RTE and Fr Kevin Reynolds

TheZohanS

Bosco boy wrote: »

About the most pathetic post I have ever read on boards.ie, what the **** has he got to do with those victims, maybe he has done more for victims in his time than you have had hot dinners!

You mustn't read a whole lot of posts then, quit your whining.

kraggy

Dionysus wrote: »

An innocent priest? In Ireland?

That's one of the most callous, inaccurate, mindless, unfair statements I've seen on boards.

Grow up.

Bosco boy

TheZohan wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

About the most pathetic post I have ever read on boards.ie, what the **** has he got to do with those victims, maybe he has done more for victims in his time than you have had hot dinners!

You mustn't read a whole lot of posts then, quit your whining.

I have and your post is pathetic

ballsymchugh

mikom wrote: »

Settlement and legal fees to reach 5 million.
Well done RTE, more tax payers money wasted.

Unfortunately Hugo Brady Brown was not available for comment.

according to some guy on drive time this evening, the journalists have some kind of indemnity for that kinda stuff. i'm sure the premiums are paid from the license fee though.
in fairness, to air such a program should lead to heads rolling.

TheZohanS

Bosco boy wrote: »

I have and your post is pathetic

Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain why, now read my post first and see who it was directed at. Officer.

Bosco boy

TheZohan wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

I have and your post is pathetic

Maybe you'll be kind enough to explain why, now read my post first and see who it was directed at. Officer.

Your posts speak for themselves! I thought better of you!

lugha

Surely there is a wider issue here as to how investigative journalists from RTE, or anywhere else conduct themselves? Granted, there does seem to be the rather bizarre aspect to this case where an offer by the victim to disprove some of the allegations was spurned, something I certainly would like to hear an explanation for.

But I would imagine the usual state of affairs is that journalists would “know”, or strongly suspect a public or private individual of some wrong doing but would not be able to prove it in court. So the question is, what do they do? Simply back down once the subject of their allegation issues a denial, or a legal threat? It was the same RTE that many of us cheered as they stood firm when Beverly Cooper Flynn pursued them a decade ago.

Granted, when the get it wrong as in this case, they cause considerable distress to the wronged individual. But the only way to all but guarantee that this does not happen is to have a court level standard of proof before you publish such grave allegations. But if you set this as your standard, there will be all manner of corrupt or degenerate figures who will ply their devious trade, safe in the knowledge that there is little chance that they will be exposed.

EKClarke

lugha wrote: »

Surely there is a wider issue here as to how investigative journalists from RTE, or anywhere else conduct themselves? Granted, there does seem to be the rather bizarre aspect to this case where an offer by the victim to disprove some of the allegations was spurned, something I certainly would like to hear an explanation for.

But I would imagine the usual state of affairs is that journalists would “know”, or strongly suspect a public or private individual of some wrong doing but would not be able to prove it in court. So the question is, what do they do? Simply back down once the subject of their allegation issues a denial, or a legal threat? It was the same RTE that many of us cheered as they stood firm when Beverly Cooper Flynn pursued them a decade ago.

Granted, when the get it wrong as in this case, they cause considerable distress to the wronged individual. But the only way to all but guarantee that this does not happen is to have a court level standard of proof before you publish such grave allegations. But if you set this as your standard, there will be all manner of corrupt or degenerate figures who will ply their devious trade, safe in the knowledge that there is little chance that they will be exposed.

BOOOOO

HISSSSSSSS

BOOOOO

Freddie59

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Heads should most definitely roll but a seven figure sum compensation?

Yes and why not? If it were a member of the public it would be perfectly acceptable - but a priest? No in the eyes of some.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

TheZohan wrote: »

It's the child I feel sorry for.

How so?

Freddie59

starbelgrade wrote: »

It seems that if priests either commit sexual crimes or don't commit sexual crimes then the only ones who ever have to pay up are the taxpayers.

I can see where you're coming from, but it doesn't really cover what went on here. Had Fr. Reynolds not won this case then anyone could have been fair game for a TV "programme".

Freddie59

punchdrunk wrote: »

I can in no way imagine Fr Kevin will keep the cash,a hefty donation to a local charity would be a PR coup to the church,and go some way to restore his reputation

Would you expect a private individual to do likewise?

Freddie59

TheZohan wrote: »

You mustn't read a whole lot of posts then, quit your whining.

In fairness Z it isn't whining. You made a petty sideswipe at the Church, using Fr. Kevin as a vehicle to do so. but it's OK - others do the same on a regular basis. A bit surprised at you though.

