So who's going to see the Pope?

batgoat

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

what you are advocating is mob justice. The core principal of our legal system is that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. He was not proven guilty in a court of law.

No, I'm referring to the fact that the church covered up large scale abuse across the country and made it impossible for it ever to be investigated. Do you think Jimmy Savile was an abuser? Cause the reality is, many victims never see justice for their abuse. Implying that O Gorman is lying is absolutely disgraceful. Perhaps show more concern for organised cover ups on global scale that are a matter of fact.

DickSwiveller Returns

eviltwin wrote: »

So? The one who raped me never stood trial either. It doesn't change what he did to at least 4 children. Or are we liars now?

Did I say that?

beauf

Berserker wrote: »

...Came back to query the traffic restrictions, for real life reasons and ...

.. Same here. It's derailed as usual by utter drivel..

Can I block after hours from my boards profile so it never appeared even in recent threads. It's a waste of space...

DickSwiveller Returns

batgoat wrote: »

No, I'm referring to the fact that the church covered up large scale abuse across the country and made it impossible for it ever to be investigated. Do you think Jimmy Savile was an abuser? Cause the reality is, many victims never see justice for their abuse. Implying that O Gorman is lying is absolutely disgraceful. Perhaps show more concern for organised cover ups on global scale that are a matter of fact.

Why are you making up things that I haven't said? Do you think someone should always be believed when they make a complaint of sexual abuse? If you do, what's the point in having a trial?

batgoat

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Why are you making up things that I haven't said? Do you think someone should always be believed when they make a complaint of sexual abuse? If you do, what's the point in having a trial?

30 similar reports that goes back decades? Can you explain why the Diocese never had it investigated? That's the reason why mm abusers got away with it. Do you think Jimmy Savile was an abuser? You claimed O Gorman as an attention seeker and are now implying he was never abused. You're less concerned with justice than smearing a man who has advocated for abuse victims for decades. That's classy

wonski

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Yes, in the eyes of the law he is innocent. I'm afraid you and EL whatever his name is don't understand how the law works

I afraid you don't know how my brain works.

If 29 allegations of sexual abuse against a priest are made, reported and ignored or covered up for years, then the accused takes his own life, followed by apology from the church and settlement to the victim, then I believe it happened.

If a terrorist kills 20 people before killing himself, then I can safely say he was guilty, even if wasn't tried in court.

I don't need to study law to have my opinion of the case. And there is only one outcome.

There are cases in courts settled for convenience, eg in employment tribunal, but this trend has changed recently.

The case of the priest is not one of those settled for convenience and to save money long term.

It was clear what it was. And it is a common issue not just in Ireland, but in all countries where the church has a power and tendency to sweep these issues under their carpet.

Bubbaclaus

Why is the catholic church child abuse denier, DickSwiveller, allowed to continue to post ffs. Is this thread being moderated at all.

ELM327

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why is the catholic church child abuse denier, DickSwiveller, allowed to continue to post ffs. Is this thread being moderated at all.

Yes it's disgusting.
I've reported his posts but I don't see anything being done about it.
I don't know where he's returning from (I'm guessing a ban).. but to quote a politician from the 70's, as far as I'm concerned he can blow out, or blow up!

DickSwiveller Returns

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why is the catholic church child abuse denier, DickSwiveller, allowed to continue to post ffs. Is this thread being moderated at all.

Calm down. I asked a simple question. How do people know he was abused? I haven't got an answer yet. Just a lot of word salad. The fact is you can not try a dead person so I don't know if he was abused. That doesn't mean I'm calling him a liar.

Berserker

beauf wrote: »

.. Same here. It's derailed as usual by utter drivel..

Can I block after hours from my boards profile so it never appeared even in recent threads. It's a waste of space...

Delete it from the followed threads and forget about it. Reading it would melt your head alright.

Bubbaclaus

Berserker wrote: »

I'd think twice about that. You are going to be in the minority, a huge minority. Have you ever been in a minority at an event and subject to the wrath of the majority? The most dedicated members of the RCC are going to be in Dublin on that day. Big man talk on an internet forum is one thing, having to stand up and do it in the real world is another.

Is that a threat against a peaceful event being held by the survivors of child abuse?

That is surely a new low for you. And if it isn't a new low for you then I shudder to think what is that low.

DickSwiveller Returns

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes it's disgusting.
I've reported his posts but I don't see anything being done about it.
I don't know where he's returning from (I'm guessing a ban).. but to quote a politician from the 70's, as far as I'm concerned he can blow out, or blow up!

I've reported your sectarian posts too but nothing so far. Strange all right.

DickSwiveller Returns

Don't worry I'll leave now. You can go back to your echo chamber.

ELM327

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I've reported your sectarian posts too but nothing so far. Strange all right.

Thought you were leaving

Bubbaclaus

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Calm down. I asked a simple question. How do people know he was abused? I haven't got an answer yet. Just a lot of word salad. The fact is you can not try a dead person so I don't know if he was abused. That doesn't mean I'm calling him a liar.

