Why no outrage or multiple threads about this?

[muppet]

The acts were committed by perverts masquerading as priests,and not endorsed by the Church.

The NHS failed to prevent a convicted paedophile from having access to children,the BBC and loads of other organisations didn't restrict Savile's access etc,there were paedophile rings at the heart of govt etc.

Why single out the Church and a junior note taker in particular?

In earlier decades paedophilia was the elephant in the room universally that no one,sadly,wanted to think about much less deal with.

Brady had to change his story from mere note taker to Investigator, when he was forced by the courts to release his notes. You are adding to the abuse of victims by peddling your junior note taker lie over and over again.

[T Fearon]

And the difference is what? He investigated and noted what he heard

[Milltown Row2]

And the difference is what? He investigated and noted what he heard

Would your morals make you go to the proper authorities Tony? Or would you have be happy with knowing these abusers were allowed back into society ?

[T Fearon]

I would have investigated,reported to my superiors and expect them to do the right thing.Then again,reporting to the authorities and even gaining convictions,did not necessarily prevent paedophiles having access to children back in the 1970s,as the case with the NHS Consultant proves

[Milltown Row2]

I would have investigated,reported to my superiors and expect them to do the right thing.Then again,reporting to the authorities and even gaining convictions,did not necessarily prevent paedophiles having access to children back in the 1970s,as the case with the NHS Consultant proves

So you personally would not have told the authorities and been happy with him being allowed to go on and continue molesting children .... The Nazi's said they were just following orders too

[T Fearon]

I would have told my superiors and expected them,with greater power and influence than me, to act.Thats my conscience clear.To be honest after I'd passed on this information I wouldn't have wanted this odious individual in my mind,never mind following his subsequent moves.The responsibility for this lies with Fr Brady's superiors.

But an NHS consultant with a conviction for child abuse still had access to children,so what good did telling the so called authorities and even securing a conviction actually do in terms of protecting children?

[muppet]

And the difference is what? He investigated and noted what he heard

You don't know the difference between a note taker and an investigator?

The Church knew the distinction judging by their decade long fight against releasing the notes. But then they probably thought it mightn't look good when people knew they had asked a sexually abused boy the following questions:

Q: Would you know the meaning of the word erection?
Q: Would you notice your penis becoming stiff?
Q: You never got to like it?
Q: Would you ever have done these things in the first place with another boy or grown-up man?
Q: If not, why not?
Q: Why did you do it with Fr Smyth?
Q: Had you any worry that this was wrong?
Q: You didn't go to Confession for some time after that. Why?
Q: Did this happen between you and any other person - another boy and yourself for instance? (This again despite saying NO earlier)
Q: Has this led to any actions with yourself?
Q: Would seed come from your body as a result?

The above was in Brady's notes. Boland doesn't publish the questions asked in the 2nd boy's interview, but he does say that Brady asked the boy if he had liked it ('it' being the abuse by Smyth) and this time Brady signed as 'Interrogator'.

The line of questioning is clearing trying to see if the boy (who was 11 years old when it began) was responsible for his own abuse. That is what you are defending Tony. That is what you are defending.

[T Fearon]

Difficult questions I would concede,but nothing more than would be asked by the Police or a Barrister in court,attempting to defend a paedophile or rapist.

Look these were the inadequate and inappropriate systems of dealing with paedophilia at the time, ie mid 70s.It is still absurd to blame a young an non influential Sean Brady for the horror that was Brendan Smyth

[Milltown Row2]

Difficult questions I would concede,but nothing more than would be asked by the Police or a Barrister in court,attempting to defend a paedophile or rapist.

Look these were the inadequate and inappropriate systems of dealing with paedophilia at the time, ie mid 70s.It is still absurd to blame a young an non influential Sean Brady for the horror that was Brendan Smyth

Smyth did his thing, Sean did his, which helped cover it up.... Like saying withholding evidence in multiple sex abuses cases is ok... Which begs the question why hasn't anyone been charged with doi g that??

[Eamonnca1]

I would have told my superiors and expected them,with greater power and influence than me, to act.Thats my conscience clear.To be honest after I'd passed on this information I wouldn't have wanted this odious individual in my mind,never mind following his subsequent moves.The responsibility for this lies with Fr Brady's superiors.

In other words you'd have participated in the cover-up by failing to report these crimes to the authorities. If you had gone into the priesthood then you too would have taken part in the heinous organized crimes of the church. You have the morals of a concentration camp guard.

[T Fearon]

The point is twofold.

If I as a Junior member of an organisation told my superiors,with much greater influence and experience than me,then my conscience is clear.

Telling the authorities in the 70s would have in all probability made no difference,when NHS consultants with actual child abuse convictions were allowed to resume working with children,and the authorities colluded in moving clerics,suspected of involvement in fatal bombings,to parishes across the Border.

[imtommygunn]

You are a great illustration that you can really justify anything when you put your mind to it.

What's that saying... There are none so blind as those who will not see?

Either that or you're a wum. It's a very strange topic to point score, fight battles and wind up on mind.

[Main Street]

The circular argument that Tony offers is bankrupt, due to a total absence of rationality.


The historical facts established,  based on Brady's own evidence, the evidence of the children and the case documents which were forcibly released  by court order, have established as fact that Brady was a mature canon lawyer who diligently performed  his duty in interrogating the kids, he psychologically terrorised them, betrayed the trust of their parents and afterwards washed his hands of any responsibility.

Imo, Brady's even more disreputable than the child molester Smith who at least was subject to his form of insanity.

[T Fearon]

The rationality is twofold.

Brady reported his findings to his superiors who were empowered to act.

Reporting to the authorities in the 70s and gaining a conviction even was no baŕrier to paedophiles having subsequent access to children sadly.

[ziggysego]

 What Tony? Please tell me you didn't mean no point reporting as when they're freed, they'll do it again??