Justine McCarthy, Fintan O'Toole and the Power of The Patriarchy

Justine McCarthy

Fintan O'Toole

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [1]

Justine McCarthy has an article in the Sunday Times on 15 October 2017, 'Boycott of Newstalk Goes Both Ways Now'  that includes sentiments that would cause  our FemiNazis to foam with rage if she wasn't one herself.
The sub-heading is "Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen"

The following is a sample:
"The morning Fintan O’Toole wrote in the Irish Times that he would no longer appear on Newstalk radio because it was “flagrantly sexist”, I texted him: “I just want to say, as a woman, thank you for writing that column.” .........

I agreed with O’Toole’s every sentiment, except the very first one in the opening sentence when he modestly opined that his declaration of a boycott was “of no consequence”. It was bound to create ructions, for he is eminent, erudite, and a man. Ergo, he is listened to.......

Women can yell from the rooftops but it takes a man’s voice to make the world listen......Women will continue to need courageous men to speak out until female liberation is credibly delivered. [My emphasis]  It is no coincidence, after all, that there is a man in emancipation. ...."

Now I do understand that the above is part of a convoluted argument about Victimhood and Oppression. Justine McCarthy did NOT intend to depict herself as a helpless simpering female who is writing a hymn of praise to the dominant male sex .  HOWEVER it could certainly be interpreted that way and McCarthy COULD conceivable have her career destroyed by fellow FemiNazis. So why is she allowed to get away with it?

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [2]

I wrote about the Fintan O'Toole article that Justine McCarthy is so keen on here. The title is "Fintan O'Toole and the Two Archbishops" and there is an extract below:

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!

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [3]

It would be interesting to watch Irish feminists' reaction if Breda O'Brien wrote a similar adoring tribute to the Dominant White Male - with David Quinn as the object of her affections!

Irish feminists  are becoming as stupid as they are vicious. I have written here and elsewhere about Fiona Doyle and her statement that women have the right to walk down the street drunk or naked if they so desire. An aspiring rapist's wet dream!

Irish Salem: Fiona Doyle and George Hook

This type of demand for "Rights" is well expressed in the old doggerel

Here lies the body of Michael Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, quite right as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

The stupidity is linked to the fact that feminists believe they can get away with publishing ANY kind of rubbish. They no longer have to exercise their brain cells - and boy does it show!

The following are a couple of comments and my reply

Originally Posted by 'Who is John Galt?' 

 Just as robbers have no right to steal the Patek Philippe I leave on the passenger seat of my unlocked car.

Of course men do not have the right to rape any woman.

The cops might take a different view of my common sense however.

Reply by 'tokkie' to 'Who is John Galt'

Rape and theft are gulfs apart in terms of crime.  So too are the motivations, reasons and logic of the perpetrators behind either crime.   

Comparing them is a bit weird.  Dark too.

My Reply (Kilbarry1) to 'tokkie'

OK. Take the case of a man who insists on walking through a dangerous area of a city at night and does so regularly, sometimes while drunk as well. The police stop and question him a few times - because no outsider in his right senses should be there at night. The guy insists that he is doing nothing unlawful, he is entitled to walk the streets of his own city and the police are supposed to protect him. All of these are valid points - in the same way that Michael Jay had a valid point  (see post #5181). Eventually he is attacked and murdered.

What do you think the police will say among themselves about this guy?

Also his murderer will NOT get a reduced sentence by saying the guy was an idiot who had no business being in the area - but that does not change some basic facts. And one of the facts is that the murder victim WAS an idiot.

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen [4]

Originally Posted by 'talkingshop'

Yeah, I'm not disputing that he [George Hook] probably meant the right thing, but the way he said it was wrong. He suggested "some blame" might be attached to the girl, which could be interpreted as saying that the "blame" for the rape was somehow shared, and that the rapist therefore had less "blame" to carry because of the behavior of the girl. I don't think that is what he meant, but it could be interpreted that way.

Reply by 'Who is John Galt?'
A mistake that hardly warranted the explosion of indignation and cleaver-wielding that has ensued since.
George Hook has suffered more for that remark than the accused rapist.

My Reply to 'Who is John Galt?' and 'talkingshop'  

Yes indeed feminists can talk utter drivel and get away with it whereas if a 'reactionary' puts one foot wrong, he will be savagely criticised. I have written previously how Justine McCarthy got away with her hymn of praise to the Dominant White Male in the form of Fintan O'Toole (Sunday Times, 15 October). I will just repeat a short extract from post #5181

It would be interesting to watch Irish feminists reaction if Breda O'Brien wrote a similar adoring tribute to the Dominant White Male - with David Quinn as the object of her affections!.....

And again
.....Now I do understand that the above is part of a convoluted argument about Victimhood and Oppression. Justine McCarthy did NOT intend to depict herself as a helpless simpering female who is writing a hymn of praise to the dominant male sex .  HOWEVER it could certainly be interpreted that way and McCarthy COULD conceivable have her career destroyed by fellow FemiNazis. So why is she allowed to get away with it?

