Convicted abuser who kept school job raped children again

LenaClaire

Do you think the school should be held liable for this? In 2002 the man was convicted of assaulting students there in the 80's - got 6 months suspended sentence (WTF?!) and was kept on staff. Then went on to rape and take photos of more students.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/convicted-abuser-who-kept-school-job-raped-children-again-2818451.html

1. Why did the school keep him on staff?

2. Why was he only given a suspended sentence for child molestation?

I just can't understand why adults are protecting other adults at the cost of children.

FatherLen

the school is to blame as well. no school should hire someone convicted of a sexual crime, especially one towards children.

WindSock

At the very least they could have had a sign up saying 'Do not touch Willie'

FatherLen

^^^^
for him or the kids

stephen_k

The court was told the accused had studied for the priesthood in Maynooth from 1974 to 1979 but did not graduate after "a disagreeable event took place which caused him to leave".

Why am I not surprised....

NoDice

I can't even read the article. There are some f*cked up reportings lately in the news. So sad. Poor, poor kids.

There should be a good news paper!

CardBordWindow

The school has a lot of questions to answer! It's not like they didn't know about him. Also, the courts are at fault. No child molestation conviction should ever be given a suspended sentence IMO. :mad: Ridiculous!!

mackg

He was abusing one fella all the way up til his leaving cert, basically molesting a full grown man. The kind of psychological hold on someone this would require is sickening. The story talks of the victims alcohol/drug abuse and suicide attempts. How can this crime carry a sentence of anything less then LIFE inprisionment.

the school is to blame as well. no school should hire someone convicted of a sexual crime, especially one towards children.

He was convicted while he was working there, the original crimes took place at the school from what I gather, he probably had to get time off work for the trial ffs.:mad:

Esoteric_

The school should definitely be held liable. I'm not one of these people that encourage suing, but the parents should sue the school because their kid is gonna need therapy for years to come.

Handsome Bob

Saw this in the metro this morning, words fail. He said to one of them imagine that it's a woman doing it while molesting him. Dirty fcuker.

As for the school, knowingly taking a convicted sex offender back? Heads should roll.

Akrasia

Unbelievable. A lot of people need to be fired from their jobs for this, and there should be criminal negligence charges brought against anyone who made any kind of decision to knowingly keep a child molester in employment at a school.

What the hell is wrong with our country?

WindSock

Well it was the 80s. 2 decades before any of this stuff was taken seriously.

prinz

WindSock wrote: »

Well it was the 80s. 2 decades before any of this stuff was taken seriously.

Indeed, unfortunately.

Neither it is nothing new or out of the ordinary, just yesterday a man was convicted of the rape and abuse of his own daughter when she was 8, and another of the abuse of his niece when she was around 5. It's an almost daily occurrence to see these cases before the courts.

jimthemental

Were his pedo skills not up to scratch for the priesthood or what?

If the church knew something about his leanings the school should have been warned before he initially started working there. He certainly shouldn't have been let near the place after his conviction.

mackg

WindSock wrote: »

Well it was the 80s. 2 decades before any of this stuff was taken seriously.

The abuse took place in the 80s but he was convicted in 2002.

prinz

stephen_k wrote: »

Why am I not surprised....

Probably because you suffer from the serious misconception that only priests abuse kids. That or you are trying desperately to be funny on a thread about child abuse. Which is worse..

Show Time

Not a school i would send any kids of mine to attend.

SamuelFox

stephen_k wrote: »

The court was told the accused had studied for the priesthood in Maynooth from 1974 to 1979 but did not graduate after "a disagreeable event took place which caused him to leave".

Why am I not surprised....

I'm amazed - it must have been something very serious, since lots of known paedos were still ordained. I'm not any sort of anti-Catholic person at all, but the fact is that paedophiles were common in the priesthood at that time, and for whatever reason they were not dealt with.

mackg

SamuelFox wrote: »

I'm amazed - it must have been something very serious, since lots of known paedos were still ordained. I'm not any sort of anti-Catholic person at all, but the fact is that paedophiles were common in the priesthood at that time, and for whatever reason they were not dealt with.