DeVore

Libel insurance ... It's horrifically expensive but I would imagine they would have it. Also they would have staff lawyers who check absolutely everything before it aired... Someone lied to the lawyers because this would never ever in a million years ever have aired with him protesting innocence and offering a paternity test beforehand. Never.


Not ever.

DeV.

Freddie59

DeVore wrote: »

Libel insurance ... It's horrifically expensive but I would imagine they would have it. Also they would have staff lawyers who check absolutely everything before it aired... Someone lied to the lawyers because this would never ever in a million years ever have aired with him protesting innocence and offering a paternity test beforehand. Never.


Not ever.

DeV.

Indeed. Someone REALLY fupped up there.

Fulton Crown

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No amount of money could ever make up for what Fr. Reynolds has been put through. His reputation is ruined, he was forced to leave his home and could have ended up in prison and on the sex offenders register.

I for one am happy to help pay for his compensation. If all that matters to you about this situation is how much Fr Reynolds is paid then you've either missed/ignored the point or you need to seriously reevaluate your priorities imo.

I agree with your first para but cannot get my head around how you couls be "happy" to help pay for compensation.

Obviously this man is entitled to very significant compensation for a broadcast that by all accounts should never have happend.

The head honchos in RTE and indeed other State organisations are paid very hefty wedges to reflect the "seniority and responsibility of their positions".

OK ..thats ...sort of...ok.

But the downside of that is that when they make a monumental fcuck up they should pay the penalty and be required to "pursue their career in a different area.".

It's simply NOT acceptable for RTE to come out with bland stuff such as "punitive action is not the best way to deal with this".

Its the old story isn't it ...no accountability/massive pay outs/keep the Audi 6 Roddy/of to Europe Kevin / massive pensions Bertie /Mary/Charlie/Brian/The Bull etc etc.

OOOOOh dear.....

starbelgrade

Bosco boy wrote: »

When were you ever happy with anything?

When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea.

starbelgrade

Freddie59 wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from, but it doesn't really cover what went on here. Had Fr. Reynolds not won this case then anyone could have been fair game for a TV "programme".

I agree with you totally - RTE should be held accountable for this. My only gripe is that no heads have rolled over this & the only ones taking any punishment for this is the taxpayer.

billy buttons

RTE are fighting a typical rear guard action. They have closed ranks already
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307766300.html
From Irish Times

RTÉ’s head of corporate communications, Kevin Dawson, said treating the matter as a “punitive exercise is not necessarily the best route to learning the lessons that arise from a regrettable case of this sort”.

He also said ‘It is very difficult for a rolled head to learn anything. If you have an extremely experienced, dedicated and excellent team on a programme... that has made an absolutely exceptional error, the best way to learn is to see how we would avert such errors in the future.”
‘A rolled head never learned anything’

This is total crap, the idea is that the person was horribly negligent in their job and made an enormous blunder. They cant be trusted to do their job anymore.
If you’re a sailor and your sink the boat, its not a case of ah sure another chance for you so.
You are simply gone!

RTE is a public body and fairly close to a monopoly, if it were a totally commercial body Aoife Kavanagh, Ken O’sea and everyone else with a responsibility for this mess would be fired for the damage they have done. Since it is insulated by a tax on the public, whether you use their service or not, it can behave in the terrible way it so often does.
This is a cover our arse exercise if ever I saw one.

Also of note all the comments on the Irish Indo and Irish times that had been calling for these people to be sacked – quite a big number - are gone since last night. More media incest in Ireland.

I seriously want to know if there is a way to appeal this management decision at RTE?
Or is it simply just another state run black hole that Irish people pay for but never get to have a say in.

If any one has any info on how to appeal the way a public corporate body is run post it please.

washiskin

The court ordered an on-air apology to be broadcast by RTE and it duly was - shoehorned in before Primetime last night.

It was a disgrace - a lady raced through it with barely disguised begrudgery and I was really taken aback when I read this morning that the grandees in RTE don't believe that heads rolling is necessarily the way for lessons to be learned from ths :eek: They reckon that resting on the laurels of past gloires (I'm presuming i.e. NIB/BC-F and Hello Money) is enough to justify this faux-pas - again :eek:

A serious shake up is needed out there in Donnybrook!:mad:

I Heart Internet

- "Losing" €3.6 billion
- Wrongly accusing a man of raping a child without waiting for the evidence

Begs the question: What must one do to get fired from the Irish public sector? Start a nuclear war? Create a black hole during a failed Mooney show experiment?

conorhal

"RTÉ’s head of corporate communications, Kevin Dawson, said treating the matter as a “punitive exercise is not necessarily the best route to learning the lessons that arise from a regrettable case of this sort”.