There is also the following in the same article by Justine McCarthy:
"Twelve years ago, I summoned the courage to write about how Brendan Comiskey, a former Bishop of Ferns, had threatened to rape me in the course of an interview conducted in his house when he was drunk and I was frightened. The next morning, a priest in a Dublin parish denounced me from the pulpit at Sunday mass. I have run scared from discussing the incident in public ever since. Job done. Woman silenced."

So she was silenced by a belt from the crozier. But hold on - a PRIEST does not have a crozier. Was he even a Parish Priest or just the local curate??

So what is the female equivalent of WIMP and why have Justine's feminist colleagues not criticised her for her cowardice?

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen [5]

Extracted from a post by 'EPIC SUCCESS'
Hook is a drooling simpleton ......
 a idiot like George who adjusts his accent for British RP (received pronunciation) speakers, who makes a fool of himself over his obsession with Pamela Anderson, who likes to pontificate, who has a very obvious belief in a class system and sneers at the working class, who works for filth like Denis O'Brien,  
........... He has and always will be, radio text bait and certainly not a 'broadcaster' or 'journalist' in the traditional sense of the word.

My Reply to 'EPIC SUCESS'

Any comment on Justine McCarthy's statement about Bishop Brendan Comiskey in the Sunday Times 2 days ago? It is part of an article whose subtitle is "Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen" [see post nos 5181 and 5232]

"Twelve years ago, I summoned the courage to write about how Brendan Comiskey, a former Bishop of Ferns, had threatened to rape me in the course of an interview conducted in his house when he was drunk and I was frightened. The next morning, a priest in a Dublin parish denounced me from the pulpit at Sunday mass. I have run scared from discussing the incident in public ever since. Job done. Woman silenced."

"Job done. Woman silenced" because she was afraid of a belt of a priest's walking stick??

The above is part of McCarthy's  denunciation of Newstalk and hymn of praise to Dominant White Males (and specifically Fintan O'Toole.) "Drooling simpleton" would be a mild description for Justine McCarthy since the description only targets her intellect and not her morals. Should The Sunday Times take action against her?

Kevin Myers, Vanessa Feltz and Anti-Semitism

[Spoiler Alert]. The recently widowed Mrs Cohen wants to put an ad in the paper to announce her husband's death. Since very short ads are free she proposes the text "Maurice Cohen dead". The editor informs her she can get up to 6 words for free so she adds "Volvo for sale".

And Vanessa Feltz - who denounced Kevin Myers for peddling anti-Jewish stereotypes - thinks this is a great joke and indeed helps to tell it!

Extract from discussion on Politics.ie website regarding Kevin Myers Kills His Own Career

Comment by Tommy12345 on 19 August 2017

He most certainly did not plead guilty to being anti-Semitic, which was the substantive charge. He merely (and wrongly, in my view) expressed contrition for having written something foolishly throwaway.

Reply by Niall78 to Tommy12345

An anti-Semitic foolish throwaway.
Or just anti-Semitic without his own spin.

Reply by Tommy12345

No more anti-Semitic than the joke below which Vanessa Feltz herself thought funny, and harmless, enough to help tell:   [See above video]

Reply by Kilbarry1 to Tommy12345

[Spoiler Alert]. The recently widowed Mrs Cohen wants to put an ad in the paper to announce her husband's death. Since very short ads are free she proposes the text "Maurice Cohen dead". The editor informs her she can get up to 6 words for free so she adds "Volvo for sale".

And Vanessa Feltz - who denounced Kevin Myers for peddling anti-Jewish stereotypes - thinks this is a great joke and indeed helps to tell it!

Reply by Tommy12345 toKilbarry1

Yep. What an utter hypocrite she is.

Reply by Deargoul to Tommy12345

I heard that as a Cavan joke (Ford Escort) some twenty five years ago.

She's up to the minute as ever.

Some More Comments about Vanessa Feltz

Originally Posted by DaveM

The common theme from those defending Myers is that they invariably seem to come from viewpoints which seek to justify and validate their own historical prejudices and discrimination against others, be that misogyny, homophobia or anti-Semitism.

Reply by Sister Mercedes 

And the common theme from those attacking him is they're dumb as a bag of hammers.

Vanessa Feltz (who I like) is a vastly overpaid presenter on a local radio station whose ratings have plunged and whose boss is deeply unhappy with. Sensing a pay cut or even a sacking on the imminent horizon, she spots an opportunity to portray herself as an innocent victim and bullet-proof herself from any adjustments to her cosy set-up ... who would dare sack her or cut her pay now. She's played you like a fiddler on the roof. [/quote]

My Reply to Sister Mercedes

Interesting idea. I might just drop my fast developing anti-Semitism and stick with the Misogony! 

Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse? [1]

Keir Starmer QC, UK  Director of Public Prosecutions (2008-13)

Colm O'Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International (Ireland)

Both Keir Starmer and Colm O'Gorman are dismissive of the idea that false allegations of rape or child sex abuse, constitute a significant problem. While Keith Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS produced a Report stating that they had only prosecuted 35 persons for making a false allegation during a 17 month  period in 2011- 2012 when they brought 5,651 prosecutions for rape and Mr Starmer stated that it is a "misplaced belief" that false accusations of rape are commonplace.

In then same vein Colm O'Gorman wrote in the Irish Times on 29 March 2006 that:
“In the past few months a number of commentators have suggested that grave injustice is being done to priests falsely accused of child sexual abuse. Such suggestions rightly concern fair minded people, but remarkably, no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused.”
At the time, Colm O'Gorman was head of the Child abuse victims organisation "One In Four" which he had founded. In February 2008 he became Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland a post he still holds. Evidently Amnesty is in agreement with his views on the non-importance of false allegations!

NOTE: In the case of Nora Wall (no 5 below) she received a Certificate of Miscarriage of Justice from the Court of Criminal Appeal in December 2005 i.e. just 3 months before Colm O'Gorman's article. The two brothers who tried to extort money from  Father Michael Kennedy with false allegations  (no 3 below) were convicted in January 2006 i.e. TWO months before O'Gorman assured us that there was no evidence that such actions constituted a problem!

There was a discussion on this issue in the Politics.ie thread on George Hook and the following is an extract.

Post by "amsterdemmetje" dated  23 September 2017

...........  A report by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) examined rape allegations in England and Wales over a 17-month period between January 2011 and May 2012. It showed that in 35 cases authorities prosecuted a person for making a false allegation, while they brought 5,651 prosecutions for rape. Keir Starmer, the head of the CPS, said that the "mere fact that someone did not pursue a complaint or retracted it, is not of itself evidence that it was false" and that it is a "misplaced belief" that false accusations of rape are commonplace.

He added that the report also showed that a significant number of false allegations of rape (and domestic violence) "involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one that he or she had reported."

Reply to "amsterdemmetje" by Kilbarry1 dated  23 September 2017

False Allegations of Rape and Paedophilia (A)

Keir Starmer, the head of the CPS, said that the "mere fact that someone did not pursue a complaint or retracted it, is not of itself evidence that it was false".

It is ALSO the case that it is extremely difficult to PROVE that a woman(or man) has made a false allegation of rape where it is just one person's word against another's. I recall a number of prosecutions for false allegations in Ireland. Every one of them involve either an accuser who was incredibly stupid OR an accused person who was extremely lucky

.(1) The guy who accused Louis Walsh of assaulting him in the toilets of a night club. CCTV camera showed they were never in the Gents at the same time. All the imbecile had to do was to go into the Gents after Walsh - and it would have been impossible to PROVE that he was lying.

.(2) A woman had a dispute with her next door neighbours and she accused their teenage son of assaulting her daughter. This was an adult making allegations against an under-age person so the Gardaí dealt with it very seriously. If she had accused the boy's father instead she would have had a much better chance of staying out of jail

.(3) Two brothers who tried to blackmail a priest in Co Waterford by threatening to accuse him of child abuse unless he paid them money. He said he was going to the bank to get the money but returned with the Gardaí. The imbeciles then drove away at speed with the squad car I pursuit. All they had to do was (A) agree on the details of a story beforehand and (B) stand their ground when the Gardaí arrived and again it would have been difficult to PROVE they were lying

.(4) A Dublin publican banned a man for creating a disturbance at Christmas. The guy then put up posters at night accusing the publican of being a paedophile and kept replacing them. He wasn't caught by the Gardaí but by the publican and his sons who drove around at night until they caught him in the act. He was jailed.

(5) In the Nora Wall case, she was actually convicted and jailed. The two accusers would have collected a fortune in damages from the Sisters of Mercy but they were impatient to get their hands on  cash. So they gave an exclusive interview to the Daily Star that published their names for the first time and it soon became clear that both were SERIAL accusers. One of their former victims recognised one of their names as his own accuser and contacted Nora Wall's family

All of the above  involved unusual situations. IF a false accuser is NOT a complete moron OR the accused person is not very lucky, then the chances of the false accuser being brought to account are minimal.

False Allegations of Rape and Paedophilia (B)

I recall two other cases.

(6) A guy living in a hostel for the homeless accused a priest of sexually assaulting him many years previously when he was a child. Reading about it, I got the impression that the guy was a nutcase and I suspect that in normal circumstances the Gardai would have warned him about the consequences of making a false allegation and basically told him to get lost. HOWEVER the guy choose to go first to Colm O'Gorman's "One in Four" organisation and THEY took him to the Archbishop of Dublin. Since he had involved the elite of the land in his allegation, the Gardaí could not just throw him out with a warning so he was brought to court. As I recall his trial lasted the best part of 2 weeks and then he had an  unsuccessful appeal against conviction but a successful one to have his sentence reduced "on health grounds". It was probably his mental health the court had in mind!

