them. The article entitled "Cooney Has At Least Posed Right Question" was published in the Irish Times on 26 November 1999.
"...   In the midst of the recent controversy over the allegations in John Cooney's new book that John Charles McQuaid had an unhealthy sexual interest in young boys, I began to interrogate that old memory. Was it just an innocent encounter with a nice old man who was privately more at ease with children than his stern public demeanour would suggest? Or must all such memories now be lit with the sinister glow of corruption?

The answer, tentative and paradoxical though it must be, is probably "yes" in both cases. Certainly, John Cooney's suggestions are not backed by anything approaching an acceptable level of historical evidence. But at the same time anyone reading another book published this week has to acknowledge that everything we know about the history of the State has to be re-examined from the bleak perspective of its most vulnerable children." [The book was "Suffer the Little Children" by Mary Raftery]   .........

"Speculating about the nature of John Charles McQuaid's sexuality, as John Cooney does, may not be the right answer. But John Cooney at least managed, as no historian has done, to pose the right question. ....."

O'Toole's thuggish desire to believe lies because those lies would depict his enemies in a bad light, may throw some light on his  rant in today's IT!

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop Richard Clarke

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop (and Primate) Richard Clarke in Irish Times on 12 September. In the PRINT version it is headed "Defensive Rage of Social Media is Horrifying" with sub-heading "Reasoned persuasion has been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines"

It is a truism that we are living in a culture of adversarial anger. We most readily discover our identity not by establishing what we are, but in finding and vilifying those who are against us. A cursory engagement with social media will horrify most of us. It reveals a pervasive if anonymised defensive rage. It is an inchoate anger that can also present itself – even more dangerously – in the casual savage violence visible throughout our island.

In an apparent corollary, civic discourse (and not merely within political life) is likewise being steadily degraded as a stark binary pose on all issues becomes the predominant public mindset – no reasoned discussion, simply some new scheme presented with a minimum of nuance and a surfeit of self-righteous assertiveness.

The routes of reasoned persuasion have been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines. In the midst of this is it not sensible to suggest that more wholesome conversations are needed in our public discourse? In particular, we surely need to consider together not simply the latest momentary squabble but far deeper matters. ......

It seems to me that the remainder of the article is a bit disconnected from this beginning. Did the Archbishop do a last minute revision in order to take on board the hysteria surrounding George Hook??

Also his article is on the same page as Fintan O'Toole's preposterous one "Why I Won't be Appearing on Newstalk any more." It functions as a kind of response to O'Toole's rant!
NOTE: See Post #1835 concerning Fintan O'Toole vs a different Archbishop!

Newstalk Managing Editor Patricia Monahan Replies to Fintan O’Toole

However I see that Newstalk managing editor Patricia Monahan replied to Fintan O’Toole on 16 September in an article entitled All who work in Newstalk subject of outrageously unfair attack

Among the points she makes are:

....... O’Toole chose to ignore several salient facts, most importantly the number of women employed by the station and their impact on the daily output. Would it not have been worth mentioning that I as a woman, am Newstalk’s managing editor, that the chairperson of our group is a woman, or that our head of news is a woman? At Newstalk, the majority of our production staff are women. As editor, I am the final decision-maker on all editorial matters and have responsibility for content produced by the station across all platforms. But my work apparently deserves no recognition because I am not a presenter. Do I not qualify as female representation because my voice is not heard on-air? ....

Does [Fintan O'Toole] conclude that we are all party to a concerted effort by the station to “keep women presenters off the airwaves” and that I as the principal editorial decision-maker proactively restructured the schedule to do just that in a “highly conscious” manner? .....

As a commercial station in Newstalk we fight for audience share in every quarter hour of every day, as if our lives depend on it. And the truth is, our livelihoods do. That is the commercial reality of our business. Almost €40 million has been invested in Newstalk in a media landscape where the State-owned broadcaster is given the lion’s share of the €330 million collected in television licence fees. We don’t have the luxury of hiring men or women because it is the politically correct thing to do. We make decisions that make sense for the business....

And Finally:
One is only left to wonder why he never bothered to tell anyone at Newstalk how “flagrantly . . . and systematically sexist” the station was on any of his visits to our studios. [My emphasis]

The last point is the key one. Fintan O'Toole joined a lynch mob BECAUSE it was a lynch mob.