In fairness it says nothing about the event being paedo related, could have been anything. Maybe he had a falling out with the head of the seminary, who knows

Nodin

stephen_k wrote: »

Why am I not surprised....

...should be. The rest managed to stay on.

SamuelFox

mackg wrote: »

In fairness it says nothing about the event being paedo related, could have been anything. Maybe he had a falling out with the head of the seminary, who knows

Fair point.

holystungun9

NoDice wrote: »

I can't even read the article. There are some f*cked up reportings lately in the news. So sad. Poor, poor kids.

There should be a good news paper!

Yeah, I read the Indo online as soon as I get up every morning. This was the first story I read. Sure put me in a bad effing mood. It's just unthinkable that this guy returned to his old job. I just don't understand it at all.

stephen_k

prinz wrote: »

Probably because you suffer from the serious misconception that only priests abuse kids. That or you are trying desperately to be funny on a thread about child abuse. Which is worse..

No misconception, just contempt for an institution that repeatedly covered up and colluded with abusers, that there was some involvement of the "Church" in this case is no surprise, I wasn't trying to be funny, nothing funny about this thread...

SamuelFox wrote: »

I'm amazed - it must have been something very serious, since lots of known paedos were still ordained. I'm not any sort of anti-Catholic person at all, but the fact is that paedophiles were common in the priesthood at that time, and for whatever reason they were not dealt with.

Doesn't say whether he was the abuser or the abused when he left the priesthood, either way the Church was involved in creating another child abuser....

actuallylike

stephen_k wrote: »

either way the Church was involved in creating another child abuser....

I have to disagree with this. I don't think the church is responsible for creating child abusers. Back in those days, phychological issues were unheard of so anyone showing signs of inblance weren't treated accordingly. Instead, a child or young adult that showed worrying traits (isolation, antisocialism, violence, fear, confusion about sexuality, etc.) were sent off to the priesthood by their parents with the thought process of "Ah sure the priests will sort him out".

prinz

stephen_k wrote: »

No misconception, just contempt for an institution that repeatedly covered up and colluded with abusers, that there was some involvement of the "Church" in this case is no surprise, I wasn't trying to be funny, nothing funny about this thread.......

There was no involvement of the "Church" in this case. If the article noted he was a GAA player in his younger days would you say the GAA were involved in the case? Or that they were involved in "creating another child abuser"? 2+2 =/= 5. You contempt for an institution is fair enough, but this isn't the thread for it, for all you know he might have been kicked out of the seminary for some of his predilictions. You have no clue whether the later abuse and his time as a seminarian are in any way connected whatsoever.

stephen_k

actuallylike wrote: »

I have to disagree with this. I don't think the church is responsible for creating child abusers. Back in those days, phychological issues were unheard of so anyone showing signs of inblance weren't treated accordingly. Instead, a child or young adult that showed worrying traits (isolation, antisocialism, violence, fear, confusion about sexuality, etc.) were sent off to the priesthood by their parents with the thought process of "Ah sure the priests will sort him out".

I never said they were responsible, just involved...

actuallylike

stephen_k wrote: »

I never said they were responsible, just involved...

Okay, there's still no involvment. He tried to become a priest, he left. Did I miss something more about their involvment in his child abuse?

El Siglo

Anyone still think it's a good idea to not make the sex offenders register public?

mackg

prinz wrote: »

There was no involvement of the "Church" in this case. If the article noted he was a GAA player in his younger days would you say the GAA were involved in the case? Or that they were involved in "creating another child abuser"? 2+2 =/= 5. You contempt for an institution is fair enough, but this isn't the thread for it, for all you know he might have been kicked out of the seminary for some of his predilictions. You have no clue whether the later abuse and his time as a seminarian are in any way connected whatsoever.

Although i agree the church were not involved in this and knew nothing about what type of guy he was based on what I know of it it's not hard to make the leap based on the churches poor track record in the area. Back on topic who does responsibility here rest with, the school obviously to some extent, what about the department of education? Who actually has the responsibility of firing someone when this type of thing comes to light.

mackg

El Siglo wrote: »

Anyone still think it's a good idea to not make the sex offenders register public?