(7) A case in Co Galway (there is a thread on it here) where two families were involved in an ugly land dispute and the young daughter of one accused the son of the other of sexually assaulting her. The jury convicted him - no forensic evidence, one person's word against another and an existing vicious dispute between the families. Many years later the daughter, now a young woman, testified that she had invented the allegation and the guy got a Certificate of Miscarriage of Justice from the Court of Criminal Appeal (like Nora Wall in fact).

Once again, unless the accuser is practically a certified idiot OR the accused is VERY lucky, it is practically impossible to PROVE that an allegation is false!

Reply by rob 23 September 2017

Galwayman exonerated on false rape claim

It was Michael Hannon
Two decades on, closure for the Connemara neighbour falsely convicted of child sex abuse

My Reply to rob

Yes this is the opening post on that 2009 thread

"Galwayman exonerated on false rape claim

Another miscarriage of justice hits the Gardai and the courts.

 In 1999 the then 10 year old Una Hardester accused Michael Hannon of sexually assaulting her. heading should read thus

 Hannon thankfully only received a 4 year suspended sentence however the trauma of the false accusation had a terrible effect on his health and he had to live with the stigma until earlier this year when Hardester now 22 yrs old found God and could no longer live with the false accusation."

1999 was an insane year - following the broadcast by RTE of Mary Raftery's 3-part  "States of Fear"  mockumentary series. Nora Wall was convicted a few weeks after the final programme in spite of clear evidence that the two accusers were lying. There had originally been two allegations of rape but the defence was able to prove that Wall's co-accused was 100 miles away on the date of the first allegation. Instead of concluding that the accusers were obvious liars, the jury acquitted the accused on the first charge but convicted them on the second charge which did not specify an exact date (or even year).

Nuns, brothers and priests were the MAIN targets of the hysteria but the jury in the Michael Hannon case were almost as crazy when they convicted him. I suspect that the  judge was not convinced - and this accounts for the suspended sentence handed down. (Nora Wall was sentenced to life imprisonment - the FIRST time in the history of the State that such a sentence was given for rape!)

False Allegations of Rape and Paedophilia (C)

"In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one that he or she had reported." Keir Starmer

Yes indeed it's nice of the head of the Crown Prosecution Service to admit the above, but it is absolutely grotesque for him to use it as a kind of excuse for a false allegation. The following case made headlines in Ireland in 1997 and the Rape Crisis Centre even claimed that the woman's sentence was too long. It was 4 months for making false rape allegations against THREE  Irish soldiers.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-woman-jailed-in-cyprus-for-false-rape-complaint-1.95303
Irish woman jailed in Cyprus for false rape complaint

A 22-year-old Dublin woman's package holiday in Cyprus has ended with her being sent to prison for four months for making a false complaint to police that she was raped by three Irish soldiers...

The soldiers were staying at the same apartment as another man whom Ms Mangan had met the night before she reported the alleged rape. Police said they found contradictions in the complaint and Ms Mangan later admitted she made up the story because one of the men staying in the apartment photographed her while she slept nude.

At the hearing at Famagusta District Court in Nicosia, her lawyer said the false allegation was her way of taking revenge because she "felt demeaned" and that "she had been raped morally, if not bodily". Judge Antonis Liatsos said he had dealt with a number of cases recently of women tourists making false rape allegations...........

Photographing a woman who is lying drunk and naked on top of a bed is not nice and might even be an offence but it is not rape. The head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK seems to be suggesting that it is understandable for a woman to make a false allegation of rape because a man offended her in some OTHER way!

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?

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan and Former FG Chair Phil Hogan Vs George Hook and Nora Wall

Minister for Justice and Equality Charlie Flanagan

Former Chairman of Fine Gael Phil Hogan (now EU Commissioner for Agriculture)

FINAL (?) SUMMARY: Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, Nora Wall and George Hook [1]

Is this thread [on Politics.ie] coming to an end? Rather than let it go quietly into the night let's try for a final summary. My own summary relates to

(1) Minister for Justice and Equality  Charlie Flanagan
(2) Feminist activist Fiona Doyle AND
(3) Fintan O'Toole

all of whom have condemned George Hook and ALL of whom have made far more outrageous statements in the past and got away scot-free. I have recently referred to Fiona Doyle and Fintan O'Toole but my several comments on our beloved Minister for Justice are about 3,000 posts ago. However I have summarised them in three articles on my blog and here is the first article

For convenience I am including a passage from the above-mentioned article. I am quoting our current Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan speaking in the Dail on 8 July 2009 during the debate on the Institutional Abuse Bill. At the time Charlie Flanagan was an ordinary Fine Gael TD but subsequently became Minister for Children(!) and then Foreign Affairs before receiving the Justice and Equality portfolio.

