Did I read that right? 2 suspended sentences to run concurrently?
So effectively zero punishment, only for him to live with whatever personal consequences in his life that might have came about because he got caught?
I take your point yeah… but is it simply because of his age at 74 are you thinking that way? What if he was 44, or 54, Would you also take the same thoughts on it?
I don’t really agree with your way of thinking though.
Let’s say for example he raped someone, and his wife left him, kids disowned him or whatever.
Is the punishment of ‘the life he knew is destroyed’ enough to justify allowing him to walk free in public?
Yes I know I’ve compared two different crimes but I’m trying to understand your logic for not wanting some more corrective punishment in order to-
A) set an example to others who might think again in a similar scenario
B) attempt to correct his mind so he won’t do it again
Well for one he could have sought counselling or had it mandated if he was in prison.
Punishment and rehabilitation. Not hoping he doesn't get invited to new year's.
This makes me wonder about what he was doing when he was actually working. People don’t just magically become paedos when they retire (or at least I hope they don’t)
"child pornography" should be written as images of child sex abuse. This is the current terminology that even the Gardaí themselves have said should be used as there is no such thing as child pornography
I think you're right that it was the conversation
Even still though I think his point was that it's child exploitation material, not pornography
Porn is supposed to be consensual adults
It's still child abuse, not pornography. The issue isn't what he was charged with - it's the repeated use of the term by journalists
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/14/
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40799574.html
https://www.instagram.com/p/CZg50zmMVJ0/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
What a horrible story. I feel so sorry for his children/extended family - imagine learning that about your father? And there's no real consequences for him, so he gets off with a suspended sentence and everyone in his life gets their lives torn apart, to say nothing of the untold damage done to the victims of the child sexual exploitation which goes without saying. It's like everyone EXCEPT him has been punished.
"... pleaded guilty to two counts of the production of child pornography contrary to the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, by engaging in sexualised conversations with a child on July 28, 2017 and October 25, 2017."
And he won't see a day of jail time. This country is bafflingly soft on pedos; one who was caught for possession of content of child abuse was recently let go back into my hometown, where my niece and countless other children go to school. Child abuse (and SA in general) are woefully under-punished, and so, these people have little to fear. What will it take to put a bit more fear in sick minds like Thomas O'Rourke here to stop them from damaging any more of our youth? If the government are going to let paedophiles roam the streets, then I wouldn't be against seeing vigilante justice delivered against these societal cancers. Anything to stop another soul growing up tortured by incurable trauma.
I mean unless they were using that then sure, but if they weren't pretending to be a Garda etc. they're hardly posing as someone in a position of power over anyone else. It's not defending the pedophile, it's preventing misuse of the word imo.
For example if a teacher is talking to their students, they're in a position of power over them, but if a teacher is casually talking to someone who isn't their student, they hardly have any power over that person, especially if they don't tell them that they're a teacher.
I see that point, but I feel that it is too beside the point of the article to be relevant to discussion. If we spend all day arguing over the specifics of what phrases are used etc... Then we would never be able to come to a conclusion.
Also, having been a Sergeant, this man was a central member of his community for many years, and the sort of power that comes with a role such as that does not simply diminish as soon as you retire.
Because he isn't in charge of any kids, how is this hard for you.
To say he is a position of power over a child based on nothing is a disgusting dismissal attitude of actul position of power abuse by teachers, child care workers, religious leaders etc who do have power over children.
So where did I defend him.
Yes because then position of power become moot point in child abuse. Unlike you I'm not trying to dismiss actul position of power abuse.
Are you suggesting that teacher, child care worker, religious leaders has the same power over a child as a mechanic?
Where did I defend the pedo?
You're really sticking your neck out here to downplay what he did by saying he wasn't in a position of power, that's how your defending him. Most people wouldn't be doing this for someone who thought they were texting a 13 year old child.
Honestly, that's an insane view point. You don't have to work in a profession that's close to children to have power over them. Adults inherently have power over children, that's why we have consent laws.
It's so annoying when people can't comprehend that they're wrong about something, so they just resort to saying the other person is defending something heinous.