Using your logic Hitler is also innocent of anything that occurred during WW2.

"Sure he never stood trial so that makes him innocent"

Jesus wept.

batgoat

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Don't worry I'll leave now. You can go back to your echo chamber.

You've basically denied the existence of large scale abuse that occurred in this country. There is no question that it occurred. It's delusion to say otherwise.

wonski

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why is the catholic church child abuse denier, DickSwiveller, allowed to continue to post ffs. Is this thread being moderated at all.

In fairness he has a right to post and discuss just like everyone else.

He is just looking at it from different perspective. Not a perspective I like to read, but it isn't your or my job to shut people down just because we don't like what they say.

Not even moderators task I think.

That would be unfair.

ELM327

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Using your logic Hitler is also innocent of anything that occurred during WW2.

"Sure he never stood trial so that makes him innocent"

Jesus wept.

Yeah that's the kind of mentality we're dealing with here tbh.
Probably a man child who doesn't understand the meaning of life outside his mom's basement.

DickSwiveller Returns

batgoat wrote: »

You've basically denied the existence of large scale abuse that occurred in this country. There is no question that it occurred. It's delusion to say otherwise.

That is a gigantic lie. Care to apologise?

ELM327

wonski wrote: »

In fairness he has a right to post and discuss just like everyone else.

He is just looking at it from different perspective. Not a perspective I like to read, but it isn't your or my job to shut people down just because we don't like what they say.

Not even moderators task I think.

That would be unfair.

He's an abuse denier.
We don't allow rapists of children any respect or privilege, even amongst prisoners they look down on paedos.

batgoat

wonski wrote: »

In fairness he has a right to post and discuss just like everyone else.

He is just looking at it from different perspective. Not a perspective I like to read, but it isn't your or my job to shut people down just because we don't like what they say.

Not even moderators task I think.

That would be unfair.

It is a bit of an issue when his target is an individual who is a survivor of abuse. It is incredibly hurtful for survivors to see these sorts of implications.

DickSwiveller Returns

wonski wrote: »

In fairness he has a right to post and discuss just like everyone else.

He is just looking at it from different perspective. Not a perspective I like to read, but it isn't your or my job to shut people down just because we don't like what they say.

Not even moderators task I think.

That would be unfair.

Well said. They are just extremely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. A common problem in a lot of these threads

ELM327

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

That is a gigantic lie. Care to apologise?

Why woudl he apologise.
It's only the disgusting cowardly rapist scum like fortune that should apologise.


And I'll leave this here for your reference:

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Don't worry I'll leave now. You can go back to your echo chamber.

DickSwiveller Returns

ELM327 wrote: »

He's an abuse denier.
We don't allow rapists of children any respect or privilege, even amongst prisoners they look down on paedos.

I'm not denying abuse happened. You're hysterical posting is getting even worse.

Bubbaclaus

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well said. They are just extremely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. A common problem in a lot of these threads

Thought you said you were leaving. Or do you have a few more survivors of child abuse to accuse of being liars before you head off.

ELM327

batgoat wrote: »

It is a bit of an issue when his target is an individual who is a survivor of abuse. It is incredibly hurtful for survivors to see these sorts of implications.

Exactly. I've met Colm in person at a human rights event last year.
Wonderful man who has helped so many, stood up in the face of adversity for the needs and rights of others.


And then you have cretins coming on here denying the abuse and rape he suffered.. which the church have themselves apologised for! The mind boggles

ELM327

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm not denying abuse happened. You're hysterical posting is getting even worse.

Your last post for your reference

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Don't worry I'll leave now. You can go back to your echo chamber.

TheValeyard

DickSwiveller Returns

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Thought you said you were leaving. Or do you have a few more survivors of child abuse to accuse of being liars before you head off.

1. Do you think anyone who makes an accusation of sexual abuse should be believed? Yes or No?

2. If Yes, what is the point in having a trial?

batgoat

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

That is a gigantic lie. Care to apologise?

I have nothing to apologise for, the Ferns Report came about as a direct result of Colm O'Gorman. It exposed large scale abuse and an organised coverup in the Diocese of Ferns. The reality is, many never faced convictions because the cover up occurred.

eviltwin

Colm also set up One in Four which I personally have experienced using and I'm very grateful for its existence at a very bad time in my life. He's done a huge amount of work on behalf of abuse survivors.

Bubbaclaus

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

1. Do you think anyone who makes an accusation of sexual abuse should be believed? Yes or No?

2. If Yes, what is the point in having a trial?

You're actually an idiot. I don't care if i get a thread ban, you're just so ****ing idiotic that it hurts my own brain. I'm assuming you have a very low level of intelligence.

Can you explain why he won his case and the Bishop issued an unreserved apology? I suppose the justice system and the Bishop were in on it too.