........."While I do not have time to speak in detail about the Louise O’Keeffe case, I wish to speak about another woman, namely, Nora Wall. Nora Wall has hardly been mentioned in the debate on the Ryan report. She became something of a heroine for those who mistrust the Irish courts when her conviction for rape was overturned in 1999. Since her conviction was overturned, she has been portrayed as an heroic martyr in many quarters with references to witch hunts and witch trials abounding. Six weeks ago, the columnist Kevin Myers wrote in a national newspaper:

 'The liberal-left lynch mob that went after poor Nora Wall a decade ago was prepared to destroy her life on the basis of lies.'

 "Mr. Myers would do well to read the description of “poor Nora Wall” in the Ryan report. Nora Wall does not deserve the plaudits that have been directed her way since her conviction for rape was overturned. While her case may have collapsed, the Ryan report reveals graphically that Nora Wall was no saint. She exposed the children in her care to unacceptable risks by allowing male outsiders to stay overnight at the Cappoquin care centre which was in her charge. She entertained past pupils and student priests in the home and allowed them to stay overnight. A witness stated that much drinking took place at these gatherings.

"There is more to this than meets the eye in respect of these social events. It has been suggested that there were frequent visits to the Cappoquin home by some clergy from Mount Melleray Abbey. Access to children may have been a key motivation for these visits. One must bear in mind that Mount Melleray was selected by the notorious paedophile, Fr. Brendan Smith, as a holiday destination or as a haven to which to escape when he was on the run from the authorities in Northern Ireland. This issue must be revisited" [My emphasis]

. 

FINAL (?) SUMMARY: Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, Nora Wall and George Hook [2]

So Charlie Flanagan - as a TD in 2009 - repeated the kind of lie about Nora Wall, for which she had received a libel settlement from the Sunday World several years before. It is possible that Charlie Flanagan TD did not know about the libel case as it was ignored by almost all of the Irish media (Phoenix Magazine was the only exception I think). But he certainly did know that a TD cannot be sued for what he says in the Dail!

Subsequent to this atrocious allegation Charlie Flanagan became Minister for Children, Minister for Foreign Affairs and is now Minister for Justice and Equality. Was George Hook's offence worse than Charlie Flanagan's??

Reply To Me by'Owedtojoy'

Of course it was not worse.  But that does not put George Hook in the right. Setting up dozens of fake "What abouts" is a bizarre defence. Multiple wrongs do not make something right, though it might help with the context. Flanagan wrong does not equal Hook right.

I support investigation of all past paedophilia accusations, but I also think Hook's remarks were unacceptable for a professional broadcaster.

I am glad he has not been fired, and hope that when he returns to the airwaves, he is chastened and more balanced in his discourse on sensitive subjects.

My Reply to 'Owedtojoy' (regarding Phil Hogan)

I could indeed have set up dozens of "what-abouts" and they would not have been fake. The "context" that you mention is vital and not just a side issue as you seem to suggest. It is clear that people who are regarded as Politically Correct will be allowed to get away with any kind of lunatic lie whereas persons regarded as right-wing will be savagely criticised and hounded from their jobs.

In my Blog article and above I mentioned that Charlie Flanagan was the SECOND politician to slander Nora Wall. I didn't go into detail about the first because I am not aware that he denounced George Hook. However you can read all about him here - Irish Times article on 25 April 2002

"TD Cites Retired Official in Child Sex Abuse Allegations"

It was then Chairman of Fine Gael Phil Hogan TD and his allegations involved a paedophile ring, convicted murderer Malcolm McArthur, an unnamed senior official in Dept of Education as well as Nora Wall. Also children being tortured and forced to have sex with animals. Extremely lurid stuff - even more so than Charlie Flanagan in 2009 BUT Phil Hogan is not Minister for Justice and Equality today and I don't think he denounced George Hook. (Perhaps as European Commissioner for Agriculture he doesn't see any political advantage in so doing?)

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, Phil Hogan and Nora Wall

The allegations made by Charlie Flanagan and Phil Hogan are also discussed on the Nora Wall thread
on  Politics.ie

Incidentally Nora Wall successfully sued the Sunday World for similar atrocious allegations. She succeeded in her claim for an apology and damages in October 2002. This was 6 months AFTER Phil Hogan's Dail allegations.

However even if she had succeeded 6 months before, I don't suppose it would have made any difference. Phil Hogan knew he could not be sued for anything he said in the Dail!

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan and Former FG Chair Phil Hogan
Well this thread seems to have reached a conclusion now and I have done a final (?) summary on my Blog. [I am referring to this article!]

