Suzy is finetoothcombing the report about Niall McElwee. An extract of what Niall McElwee was charged with in Holland. She’s getting a lot of very interesting traffic to her site too.
Damien Mulley
Invisible people have invisible rights
Damien Mulley is proudly powered by
WordPress
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
I’m very troubled by this. He behaved like an arsehole, but if we punish him as we would a mass child-abuser, what’ll we do when we find a real mass child-abuser?
And that is one of the many questions Bock – the system failed at so many levels as outlined in the report… what will they do when it is truly tested? And when is reporting going to be made a statutory obligation?
Indeed. But why stop with Niall McElwee?
I know he was convicted of something, but maybe we should take no chances. Maybe we should make sure nobody who ever made unwanted sexual advances should be removed from lecturing jobs. Maybe we should ask all candidates for academic posts if they ever groped someone while drunk.
I think we should do that, just to be sure.
Asking a teenage girl to suck your cock is a bit past behaving like an “arsehole”.
Are you going to forgive all those members of the church you bashed if they were drunk?
It’s disgraceful behaviour. I’m not defending it.
What I’m questioning is this: if we say that asking somebody to suck your cock merits the sort of opprobrium he’s received, including losing his livelihood, what will we do with rapists?
I’ve made lewd suggestions to people, both drunk and sober, but luckily, as I’m a sex-god, nobody has ever been offended. However, just suppose some misguided soul couldn’t quite see my incredible attractiveness?
Should I be sacked too?
Glad you mentioned rapists, you blogged extensively about Adam Keane and didn’t seem to think he should complain about his reputation being ruined but you don’t think McElwee should have lost his job because he only asked a teenage girl to suck his cock and she believed she was under the threat of violence? What types of sexual assaults should you lose your job for and what types should you not?
Indeed. What types of sexual assaults should you lose your job for and what types should you not?
That’s exactly the question I’m asking. Should everyone convicted of a sexual offence lose their job? Maybe they should. I don’t know.
Bock, you’re only a hair away from using the rapist’s logic of her asking for it.
It’s not like he just walked up to her and made an inappropriate suggestion, got rebuffed and has lost his job for that. It’s far more serious than that.
Adam: It’s ok to examine the logic of this, isn’t it? I hope it is anyway.
Apologies, Damien, but I sent in that reply too quickly.
Adam: I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t reinterpret what I wrote. I made no suggestion that remotely resembles a rapist’s logic and I’d be obliged if you wouldn’t associate me with such a thing.
Of course it’s ok to examine the logic of this case, just like it’s ok to examine the logic of your concerns.
For the record I think my point stands. Your asking if he’s being lynched simply for acting like an asshole, which significantly downplays the seriousness of the physical pressure he put the girl under and implies that his only crime was to ask for a blow job in a crude manner.
Such a conclusion can only employ similar fuzzy logic to the one that suggest a girl wearing a low-cut top is asking for someone to have sex with her, even if she acts like she isn’t. You’re focusing not on the actual crime that was committed but solely on the circumstances surrounding it.
Adam: I find it hard to discuss this rationally with you if you’re implying that I think any victim is asking for it.
It’s an oxymoron to say that a victim is asking for it – therefore that’s obviously not what I think you’re implying.
I think you’re suggesting that the girl in this case was not a victim but rather someone who had a slightly vulgar encounter with another person.
To come to this point of view you would have to either purposely ignore – or be ignorant of – the details of the conviction, or apply some kind of fuzzy logic to them to make his transgressions excusable.
I assume the former is not the case as you’re pro-actively engaging in a debate and are surely not foolish enough to do so from an ignorant point of view. The latter is basically what people employ when they say the person making the accusation was asking for it; hence my comparison.
Adam: It would help if you if you try and stick to what I actually said, instead of recasting it in your own words. I’ve been asking questions, not making statements.