Cliff Richard and Child Abuse Hysteria

Spiked-OnLine have a interesting article by Luke Gittos their Law Editor entitled

  The Cliff Richard Case: Another Homophobic Witch-Hunt

and subtitle "The Paedophile  Panic has rehabilitated some age-old prejudices"

I generally agree with Spiked and Luke Gittos on this topic but I suspect that "homophobia" has little to do with Cliff Richard's ordeal.

I contributed to the discussion myself as follows: 

  

Kilbarry1 

Has everyone here forgotten that the lunatic child-murder allegations began in Ireland NOT the UK, lasted for about a decade and were actually declining here when they started up in the UK (i.e. with the Haut de la Garenne witch-hunt in Jersey in 2008)?

I attempted a summary of the Irish blood libels in a 2006 "Letter to Sunday Tribune re Child Killing Allegations". I think all of the journalists and leaders of "Victims" groups would have very PC attitudes to homosexuals - definitely no homophobia involved in OUR witch-hunt.
http://www.irishsalem.com/iris...

Since many of the child murder claims related to periods when no child died of any cause, I coined the phrases "Murder of the Undead" and "Victimless Murders". The claims in relation to Jersey and "Operation Midland" were ALSO of the "Victimless Murder" variety. In Jersey the deputy police chief responsible for the fiasco was born in Derry, must have heard of the Irish claims but probably did not realise they had been discredited because our anti-clerical media had covered up THAT story.

I suppose I can't fault Luke Gittos for not realising this. At the time I drew up my summary, I managed to forget about the original blood libel in 1996 which was directed against the Sisters of Mercy rather than the Christian Brothers. However you can read all about it here
http://www.irishsalem.com/iris...
with all of the gory details in a Daily Mirror article on 11 October 1997 (also available on line):

HOT POKER WAS USED ON LITTLE MARION.. NO CASH WILL GET HER BACK; I THINK MY BABY WAS MURDERED AT THE ORPHANAGE, SAYS PAYOUT MUM

The hatred involved here is of the anti-clerical variety and I doubt if there was a single homophobe among the false accusers.

P.S. The main victims of this witch-hunt in the UK seem to be either political or cultural Tories. Blood Libels directed against such persons are probably the UK equivalent of Irish anti-clericalism?

anonuk  Kilbarry1 • 

What are you claiming? That there were no sadistic nuns or pervy Brothers? That the whole thing was a pernicious lie?

Kilbarry1  anonuk •

The use of Blood Libels against the Christian Brothers, Sisters of Mercy and later priests (after I wrote my 2006 article) is a pretty clear indication that the whole thing is a pernicious lie. That doesn't mean that there were NO clerical or religious sex offenders. Similarly the use of Blood Libels against Jews doesn't mean that there are NO Jewish criminals.

Incidentally the main allegation about clerical involvement in the murder of a child (Bernadette Connolly in 1970) was orchestrated in 2009 by the then Fine Gael spokesman for Justice. The Gardai (police) carried out a year long investigation that found no evidence of any Catholic Church involvement and a few months later the same politician was appointed Minister for Justice. Yes the whole thing is an obscene witch-hunt orchestrated from the top - and quite similar to the Deputy leader of the Labour Party in the UK supporting obscene lies about the Tories. (The latter witch-hunt involved child-murder as well.)

The Irish child-killing witch-hunts preceded their UK equivalents, and may well have caused them. What other European country has seen left wing/anti-clerical politicians using Blood Libels against the the Catholic Church or Conservatives??

Twisk  Kilbarry1 

I'd say, pretty much every country with a strong Catholic presence has seen its anti-clerical left wing attacking the Church for pedophilia.
Which was often true, and proved. 

Even though, this left wing itself harbours its own pedophiles - in my country, you'll find them mainly among the Greens and the mainstream liberal left wing.They seem to think pedophilia is cool or something.

Kilbarry1  Twisk •

"Which was often true and proved"
I concentrated on the child-murder allegations because these are things that can be properly investigated even decades later. The leaders of FOUR "Victims" groups were involved in such claims as were several Irish journalists. Since the same persons were up to their necks in non-lethal child abuse claims as well, I think it's a fair assumption that all of their allegations are false.

And what about the ordinary members of these "Victims" groups? Did they protest when they saw their leaders making ludicrous claims that could easily be proved false? Did they replace these leaders or resign in protest? Well no - presumably because own allegations were also false (though less easy to prove so).

