McDermott is to sue Twitter.

Grooming is a term associated with peadophiles implies he did something wrong. If she was above the age of consent there is neither any illegality relating to age, nor any grooming for illegal purpose. The guy might be a sleaze, but that is not illegal.

Massively important to stress that he has been cleared of criminal wrong doing in relation to the statutory rape allegation. She was 17 so at the age of consent by days regardless of the fact she was still a school going child.

Was he messaging her at 16?

Also as I keep stressing this fella has painted himself into a corner regarding the woke movement. He was actively involved in promoting the me too movement in Ireland also. He was pontificating and lecturing how us men should be doing better and speaking out against poor behavior to women.

In order for him to make a comeback I think he still has clarifications to make about this whole thing. I think he should start with the following

1. Were you messaging a girl of 16 years of age?
2. Was she in school at the time?
3. Exactly what parts of her account are incorrect?

From what I can see regarding the letter he released only 3 inaccuracies were admitted to and withdrawn. I'm at pains to see he is not guilty of anything illegal but from a moral point of view and for the reasons I have explained above he can't make a comeback.

Make no mistake about it folks, if it were me or you accused of this he would slaughter us under the guise of me too.

Gusser, messaging her is only an issue if it contained sexual content, messaging her in itself is not in any way an indication of wrongdoing if it did not. Also, I’m not sure what bearing her being at school has, age of consent is not related to school attendance. I’m sure he will argue all points that are illegal are incorrect, the parts that are legal, I am sure he will argue are private.

That's fine. I'm not arguing about the legality of it. I'm saying if the guy wants to make a comeback to the national airwaves and drive his woke and me too content then those questions should be answered. I absolutely think that a guy at 27 messaging my school going 16 year old daughter is wrong regardless of the content. The fact that he went on to have a sexual relationship with her when she was 17 lends to this. It's not illegal but it's disgusting and wrong. A 16 year old child isn't mature enough to handle aspects of an adult relationship. Neither is a 17 year old.

The sex with a person under the age of consent was withdrawn and the accusation shouldn't have been made. However it seems that a lot of the other accusations aren't being contested. Whilst most are not illegal they were everything that Eoghan seemed to make a stand against.

If you want the pertinent answers you need to ask the pertinent questions and usually that begins at the start.

So that pertinent question is why was their a concerted effort to anonymously spread lies about this individual?

Work you way up from that.

If I was innocent of any wrongdoing, absolutely not. He may not have had a choice in leaving his job but there was nothing stopping him from releasing a statement very clearly denying the allegations and saying it is being dealt with legally. The way he just disappeared into the night left everything very much up in the air; and without a clear acknowledgement or denial either way in the last year, a lot of people just made up their own minds.

His reputation he ruined with his actions, may have not been illegal but i guarantee you he wouldn't have went public dating a 17year old because he knows its messed up and is 100% wrong in any sane persons eyes.

Does anybody know what happened from the time the posts from here were posted online?

I only remember him disappearing and some talk of Australia. Did he instead just contact his solicitors, who in turn started contacting her with presumably threatening letters or is that all undisclosed information?

Was he voicing Love Island Australia

It hasn't been answered at all. Because no one has asked the question.

I had never heard of him and haven't listen to 2fm in decades so I am coming at this from a completely neutral prospect looking at the actual facts of what has been verified in the public domain, I understand he isn't liked, but that is moot.

The fact is there was a concerted effort to ruin this guy anonymously and anonymously only, that requires a motive. What was the motive?

The main question at the time I imagine was why doesn't she go straight to the police, there was a further and no less serious fabricated embellishment that they did but due to influence from his family they wouldn't investigate.

That for me is a pretty massive red flag, we are into an another level of malice. For that reason I would take those posts as a work of fiction designed with only the intent of hurting the individual.

In an actual criminal trial an individual does not need to prove themselves innocent, trial my social media cannot be allowed to have a higher threshold then that, that is absolutely nuts.

17 yr old who has reached the age of consent. Not sure why you think that would need to be retracted.

You and I might not like this creep dating our 17 yr old daughter, but any problem with have with that is emotional/moral, he doesn’t need to retract anything just because we don’t like him or his behaviour.

He disputes the version of events. Many of these events now admitted to as being a complete fabrication.

He doesn't have to really deny anything does he?

It seems to me she has admitted to lying only about the things that would have been relatively easy to debunk anyway.

Like I said, this is a concerted malicious effort to hurt him anonymously and on that basis for me at least it needs to be treated as a complete work of fiction, which it actually reads like, unless further information is released.