There has to be a spectrum of offences, ranging from minor to extremely grave, and what I’m asking is very simple. Is this a grave offence? If so, were the Dutch courts remiss in imposing a 3-month suspended sentence instead of jailing him for a long time?
And finally, is there some point on the spectrum below which a person may keep their job, or should everyone who commits a sexual offence be sacked?
Before you accuse me again of condoning anything, you’ll notice that I haven’t offered any opinions there.
You’re both missing the point here: MHB / HSE not asking the right questions at the right time when McElwee had informed them of the offence AND elected politicians unable to put the child protection guidelines on a statutory footing.
Maybe there’s more than one point.
God, you’re so right. How could I have made that mistake?
It would help if you if you try and stick to what I actually said, instead of recasting it in your own words. I’ve been asking questions, not making statements.
You made a statement in your first comment, saying “He behaved like an arsehole, but…”.
There has to be a spectrum of offences, ranging from minor to extremely grave, and what I’m asking is very simple. Is this a grave offence? If so, were the Dutch courts remiss in imposing a 3-month suspended sentence instead of jailing him for a long time?
I’d be cautious about suggesting that there has to be a spectrum, as that suggests that one type of sexual assault has to be categorised as worse than another.
That said, naturally there are minor offences and major offences but I have to ask why must it be a grave offence, a categorisation which you place at the extreme end of the “spectrum”, that would allow for someone to be sacked?
Do you think someone should only lose their job if they’ve committed the most heinous of sexual crimes?
And finally, is there some point on the spectrum below which a person may keep their job, or should everyone who commits a sexual offence be sacked?
There can be no simple line drawn on the matter. Each case would have to be looked at individually and an assessment made based on the severity of the conviction, the details of the case and the details of the position the person holds. When you’re dealing with a person in a position of authority (especially where that authority is held over an individual or group that is deemed to be relevant to the original conviction) it makes a difference.
Before you accuse me again of condoning anything, you’ll notice that I haven’t offered any opinions there.
You said “He behaved like an arsehole, but…” and went on to suggest that if he is to lose his job then maybe so should everyone who has “made unwanted sexual advances” or “groped someone while drunk.”
All I see is you comparing the severity of what McElwee did to the severity of an innocent drunken grope or come-on. You’re certainly suggesting both should be handled in the same manner and that if one deserves to be sacked so should the other.
Adam: for some reason you’re attempting to portray me as holding a very extreme point of view and I don’t know why. Did you just want to win an argument?
Many people,including me, feel disquiet about this case for perfectly legitimate reasons. The questions I put are entirely valid regardless of my own position on the matter.
This debate is bigger than a petty squabble about my personal views.
for some reason you’re attempting to portray me as holding a very extreme point of view and I don’t know why. Did you just want to win an argument?
It’s quite clear that you compare what McElwee did to an innocent drunken grope or come-on and so there’s no attempting necessary on my part, I just pointed out the fuzzy logic you seem to be employing in the questions you ask.
Many people,including me, feel disquiet about this case for perfectly legitimate reasons. The questions I put are entirely valid regardless of my own position on the matter.
Your disquiet stems from your position on the matter so I don’t see how it’s irrelevant. You have questioned if his crime was serious enough for him to lose his job and have suggested that it’s not that serious at all. I don’t see how that’s a “perfectly legitimate reason” so I’m questioning you on it. You’ve so far failed to explain how your questions are legitimate.
This debate is bigger than a petty squabble about my personal views.
Your personal views on the topic are central to this debate as you’re suggesting that McElwee’s crimes are not all that serious. Your fuzzy logic forms the basis of the questions you ask so that logic has to be tackled in order to tackle the validity of the question in the first place. There’s nothing petty about this discussion from what I can see.
Adam: I don’t have to explain to you why my questions are legitimate.
They’re questions.
Answer them if you wish. Ignore them if you prefer.
I don’t have to explain to you why my questions are legitimate.
Of course you can continue to say you have “legitimate” concerns about the way McElwee has been treated while refusing to actually detail what they are – you don’t have to explain anything. How anyone is supposed to have a discussion about phantom concerns is beyond me, though.