He also said ‘It is very difficult for a rolled head to learn anything. If you have an extremely experienced, dedicated and excellent team on a programme... that has made an absolutely exceptional error, the best way to learn is to see how we would avert such errors in the future.”
‘A rolled head never learned anything’ "

A head rolls not for the purpose of learning but for the purpose of accountability.
The learning excercise is for those lucky enough to have kept their jobs, in this case, learning something about old fashioned concepts like checking your sources and journalistic ethics.

As for the suggestion that a rolled head never learns anything, that's simply not true. I got fired once. A small sum of money went missing from the till in a business where I worked. I didn't take it BTW, it was an act of carelessness on my part and an act of opportunism on another’s. But by God I learned a thing or two that day, among the things I learned was that an employer is often forgiving of a certain degree of carelessness and sloppiness, but never when it costs them money. When you cost a business cash you go out the door, a lesson RTE it seems has yet to learn....

mikom

DeVore wrote: »

Libel insurance ... It's horrifically expensive but I would imagine they would have it.

Gonna be a lot more expensive to renew it next year.

RTE, public service broadcasting, the public service in this case is to accuse a priest of rape without solid proof.
Tune in next week for our expose on the rise of pedophilia amongst non-licence payers......... the filthy buggers are fiddlin' with kids when they should be watching 4 live.

amdublin

billy buttons wrote: »

RTE are fighting a typical rear guard action. They have closed ranks already
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307766300.html
From Irish Times

RTÉ’s head of corporate communications, Kevin Dawson, said treating the matter as a “punitive exercise is not necessarily the best route to learning the lessons that arise from a regrettable case of this sort”.

He also said ‘It is very difficult for a rolled head to learn anything. If you have an extremely experienced, dedicated and excellent team on a programme... that has made an absolutely exceptional error, the best way to learn is to see how we would avert such errors in the future.”
‘A rolled head never learned anything’

Shocking.

No repercussions for their actions whatsoever.

paddyandy

Well fair play to ya Fadder . I would love to skin them alive out there in donnybrook myself .They have no mercy and therefore should get none.More power to you because they put you through hell.Everybody deserves justice.

jimmynokia

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rte-boss-to-be-quizzed-by-tds-over-priest-libel-2939747.html


heads to roll

Saturday November 19 2011
THE head of RTE is to be called before an Oireachtas committee to explain "systematic failures" that led to a massive libel settlement.

Fr Kevin Reynolds (65) this week agreed to a settlement -- understood to be in excess of €1m -- after a 'Prime Time Investigates' programme incorrectly claimed he had fathered a child in Africa.

Speaking on his radio show yesterday, broadcaster Pat Kenny said about the journalist at the centre of the report, Aoife Kavanagh: "She professionally has been truly humiliated."

Ms Kavanagh was unavailable for comment last night.

RTE has said that an independent "review of editorial processes" in current affairs is under way.

Scope

But a spokesman maintained it is "not an investigation into a specific programme edition".

However, the station's director general Noel Curran and other members of the RTE Authority and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland are to be summoned to a meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture to explain the editorial process in the run-up to the airing of the programme.

Speaking to the Irish Independent yesterday, committee chairman Andrew Doyle said he believed the issues must be addressed in the public interest.

"They face questions about the systematic failure that seems to have taken place here," he said.

"It undermines confidence in investigative journalism which usually should be in the public interest. It's quite obvious from this that all the checks and balances were not adhered to.

"I would expect that RTE would send their director general, I wouldn't be very happy if they didn't."

However, he said the committee would not endeavour to ascertain details of the settlement after both sides signed a confidentiality clause.

"In fairness to the party (Fr Reynolds) that has been absolved here, their privacy is also important," he said.

"The amount is not the issue here, it is the proper due process."

Meanwhile, as the fallout from the programme continued yesterday, Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte said he shared the public concern on the issue.

He added he was "confident that the director general and the board of RTE will deal with the issues arising in an effective and thorough manner".

JackPerry

I would hope that "journalist" Aoife Kavanagh never gets to broadcast on RTE again but no doubt she has a future in the tabloid end of the news industry.
It appears RTE have re edited the original recoded apology. The one originally used was the audio equivalent of cutting and pasting different fonts into a word document. It appeared to have been recorded in a number of takes and very badly assembled. The latest apology was a more professional recording.
But shame on RTE for such shoddy behaviour in this whole affair.

Fulton Crown

Not so sure that the journo should take the complete fall for this disgraceful situation.