For years Ireland was the only country with "Murder of the Undead" type allegations i.e. where no child died of ANY cause during the relevant period. Then Britain followed with the "Haut de la Garenne" investigations in 2008 and Operation Midland recently. The scapegoats in the UK are the Tories and the underlying reason is probably the final failure of the "liberal agenda" and the desire of hate-filled liberals to find someone else to blame!

Twisk  Kilbarry1 •

I don't know about child-murder allegations, even though similar accusations have been leveled in my country, but against liberal left-wing politicians. 

All I said was pedophilia is well documented within the Catholic Church, and that would be everywhere, not just Ireland. I add that Protestants have also been denounced as having the same rate of child abusers among their ministers - even though, as this data is less politically useful, its has not made the headlines. 

The accusations against the Catholic church in Ireland may well have been orchestrated by some Church-hating Soros-like group, but one thing is certain: if so many people were ready to believe the Church was guilty, it is because of the inescapable fact it has been in the past. 

If I was an anti-Catholic activist with a political agenda, of course I'd use that line myself. It's like shooting an elephant in a barrel.

Kilbarry1  Twisk • 

We will have to agree to disagree. HOWEVER "If so many people were ready to believe the Church was guilty, it is because ..... it has been in the past".

In January 2006 the Sunday Tribune declared that the number of homicides in 2005 had been the highest in the history of the State - at least since the Civil War of the early 1920s. The statistics for all other crimes of violence show the same pattern. I believe the same applies to the suicide rate. I know that the number of children taken into care during the Celtic Tiger years increased greatly - I think from under 4,000 to over 6,000 at a time when Ireland was filthy rich - AND the Church was declining. I find it impossible to believe that the incidence of child sexual abuse is any different i.e. it MUST be greater now than say the 1950s, when the power of the Catholic Church was at its height.

So what is behind the war against the Catholic Church in Ireland and elsewhere? Well in one sense our anti-clerical liberals have won the Culture Wars - with our new-found anything-goes attitude to authority and sexual morality. But in a more profound sense they have lost the war - in relation to crime, suicide and drug abuse for example - and they know it.. Having spent decades blaming the Church for all our evils, they have no way of dealing with our REAL current problems. Their response has been to howl obscenities at the Church and at their own forefathers who deferred to it.Saying that there must be SOME reality behind all these allegations is like making a similar point about Satanic Ritual Abuse or the Salem witch-hunts. Or indeed about the 9 separate accusers of Cliff Richard. (The police and the BBC gave vast publicity to the original false allegation and THAT encouraged all the others to come forward. There is no great mystery about it!)

In the UK, the Tories are stand-ins for the Catholic Church in Ireland (partly because the Anglican Church has provided little resistance to the new liberal order).

Twisk  Kilbarry1 •

We do not disagree. I am quite sure that the attacks against the Catholic Church serve an agenda indeed, that of the liberalization of the whole of society. If I may add a personal observation, I generally find atheists (or Anglicans, or liberal Protestants) way easier to manipulate through propaganda than the Catholics, who have strong convictions and are not easily swayed. Hence, if you want a pliant population, it makes sense to try and destroy Catholicism.

Which does not mean the Church is altogether free of guilt... unfortunately.

Kilbarry1  Twisk • 

I agree about the Anglicans, liberal Protestants etc being gullible and easily manipulated but unfortunately the rot has spread pretty far in the Irish Catholic Church also. I have written here about a (now retired) Bishop Willie Walsh whose acceptance of preposterous allegations caused mirth, even among our anti-clerics.
http://www.irishsalem.com/indi...

There is also the Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin who displays similar credulity - though, in my opinion, he is less of a fool and more of a willing accomplice with the anti-clerical establishment. In February 2014 our national broadcaster RTE had to pay damages to named Catholic journalists who were described as "homophobes" by gay activist Miss Panti Bliss. There were furious protests by politicians and a mass rally denouncing the payout but RTE pointed out that they had no option - their presenter had actually encouraged Miss Panti Bliss to make the comment. Naturally the Archbishop of Dublin weighed in on the controversy
"Homophobia 'insults God', says Archbishop of Dublin"
http://www.independent.ie/iris...

Archbishop Diarmuid had nothing at all to say about the slandered Catholic journalists. In his autobiography "Woman in the Making", Miss Panti Bliss (Rory O'Neill) correctly observed that the Archbishop was on his side and I quote
"The Archbishop of Dublin denounced homophobia and practically declared himself to be on 'Team Panti'. [page 265]

It's true that if you want a pliant population it makes sense to destroy Catholicism, but the Irish Church is destroying itself. Incidentally I am well aware that their media representatives regard me as an extremist!