They’re questions.
Answer them if you wish. Ignore them if you prefer.
Your questions are based on the suggestion that what McElwee did is equal to an innocent grope or come-on and it’s impossible to answer these questions without first accepting the logic behind it.
I don’t accept that logic and I don’t see how I can answer a question based on a blatant absurdity.
Is Niall McElwee’s offence a grave one?
If so, were the Dutch courts remiss in imposing a 3-month suspended sentence instead of jailing him for a long time?
Is there a point on the spectrum below which a person may keep their job, or should everyone who commits a sexual offence be sacked?
Three questions. No suggestions. No hidden logic.
OK – so you’re not going to ask if a person who gropes a stranger in a pub should be treated like McElwee?
I’m pretty sure I’ve responded to these questions already, but anyway…
Is Niall McElwee’s offence a grave one?
Why must it be classified as grave – a status which you previously put at the most extreme point on your ‘sexual assault spectrum’? There seems to be some fuzzy logic there as to why this being grave or not is relevant.
If so, were the Dutch courts remiss in imposing a 3-month suspended sentence instead of jailing him for a long time?
What the Dutch courts did is equally irrelevant and it seems to imply that someone [b]must[/b] be jailed for a long time before we can take their assault seriously or before they deserve to be fired for it.
Adam Keane got a suspended sentence for raping a woman, does that mean his assault wasn’t grave?
Is there a point on the spectrum below which a person may keep their job, or should everyone who commits a sexual offence be sacked?
As I said already, ignoring the moral issues around having a sexual assault spectrum, I think it’s something that can only be judged on a case-by-case basis taking details of the case, the individual and their occupation into account.
Adam: What the Dutch courts did is certainly not irrelevant. Without a Dutch conviction we wouldn’t be discussing this at all.
For some reason, you seem to be unable to address a question except by asking a rhetorical one in reply, which is a pity. It reminds me of the way our politicians try to blur the awkward issues.
I think there’s also a very sinister subtext to the way you approach this, which is worrying.
It worries me that, instead of addressing the issues, you would try to cast doubt on the motives of somebody asking uncomfortable questions about a case.
It worries me that anybody would suggest another person’s interest in a case was not legitimate.
It worries me that anyone would believe they had the authority to question another person’s bona fides before permitting them to raise concerns. Pure Kafka.
There’s a strong whiff of authoritarianism about your approach to my comments on this thread, and as I’ve tried three times to get unequivocal responses from you without success, I think it’s pointless continuing to debate with you.
[…] my very right to ask them at all. It seems my bona fides are in question and at least one young man reserves the right to judge who is and who is not fit to express sincere disquiet about this […]
What the Dutch courts did is certainly not irrelevant. Without a Dutch conviction we wouldn’t be discussing this at all.
I said the severity of the sentence the Dutch courts gave was irrelevant, not the conviction. There’s a very obvious difference which you seem willing to ignore for the benefit of your argument.
For some reason, you seem to be unable to address a question except by asking a rhetorical one in reply, which is a pity. It reminds me of the way our politicians try to blur the awkward issues.
So asking the relevance of whether a crime is grave or not is rhetorical? I would have thought that for someone who sees the graveness of a crime as relevant this would be very easy to answer.
Besides, the “grave” question was the only one I answered with just another question – why you’re claiming otherwise when the facts are there for everyone to see is bizarre.
What is a real pity to me is that you seem to think you’re asking important questions but you’re unwilling to even recognise a response unless it suits your own opinions. You’ve yet to tell us why it’s important that this crime must be the most serious of sexual assaults (in your estimation) or why the sentence handed down here impacts on how we should view the crime (but does not in the case of Adam Keane).
I think there’s also a very sinister subtext to the way you approach this, which is worrying.
It worries me that, instead of addressing the issues, you would try to cast doubt on the motives of somebody asking uncomfortable questions about a case.