Have to say though that I am not in possession of the full facts...but I would imagine that it would be a SENIOR PRODUCER decision to commit the programme to air.

Forget about being called before an Oireacteas committee...that will only give the stiffs on that a day in the Sun.

This is a serious management issue for RTE...I dont expect anything but the familiar Lily Livered approach that has allowed some presenters to command huge wedges far far in excess of their value to the Station.

It's time for the Minister in charge to grow some balls and demand ...yes demand..... that heads roll in this sorry fcuck up and that senoir RTE management at least once justify their inflated salaries and perks.

This one will not go away ...you know

Jimoslimos

First of all, before anyone infers differently from this post, Fr. Reynolds had heinous untrue accusations levelled against him which should have happened to nobody, clergy or otherwise.

But a €1m+ payout? Yes, he had to endure many months of distress but how many other victims of false sexual abuse cases have had the support and financial backing of the Catholic Church to lodge a legal campaign. He still has his job (so loss of earnings couldn't have been an issue) and has been publicly vindicated in a way most wrongfully accused will never have.

Also, it will make it difficult for proper investigative journalists to report on abuse by the church in developing countries. There's no smoke without fire, Fr. Reynolds was innocent but where did these allegations originate from?

mikom

Jimoslimos wrote: »

But a €1m+ payout? Yes, he had to endure many months of distress but how many other victims of false sexual abuse cases have had the support and financial backing of the Catholic Church to lodge a legal campaign.

How many others were falsely "outed" on the the main currant affairs programme hosted on our public service broadcaster, then relayed on their radio arm as well?

A soldier who stepped on a mine never learned anything, but his comrades learned where the mines are.

Tough sh*t to who made the mistake, a P45 for him! Worst that'd happen is he head to London like so many other media workers. Let his colleagues learn from it.

Serious actions should have serious consquences. End.

padd b1975

Jimoslimos wrote: »

First of all, before anyone infers differently from this post, Fr. Reynolds had heinous untrue accusations levelled against him which should have happened to nobody, clergy or otherwise.

But a €1m+ payout? Yes, he had to endure many months of distress but how many other victims of false sexual abuse cases have had the support and financial backing of the Catholic Church to lodge a legal campaign. He still has his job (so loss of earnings couldn't have been an issue) and has been publicly vindicated in a way most wrongfully accused will never have.

Also, it will make it difficult for proper investigative journalists to report on abuse by the church in developing countries. There's no smoke without fire, Fr. Reynolds was innocent but where did these allegations originate from?

What the fcuk are you on about???
No smoke without fire?
Please elaborate on this for us.
I am sure RTE's legal department are eagerly awaiting what this could be.
Do tell.

klong

Jimoslimos wrote: »

First of all, before anyone infers differently from this post, Fr. Reynolds had heinous untrue accusations levelled against him which should have happened to nobody, clergy or otherwise.

But a €1m+ payout? Yes, he had to endure many months of distress but how many other victims of false sexual abuse cases have had the support and financial backing of the Catholic Church to lodge a legal campaign. He still has his job (so loss of earnings couldn't have been an issue) and has been publicly vindicated in a way most wrongfully accused will never have.

Also, it will make it difficult for proper investigative journalists to report on abuse by the church in developing countries. There's no smoke without fire, Fr. Reynolds was innocent but where did these allegations originate from?

His solicitor was working pro bono- hardly the situation of a priest with "the support and financial backing of the Catholic Church to lodge a legal campaign":

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1119/1224307823981.html

Failure to get €700 test has caused untold damage

BACKGROUND: TO THE more than 500,000 people who watched the Prime Time Investigates “A Mission to Prey” programme in May, the reaction of Fr Kevin Reynolds was flippant to the point of being utterly irresponsible.

“I hope I look good on the picture ha, ha, ha,” he said to RTÉ reporter Aoife Kavanagh as he walked towards his front door.

Kavanagh and a cameraman had arrived at Fr Reynolds’s church in Ahascragh, Co Galway, on Sunday, May 7th, this year just as First Communion was going on. Having filmed the Mass from the back of the church, they doorstepped Fr Reynolds afterwards with the allegations that he had raped a minor called Veneranda and had a daughter Sheila with her. His reaction was one of incredulity. He had never heard of either woman.

“You don’t know anything about what we’re talking about?” asked Kavanagh. “Absolutely nothing, that’s the Gospel truth,” Fr Reynolds responded. Had he been the father of a child in Kenya he would have lived up to his responsibilities, he said.