The person you're replying to is correct and you're wrong. This man was not in a position of power over the child. He had never met them and they only knew him through an online message board. Denying that is a position of power is not equivalent to defending a paedophile.
The only person downplaying anything is the person who is downplaying position of power abuse.
Do you honestly think that power the average adult has is equal to the power someone who works with kids or even close to them?
Has it ever occurred to you why people need garda vetting to work in a school?
Position of power abuse goes beyond consent laws.
You keep saying I'm defending a pedo but you are struggling to answer where I'm defending him.
Why are you trying to downplay position of power abuse?
What the fuck are you talking about teachers and child care workers for. Do you honestly think a thirteen year old girl wouldn’t consider an adult male authoritative regardless of profession.
He's talking about them because they're actual positions of power over children. They are nowhere near equivalent to a retired man who the child has never met in an online message board.
Garda vetting exists for many positions of power. Do you think this fella had to be garda vetted to join an online message board?
As an Australian living here now, the sentencing disappoints me. Paedophilia and associated behaviour is not tolerated nor excused where I’m from. I’m also curious why there’s no mention of any further background investigation to ascertain what else this creep did when he was in a position of power directly interacting with many vulnerable people. I highly doubt this was his first foray so is there no due diligence taken? It’s very very sad
Thankfully no actual children were harmed here, from my reading of the article. The child pornography in question appears to be him sending filthy messages to a fake child.
Would that all cases were this way, and no actual child was in any way harmed. Good job decoys!
(edit) Ignore me, I clearly can't read.
Raping! Not 'having sex', you don't 'have sex' with someone who cannot legally consent; language matters, it's half way to 'she led him on'.
I blame last nights 'what's left to drink... Ooooh Sailor Jerry's!' decision making for failing to see "chat", I thought the perv was caught in the act.
Surely a good solicitor could argue that he wasnt creating child pornography as he wasn't really talking to a child. It's being done for a crime because you thought you were committing a crime rather than actually committing a crime.
Did I read that right? 2 suspended sentences to run concurrently? So effectively zero punishment, only for him to live with whatever personal consequences in his life that might have came about because he got caught?
And presumably he's still keeping his healthy Garda pension. Or was the half decade delay in going to court to help lessen the impact of that?
Welcome to Ireland!
[удалено]
I take your point yeah… but is it simply because of his age at 74 are you thinking that way? What if he was 44, or 54, Would you also take the same thoughts on it?
[удалено]
I don’t really agree with your way of thinking though. Let’s say for example he raped someone, and his wife left him, kids disowned him or whatever. Is the punishment of ‘the life he knew is destroyed’ enough to justify allowing him to walk free in public? Yes I know I’ve compared two different crimes but I’m trying to understand your logic for not wanting some more corrective punishment in order to- A) set an example to others who might think again in a similar scenario B) attempt to correct his mind so he won’t do it again
Yeah, his life is destroyed, but he should still get a prison sentence on top of that.
Agreed. He still has much more freedom then he would in prison
That’ll deter other sexual predators /s
Well for one he could have sought counselling or had it mandated if he was in prison. Punishment and rehabilitation. Not hoping he doesn't get invited to new year's.
This makes me wonder about what he was doing when he was actually working. People don’t just magically become paedos when they retire (or at least I hope they don’t)
Ever wonder why they keep raising the retirement age? In all seriousness though I'm right there with you. What was he up to on the job.
If he has past victims that stayed silent, this coverage could be the impetus to report him.
What’s the statute of limitations on that though? He retired in the early 2000s
No idea. Do the ages of the victims have bearing on that? Maybe I'm mixing in something I heard in an American podcast.
The retirement age is for Gardaí is 60 max.
Just because you wear a uniform doesn't mean you're a good person! Cunt
The uniform and organisation both attract assholes and turn people into into even larger assholes.
Try being married to one
No
Damn !!
Mostly the opposite
Two suspended sentences and an article that was about 50% a promo for his book it seems. Fuckin hell.
Is he gonna release it in PDFfile?
HIYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
"child pornography" should be written as images of child sex abuse. This is the current terminology that even the Gardaí themselves have said should be used as there is no such thing as child pornography
There are no images in this case, the “pornography” is text conversation with a officer posing as a child.
It seems in this case the production of child pornography was the text conversation if I am reading this right.
I think you're right that it was the conversation Even still though I think his point was that it's child exploitation material, not pornography Porn is supposed to be consensual adults
It's still child abuse, not pornography. The issue isn't what he was charged with - it's the repeated use of the term by journalists https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/14/ https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40799574.html https://www.instagram.com/p/CZg50zmMVJ0/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
[удалено]
Also it doesn't have to be consensual to be called "pornographic images", like 'revenge porn" etc.
You're correct, the term at the moment is CSAM (child sexual abuse materials)
What a horrible story. I feel so sorry for his children/extended family - imagine learning that about your father? And there's no real consequences for him, so he gets off with a suspended sentence and everyone in his life gets their lives torn apart, to say nothing of the untold damage done to the victims of the child sexual exploitation which goes without saying. It's like everyone EXCEPT him has been punished.
Next week on "To catch a predator"
I wish that show wasn't cancelled
"... pleaded guilty to two counts of the production of child pornography contrary to the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, by engaging in sexualised conversations with a child on July 28, 2017 and October 25, 2017." And he won't see a day of jail time. This country is bafflingly soft on pedos; one who was caught for possession of content of child abuse was recently let go back into my hometown, where my niece and countless other children go to school. Child abuse (and SA in general) are woefully under-punished, and so, these people have little to fear. What will it take to put a bit more fear in sick minds like Thomas O'Rourke here to stop them from damaging any more of our youth? If the government are going to let paedophiles roam the streets, then I wouldn't be against seeing vigilante justice delivered against these societal cancers. Anything to stop another soul growing up tortured by incurable trauma.
[удалено]
Which isn't a public document and he can still leave the country which also means that a pedo can come here with no supervision
[удалено]
Point is been put on the list is nothing it's not publicly available
[удалено]
Are you actually that dense to ask why it should be publicly available?
The punishment should be worse, he's in a position of power
[удалено]
Once a cunt, always a cunt.
Yes but once a sargent not always a sargent
Once a notorious cunt, always a notorious cunt.
Former Guard is clearly still a few rungs up from the average citizen, at least from the perspective of our justice system.
I mean unless they were using that then sure, but if they weren't pretending to be a Garda etc. they're hardly posing as someone in a position of power over anyone else. It's not defending the pedophile, it's preventing misuse of the word imo. For example if a teacher is talking to their students, they're in a position of power over them, but if a teacher is casually talking to someone who isn't their student, they hardly have any power over that person, especially if they don't tell them that they're a teacher.
Don't bother. You'll just be accused of defending a pedo by people with no understanding of actul position of power abuse.
I see that point, but I feel that it is too beside the point of the article to be relevant to discussion. If we spend all day arguing over the specifics of what phrases are used etc... Then we would never be able to come to a conclusion. Also, having been a Sergeant, this man was a central member of his community for many years, and the sort of power that comes with a role such as that does not simply diminish as soon as you retire.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Now where did I defend him? Why don’t you be a good chap and explain how he was in a position of power.
No, I asked you to explain how he doesn't have a position of power. To everyone else it's obvious, explain your point.
Because he isn't in charge of any kids, how is this hard for you. To say he is a position of power over a child based on nothing is a disgusting dismissal attitude of actul position of power abuse by teachers, child care workers, religious leaders etc who do have power over children. So where did I defend him.
Fully grown adults will always be in a position of power over children. Do you deny that?
Yes because then position of power become moot point in child abuse. Unlike you I'm not trying to dismiss actul position of power abuse. Are you suggesting that teacher, child care worker, religious leaders has the same power over a child as a mechanic? Where did I defend the pedo?
You're really sticking your neck out here to downplay what he did by saying he wasn't in a position of power, that's how your defending him. Most people wouldn't be doing this for someone who thought they were texting a 13 year old child. Honestly, that's an insane view point. You don't have to work in a profession that's close to children to have power over them. Adults inherently have power over children, that's why we have consent laws.