Let us suppose that during the 1950s, these kind of obscene allegations had been directed by senior members of Fianna Fail against a Protestant or Jewish woman. We would be hearing about it still with journalists claiming that they revealed the truly fascistic character of "The Age of de Valera" (and of his friend John Charles McQuaid). The claims  were in fact made by members of Fine Gael in 2002 and 2009 - respectively
(a) the then Chairman of the Fine Gael party (and current EU Commissioner for Agriculture) AND
(b) the man who is currently Minister for Justice and Equality (!!)

The allegations have been ignored by the media - no calls for an investigation of the criminal accusations OR of the people who made them.

So does this tell us anything about the nature of Fine Gael today or of modern Ireland?

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.

Fiona Doyle and George Hook

Fiona Doyle

According to the Irish Independent on 8th September:

Victim blaming is all too familiar to women in Ireland. George [Hook] is giving the message that men can do what they want and it is the drunken woman who is to blame. "Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish. Men have no right to rape a women and people like George Hook need to stop circulating the message that women are to blame. [My Emphasis]

"What George said is that a man can't help himself if he comes across a drunk woman. It takes the responsibility off men. Men should know not to touch a woman."

Fiona said that the comments broadcast earlier today were "old fashioned" and that it brings women back centuries. "George Hook needs to get off his dinosaur backside and see the impact of what he is saying on young women."

She added that campaigners, gardai and the rape crisis centres have been working with women to get them to come forward after a rape. "We're working so hard to get women to stand up and come forward without thinking they are responsible.

"It's a big thing for women to blame themselves after a rape happens. It's very hard for women to get over something like that and to tell women that it's their fault is outrageous." Fiona said that George Hook's comments will "pull out that stigma that women are responsible".

"No man has a right to touch a women. It's that simple." [My Emphasis]

Again there was some disagreement on this issue during the course of a discussion on Politics.ie

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [1]
........40 years ago, we had already reached the point where a male  doctor had to be very careful when informing a female patient that her STD problem had something to do with the number of her sexual partners. We are now reaching the stage where a male has to be cautious when he advises a woman to take care of her physical safety. Especially if he tells her that she has a responsibility to do so!

ON THE OTHER HAND feminists can say exactly what they like - no matter how preposterous, illegal or dangerous to other women. The following is also a repeat of a post from ages ago (well about a week)

Feminist heroine Fiona Doyle said something  a lot crazier and seems to have got away with it - as per the Irish Independent yesterday.
'Way too soon to tell' if George Hook will face formal internal investigation over rape comments

....Speaking to Independent.ie following the broadcast of the show on Friday, rape victim and campaigner Fiona Doyle said Mr Hook's comments were "outrageous and offensive". Her father Patrick O'Brien (79) was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2013 for raping and sexually abusing his daughter from 1973 to 1982.

Ms Doyle said: "Victim-blaming is all too familiar to women in Ireland. George is giving the message that men can do what they want and it is the drunken woman who is to blame. Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish. Men have no right to rape a woman and people like George Hook need to stop circulating the message that women are to blame."...

Of course a woman does NOT have the right to walk down the street naked if she wants; she would be arrested for public indecency. An additional reason for the arrest would be that a naked drunk woman is putting herself in danger of sexual assault but Fiona Doyle is either unaware or uninterested in some basic facts, so eager is she to denounce George Hook!

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [2]

However let's take a charitable interpretation of Fiona Doyle's words. She doesn't LITERALLY mean that women should behave in a manner that is stupid, illegal and actually facilitates rapists. She WANTS to make the point that rapists are fully responsible for their own actions but has mis-spoke herself in the process. George Hook has specifically condemned rapists, wants to make the point that women should take precautions to protect themselves and MAY have strayed into "victim blaming" in the process.  Nevertheless it is obviously Fiona Doyle who has completely over-stepped the mark and made comments that could endanger women. There's no way she should be allowed to get away with it in view of what is happening to George Hook. This hysterical over-reaction by the media  has nothing to do with any desire to protect vulnerable women.

Reply by Jimmy Two Times
What a load of nonsense. Fiona Doyle wasn't chairing a national radio show.  The ott reaction to this Hook issue is from the Rightist snowflakes whingeing about him getting suspended for making an idiot of himself

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [3]

I suspect that one reason Fiona Doyle made her ludicrous statement is that she knew that she could get away with anything. If she HAD been chairing a national radio show it wouldn't have made any difference. Do you suppose that Fintan O'Toole and our Minister for Justice would have been lining up to condemn her? The hysterical reaction against George Hook is based on the fact that he is supposed to be  a reactionary. John Cooney was a former religious affairs correspondent for the Irish Times when he made allegations of paedophilia against John Charles McQuaid that were so ludicrous that even anti-clerics were embarrassed and annoyed. I recall one reviewer who REGRETTED that the transparently false allegations might create sympathy for the late Archbishop. A few years later Cooney was appointed Religious Affairs correspondent for the Irish Independent. There was no campaign of denunciation directed against Cooney's appointment - precisely because he was a liberal. (OTOH suppose that  an  Irish Catholic journalist made similar false allegations against a former Church of Ireland Archbishop - how would HIS career have developed subsequently?)