His jocular parting words suggested he was not taking the allegation seriously, but, when he realised RTÉ was serious about broadcasting it, his attempts to have it stopped grew increasingly frantic. His original solicitors wrote a letter four days later to the unspecified “head of broadcasting” at RTÉ repeating the denials and also denying a claim put to the priest that his bishop in Kenya, Bishop Philip Sulemati, had been told that Fr Reynolds had fathered a child.

That letter was never acknowledged. Instead, Kavanagh herself wrote back a week later – against the practice that solicitors usually respond to solicitors.

Kavanagh said she had a “credible third-party source” to suggest that Fr Reynolds was the father of Sheila and that he had contributed to her education.

Kavanagh never produced the “credible third-party source” despite repeated requests.

Fr Reynolds went further than revealed in legal correspondence. Through his order he offered to take a paternity test, a fact acknowledged in the correction order which appears in The Irish Times today and in other national newspapers. The most salient question in this episode is why RTÉ persisted in broadcasting the item when Fr Reynolds had offered to take a paternity test.

RTÉ is asking itself the same question in a review into how the programme was made. “We will not be commenting on individual elements of the programme and its production, or on the possible outturns of the review activity, pending its completion,” said RTÉ’s head of corporate communication Kevin Dawson.

The station did eventually fund a paternity test, but by that stage the programme was broadcast and the damage done.

Fr Reynolds, through the Association of Catholic Priests, engaged the services of Robert Dore and Company solicitors on a pro-bono basis because they could not afford a High Court action.

Mr Dore wrote to RTÉ on June 23rd, a month after the broadcast, stressing that his client was anxious to take a paternity test as soon as possible as he was being stood down from his ministry.

In correspondence seen by The Irish Times, RTÉ responded six days later saying it was “agreeable in principle to the paternity test”.

When details were not forthcoming, Mr Dore wrote back warning that the paternity test “cannot be left in limbo”.

Further correspondence by Mr Dore repeatedly criticised RTÉ’s delay in filing a defence.

On July 7th, RTÉ finally confirmed that it had retained the services of “Ormond Quay Paternity Services” in Dublin and would be carrying out a paternity test within three weeks.

RTÉ protested that there were “obvious logistical difficulties” in obtaining DNA samples from Kenya. Mr Dore pointed out that there were no “obvious logistical difficulties” in interviewing both women for the programme.

As July turned into August, a breakthrough came by way of a handwritten letter from Sheila which apologised to Fr Reynolds and said he was not her father.

RTÉ responded by saying it had “no comment” to make about any potential witnesses to the defamation action.

Mr Dore again wrote to RTÉ on August 25th inquiring as to what was happening in relation to the paternity test. His exasperation turned to rage on September 6th.

He found out that the negative test results had been with RTÉ for four days and were leaked to a journalist, who then approached Fr Reynolds before the priest or his legal team were informed.

RTÉ eventually caved in on September 28th and wrote a letter offering an apology.

Ormond Quay Paternity Services charge €700 for a paternity test for a court case. The cost to RTÉ of this case in damages, possibly in the order of €1 million, and the reputation of those involved in the programme and its own reputation is incalculable.

Jimoslimos

padd b1975 wrote: »

What the fcuk are you on about???
No smoke without fire?
Please elaborate on this for us.
I am sure RTE's legal department are eagerly awaiting what this could be.
Do tell.

Please refer to the first paragraph of my post - where did I infer that Fr. Reynolds was guilty of anything?

The "no smoke without fire" reference was an observation on the 'general activities of organised religion in developing countries'. Heck when you see the abuses members of the clergy got away with in 1st world countries.

Why would a woman accuse an innocent man of fathering a child?
Financial gain would seem the most likely, is there widespread resentment of wealthy missionaries preaching in these countries? Or perhaps abuses of power have been ongoing and Fr. Reynolds just happened to be the wrong guy in the wrong place and was seen as fair game by the locals.

Most people anyway spotted this long long before RTE backed down and apologised. Even over in the A&A forum serious doubts were raised over the validity of the programme's claims when it was first aired.

As I've said before it was a massive wrongdoing by RTE. In a way I would've loved for it to go before a judge - in that way we might have had people held accountable for their actions. My only gripe is with the level of payout - something I feel is disproportianate with other levels of compensation paid out.

padd b1975

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Please refer to the first paragraph of my post - where did I infer that Fr. Reynolds was guilty of anything?

The "no smoke without fire" reference was an observation on the 'general activities of organised religion in developing countries'. Heck when you see the abuses members of the clergy got away with in 1st world countries.