Twisk  Kilbarry1 • a day ago

If I may, the Pope is equally confusing and confused, and might be a tool too. There are rumours that say Pope Benedict was pushed out to be replaced by a more "Western values"-friendly and pliant Pope. 

It wouldn't surprise me.
http://catholicreformation.yuk...

Labour Councillors Join Mob Harrasment of Innocent Family - CONTINUED

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - Sins of Omission re Child Sex Abuse

This atrocious story - mobs harassing the family of a man who had a two-decades-old conviction for sex with a minor - gained a certain amount of publicity in 2010 but has now been practically forgotten. If it had occurred 50 years ago, our anti-clerical media would be ranting about it still.

At the time there was a brief but heated controversy on the Politics.ie website - to which I contributed of course. The following contains some  extracts from the discussion

Labour Councillors Join Mob Harassment of Innocent Family

I concluded my own contribution to the discussion in 2010 as follows:

The family have been hounded out of Kilcoole, Redcross, Rathnew and Ashford. I think they are all in the Archdiocese of Dublin which covers most of Co. Wicklow as well. Ashford certainlly is and that is where their house was burned down.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has become a great hero of the liberal media because of the way he has dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse. He cannot make a speech without denouncing the evils of abuse and apologising for the way the Church dealt with them in the past. He even put pressure on Bishop Martin Drennan to resign even though NO criticism had been made of him in the Murphy Report. (Like the Wicklow mob, the Archbishop seems to believe in guilt by association.)

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, John Cooney, Kathy O'Beirne, Bishop Dermot O'Mahony

Would it be too much to ask the Archbishop to condemn the behaviour of the people who hound an innocent mother and her four children? The mob are abusing these innocents. Moreover the hysteria and fanaticism generated by the mob will rebound on real victims of child sexual abuse in the future. Cynicism is what normally follows after Hysteria.

Rory Connor
16 January 2016

LABOUR COUNCILLORS JOIN MOB HARRASSMENT OF INNOCENT FAMILY

[extract from Politics.ie discussion in July 2010]

·         onlyasking

The ugly face of modern Ireland is on show in Wicklow, led by rabble-rousing Labour councillors.
Innocent relatives of a man convicted of a sex offence 18 years ago are being hounded out of Wicklow, with the charge being led by Labour Party councillors. The man was given a suspended six month sentence 18 years ago for 'Unlawful Carnal Knowledge of a Minor'.

This unfortunate family has been run out of a string of locations across Wicklow following mob-protests, culminating in the burning of a local authority house yesterday.
It is my understanding that relatives of convicted criminals are not found guilty through blood association. Indeed, they are entirely innocent unless found guilty. Collective punishments, to my knowledge, are illegal in this state and almost all others.

Labour councillors, having realised the local electoral difficulties they would face through behaving with humanity, compassion and christian or humanist decency, have ditched any hint of such qualities and have aligned themselves with the baying mob. Of course they 'utterly condemn the burning of the house' by fellow-protestors. Yeah, right. The fact that the arson occured while the protestors stood outside the house makes a laughing-stock of such hand-wringing.

Here is an innocent family being hounded from pillar to post. That's an ugly modern manifestation of the dark impulses that lay behind the burning of women as witches a few hundred years ago.
It is simply a disgrace that the party founded by James Connolly would be involved in such a campaign of naked harrassment against a woman and her children who have undoubtedly suffered terribly through the actions of one of their relatives.

Of course I realise that people are concerned for the safety of their children. It would appear that the man at the centre has not re-offended in over 18 ears, and it is also clear that children are at vastly greater risk of being sexually abused within the home than at the hands of strangers.
Would the wife of a man of 80 with a single similar conviction from 60 years ago be chased out of Wicklow? On this evidence, quite possibly. Would it be justifiable? Obviously not.

I daresay some or most of the members of this mob attend church and pretend they are christians. Can they imagine the Christ they pay lip-service to condoning this type of behaviour, or would they imagine him standing against the mob.
Will any member of this family ever be allowed to live in peace? Ever?

This brings disgrace on any elected representative who joins the mob, regardless of what party they represent. So far, Labour has been to the fore in this dark episode.
It's amazing how a sniff of government can infect a political party, putting a sledgehammer through its moral compass.