Yeah I do, this should have been handled by whoever had the responsibility of handling it. Every system relies on the parts functioning properly. This failure , as massive as it is, is not a reason to make huge knee jerk policy changes.

actuallylike

El Siglo wrote: »

Anyone still think it's a good idea to not make the sex offenders register public?

And risk people beating the hell out of people until they have no choice to go underground so the police have no idea where they are?

No, it's not a good idea.

jumbone

prinz wrote: »

There was no involvement of the "Church" in this case. If the article noted he was a GAA player in his younger days would you say the GAA were involved in the case? Or that they were involved in "creating another child abuser"? 2+2 =/= 5. You contempt for an institution is fair enough, but this isn't the thread for it, for all you know he might have been kicked out of the seminary for some of his predilictions. You have no clue whether the later abuse and his time as a seminarian are in any way connected whatsoever.

I'm sure that like the majority of schools in the country, the school in question is under the patronage of the church, who must have had knowledge of the reasons why he was kicked out of maynooth. They then still hired him to work in a school.

However I have no idea what the communication channels inside the church are like and whether there was even a chance that this could have been spotted.

What is much worse is that the lay staff of the school and the gardai failed in vetting him as in this case i'm sure that there definitely ought to have been some concerns raised. This failure could even be interpreted as criminal negligence on the part of whoever made the call to allow him to continue working with young people.

prinz

mackg wrote: »

Back on topic who does responsibility here rest with, the school obviously to some extent, what about the department of education? Who actually has the responsibility of firing someone when this type of thing comes to light.

Probably will fall between two stools, with neither the board of management nor the Dept. of Education accepting full responsibility for it. Interesting question though, the school itself may be the direct employer for someone like a caretaker.

El Siglo

actuallylike wrote: »

And risk people beating the hell out of people until they have no choice to go underground so the police have no idea where they are?

No, it's not a good idea.

Yeh, because the current situation is so much better...

prinz

jumbone wrote: »

I'm sure that like the majority of schools in the country, the school in question is under the patronage of the church, who must have had knowledge of the reasons why he was kicked out of maynooth. They then still hired him to work in a school...

The Board of Management of Board of Governors are responsible AFAIK for the hiring and firing of support staff at a school. Not the church. There may have been a member of the clergy on these biards but there is no indication that his leaving of the seminary was common knowledge to anyone involved.

El Siglo

mackg wrote: »

Yeah I do, this should have been handled by whoever had the responsibility of handling it. Every system relies on the parts functioning properly. This failure , as massive as it is, is not a reason to make huge knee jerk policy changes.

It wasn't handled properly as is the case, however if the sex offenders register was public it would have made it more possible to not have him work in the school. This is a sickening situation, absolutely disgusting. Last week we had people talk about helping these rotten cunts, now a repeat offender working in a school? Seriously, how many more children have to be abused before the situation is nipped in the bud once and for all and that they're not just sent on an expensive holiday to the grenada institute at the expense of the tax payer?

kingelmo

jujibee wrote: »

Do you think the school should be held liable for this? In 2002 the man was convicted of assaulting students there in the 80's - got 6 months suspended sentence (WTF?!) and was kept on staff. Then went on to rape and take photos of more students.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/convicted-abuser-who-kept-school-job-raped-children-again-2818451.html

1. Why did the school keep him on staff?

2. Why was he only given a suspended sentence for child molestation?

I just can't understand why adults are protecting other adults at the cost of children.

Sick Sick person!!

But im going to throw in my two cents worth, back nearly 10 years when i was in school we had a 'strange' male PE teacher. Seemed a bit creepy and strange to be around. He taught us pe and maths so we had to see him nearly every day but he also trained the girls football and boys hurling team.

After training or matches he would walk into our dressing rooms and just stare all of us up and down. But he would walk in there like it was normal or natural. (Sick F**ker). We all reported this to the principal and parents but nothing seemed to come of it.

At one Hurling match with the boys he 'groped' a player in the dressing rooms. The boys parents got involved with gardai but the school still stood by the teacher for a few months after and finally let him go. BUt we know he carried on teaching somewhere else and apparently got a reference off our school to get his new job!But he did do the same in the next school and he did get caught but i dont know what happened after that.