Why would a woman accuse an innocent man of fathering a child?
Financial gain would seem the most likely, is there widespread resentment of wealthy missionaries preaching in these countries? Or perhaps abuses of power have been ongoing and Fr. Reynolds just happened to be the wrong guy in the wrong place and was seen as fair game by the locals.

Most people anyway spotted this long long before RTE backed down and apologised. Even over in the A&A forum serious doubts were raised over the validity of the programme's claims when it was first aired.

As I've said before it was a massive wrongdoing by RTE. In a way I would've loved for it to go before a judge - in that way we might have had people held accountable for their actions. My only gripe is with the level of payout - something I feel is disproportianate with other levels of compensation paid out.

You inferred Fr. Reynolds still had questions to answer by using the phrase "no smoke without fire".

This thread is not about the behaviour of organised religeon in developing countries, it is about Fr.Reynolds.
Let me surmise, he was accused by RTE of fathering a child while working as a missionary priest.
He denied the allegations and offered to take a paternity test.
These actions were both ignored by RTE who broadcast the program complete with false allegations against Fr.Reynolds.

Fr.Reynolds then took legal action against RTE.

He won substantial 7 figure damages.

Once again I will ask you; what "smoke without fire" can you add to these facts?

Jimoslimos

padd b1975 wrote: »

You inferred Fr. Reynolds still had questions to answer by using the phrase "no smoke without fire".

This thread is not about the behaviour of organised religeon in developing countries, it is about Fr.Reynolds.
Let me surmise, he was accused by RTE of fathering a child while working as a missionary priest.
He denied the allegations and offered to take a paternity test.
These actions were both ignored by RTE who broadcast the program complete with false allegations against Fr.Reynolds.

Fr.Reynolds then took legal action against RTE.

He won substantial 7 figure damages.

Once again I will ask you; what "smoke without fire" can you add to these facts?

If you are going to misread what I say then please stop quoting me.

Of course the thread is going to deviate slightly OT after 5 pages. After the 1st page everyone was in agreement, Fr. Reynolds was innocent - RTE fcuked up in a big way, and most calling for some sort of accountability. /thread closed

I disagree with the level of damages, that's my opinion. Argue the point as you wish.

I also expressed a wish that proper (i.e not the shambles carried out by RTE) investigative journalism would not be hindered by this. Kavanagh and RTE were guilty of chasing quick and dirty tabloid headlines. The formula went like so;
1) Catholic priests in Ireland have been guilty of sexual abuse and misuse of power here at home.
2) Irish priests often work as missionaries abroad.
3) Ergo Irish priests are guilty of sexual abuse and misuse of power abroad.
4) Find an Irish priest and dig for dirt - make it stick.


Now the smoke w/o fire - Catholic priests have indeed been found guilty of sex abuse crimes around the world, and in many cases the church have been shown to be complicit in covering up these crimes. It is not a great jump to conclude that abuse may well be rife in developing countries where the CC hold greater sway (like Ireland a few decades ago). Again proper investigative journalism would have been a powerful tool in exposing these crimes (yes, if they existed) in a country where the CC and a corrupt police/judiciary system would not. However because of the shoddy amateur actions by our state broadcaster this makes it all the more difficult.

padd b1975

Jimoslimos wrote: »

If you are going to misread what I say then please stop quoting me.

Of course the thread is going to deviate slightly OT after 5 pages. After the 1st page everyone was in agreement, Fr. Reynolds was innocent - RTE fcuked up in a big way, and most calling for some sort of accountability. /thread closed

I disagree with the level of damages, that's my opinion. Argue the point as you wish.

I also expressed a wish that proper (i.e not the shambles carried out by RTE) investigative journalism would not be hindered by this. Kavanagh and RTE were guilty of chasing quick and dirty tabloid headlines. The formula went like so;
1) Catholic priests in Ireland have been guilty of sexual abuse and misuse of power here at home.
2) Irish priests often work as missionaries abroad.
3) Ergo Irish priests are guilty of sexual abuse and misuse of power abroad.
4) Find an Irish priest and dig for dirt - make it stick.


Now the smoke w/o fire - Catholic priests have indeed been found guilty of sex abuse crimes around the world, and in many cases the church have been shown to be complicit in covering up these crimes. It is not a great jump to conclude that abuse may well be rife in developing countries where the CC hold greater sway (like Ireland a few decades ago). Again proper investigative journalism would have been a powerful tool in exposing these crimes (yes, if they existed) in a country where the CC and a corrupt police/judiciary system would not. However because of the shoddy amateur actions by our state broadcaster this makes it all the more difficult.