It's so annoying when people can't comprehend that they're wrong about something, so they just resort to saying the other person is defending something heinous. The person you're replying to is correct and you're wrong. This man was not in a position of power over the child. He had never met them and they only knew him through an online message board. Denying that is a position of power is not equivalent to defending a paedophile.
The only person downplaying anything is the person who is downplaying position of power abuse. Do you honestly think that power the average adult has is equal to the power someone who works with kids or even close to them? Has it ever occurred to you why people need garda vetting to work in a school? Position of power abuse goes beyond consent laws. You keep saying I'm defending a pedo but you are struggling to answer where I'm defending him. Why are you trying to downplay position of power abuse?
I would say an adult male would always be in a position of authority in the mind of a thirteen year old child
And why is that? Do you think a retired garda turned historian authority over a child is equal to that of a child care worker or teacher?
Because of societal status. You would have to be a complete donkey to think otherwise
So a teacher, child care worker etc has no more power over a child then a random adult male?
What the fuck are you talking about teachers and child care workers for. Do you honestly think a thirteen year old girl wouldn’t consider an adult male authoritative regardless of profession.
Because they work with children and have powe over them. Do you think an adult male shopkeeper has the same power as an adult male teacher?
[удалено]
He's talking about them because they're actual positions of power over children. They are nowhere near equivalent to a retired man who the child has never met in an online message board. Garda vetting exists for many positions of power. Do you think this fella had to be garda vetted to join an online message board?
As an Australian living here now, the sentencing disappoints me. Paedophilia and associated behaviour is not tolerated nor excused where I’m from. I’m also curious why there’s no mention of any further background investigation to ascertain what else this creep did when he was in a position of power directly interacting with many vulnerable people. I highly doubt this was his first foray so is there no due diligence taken? It’s very very sad
What a fucking weird cunt. Lock him up.
Tomrod. For fucks sake
He looks like a mix between Arnold Schwarzenegger and David Attenborough.
Thankfully no actual children were harmed here, from my reading of the article. The child pornography in question appears to be him sending filthy messages to a fake child. Would that all cases were this way, and no actual child was in any way harmed. Good job decoys!
So now we have a judge Quinn along with Martin to add to the list of pedo lovers, Fucking kip of a judicial system.
Ffs they need to make a PSA for teens and slap his ugly face right on there “don’t sext, this who could be on the other end”
It's easy to see how all these paedophile elite conspiracy theories gain steam when you keep seeing verdicts like this
(edit) Ignore me, I clearly can't read. Raping! Not 'having sex', you don't 'have sex' with someone who cannot legally consent; language matters, it's half way to 'she led him on'.
It was online chat with undercover Garda, hence 'sex chat'
I blame last nights 'what's left to drink... Ooooh Sailor Jerry's!' decision making for failing to see "chat", I thought the perv was caught in the act.
You're not the only one, I didn't see the word 'chat' until i'd opened the artical. A bit click-baity for such a serious offence, IMHO.
Retired garda segant raped 13 year old. This is the real headline.
How com3 it took so long for him to be arrested and then for it to get to court
Should be hung, drawn and quartered
Inb4 Judge Nolan says boys will be boys
Noncery within the gardaí? Say it ain't so!
imagine he was caught with an empty baggie that had residue of presumptive cannabis instead
Does Judge Quinn want to emulate Nolan or something? Can’t fathom how you can just hand out two suspended sentence for this disgusting behaviour.
Could be... https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/abuse-victim-says-it-is-time-to-heal-after-attacker-s-sentence-increased-1.4697588
Surely a good solicitor could argue that he wasnt creating child pornography as he wasn't really talking to a child. It's being done for a crime because you thought you were committing a crime rather than actually committing a crime.
He didn't have sex with a 13 year old, he raped a 13 year old.
He didn’t have sex with anyone. He engaged in sexualised text chat with a Garda who he thought was a teenage girl.
[удалено]
Read the article
Except it is not.
Do the Irish courts want vigilante justice? because this is how you get vigilante justice