·        Kilbarry1

Hysteria re Child Abuse

Some people seem to be assuming that while it is wrong to target the family of a former sex offender, it is "understandable" to target the man himself. This man was convicted 18 years ago, given a six months sentence and has not offended since. He has a right to live with his family and they with him. Even if the Council told his family that they would be housed, provided that he did not stay with them, this would be unjust and probably unconstitutional.

A few years ago there was a case in Wales where a policeman Geoffrey Harries was ACCUSED of possessing child pornography. He and his wife were forced out of their home. They went to live with his mother. A "concerned" neighbour then vandalised his car at night. He confronted the man and was stabbed to death. AFTER his death the police put up TV cameras on the outside of the mothers house to protect her from the the "concerned" neighbours. One reader's comment on THAT newspaper story was:
If they place people on bail, for contentious acts, to houses without consulting neighbours, what do you expect Sandra Jones, Swansea

Geoffrey Harries, Daniel Williams, Murdered "Child Porn" Policeman

Anyone who condones mob violence against a real or suspected sex offender is targetting the family as well.

·         Cato

[ Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

 This man was convicted 18 years ago, given a six months sentence and has not offended since. ]

How do you know that? The most we can say is that he has not been convicted since. You are making a dangerous assumption there given the recidivism rate.

·         Kilbarry1

[ Originally Posted by Oldira1 

What you are saying is that a family should disown their husband/father in order to get a roof over their head? This crime was 18 years ago and surely to God because a person has a past does not mean they should be denied a future. I too am a prent and while I would not be comfortable about a KNOWN sex offender living nearby I would accept it and be watchful. I would be far more worried about an UNKNOWN sex offender living nearby.
No child should ever ever be punished for the actions of a parent. ]

Council official Catherine Halligan, from the local authority's housing division, gave assurances that the sex offender would not move to the house and that only his partner and four children were to be housed. She said that the "appropriate checks" had been done and that the council had stipulated that the man was to be nowhere near the house. (Sunday Independent 4 July)

Actually it's quite clear that this man's partner and children will not be left alone by the mob even if they DO repudiate him.

I have already referred to the case where a Welsh policeman, accused of having child porn, and his wife were forced to leave their house and move in with his mother. The policeman was then murdered by a "concerned" resident. AFTER his murder the police installed CCTV cameras on the mothers house to protect her from the other "concerned" residents.

Geoffrey Harries, Daniel Williams, Murdered "Child Porn" Policeman

We are dealing with mob violence and hysteria. If these events had occured in 1950s Ireland, Diarmaid Ferriter would have a chapter about it in his book Occasions of Sin: Sex and Society in Modern Ireland (2009). It WILL be written about in future history books but next time it won't be possible to blame the Catholic Church!

·        godot

[ Originally Posted by Cato 

Again,it is possible that he may have re-offended and not come to the attention of the Gardaí. He may have led a blameless life since release. We cannot make a definitive statement either way. ]

It's possible you're a paedophile. We cannot make a definitive statement either way.
See the problem with this logic?

·         KingKane

By that logic no one would ever get a council house as they could have committed all kinds of offences but not been caught yet.

·         Kilbarry1

I saw an article by Emer O'Kelly on the subject in the Sunday Independent. The background is that the family wanted to live together, but due to the public hysteria the woman and her 4 children agreed to live seperatly from the man and the woman agreed not to associate with him but this was not enough for the mob and the house was burned down anyway.

Apparently the Labour councillors who put themselves at the head of the mob had no answer when asked if their colleagues in neighbouring counties would be happy to take on responsibility for the family. In fact they had no suggestion as to what should be done.

Innocent should not suffer by association - Analysis, Opinion - Independent.ie

The family wanted to live again as a unit and efforts were made to house them together in Kilcoole, Redcross, and Rathnew. Angry protests from local residents in each village ensured that the efforts were abandoned. In despair, the woman finally told council officials that she was prepared to abandon her hopes of living with her husband in a family unit, provided she and her children could be housed. She even signed an agreement to the effect that she would not have her husband visit her or their children. A house was provided in a housing estate in Ashford.

Last Friday week, her belongings had already been moved into the house when local residents gathered to protest against her being housed. The distressed woman was taken away by ambulance, and her children were removed by relatives. Satisfied, the mob melted away. Two nights later, the house was torched, and all the woman's possessions were destroyed in the fire.

The damage was so severe that the adjoining house had to be evacuated. The tenant was an 88-year-old woman who was distraught and terrified; the house had been renovated and adapted for her at considerable expense to the taxpayer. Now she too is homeless, and the public money spent on her house is down the tubes. 