What sort of damages do you think he should have got?

Jimoslimos

padd b1975 wrote: »

What sort of damages do you think he should have got?

5 figure or maybe low 6, say something in the region of €50-100k max. Higher sums should be reserved for actual wrongful convictions - although you could argue that trial by media is as good as in some peoples eyes.

That doesn't mean I think RTE should get away with paying only this amount. Personally I would be happy if they were made to pay the remainder to a charity (of Fr. Reynolds choice).

Bishop_Donal

Jimoslimos wrote: »

5 figure or maybe low 6, say something in the region of €50-100k max. Higher sums should be reserved for actual wrongful convictions - although you could argue that trial by media is as good as in some peoples eyes.

That doesn't mean I think RTE should get away with paying only this amount. Personally I would be happy if they were made to pay the remainder to a charity (of Fr. Reynolds choice).

Jeez, I wonder if you'd feel the same if it was you that the allegations were made against?

Damages aside, this whole thing makes me sick. The utter hypocrisy of RTE is incredible. If anybody else does anything in this country, they are out calling for resignations & removals like there is no tomorrow.

Aoife Kavanagh should be utterly forced to resign her job. Her actions were just disgusting & I hope her family feel at least 10% of the pain that she inflicted on the Reynolds family.

billybudd

A comittee set up to further cost to the tax payer so that they can say that they should be more careful in the future when investigating things.

Kavanagh and those responsible should be sacked and have to face a media press conference to explain their actions and we should demand it.

This is our money they are wasting, everyone wants accountability without actually doing anything about it, can you imagine what one hundred thousand emails to the relevant minister could do to get these people to own up and face the consequences of what they did?

I find the way RTE dealt with the aftermath of this sorry episode attrocious and a insult to tax payers.

Next up a reality tv show involving Brian & Pippa....why, what and how much did this cost and for what purpose? will be my next email to the minister!

billybudd

Jimoslimos wrote: »

5 figure or maybe low 6, say something in the region of €50-100k max. Higher sums should be reserved for actual wrongful convictions - although you could argue that trial by media is as good as in some peoples eyes.

That doesn't mean I think RTE should get away with paying only this amount. Personally I would be happy if they were made to pay the remainder to a charity (of Fr. Reynolds choice).

The man deserves every cent and hopefully it makes people rage against the elitist machine that is montrose, when the TL is hiked up i hope people remember why.

headmaster

This was a terrible lie, broadcast by our national television that tried to ruin a persons life and by implication his families life as well. The people who were involved in this lie should not be shielded by the award of a financial settlement, they should pay a very heavy professional price, ie, their jobs. The attempt by RTE to broadcast an apology after the 9 o clock news was pathetic and embarassing, probably the fastest piece of reading i've ever heard on a broadcast by any professional announcer ever. There's no doubt that this was also intentional and heads should roll. Shame on Rte and shame, so far, on all RTE investigative programmes for not doing any in depth search for the truth. Respect for any form of journalism has gone out the door with the way this has been reported by all media outlets. Let's wait and see if they will pursue this terrible treatment of a human being by finding out who all the criminal participants were, then demand serious, serious action.

AudreyHepburn

Jimoslimos wrote: »

5 figure or maybe low 6, say something in the region of €50-100k max. Higher sums should be reserved for actual wrongful convictions - although you could argue that trial by media is as good as in some peoples eyes.

That doesn't mean I think RTE should get away with paying only this amount. Personally I would be happy if they were made to pay the remainder to a charity (of Fr. Reynolds choice).

Um....this was an actual wrongful conviction.

Seriously can you not just accept that Fr. Reynolds is innocent?

gigino

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'm not happy to have to contribute towards his compensation, no more than I was happy about the indemnity deal that the taxpayer ended up paying for after the church were found guilty of committing & covering up sexual crimes.

It seems that if priests either commit sexual crimes or don't commit sexual crimes then the only ones who ever have to pay up are the taxpayers.

+1. The journalists in RTE are seriously incompetent if they cannot find a priest in the third world who has had sexual relations or fathered a child. Its the norm out there, not kept quiet, hushed up and hidden away here like in the cases as shown by Bishop Casey and Fr. Cleary etc. Priests are only human anyway, and celibacy is not a natural human lifetime habit.

50 or 100k would be plenty of compensation. Public money should not be frittered away so easily. 50 or 100k is more than most of us will ever save as a cash lump sum in a lifetime. Why is the taxpayer / licence payer always taken for a ride ?