I’ve cast doubt on whether you have any issues to address, I’ve asked no questions about your motives. I think you’ve yet to ask an uncomfortable questions as so far I’ve only seen irrelevant ones; like whether McElwee’s crime was grave (what if it wasn’t?) or whether the Dutch courts were too lenient (what if they were?).
It worries me that anybody would suggest another person’s interest in a case was not legitimate.
I never said your interest wasn’t legitimate – I said that you’ve failed to highlight your “legitimate concerns”.
It worries me that anyone would believe they had the authority to question another person’s bona fides before permitting them to raise concerns. Pure Kafka.
Where did I question your bona fides? I questioned your logic.
There’s a strong whiff of authoritarianism about your approach to my comments on this thread,
According to your own comments policy you’re all for robust debate but when someone robustly questions your logic they’re suddenly authoritarian.
and as I’ve tried three times to get unequivocal responses from you without success
I’ve given responses to your questions each time – you seem to have repeatedly overlooked that in the hope that no-one else would notice and would think I was being evasive.
I think it’s pointless continuing to debate with you
Is that why you’re raising the issue on your blog now?
On that fact – I have to laugh when people accuse others of being “PC” just because they’re being challenged when they make a pretty offensive suggestion.
So suddenly it’s too ‘PC’ to say that someone is wrong for equating what McElwee did with an innocent grope or come-on. Suddenly it’s too ‘PC’ to question the logic behind a question or ask if it’s relevant. Suddenly it’s too ‘PC’ to give an answer that requires a little more thought that “yes” or “no.”
But don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll get a far cosier reception to your logic over on bocktherobber.com than you have here.
(And I’m just going to assume you were being ironic when you referred to the “PC Gestapo”).
Adam: I’m quite comfortable commenting on Damien’s site. I’m just tired of you rewording what I say and arguing with your own version. It’s too dishonest.
So you’re still not going to even acknowledge the responses I made to the three “uncomfortable questions” you hand-picked from the many other questions and comments you posed?
I take issue with the suggestion I’ve been dishonest in the way I responded to your comments and questions but I’m not concerned that such mud will stick – people are well able to read this discussion for themselves and come to their own conclusion.
What I find dishonest is your claim that I have evaded your questions or answered them in a rhetorical fashion – it’s equally dishonest to suggest that I have a problem with you asking “uncomfortable questions” when I gave my own opinion in response to them straight away.
You can take issue with whatever you want, Adam.
I’m not having my integrity called into question without fighting back, and if you want a few examples of your dishonestly rephrasing what I said, here you are:
Bock, you’re only a hair away from using the rapist’s logic of her asking for it.
That’s both untrue and insulting.
All I see is you comparing the severity of what McElwee did to the severity of an innocent drunken grope or come-on. You’re certainly suggesting both should be handled in the same manner and that if one deserves to be sacked so should the other.
That’s untrue.
Your questions are based on the suggestion that what McElwee did is equal to an innocent grope or come-on and it’s impossible to answer these questions without first accepting the logic behind it.
That’s untrue.
you’ve failed to highlight your “legitimate concernsâ€
I did so in my very first comment, where I said, if we punish him as we would a mass child-abuser, what’ll we do when we find a real mass child-abuser?
why must it be a grave offence, a categorisation which you place at the extreme end of the “spectrumâ€, that would allow for someone to be sacked?
That’s twisting my words. I didn’t suggest any such thing.
Now, just to be absolutely clear, my concerns are about sentencing and punishment policy.
My concern is with having punishment appropriate to an offence. Therefore, whether we like it or not, some sexual offences are more extreme than others, and in that regard I’d remind you of the West of Ireland farmer case, and the Lavinia Kerwick issue among many others.
My question about the gravity of the matter is a very simple one, though you seem to have gone out of your way to misunderstand it. I’m not asking if the McElwee case is a grave or a trivial matter in the absolute. I’m asking where it stands on the spectrum of sexual offences. This is important to know, before we start talking about punishment. The Dutch court didn’t seem to place it at the most heinous end of the scale, did they?