SO personally i believe the schools and staff have alot to do with it. These people are involved in teaching children/teenages and to give them guidance for the future. In one way there meant to be looking after them not leaving a horrible person like that run wild around the place. What kind of example is that setting for them??

goat2

what were they thinking, taking on a sex offender, once an offender always an offender, how many childrens and families has this piece of trash ruined, jail would be too good

fedor.2.

actuallylike wrote: »

And risk people beating the hell out of people until they have no choice to go underground so the police have no idea where they are?

No, it's not a good idea.

They're child molesters, you dont get much more underground than that. If i had my way, id kill them all.

actuallylike

El Siglo wrote: »

Yeh, because the current situation is so much better...

Then having vigilantes killing people? Yes it is. The case here is tragic and obviously someone messed up but making child sex offenders lists public is as mentioned before, a knee jerk reaction and unhelpful.

fedor.2.

actuallylike wrote: »

Then having vigilantes killing people? Yes it is. The case here is tragic and obviously someone messed up but making child sex offenders lists public is as mentioned before, a knee jerk reaction and unhelpful.

I disagree, i think we have a right to know who they are and where they are

7sr2z3fely84g5

Debate here- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056314937

El Siglo

actuallylike wrote: »

Then having vigilantes killing people? Yes it is. The case here is tragic and obviously someone messed up but making child sex offenders lists public is as mentioned before, a knee jerk reaction and unhelpful.

If vigilantes were to start dispensing vigilante justice, then they too would be subject to the full extent of the law, as anybody else. You're assuming that vigilantes would target these individuals and get away with it nilly willy. It's not a knee jerk reaction, we know people who commit murders, we know people who commit robberies etc... Once a person has a criminal record, that's it, they'll carry that. Why then shouldn't sex offenders be made known to the public (all things being equal)? What makes them so special?

actuallylike

fedor.2. wrote: »

They're child molesters, you dont get much more underground than that.

The police should know where they are at all times and make sure that they're not in employment or contact with children. Making the list public will just have the reaction like below.

fedor.2. wrote: »

If i had my way, id kill them all

Thank God we don't live in a society of your way. Do you think a peaodophile chooses to have these feelings?
No.
Do you think they try their hardest to resist their urges?
Yes.
Can you comprehend what must be going through their head when they actually give in to attacking a child?
No, because you live in the leisure of not having these urges so you couldn't possibly understand what's going on in their head.

To be addicted to something must be the hardest thing in the world, tell an alcoholic not to drink his families life savings away, tell a gambling addict not to remortgage his house. It's not that simple. But at least with those addictions there is undersdtanding that it isn't their fault and there are steps thay can take not to cure but to control their urges. But in this society there is no understanding or sympathy which is a shame because anyone with these urges is never in a million years going to confind in anyone for risk of the outburst like you said above and we all know bottling up these urges is a sure fire way to blow.

Peaodophillia is not a recent scurge, it has been around for as long as...well chilren I guess and like it or lump it, cute, innocent children today are going to grow up to be peaodophiles. Locking them up one by one or killing them one by one isn't fixing the problem. Accepting the condition and learning to control it is the solution and that won't happen while there is the attitudes of

fedor.2. wrote: »

If i had my way, id kill them all

fedor.2.

actuallylike wrote: »

The police should know where they are at all times and make sure that they're not in employment or contact with children. Making the list public will just have the reaction like below.



Thank God we don't live in a society of your way. Do you think a peaodophile chooses to have these feelings?
No.
Do you think they try their hardest to resist their urges?
Yes.
Can you comprehend what must be going through their head when they actually give in to attacking a child?
No, because you live in the leisure of not having these urges so you couldn't possibly understand what's going on in their head.

To be addicted to something must be the hardest thing in the world, tell an alcoholic not to drink his families life savings away, tell a gambling addict not to remortgage his house. It's not that simple. But at least with those addictions there is undersdtanding that it isn't their fault and there are steps thay can take not to cure but to control their urges. But in this society there is no understanding or sympathy which is a shame because anyone with these urges is never in a million years going to confind in anyone for risk of the outburst like you said above and we all know bottling up these urges is a sure fire way to blow.