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/church-sex-abuse-victim-cries-after-winning-case-94834.html

The court heard that Bishop Walsh acknowledged and sincerely regretted the distress, trauma and hurt caused by the late Fr Fortune.

“He further acknowledges the failure of the Bishop at that time to recognise and act on the threat posed by the late Fr Fortune to Colm O’Gorman,” the statement said.

“Bishop Walsh wishes to apologise unreservedly to Colm O’Gorman for these failures and for the harm which he suffered in consequence.”

wonski

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

1. Do you think anyone who makes an accusation of sexual abuse should be believed? Yes or No?

2. If Yes, what is the point in having a trial?

Well, someone didn't want to go for trial. I wonder why?

Answer to the first question is no, but there is no answer to the second one because this particular priest has taken his own life.

Maybe he missed his flight to South America?

I don't know, but as said before, this is as clear as it can be that the man was not innocent.

DickSwiveller Returns

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You're actually an idiot. I don't care if i get a thread ban, you're just so ****ing idiotic that it hurts my own brain. I'm assuming you have a very low level of intelligence.

Can you explain why he won his case and the Bishop issued an unreserved apology? I suppose the justice system and the Bishop were in on it too.

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/church-sex-abuse-victim-cries-after-winning-case-94834.html

The court heard that Bishop Walsh acknowledged and sincerely regretted the distress, trauma and hurt caused by the late Fr Fortune.

“He further acknowledges the failure of the Bishop at that time to recognise and act on the threat posed by the late Fr Fortune to Colm O’Gorman,” the statement said.

“Bishop Walsh wishes to apologise unreservedly to Colm O’Gorman for these failures and for the harm which he suffered in consequence.”

So a load of ad hominem. Thanks.

Bubbaclaus

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

So a load of ad hominem. Thanks.

You are denying that the child abuse of Colm O'Gorman happened, despite him winning his case and receiving an apology from the church.

I don't even know why you are trying to claim he (and the 27 others that came out as abused by the same priest) is a liar. Why are you taking this route?

I guess you're just a poorly educated idiot on boards in it for the troll.

DickSwiveller Returns

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You are denying that the child abuse of Colm O'Gorman happened, despite him winning his case and receiving an apology from the church.

I don't even know why you are trying to claim he (and the 27 others that came out as abused by the same priest) is a liar. Why are you taking this route?

I guess you're just a poorly educated idiot on boards in it for the troll.

Ye more made up nonsense. You and your mob can keep piling on. Go ahead.

eviltwin

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Ye more made up nonsense. You and your mob can keep piling on. Go ahead.

so why express doubt in the first place?

It has nothing to do with the protest anyway, there are lots of people going to be there many of whom were abused or had loved ones abused by the church.

Bubbaclaus

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Ye more made up nonsense. You and your mob can keep piling on. Go ahead.

Who's my mob? Child abuse survivor defenders against abuse deniers? I am proud to be in that mob.

I'm sure you feel proud of your stance right now too. Denying the existence of child abuse. Just leave like you said you were a page of comments ago.

Skylinehead

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Don't worry I'll leave now. You can go back to your echo chamber.

Mod: don't come back (again). Just read through your posts, truly despicable.

DickSwiveller Returns

I'd like to apologise for my comments yesterday

Hitman3000

Interesting piece in Today's Times . Former president Mary Mcalesse claims the church tried to do a deal with the state to deny access to the church's papers here. Nasty bunch.

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Interesting piece in Today's Times . Former president Mary Mcalesse claims the church tried to do a deal with the state to deny access to the church's papers here. Nasty bunch.

Cover it up and move on.
That's been their MO for centuries at this stage.
Absolutely disgusting and reprehensible but it's to be expected unfortunately.

Hitman3000

They tried according to MM but it got nowhere.

PTH2009

Anyone buy a pope tshirt or one of the scary lollipop things

Hitman3000

PTH2009 wrote:

Anyone buy a pope tshirt or one of the scary lollipop things

So a thing called a 'loolipope'. Cringe worthy stuff.

realdanbreen

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Interesting piece in Today's Times . Former president Mary Mcalesse claims the church tried to do a deal with the state to deny access to the church's papers here. Nasty bunch.

It's kind of strange that when Mary was President she never mentioned any of this. In fact she put herself out there as a staunch Catholic.

The high horse brigade

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's kind of strange that when Mary was President she never mentioned any of this. In fact she put herself out there as a staunch Catholic.

Hold on, she's been speaking her mind for years and still claims to be a practising Catholic

Hitman3000

realdanbreen wrote:

It's kind of strange that when Mary was President she never mentioned any of this. In fact she put herself out there as a staunch Catholic.

And......?

realdanbreen

Hitman3000 wrote: »

And......?

You want me to explain the one line post to you??

Hitman3000

realdanbreen wrote:

You want me to explain the one line post to you??

No at all, her role at the time restricted her voice. However what she has said is still relevant. Goes to show the contempt the church has for its victims.