And finally, for the avoidance of alll doubt, I want to know if it’s conceivable that a person could commit a sexual offence and still keep their job?
Are we attacking Niall McElwee because of what he did, because we think he’s a hypocrite, or because we’re hypocrites?
If you keep asking people to justify the questions they ask, neither you nor they will ever learn anything.
Bock, you’re only a hair away from using the rapist’s logic of her asking for it.
That’s both untrue and insulting.
I’ve already explained why I said this – I believe that by comparing what McElwee did to a come-on or drunken grope you are diminishing the seriousness of the case and implying that the victim of the crime is just over-reacting.
I’ve said already and I’ll repeat it – I don’t think your comments are one and the same as the rapist’s logic, I just think you’re getting close to it to suggest that there’s comparison between McElwee’s actions and a grope or drunken come-on.
All I see is you comparing the severity of what McElwee did to the severity of an innocent drunken grope or come-on. You’re certainly suggesting both should be handled in the same manner and that if one deserves to be sacked so should the other.
That’s untrue.
Your questions are based on the suggestion that what McElwee did is equal to an innocent grope or come-on and it’s impossible to answer these questions without first accepting the logic behind it.
That’s untrue.
It’s not – I refer you to your second and third comments in this post where you said:
I know he was convicted of something, but maybe we should take no chances. Maybe we should make sure nobody who ever made unwanted sexual advances should be removed from lecturing jobs. Maybe we should ask all candidates for academic posts if they ever groped someone while drunk.
and
What I’m questioning is this: if we say that asking somebody to suck your cock merits the sort of opprobrium he’s received, including losing his livelihood, what will we do with rapists?
I’ve made lewd suggestions to people, both drunk and sober, but luckily, as I’m a sex-god, nobody has ever been offended. However, just suppose some misguided soul couldn’t quite see my incredible attractiveness?
Should I be sacked too?
Note in the second quote that you refer to his crime as merely asking someone to suck his cock.
In both cases you clearly suggest that if he is to be sacked for what he did then we should treat those who make unwanted advances in bars in the same way. You are comparing the two and by suggesting that one should be punished like the other that they are of equal severity.
you’ve failed to highlight your “legitimate concernsâ€
I did so in my very first comment, where I said, if we punish him as we would a mass child-abuser, what’ll we do when we find a real mass child-abuser?
I really don’t think it’s fair to suggest that he has been punished as if he were a mass child-abuser.
why must it be a grave offence, a categorisation which you place at the extreme end of the “spectrumâ€, that would allow for someone to be sacked?
That’s twisting my words. I didn’t suggest any such thing.
Where did I twist your words? You detailed a spectrum ranging from the minor to the extremely grave and asked if McElwee’s crime was at the ‘grave’ end. As part of your point asking if those guilty of all sexual assaults should lose their job you asked if McElwee’s crime was grave.
I asked why it must be grave, as even on the spectrum you refer to (which I think is a dangerous meter to use) there has to be a middle ground. My point being that it didn’t have to be grave to warrant a sacking so why ask if it was or not.
Now, just to be absolutely clear, my concerns are about sentencing and punishment policy.
My concern is with having punishment appropriate to an offence.
Of course – that makes sense.
Therefore, whether we like it or not, some sexual offences are more extreme than others, and in that regard I’d remind you of the West of Ireland farmer case, and the Lavinia Kerwick issue among many others.
Yes, they are – however sexual assaults can and should only be compared in the broadest of terms and after that treated in a case by case basis. Otherwise you have to have a definite stance on what makes one rape more serious than another.
My question about the gravity of the matter is a very simple one, though you seem to have gone out of your way to misunderstand it. I’m not asking if the McElwee case is a grave or a trivial matter in the absolute. I’m asking where it stands on the spectrum of sexual offences. This is important to know, before we start talking about punishment. The Dutch court didn’t seem to place it at the most heinous end of the scale, did they?