Reply by PeaceGoalie
A related point is that many of these women are just as thick as bricks and logic and maturity are beyond them. Many men are the same, and even some transexual freaks

Why are Feminists and Liberals So Stupid?

The problem is not low IQ or similar but the fact that they can say ANYTHING and expect to get away with it. I have written here and elsewhere about a certain type of anti-clerical allegation that I call "Murder of the Undead" or "Victimless Murders" [try googling the terms]  i.e. journalists and/or leaders of "Victim" groups claim that children were murdered by brothers or nuns - at times when no child died of ANY cause. Why couldn't the journalists do a bit of research, find the name of a child who actually died and accuse the Church of murdering THAT child? Well they sometimes do that also BUT they know they don't need to; because they know there will be no consequences of their lies. So they become lazy and stupid and sometimes they do get themselves into serious trouble (Like the RTE clowns who accused a priest of rape and fathering a child - they actually ignored his offer to take a DNA test before they broadcast the libel!)

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, George Hook and Nora Wall [3]

Minister for Justice and Equality (!)  Charlie Flanagan

Further comments by me on the antics of Charlie Flanagan - on the Politics.ie discussion about George Hook

(A)

Comment by an innocent abroad; Clayton Hotels announces termination of Newstalk sponsorship over George Hook's rape comments           Oh dear..

Comment by Toland; Not that surprising!

Incredible. We have a Justice Minister who - as a TD - publicised an obscene libel about a woman. The woman had previously received libel damages from the Sunday World over a similar allegation. Did the then Charlie Flanagan TD not know this in 2009 - or did he just go ahead anyway in the knowledge that he could not be sued for comments he made in the Dail??

Previous comment by Kilbarry1     When our Minister for Justice could - as a TD - repeat obscene lies against a woman, lies for which the woman had already received damages from a newspaper then this present controversy is a storm in a teacup. What right has Charlie Flanagan to denounce George Hook? Were Hook's comments more serious than his own? Were they more disrespectful to women than Flanagan's own false allegations against Nora Wall?

I know that no company can withdraw sponsorship from the Department of Justice. However surely Charlie Flanagan should be asked either to apologise or justify his allegations?

(B)

Comment by DaveM; And if you're his boss (and remember this is commercial radio) this sure as hell isn't welcome news... Hotel group cancels Newstalk sponsorship over Hook rape comments  Not so easy to find a new sponsor on the same kind of terms when the first reporting of the news sponsorship deal is bound to include reference to Hook's comments on rape.

Look a TD can repeat** obscene lies about a woman in the Dail in 2009 and successively become Minister for Children, Minister for Foreign Affairs and NOW Minister for Justice.  So what's the big problem here?
** I say "repeat" because the Sunday World had been obliged to apologise and pay damages to Nora Wall several years previously!

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, George Hook and Nora Wall [2]

Minister for Justice and Equality (!) Charlie Flanagan

A few more extracts from the discussion on Politics.ie. I am replying to two  comments by "ShoutingIsLeadership" and "StopDoingStuff"

(A) Original comment by  ShoutingIsLeadership;
It seems that George Hook made some comments on air, which have resulted in him being accused of blaming a rape victim.  It seems that he said that the person who raped her is a scumbag , but he also discussed "responsibility of women".

Fellow Newstalker, Chris Donoghue, has tweeted that "someone needs to go to town on hook. It's disgusting." Donoghue recently got removed from his radio show and replaced by Ivan Yates, and now has a different role at Newstalk.
Who is right? Is either?

Update - audio available, below. About 8 or so minutes in...


Reply by Kilbarry1
See my previous two posts
When our Minister for Justice could - as a TD - repeat obscene lies against a woman, lies for which the woman had already received damages from a newspaper then this present controversy is a storm in a teacup. What right has Charlie Flanagan to denounce George Hook? Were Hook's comments more serious than his own? Were they more disrespectful to women than Flanagan's own false allegations against Nora Wall?

Of course then Deputy Flanagan made his claims in Dail Eireann so that he could not be sued. Is this supposed to be a mitigating factor?  

(B) Original comment by stopdoingstuff;
Anyway, apologize for what? George Hook should basically tell people to shut the fk up and stop pretending to be offended in order to get some attention. If a woman gets raped and she is in that position due to being stupid, then she is responsible in the same was as I would be responsible if I kept 50 grand is cash in my house and went around telling everyone about it. It doesn't absolve the thief or legitimatize robbery, it does not promote robbery-culture, and no one would be helped by saying "Teach thieves not to rob". One can be responsible for something in more than one sense of the word, but of course the feminist and manginas know this but would prefer to go for a few headlines. Fk them- they are spastics. No one should put up with these attention whores or their Ronaldo-style debating tactics.