Wildlife Actor

lugha wrote: »

Surely there is a wider issue here as to how investigative journalists from RTE, or anywhere else conduct themselves? Granted, there does seem to be the rather bizarre aspect to this case where an offer by the victim to disprove some of the allegations was spurned, something I certainly would like to hear an explanation for.

But I would imagine the usual state of affairs is that journalists would “know”, or strongly suspect a public or private individual of some wrong doing but would not be able to prove it in court. So the question is, what do they do? Simply back down once the subject of their allegation issues a denial, or a legal threat? It was the same RTE that many of us cheered as they stood firm when Beverly Cooper Flynn pursued them a decade ago.

Granted, when the get it wrong as in this case, they cause considerable distress to the wronged individual. But the only way to all but guarantee that this does not happen is to have a court level standard of proof before you publish such grave allegations. But if you set this as your standard, there will be all manner of corrupt or degenerate figures who will ply their devious trade, safe in the knowledge that there is little chance that they will be exposed.

You're right in the general points that you make but RTE were cowardly and achieved little in either case you mention to cheer about. Furthermore, in both cases they showed a lack of competence and effort, and in the latter case there must have been a deliberate decision to ignore their own fact-checking procedures.

RTE have massive resources. They have lawyers to review everything that goes out (as do the newspapers). But it didn't take a lawyer to say "hold on" when the victim offers a DNA test. And to refuse a court level standard of proof when it's offered to them?

OK so it's mandatory to hate cooper flynn. But look at what it was: taking on an easy target who a long time earlier did what everybody else in her bank and most other banks did at the time, under the instruction of her bosses. And they didn't even get it right there, the lazy sods. They only "won" because of other examples of dodginess that they didn't report. Why aren't they investigating current problems and taking on the big guys: pork barrel politics? appointment of politicos as judges and politicos as the judicial appointments board? Council officials signing eachother into conferences to collect the expenses?

It's not malice as such. It's bosses with a commercial agenda refusing to allow good journalists the time to investigate stories properly. The result is churn: recycled stories, prurient stories, ill-informed opinions, and a lot of cowardly kicking people when they're down (where were RTE and their colleagues when the church was riding high in the 1970s and 80s?). One of the worst things is that, since neither a crap/lazy journalist nor a good one gets the time to research a story, it'll be rubbish anyway, so you can't tell the difference between good and bad reporters.

So, easing the libel laws in the hope of getting at the "corrupt or degenerate figures who will ply their devious trade" is more likely to see more intrusion into people's private lives, more beating down on the little guy and less fact-checking.

Venom

Bishop_Donal wrote: »

Aoife Kavanagh should be utterly forced to resign her job. Her actions were just disgusting & I hope her family feel at least 10% of the pain that she inflicted on the Reynolds family.

Kavanagh and those whose job it is to check the facts she claimed to have prior to the tv show even being made should be sacked, none of this resign rubbish.

Leaving out the impact that the lies and pure lack of professionalism has had on Fr Reynolds, any employee that costs the company they work for the amount these clowns have, would be out on their ear asap and be lucky not to have legal action taken against them.

Jimoslimos

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Um....this was an actual wrongful conviction.

Seriously can you not just accept that Fr. Reynolds is innocent?

ARRRGGGGHHHH! I'm tearing my frickin hair out here. Have you even bothered to read any of my posts? If so can you point out where I implied Fr. Reynolds was guilty of ANY crime. From the outset I pointed out his innocence and remarked my problem was with the level of payout. It doesn't make him any more innocent whether he receives €50k rather than €5m.

Also you are incorrect about the wrongful conviction part. A conviction would indicate that he was tried and convicted before a judge in a court of law. RTE have many powers but that ain't one of them. What they did was defamation, a false allegation against Fr. Reynolds

johnr1

TheZohan wrote: »

Maybe it will go towards compensating the real rape victims of the catholic church...oh that's right the State pays for that don't we.

Whats this "we" business?

You dont pay for any of it if your location is New York, so "quit the bitching" yourself.

passarellaie

johnr1 wrote: »

TheZohan wrote: »

Maybe it will go towards compensating the real rape victims of the catholic church...oh that's right the State pays for that don't we.

Whats this "we" business?

You dont pay for any of it if your location is New York, so "quit the bitching" yourself.

Kavenagh Parceir O Shea the entire Radio Moscow propaganda team have to go.If they dont it merely shows you can do anything in the Irish public service but will never be accountable.

mikom

johnr1 wrote: »

Whats this "we" business?

You dont pay for any of it if your location is New York, so "quit the bitching" yourself.

I presume you are not familiar with the high-brow canon of Adam Sandler.....