My point on the Dutch sentence, however, is that even in an ideal situation where sexual assaults could be categorised very neatly into a moral spectrum the fact is that the sentence does not always reflect the crime. This is true for Adam Keane, for example, a case that was already referenced.
My point is that in a discussion about the rights and wrongs of McElwee being sacked by his employer, it is irrelevant to ask if the courts were too lenient or too strict in the sentence they handed down – one must look at what the individual was convicted of in the context of what their job entails.
And finally, for the avoidance of alll doubt, I want to know if it’s conceivable that a person could commit a sexual offence and still keep their job?
Of course it is – however as I’ve stated time and time again there is no way to simply draw a line and say “you can do this and keep your job, but if you do this you’ll lose it”. It’s far more nuanced than that.
Are we attacking Niall McElwee because of what he did, because we think he’s a hypocrite, or because we’re hypocrites?
I’m not attacking McElwee at all – he committed a crime, has accepted that and has suffered as a result of it. It’s arguable whether he has gotten what he deserved or has been scape-goated and that’s pretty much what the discussion here is about.
If you keep asking people to justify the questions they ask, neither you nor they will ever learn anything.
I think it’s fair to ask why a question is relevant in the context of a discussion – otherwise you have people raising pointless questions that do not further the debate one iota.
I didn’t imply that the victims of the crime are over-reacting.
How could I? I didn’t hear what they said, and neither did the Dutch court.
The evidence presented, according to Niall McElwee, was a document produced by the police, based on a witness statement, and the case was conducted in Dutch, through an interpreter.
The wording of the actual conviction is worth reading. Contrary to what people are given to understand, it doesn’t categorically identify what physical violence or force he was convicted of.
It seems to be a boiler-plate document, in which the term “and/or” occurs 10 times, and the word “or” 6 times. If this document is the basis of what you know Niall McElwee did, then you’ve based your belief on a very ambiguous source. Of course, you may have other information I haven’t read yet.
The first part of the judgement says that he
forced (named person 1)) by performing the criminal act intended by the defendant
through violence
or (an) other act(s) of violence
and/or other threats of violence,
to perform
and/or to endure one or more lewd act(s) and of standing with bared lower part of the body beside the bed of (named person 1)
and/or bending down over (named person 1) with his penis in his hand
and/or saying “suck me babyâ€
and/or attempting to bring the head of (named person 1) to his crotch
the second part says that he forced
(named person 2), by performing the criminal act intended by the defendant,
through violence
or (an) other act(s) of violence
and/or threats of violence
or (an) other act(s) of violence,
to perform
and/or to endure one or more lewd act(s) and of lying down in bed with
(named person 2) with the front of his trousers opened,
and/or grabbing (named person 2) by the wrist(s)
and/or hand(s) in order to prevent her from leaving the bed
and/or forcing her to endure that he, the defendant, was lying down against her with the front of his trousers opened
Now, you might say I’m being nit-picking and the conviction speaks for itself, but it is a legal document, with very precise intent, and is therefore amenable to careful analysis.
I don’t know what “and/or” means, but it doesn’t mean the same as “and”.
I also don’t know what the legal meaning of “forced” is in this context, given that the document is a translation from Dutch. We need a Dutch lawyer to interpret this conviction for us.
At present, we can have no certainty as to the precise details of what happened, which in this case are very important. They are the difference between a man making a total pig of himself and a man committing a serious sexual assault.
Now, I’m not going to say any more about this, except as follows.
If Niall McElwee has committed a violent sexual assault, then I have no sympathy for him. If he made a drunken fool of himself, then he wouldn’t be the only one. None of us are spotless.
Whether it turns out to be one thing or the other, many people were quick to demand his head long before this report issued, when they had no information whatever about the nature of the case, and the last thing we need in this country is a PC lynch-mob culture.
I didn’t imply that the victims of the crime are over-reacting.