Reply by Kilbarry1
That should be self-evident but it's a good idea to make the point using an example that has nothing at all to do with sex. Otherwise the feminazis are liable to call you a Rape Apologist!

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, George Hook and Nora Wall [1]

Minister for Justice and Equality (!) Charlie Flanagan

I posted a number of times on this issue on the Politics.ie website. These are my first  two posts.

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan has condemned George Hook, called his comments "dangerous and disrespectful and said they should be withdrawn.  This is what Charlie Flanagan had to say in 2009 about a former nun Nora Wall who was falsely accused of raping a child. In 2016 when I quoted his words, Flanagan was Minister for Foreign Affairs and had previously been Minister for Children! I am quoting from a thread on Nora Wall

QUOTE
The SECOND politician who slandered Nora Wall is Charles Flanagan, also Fine Gael, also a man who has held ministerial posts (currently Minister for Foreign Affairs and previously Minister for Children)! This is part of what he said on 8 July 2009 during the debate on the Institutional Abuse Bill

While I do not have time to speak in detail about the Louise O’Keeffe case, I wish to speak about another woman, namely, Nora Wall. Nora Wall has hardly been mentioned in the debate on the Ryan report. She became something of a heroine for those who mistrust the Irish courts when her conviction for rape was overturned in 1999. Since her conviction was overturned, she has been portrayed as an heroic martyr in many quarters with references to witch hunts and witch trials abounding. Six weeks ago, the columnist Kevin Myers wrote in a national newspaper:

"The liberal-left lynch mob that went after poor Nora Wall a decade ago was prepared to destroy her life on the basis of lies."

Mr. Myers would do well to read the description of “poor Nora Wall” in the Ryan report. Nora Wall does not deserve the plaudits that have been directed her way since her conviction for rape was overturned. While her case may have collapsed, the Ryan report reveals graphically that Nora Wall was no saint. She exposed the children in her care to unacceptable risks by allowing male outsiders to stay overnight at the Cappoquin care centre which was in her charge. She entertained past pupils and student priests in the home and allowed them to stay overnight. A witness stated that much drinking took place at these gatherings.

There is more to this than meets the eye in respect of these social events. It has been suggested that there were frequent visits to the Cappoquin home by some clergy from Mount Melleray Abbey. Access to children may have been a key motivation for these visits. One must bear in mind that Mount Melleray was selected by the notorious paedophile, Fr. Brendan Smith, as a holiday destination or as a haven to which to escape when he was on the run from the authorities in Northern Ireland. This issue must be revisited.
ENDOFQUOTE

NOTE today 10/09/17
Do you think that Justice Minister Flanagan should be asked to withdraw his comments or else resign? Do you think a man like that has any right to condemn George Hook?

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, George Hook and Nora Wall (b)

The media don't seem to have done much to follow up on the then Deputy Flanagan's sensational allegations in 2009. They just reported them (I don't think you can be sued for libel for just reporting what was said in the Dail.) The reason our journalists did not ELABORATE on Flanagan's obscene claims is that Nora Wall had already successfully sued the Sunday World for publishing similar claims. This is another extract from the thread on Nora Wall  

Updated Link to Politics.ie thread: Nora Wall Claims Damages against State for False Rape Conviction [page 4] 

QUOTE
In other words Flanagan repeated the libel published by the Sunday World in 1999 for what they had to apologise and pay damages to Nora Wall in 2002. Details of the libel and the Sunday Wurst apology (reported in Phoenix Magazine) are here  

and to give an example of the nature of the article

Rape Nun's Abuse Pact with Smyth

Exclusive by PAUL WILLIAMS

EVIL NUN Nora Wall, convicted for helping to rape a ten-year-old child, also secretly provided children for sick paedophile priest Father Brendan Smyth.

The Sunday World has learned that depraved cleric regularly visited St. Michael's Childcare Centre in County Waterford where Wall, then known as Sister Dominic, was working.  Last month Wall was the first woman to be convicted of rape in Ireland .......

The conviction of Nora Wall (and Pablo McCabe) in 1999 quickly collapsed when their two accusers gave an interview to the Daily Star who published their names for the first time and it quickly became apparent that the two accusers were serial rape liars. (One of their previous victims read the Star article and contacted Nora Wall's family.) HOWEVER the allegation made by the Sunday World - about her supplying children to Fr Brendan Smyth did NOT figure in her trial i.e. the Sunday World just invented it on the basis that a person convicted of rape could not sue for libel. (They were then caught out when the conviction collapsed.)

So where did our current Minister for Foreign Affairs (and past Minister for Children) get his information? "It has been suggested" he said in the Dail. WHO suggested it apart from the Sunday World? Did Charlie Flanagan repeat this claim outside of the Dail? Did he go to the Gardai and demand an investigation? If not why not?
ENDOFQUOTE

CURRENT COMMENT: As Flanagan is now Minister for Justice  the above question is even more relevant than when he was a mere TD or even Minister for Foreign Affairs!