If this happened in the 1930s, we would still be hearing about it in our history books (by Diarmaid Ferriter and Co) on how the Catholic Church whipped up sexual hysteria and how we are so much more "tolerant" nowadays.

·         Kilbarry1

When I say the Labour Councillors "put themselves at the head of the mob" I mean:

The following night, Wicklow County Council met. Nicky Kelly of Labour proposed a motion that for the future, council members should be informed of all housing allocations 10 days in advance of their implementation. But another Labour councillor, Conal Kavanagh, came up with an even more radical answer to the terrorising of an innocent family, and the destruction of public property. He proposed not merely that sex offenders be removed entirely from the Co Wicklow housing list, but that anyone "they consorted with" should be taken off the list. We're not talking about an internet child-molesting ring here. We're talking about family members who have committed no crime. Not a voice was raised, from any party, against this violation of civil rights. .....

The sex offender in this case, whose offence was 18 years ago, had been assessed by the Granada Institute (which specialises in the treatment of sexual crimes) as "low risk". That's as low as it gets: there is no such thing as "non-risk" for anyone. ......

But his wife and children have committed no offence. Yet Councillor Conal Kavanagh defends his own actions in trying to enshrine in council policy a system that could refuse housing to any family finding themselves in a similar situation in the future. The rights of an innocent family, he says, have to be "balanced" with the general good. And he added that it was "unfair" to expect the council to house the family; .......
Councillor Kavanagh went on to say that the people demonstrating against the housing of this innocent family were not a mob. Councillor Kavanagh met them last week, he says, and they were perfectly reasonable, concerned citizens.

If they were so reasonable, I asked, how did they react when he pointed out that the family had to be housed somewhere. But apparently he didn't point that out to the concerned citizens. But then, his motion, passed on the nod, wants to make housing such a family impossible. How did he feel about his Labour Party colleagues in neighbouring county jurisdictions, I asked. Did he think they would welcome having to deal with a problem which he had made for them? He didn't answer. 

Why was "not a voice was raised from any party" about councillors Kavanagh's vile motion? Presumably because all other councillors believed that to denounce it would cost them votes. The people who burned down the house were not ignorant vandals; they represented the community as did the Labour councillors.

• Kilbarry1

[ Originally Posted by magic_norhan 
WTF - The family were actually in a house in Wicklow Town - they were not homeless 
Also - The motion passed Unanimously - ALL parties supported it ]

"ALL parties supported it" but the Labour Party led the mob. I assume that the others did not object because they know that to do so would lose them votes.

Another quote from Emer O'Kelly's article:
One lonely figure stands out as the voice of reason and fairness: Michael Nicholson, the director of services with Wicklow County Council, who called what happened an example of mob mentality, and stands over that remark. 

I appreciate Michael Nicholson's courage but he is NOT a politician and therefore his job is not dependent on the mob. I notice that: 
Environment Minister John Gormley, who would have to endorse this cruel and discriminatory motion in Wicklow before it would be enforceable, has refused to comment. When I contacted his office, I was told that the department has no function in the case until Wicklow County Council lodges a request to alter its current statutory requirement to make it possible to hound the innocent families of sex offenders out of its jurisdiction.

It looks like John Gormley also recognises a vote-loser when he sees one!

• Kilbarry1

[ Originally Posted by magic_norhan 
Think about this though Wicklowboy - vigilante mobs will make the situation worse - society needs to put these people somewhere , and if they are continually chased out of areas by angry mobs they tend to go underground where things become much, much more dangerous. ]
True but over-stated. This man committed a sex offence 18 years ago that got him a suspended sentence of six months. The Granada Institute has described him as "low-risk" which is the lowest category of risk available. There is no one in the "no-risk" category. The person(s) who burned down the house and endangered an 88 year old neighbour in the process, are a greater danger to society than this man.

Also the people "chased out of areas by angry mobs" include this man's wife and four children. These were also specifically targetted by the Labour party motion as persons who "consorted with" their husband and father.

·         Kilbarry1

[ Originally Posted by Godot  (in reply to Murra)

Right, stick him on the town outskirts - if he wants to abuse minors, he will never think of going for a walk or using transport,ffs.
Anyway you're missing the point, it was his family which was being moved in and are being unfairly targeted. ]

There are 4 children in the family. I think they are aged between 8 and 15. They have been abused by mobs of people who are - by definition - more dangerous to children than this man who was convicted of a sex offence in 1992. And you can imagine the example they are giving to their own children!