How could I? I didn’t hear what they said, and neither did the Dutch court.
The evidence presented, according to Niall McElwee, was a document produced by the police, based on a witness statement, and the case was conducted in Dutch, through an interpreter.
Just so we can be clear here – are you questioning the validity of the case and conviction?
The wording of the actual conviction is worth reading. Contrary to what people are given to understand, it doesn’t categorically identify what physical violence or force he was convicted of.
To be honest I think you’re moving the goalposts somewhat here. You had no problem accepting what he did was wrong before (“disgraceful behaviour” as you put it) but now you’re questioning exactly how bad his actions were.
Even Dr. McElwee has held his hands up (on your own blog, no less) and admitted he did wrong.
Indeed Dan Sullivan said on your site “As I understand it from the information previous in the public domain it seemed the case that he burst into room with 3 young women/girls in it, jumped on or approached a bed and waved his penis in one’s face, while grabbing or making a grab for their head.” to which Niall McElwee only replied “Nonetheless, I did not break “down down†or “break into†any room. The doors were, in fact, open. This was accepted in Court.”
Now I’m not suggesting this is an implicit acceptance of every other point that Dan made about his understanding of the case but surely if McElwee was taking the time to refute the claim on how he entered the room he would also refute any other falsehoods in Dan’s comment, assuming there were any?
Now there’s no denying that there’s plenty of legalese in the snippet quoted by Suzy but (and I’m no legal expert) I would venture a guess that the extensive use of and/or was used in order to secure a conviction.
My thinking is that if they just said “and” at all times then there could be a potential weakness in the case – if the defence could show that one of the components didn’t occur then the entire charge could be thrown out on a technicality (as if the charge asserted that all of these things happened the prosecution would have to prove that all of these things happened). If they say and/or they give themselves the space so that if one aspect of the case cannot be proven it doesn’t jeopardise a conviction on all the others. Could be wrong there – just a layman’s guess.
However even in breaking it down into its component parts you can see that the charge is serious enough. I won’t go through the entire thing but just as an example – the first part of the charge sheet:
performing the criminal act intended by the defendant through violence or (an) other act(s) of violence and/or other threats of violence
Whatever way you read this he is convicted of either performing violent acts or threatening violence – possibly both.
I also don’t know what the legal meaning of “forced†is in this context, given that the document is a translation from Dutch. We need a Dutch lawyer to interpret this conviction for us.
I imagine this document has been translated by a capable person already so I don’t see how a Dutch lawyer would be required to translate it again.
I don’t think there’s much point in arguing over the Dutch meaning of the word “forced” – my opinion is that the term is used validly in the charge sheet (in the context of the fact that he was found to have held the girl down on a bed while he lay on top of her with his trousers open… the only and/or in that aspect is whether he held her by the hands or wrists – the rest is under no doubt). You may disagree.
At present, we can have no certainty as to the precise details of what happened, which in this case are very important.
I don’t think that’s true – if you cut through the legalese you can see what he was charged with and convicted of – even if you remove some of what is listed as it’s followed by an ‘and/or’ you can be left in no doubt that he entered a room without invitation, approached these strangers while naked from the waist down, threatened (at least) violence and held one of them down on a bed while he lay on top of her.
Now, I’m not going to say any more about this, except as follows.
If Niall McElwee has committed a violent sexual assault, then I have no sympathy for him. If he made a drunken fool of himself, then he wouldn’t be the only one. None of us are spotless.
I think it’s clear that his actions stretch beyond him making a fool of himself.
Whether it turns out to be one thing or the other, many people were quick to demand his head long before this report issued, when they had no information whatever about the nature of the case, and the last thing we need in this country is a PC lynch-mob culture.
Most of the outrage I saw at the time was aimed at the HSE for failing to do anything about what they knew – however while I agree that a lynch-mob culture is not a good thing, that’s a separate issue from what we’ve been discussing here.
Am I questioning the validity of the case?
