A Tyrone book

[seafoid]

I believe he thought he was 18 as well.

It's just that underage sex is a legal issue because an underage  person is not deemed responsible enough to decide that they want to raise a child, basically.

Any teacher that has a fling with a pupil is in serious trouble.

The newstalk interview starts off with an ad for gambling. Jesus.

There is nothing wrong with gambling no more than alcohol - the issue is compulsive gambling.

Gambling is basically unregulated
McCarron said in an interview it was an escape where he didn't feel anger.
The book won't lead to any review of gambling laws.

The costs are borne by society. Same as the costs of alcohol and selling sugar to people.
Society will pay for everything. It's grand.

[seafoid]

I read it cover to cover...well written. Emotive subjects covered...addiction, violence, theft, thuggery, gay porn. O'Connor played a blinder...however not sure what Cathal was thinking producing the book at this stage...odd.

5 Sams

Did you ever read Nora Mharcais Bhig?

https://prezi.com/wnc39adwnbb3/nora-mharcais-bhig/
An coimhlint i gcroi an duine...idir an maitheas agus an t-olcas...
saol na cathrach vs saol na tuaithe....
http://www.slideshare.net/Gaeilge2015/nora-mharcais-bhig

Fadó....

On the ball still...scoth

[seafoid]

Donaghy won the sports book award

[Il Bomber Destro]

The information that girl was tested for HIV/stds was in the public domain and that was the context for Gilroy to ask the question. He explained the context in the interview.
Being tested for stds implies sexual intercourse.

Where was that information in the public domain?

Statement by the father, presented to media,  read out on public radio. Did you not listen to the interview?
That defines 'information being in the public domain'.

If you show me where that information was in the public domain before the interview was broadcast, I'll take your point on board.

If you can't then your initial point has no weight.

[sambostar]

The information that girl was tested for HIV/stds was in the public domain and that was the context for Gilroy to ask the question. He explained the context in the interview.
Being tested for stds implies sexual intercourse.

Where was that information in the public domain?

Statement by the father, presented to media,  read out on public radio. Did you not listen to the interview?
That defines 'information being in the public domain'.

If you show me where that information was in the public domain before the interview was broadcast, I'll take your point on board.

If you can't then your initial point has no weight.

Yes Bomber, I certainly wasn't aware of that before hearing the Newstalk interview & I've read the book & followed the story quite closely. You would wonder who's advising McCarron - he came across badly on Newstalk. He needs to wrap it up now, keep the head down & try to move on

[vallankumous]

Yes Bomber, I certainly wasn't aware of that before hearing the Newstalk interview & I've read the book & followed the story quite closely. You would wonder who's advising McCarron - he came across badly on Newstalk. He needs to wrap it up now, keep the head down & try to move on

It wasn't an interview in the end. It was an interviewer on a soap box knowing he could say what he wanted without any reponse offered.
Ger used the opportunity to promote Off the Ball. As it went on and on with the no comment response the idea of it being an interview went out the window.

[seafoid]

The information that girl was tested for HIV/stds was in the public domain and that was the context for Gilroy to ask the question. He explained the context in the interview.
Being tested for stds implies sexual intercourse.

Where was that information in the public domain?

Statement by the father, presented to media,  read out on public radio. Did you not listen to the interview?
That defines 'information being in the public domain'.

If you show me where that information was in the public domain before the interview was broadcast, I'll take your point on board.

If you can't then your initial point has no weight.

The media round has been dreadful. His LLS interview was cancelled. He pulled out of the Nolan show. Gilroy roasted him. There was another one as well.

It looks like the father had been in contact with News talk. If McCarron apologised would he be open to private legal action?

http://www.the42.ie/cathal-mccarron-tense-interview-off-the-ball-3114914-Dec2016/

"We were contacted by the father and asked not to speak to you. There's been a delay in getting you on the show and people were wondering why we haven't had you on considering the high-profile nature of the book. What's your take on that now?

McCarron: I have solicitors in place and they've advised me not to talk about the incident. It's not fair for me to come out and talk about anything that's gone on out of respect for both parties.

GG: We have a statement from the family. "As a family, we have been deeply impacted by Cathal McCarron's actions. My daughter has been damaged and affected. We feel he has never shown any remorse for his actions. In his autobiography and in subsequent newspaper interviews, he was afforded the opportunity to say how remorseful he was for his actions but he failed to do so. We also wanted to point out that he used the Irish version of his name on Facebook, which one must assume was to disguise his identity. Due to his well-publicised role in a pornography film, we had to have a test done for HIV and AIDS and wait for the longest few weeks of our life. In this life, we all have to be responsible and accountable for our actions and no matter what the outcome shall be, the family hope that he will be held accountable for those actions." What's your response, Cathal?
CM: No response. That's all I'm going to say about that"

[Fuzzman]

Let's say you are the mother of a boy who has just graduated from medschool with a 1st class degree. He is well liked in his community and college and is looking forward to a successful career as a doctor.
He is out celebrating with some friends and he has just met this girl on tinder who he agrees to go meet and they have some fun. Nobody knows for sure what they got up to except themselves.