Not entirely by co-incidence I came across this article in The Wicklow People dated 14 July
'Bad eggs' making life hell for council estate residents - News, frontpage - Wicklowpeople.ie

RESIDENTS OF a housing estate in Rathdrum are fed up with anti-social behaviour which is making their lives a misery, including allegations of drug dealing, all night parties and fights in broad daylight.

• Godot 

[ Originally Posted by Murra 

It was crazy for Wicklow Co Council to attempt to house a known sex offender on any council estate, most of which have kids playing about outside. They could surely have found a house on the outskirts of a town or village where there are no children nearby. It's understandable that nobody with kids wants a sex offender near them. ]

Right, stick him on the town outskirts - if he wants to abuse minors, he will never think of going for a walk or using transport,ffs.

Anyway you're missing the point, it was his family which was being moved in and are being unfairly targeted.

• Murra

[  Originally Posted by Godot 

Right, stick him on the town outskirts - if he wants to abuse minors, he will never think of going for a walk or using transport,ffs.
Anyway you're missing the point, it was his family which was being moved in and are being unfairly targeted. ]

Well, if he did walk in around a council estate - where he had no business - then he would be spotted by people. If he lives there, he'd be in and out all the time.

And it wasn't just his family that were being moved in - he was being moved in with them.

• Kilbarry1 

[ Originally Posted by Murra 

Well, if he did walk in around a council estate - where he had no business - then he would be spotted by people. If he lives there, he'd be in and out all the time.
And it wasn't just his family that were being moved in - he was being moved in with them. ]

Did you even read the previous page of posts including the following quote from the Sunday Independent

The family wanted to live again as a unit and efforts were made to house them together in Kilcoole, Redcross, and Rathnew. Angry protests from local residents in each village ensured that the efforts were abandoned. In despair, the woman finally told council officials that she was prepared to abandon her hopes of living with her husband in a family unit, provided she and her children could be housed. She even signed an agreement to the effect that she would not have her husband visit her or their children. A house was provided in a housing estate in Ashford.

Last Friday week, her belongings had already been moved into the house when local residents gathered to protest against her being housed. The distressed woman was taken away by ambulance, and her children were removed by relatives. Satisfied, the mob melted away. Two nights later, the house was torched, and all the woman's possessions were destroyed in the fire.

The damage was so severe that the adjoining house had to be evacuated. The tenant was an 88-year-old woman who was distraught and terrified; the house had been renovated and adapted for her at considerable expense to the taxpayer. Now she too is homeless, and the public money spent on her house is down the tubes. 

The mob targetted the wife and children AFTER she had agreed to break contact with her husband. The house was burned down AFTER she agreed to that. The Labour motion denying housing to those "who consort with" sex offenders was passed AFTER the house was burned down.

We are living in a sick and hysterical society. If you want to defend that society, then don't try to evade the issue by misrepresenting what is actually happening.

.........

• Kilbarry1 

[ Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

Here is a proposal. How about when sex-offenders are released, they be forced to either live on islands with only their own kind of offenders or leave the State? There could then be no excuse for harrassing their innocent family members as they would no longer be living with the sex-offenders.  ]

Is this a joke? It is a violation of the rights of a wife and children to force them to live apart from their husband and father. In any case the mob threatened the wife and children even AFTER she promised to bar the husband from her home AND they then burned down their house including all of her personal belongings.

I again quote from last week's Sunday Independent:

Last Friday week, her belongings had already been moved into the house when local residents gathered to protest against her being housed. The distressed woman was taken away by ambulance, and her children were removed by relatives. Satisfied, the mob melted away. Two nights later, the house was torched, and all the woman's possessions were destroyed in the fire.

• merle haggard 

[  Originally Posted by bored and fussy 

How did the labour party deal with issues like this in the past. ]

I dont know . Maybe somebody should contact Emmet Stagg and ask him for his opinion .

• Kilbarry1 

[  Originally Posted by merle haggard 

I dont know . Maybe somebody should contact Emmet Stagg and ask him for his opinion . ]

Actually the hysteria about child abuse dates back to 1994 when Pat Rabbittte brought down the Government of Albert Reynolds by falsely suggesting that there was a conspiracy between Cardinal Daly and Attorney General to prevent the extradition of Father Brendan Smyth to Northern Ireland. Not only did Rabbitte get away with it; a special Super-Junior ministry was created for him in the new Government.