Peaodophillia is not a recent scurge, it has been around for as long as...well chilren I guess and like it or lump it, cute, innocent children today are going to grow up to be peaodophiles. Locking them up one by one or killing them one by one isn't fixing the problem. Accepting the condition and learning to control it is the solution and that won't happen while there is the attitudes of

I beg to differ, i dont care how long its been around, i dont care that they haven't chosen to be that way. For as long as its been around im sure there have been hug-a-thugs like yourself trying to help and understand them, to no avail. I think my way should be tried for at least a trial period anyway;)

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

Do you think a peaodophile chooses to have these feelings? No. Do you think they try their hardest to resist their urges? Yes.

Given that some have become involved in vast sophisticated underground rings producing and distributing child pornography, involved in sex tourism travelling to certain locations with the intent of abusing children, involved in financing the trafficking of minors, have spent years weaseling their way into jobs and careers with access to children in a position of authority etc I'd say it's entirely possible that there are a number of paedophiles who don't try to resist their 'urges' in any meaningful way. Of course those who do resist successfully would never be in any danger because nobody would know.

Do you often wonder if a conventional rapist chooses to have their 'feelings' and 'urges'?

actuallylike

fedor.2. wrote: »

I think my way should be tried for at least a trial period anyway;)

It has, hasn't worked
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=247350

stephen_k

The police should know where they are at all times and make sure that they're not in employment or contact with children. Making the list public will just have the reaction like below.

I agree to some extent with you on this one, I don't believe their whereabouts should be made public for the only reason that the threat of vigilantiasm will drive them out of the Police and authorities control....

However that said, what MUST happen is the Police and authorities to ENSURE that these people come nowhere near children and the fact that this guy worked for years in a school whist on the sex offenders register beggars belief.... Thats the problem with this country, locking these people up, absolutely no form of an attempt at rehabilitation and then worse, no follow up or monitoring, IMO....

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

Given that some have become involved in vast sophisticated underground rings producing and distributing child pornography, involved in sex tourism travelling to certain locations with the intent of abusing children, involved in financing the trafficking of minors, have spent years weaseling their way into jobs and careers with access to children in a position of authority etc I'd say it's entirely possible that there are a number of paedophiles who don't try to resist their 'urges' in any meaningful way. Of course those who do resist successfully would never be in any danger because nobody would know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hug-a-thug as was mentioned before. I know there are people that take great pleasure out of what they do which is sickening but not all of them. And the people that are part of selling minors I can only assume they are in it for the money, not their own paedophillic tendencies (if any?).

The police are there to prevent these people worming their way into children's circles (no pun intended:rolleyes:) and in this case they failed but I don't think because of this case that there should be a call for name and shame tactics because as you mentioned there are people who do resist and live normal lives, there are convictees who have served their term and will live normal lives but once their name is out they will be subject to abuse from society and as I said, it's like poking a sleeping bear.

prinz wrote: »

Do you often wonder if a conventional rapist chooses to have their 'feelings' and 'urges'?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think anyone chooses to have such strong sexual urges as to go out and force themselves on someone no.

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

I don't think anyone chooses to have such strong sexual urges as to go out and force themselves on someone no.

So a man who goes out tonight, meets a girl, tries it on, she's having none of it, so he rapes her... didn't have any choice in the matter? Are you trying to say that rapists are driven by forces external to their own will? People choose to abuse. It's not an out of body experience. It's a willful and often times conniving and sly act. The man convicted yesterday of raping his own 8 year old daughter, chose to rape her. You are getting very close to arguing for diminished responsibility based on sex drive/fantasies.

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

So a man who goes out tonight, meets a girl, tries it on, she's having none of it, so he rapes her... didn't have any choice in the matter? Are you trying to say that rapists are driven by forces external to their own will? People choose to abuse. It's not an out of body experience. It's a willful and often times conniving and sly act. The man convicted yesterday of raping his own 8 year old daughter, chose to rape her.

The issue of paedophilia isn't 'meet a kid, tries it on, rapes him/her'. Paedophillia is a daily struggle where there is no relief at all. They're two completely different things. I'm not talking about rape as an issue here, it's paedophillia that is the issue.

The man who raped his daughter might have been driven by a power urge rather than a sexual urge. Would that man have molested any child or just his daughter, there's a difference between the two.