God no. I’m stating a fact.
just so we can be clear: are you going to reword and disagree with it?
I’m not moving the goalposts. We’ve been discussing the details of his offence because they’re relevant. The quote isn’t from Suzy. It’s directly from the report.
I also didn’t ask for a Dutch lawyer to translate it. Where did you notice me saying that?
The word “forced” in English is normally accompanied by the word “to”. In this case it appears alone, an unusual construction when describing a person (as opposed to a lock or a smile) and I’d like clarification of its precise legal meaning. That isn’t an unreasonable thing to ask.
Are you used to reading legal documents? You can’t dismiss the use of the term “and/or” by — in your words — cutting through the legalese. You can’t blithely cut through legalese without losing some of the meaning.
The lynch-mob culture may be a separate issue from what you were discussing here, but not from what I have in mind, so on that point I’d again have to ask you not to speak for me. Please.
Am I questioning the validity of the case?
God no. I’m stating a fact.
just so we can be clear: are you going to reword and disagree with it?
I hate to split hairs but you’re basing that statement of fact on what Niall McElwee said – however I’m willing to accept that his detailing of the case is accurate.
I just asked to be sure that you weren’t questioning the validity of the case as a result of the way the Dutch legal system is structured.
I’m not moving the goalposts. We’ve been discussing the details of his offence because they’re relevant. The quote isn’t from Suzy. It’s directly from the report.
You are moving the goalposts – originally you accepted freely that what McElwee had done was wrong but questioned whether what he did warranted his sacking. It’s of my opinion that what he did warranted his sacking and I have said so, but rather than further that strain of the debate you are now casting doubt on exactly what it was that he did because if.
So have you changed your mind on the nature of the conviction or had you just not read it when you made your first comment?
I also didn’t ask for a Dutch lawyer to translate it. Where did you notice me saying that?
Apologies – you said interpret. I still don’t understand why it would be necessary as the actions detailed are clear enough to understand what they mean by “forced”.
The word “forced†in English is normally accompanied by the word “toâ€. In this case it appears alone, an unusual construction when describing a person (as opposed to a lock or a smile) and I’d like clarification of its precise legal meaning. That isn’t an unreasonable thing to ask.
The word “to” is there, it just has a qualification relating to violence in between it and “forced”. To abridge it, it reads that he was convicted of “forcing (named person 2)… to perform and/or to endure one or more lewd act(s)”.
Are you used to reading legal documents? You can’t dismiss the use of the term “and/or†by — in your words — cutting through the legalese. You can’t blithely cut through legalese without losing some of the meaning.
I don’t read legal documents on a regular basis, no. And I don’t dismiss the use of “and/or”, I gave an interpretation of what I think it means.
When I referenced cutting through the legalese I referred to cutting out any of the bits that may be in doubt due to the presence of an “or” – even with those removed you can still get a pretty clear picture of what happened.
The lynch-mob culture may be a separate issue from what you were discussing here, but not from what I have in mind, so on that point I’d again have to ask you not to speak for me. Please.
I was giving my own opinion on its relevance to this discussion. As you’ve shown already you’re well able to speak for yourself, even when you’ve little to say.
The mask slips, eh? Good night, Adam.
Sure Bock – anything to avoid having a discussion on the points that you yourself raised in the first place.
The fact that Mr. McElwee lost his job is directly related to the position he held in Ireland as one of the foremost academics in the area of childcare. It would be simply impossible for him to continue in a position like this after what he has been convicted of.
I do not think Bock is comparing what actually occured to a grope in a pub by a drunken fool, his argument is too knowledgeable for that. At the same time the “and/ or” reference does not take away from the substance of the trial transcript, what Mr. McElwee committed was way more than inappropriate behaviour.
Perhaps when the judge was deciding on the punishment for the case he took into account the fact that Mr. McElwee would be leaving the country. This is only my opinion, I could be completely wrong (probably !!!).
Right, anyone for a pint then?