See "The Fall of the Government of Albert Reynolds [1994]"
Welcome to IrishSalem.com

There is a Russian proverb "A fish rots from the head" and the Wicklow mob is only copying the behaviour of its betters - except on the street rather than in Dail Eireann.

As for Emmet Stagg, his misadventure in the Phoenix Park was treated with great "compassion" by the media. Labour CREATE witch-hunts; they don't fall victims to them!

• merle haggard 

[ Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

Actually the hysteria about child abuse dates back to 1994 when Pat Rabbittte brought down the Government of Albert Reynolds by falsely suggesting that there was a conspiracy between Cardinal Daly and Attorney General to prevent the extradition of Father Brendan Smyth to Northern Ireland. Not only did Rabbitte get away with it; a special Super-Junior ministry was created for him in the new Government.

See "The Fall of the Government of Albert Reynolds [1994]"
Welcome to IrishSalem.com

There is a Russian proverb "A fish rots from the head" and the Wicklow mob is only copying the behaviour of its betters - except on the street rather than in Dail Eireann.

As for Emmet Stagg, his misadventure in the Phoenix Park was treated with great "compassion" by the media. Labour CREATE witch-hunts; they don't fall victims to them! ]

Im still unsure as to what Deputy stagg was up to in the phoenix park but i do know for sure that many of the drug addicted and homeless young kids who were preyed upon by wealthy older men were and are well below the age of consent .

The targetting of innocent family members and children by this mob is child abuse in itself . In my view anyone physically , verbally or emotionally abusing innocent children over a crime they had no hand act or part in should be ineligible for council housing themselves

•  Kilbarry1 

[ Originally posted by Merle Haggard

I dont know . Maybe somebody should contact Emmet Stagg and ask him for his opinion . ]

[ Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

... As for Emmet Stagg, his misadventure in the Phoenix Park was treated with great "compassion" by the media. Labour CREATE witch-hunts; they don't fall victims to them!  ]

The following extract from an article by Ryle Dwyer in the Irish Examiner, October 24, 2009 illustrates the above point. Dwyer is celebrating the fact that Irish people are no longer afraid of a "belt of the crozier".

One thing that Donal Óg need no longer fear ? a belt of the crozier | Irish Examiner

After Emmet Stagg admitted his gay involvement in Phoenix Park in March 1994, there were a few hours when the public reaction to the story could possibly have gone either way, but Pat Cox courageously took the lead on RTÉ’s Questions and Answers. "All that Emmet Stagg has said in his statement today is that he is a card-carrying member of the human race, and I stand with Emmet Stagg tonight, " Cox declared. It was a bold and courageous stand.

"There is some merciless bastard who let this story out," he added indignantly. "I want the Garda Commissioner to find out and to out who the rat is who brought this out into the public in this demeaning and irresponsible way."

It was a seminal moment in which Pat Cox provided decisive leadership. In his impromptu outrage he advanced the cause of tolerance and true freedom in this republic. It's wonderful that our politicians don't fear a "belt of the crozier". What a pity the ones in Wicklow are so afraid of the mob that they go along with a Labour motion that denies housing to family members who "consort with" a sex offender.

•  merle haggard 

As far as i can see the child abusers are the ones who are harassing and terrorising young children . Young children whom the labour party seem to have abandoned . We seem to have gone from Valley of the squinting windows to Valley of the broken windows. I guess thats progress

• Kilbarry1 

The family have been hounded out of Kilcoole, Redcross, Rathnew and Ashford. I think they are all in the Archdiocese of Dublin which covers most of Co. Wicklow as well. Ashford certainlly is and that is where their house was burned down.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has become a great hero of the liberal media because of the way he has dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse. He cannot make a speech without denouncing the evils of abuse and apologising for the way the Church dealt with them in the past. He even put pressure on Bishop Martin Drennan to resign even though NO criticism had been made of him in the Murphy Report. (Like the Wicklow mob, the Archbishop seems to believe in guilt by association.)

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, John Cooney, Kathy O'Beirne, Bishop Dermot O'Mahony

Would it be too much to ask the Archbishop to condemn the behaviour of the people who hound an innocent mother and her four children? The mob are abusing these innocents. Moreover the hysteria and fanaticism generated by the mob will rebound on real victims of child sexual abuse in the future. Cynicism is what normally follows after Hysteria.