A week later a strange man contacts you to say your son took advantage of his 15 year old daughter even though it was HER who created a false Tinder account and HER who pretended she was 18.
The DPP says he will not prosecute your son as it was an honest mistake yet your son's name is now tarnished with this and it is the talk of the town.

Who do you feel was the victim here? Who was the person lying to get what they wanted?
I'm just wondering would people's views be different in this case to that of McCarron's.

[Frank_The_Tank]

The information that girl was tested for HIV/stds was in the public domain and that was the context for Gilroy to ask the question. He explained the context in the interview.
Being tested for stds implies sexual intercourse.

Where was that information in the public domain?

Statement by the father, presented to media,  read out on public radio. Did you not listen to the interview?
That defines 'information being in the public domain'.

If you show me where that information was in the public domain before the interview was broadcast, I'll take your point on board.

If you can't then your initial point has no weight.

The media round has been dreadful. His LLS interview was cancelled. He pulled out of the Nolan show. Gilroy roasted him. There was another one as well.

It looks like the father had been in contact with News talk. If McCarron apologised would he be open to private legal action?

http://www.the42.ie/cathal-mccarron-tense-interview-off-the-ball-3114914-Dec2016/

"We were contacted by the father and asked not to speak to you. There's been a delay in getting you on the show and people were wondering why we haven't had you on considering the high-profile nature of the book. What's your take on that now?

McCarron: I have solicitors in place and they've advised me not to talk about the incident. It's not fair for me to come out and talk about anything that's gone on out of respect for both parties.

GG: We have a statement from the family. "As a family, we have been deeply impacted by Cathal McCarron's actions. My daughter has been damaged and affected. We feel he has never shown any remorse for his actions. In his autobiography and in subsequent newspaper interviews, he was afforded the opportunity to say how remorseful he was for his actions but he failed to do so. We also wanted to point out that he used the Irish version of his name on Facebook, which one must assume was to disguise his identity. Due to his well-publicised role in a pornography film, we had to have a test done for HIV and AIDS and wait for the longest few weeks of our life. In this life, we all have to be responsible and accountable for our actions and no matter what the outcome shall be, the family hope that he will be held accountable for those actions." What's your response, Cathal?
CM: No response. That's all I'm going to say about that"

I also wonder what the point in bold has to do with anything?  one must assume it was to disguise his identity - what did Oscar Wilde say when you assume something - it makes an ass of u and me.

[Croí na hÉireann]

The victim is the minor.
The victim is the person under the age of consent.
The victim is the person who was not mature enough to know what they wanted.

The victim is not the f**king tool who decided to cheat on his partner (with whom he has a child) with someone he has never met, who he believes is at least 10 years younger than him and is of questionable maturity.

[seafoid]

Let's say you are the mother of a boy who has just graduated from medschool with a 1st class degree. He is well liked in his community and college and is looking forward to a successful career as a doctor.
He is out celebrating with some friends and he has just met this girl on tinder who he agrees to go meet and they have some fun. Nobody knows for sure what they got up to except themselves.

A week later a strange man contacts you to say your son took advantage of his 15 year old daughter even though it was HER who created a false Tinder account and HER who pretended she was 18.
The DPP says he will not prosecute your son as it was an honest mistake yet your son's name is now tarnished with this and it is the talk of the town.

Who do you feel was the victim here? Who was the person lying to get what they wanted?
I'm just wondering would people's views be different in this case to that of McCarron's.

The victim is the doctor's 8 year old daughter

[Fuzzman]

By the way I am not defending McCarron's actions as he should not have been cheating on his GF.
I'm just trying to gauge how people would react to my other example and wondering in that case would most people attach no blame to the young girl.

[seafoid]

By the way I am not defending McCarron's actions as he should not have been cheating on his GF.
I'm just trying to gauge how people would react to my other example and wondering in that case would most people attach no blame to the young girl.

Sex with a minor can lead to life imprisonment. It is not the same as was the ball wide or not.
Consent may not even be relevant.

Why can't he apologise?

[BennyHarp]

By the way I am not defending McCarron's actions as he should not have been cheating on his GF.
I'm just trying to gauge how people would react to my other example and wondering in that case would most people attach no blame to the young girl.

Sex with a minor can lead to life imprisonment. It is not the same as was the ball wide or not.
Consent may not even be relevant.

Why can't he apologise?

Would an apology make any difference? But it would be an admission of guilt that could leave him in pretty deep trouble. I think some people won't be happy until McCarron is hung drawn and quartered over this.

He has done some pretty grim things and comes across as a fairly self obsessed and sordid character but it looks like on this particular issue (and also based on the law of the land's investigation) that he has made a genuine mistake here. Any other comment on the issue by people on here (and Seafoid - you clearly love to comment on this issue) is just speculation and hearsay and most likely just vindictive because of the character he is. (Oh and also probably because he plays for Tyrone)

[seafoid]

I dunno if he is self obsessed. I think he was badly advised recently

1. including the Tinder thing in the book
2 Going on the interview circuit

He needs a long period of quiet playing football and getting on with his life