O'Gormon criticises "all parties" over rape crisis

[FutureTaoiseach]

O'Gorman is right. The legislation is flawed but that was inevitable in a context where it had to be rushed through and in an atmosphere of consensus. Certain Opposition politicians - and the tabloid press - did point-score in a disgraceful way - notably claiming that rapists were going to be released en masse up and down the country - which did not happened. One was released and then re-arrested.

But Opposition - to be fair - is partly about scoring political points off the govt.

[MichaelHennigan]

Surely this is a case of trying to ride two horses at the same time while trying to keep out of the water?

Guess what his line would be if he had decided to stand for the Labour Party?

Would he have been spending much more time on the airwaves?

If the crisis last week was all contrived, then Bertie's shopping list that was presented to the Dail yesterday, was only really required for presentational/spin value?

[Zhirkov]

What does 1 in 4 mean?
Are they trying to infer that 1 in 4 children suffer sexual abuse?
If they are then I reckon that's a gross exaggeration, like the 1 in 10 gay stat.

[Pidge]

What does 1 in 4 mean?
Are they trying to infer that 1 in 4 children suffer sexual abuse?
If they are then I reckon that's a gross exaggeration, like the 1 in 10 gay stat.

I don't know if it's true, but it's based on a survey apparently.

Explanation

[Dee Four]

McDowell's proposed legislation was daft, by making it legal for 14 year olds to have sex you may as well eb encouraging them to so without them even being out of puberity let alone wise enough to make such a decision.

You're not encouraging anything. If you think that what some politician says has any bearing on when someone decides to have sex, you need a reality check.

Well thats a change of tune. On Matt Cooper last week he explicitly refused to criticise Michael McDowell

Asked whether the Minister for Justice should bear a considerable portion of blame for his handling of the controversy, Mr O'Gorman said he was "not going to lay the blame at the feet of anybody".

In fairness Deefour, many would see this as an attempt by a PD general election candidate to deflect attention from his off-the-cuff* comments attacking the Minister for Justice (a PD I think ) last week over the 'A' case.

* at least, I can only assume they were off the cuff.

What were those comments? And I don't think O'Gormon raising the issue once more and criticising his own party will deflect attention, at all(x2)

Guess what his line would be if he had decided to stand for the Labour Party?

His comments in relation to this would have been "no different" to what he would have said if he was not standing for the Progressive Democrats.

[BarryW]

But then again, having joined the PDs in the first place he is no stranger to hypocrisy

What does that even mean?

yeah, Barry, please, get a grip

The hypocrisy I'm referring to is this:
FF and the PDs knocked €120,000 (24%) off "One In Four" funding in 2004.

The Irish Independent reported at the time:

Mr O'Gorman is angry at the way in which One in Four has been treated, particularly after he was encouraged by the Government, especially Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, to set up an office in Ireland.

He added: "I am dismayed to say that the Department has responded in a particularly abrupt and negative manner to that request.

He also explained that One in Four is in "very considerable crisis following the Department of Health's decision to renege on earlier funding agreements". He added: "In truth it is unclear if the organisation will be able to remain in operation beyond the end of November"

Government action (or inaction) brought the future of O' Gorman's organisation into peril in 2004. O' Gorman castigated them at the time.
Now, all of a sudden, he is willing to stand on their behalf in a General Election, and says that the PDs are bastions of social justice.

Thats the hypocrisy to which I refer. I can understand why that might make MJ uncomfortable, but Dave I'm not sure what objection you have to me pointing it out

[cyberianpan]

He's a swing all ways crackpot loon, I wouldn't be surprised, that like Harney, he turns out to be some form of muddled Socialist.

cYp

[ff]

He's a swing all ways crackpot loon, I wouldn't be surprised, that like Harney, he turns out to be some form of muddled Socialist.

cYp

You have to wonder if there is any point to responding to a post like this at all.

As for the funding issue...wasnt it FF who pulled it?

It would have been likely to be them, not the PD's.

If you look back at the points in time you refer to and the newspapers, you will notice that is the case.

On that basis calling him a hypocrite is a bit much to be honest and unwarranted.

[BarryW]

As for the funding issue...wasnt it FF who pulled it?

The Government decides how to spend Government money - not Fianna Fáil

[ff]

As for the funding issue...wasnt it FF who pulled it?

The Government decides how to spend Government money - not Fianna Fáil

No Barry as it happens civil servants usually advise government, and typically it is Junior ministers who allocate funding to small charties such as One in Four who work in the area of health etc.

They dont all sit around a table and decide together you know.

Ive checked this and Michael Martin was Minister at the time when their funding was threatened also.