Let me make it clear - I do not support any paedophile. However, I am trying to separate my own strong feelings about an individual from the group he formed. I 100% agree he should be more open about being president, and on the original website he was. I have no idea why he doesn't do so still. If TCRG had not affiliated to WIDA it would not now exist. As it does I support them as teachers. I cannot do that without accepting the federation, even if I do not like the person at the top. Maybe one day he will be driven out and WIDA will continue without him as its head. It won't get big enough for that without being allowed to advertise, so I believe for the long term good of ID we have to accept matters not being quite as we'd like in the short term. I am not going to take part in this any further as I sense a tone that may lead to further mis-interpretation of my motives. Ideally convicted paedophiles should remain in prison for a long time but as they don't I have to accept that -- For the love of the dance

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Mon, May 18 2026, 17:43:29 [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thu, Sep 20 2007, 9:39:59
Author: Irishdaz
Subject: Let me make it clear - I do not support any paedophile. However, I am trying to separate my own strong feelings about an individual from the group he formed. I 100% agree he should be more open about being president, and on the original website he was. I have no idea why he doesn't do so still. If TCRG had not affiliated to WIDA it would not now exist. As it does I support them as teachers. I cannot do that without accepting the federation, even if I do not like the person at the top. Maybe one day he will be driven out and WIDA will continue without him as its head. It won't get big enough for that without being allowed to advertise, so I believe for the long term good of ID we have to accept matters not being quite as we'd like in the short term. I am not going to take part in this any further as I sense a tone that may lead to further mis-interpretation of my motives. Ideally convicted paedophiles should remain in prison for a long time but as they don't I have to accept that

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> "he should be more open about being president, and on the original website he was." - No he wasn't, I remember the original site and there was not a word about him either. He was always in denial and you're supporting child molester's org, I am very very disappointed, I have always appreciated your input in the ID world - not anymore -- sadly, Thu, Sep 20 2007, 10:41:50 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> "Ideally convicted paedophiles should remain in prison for a long time but as they don't I have to accept that". If that's not hypocrisy then I do not know what is. Are you a man with or without rules, Irish daz? He's broken his probation rules and you are promoting a dangerous man among unaware parents and children. Would you promote An Coimisiun if the head or the chair were convicted molesters? Surely not. -- :-(, Thu, Sep 20 2007, 11:39:55 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Irish Daz sometimes better to keep opinions to yourself, Why damage your reputation to defend anything this person is involved with? -- RE I can understand, but this? No!, Thu, Sep 20 2007, 13:36:31 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> There are other organizations that don't have links on your web site, like CRN, for one, that have been around for longer and don't have the dubious connections. Perhaps you should give them a bit of advertizing too -- level the playing field, Thu, Sep 20 2007, 15:26:19 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> you've changed your tune to suit the situation. Earlier you were saying he was very open with you and that he had a lot to offer the world of irish dance, you said it was your understanding that he was well liked. Now you're saying you have 'strong feelings against him' - just because somebody has proved that you were talking nonsense. I wonder how often, and in how many other situations, you've changed your view to suit a situation? Or to cover your back? -- me, Thu, Sep 20 2007, 19:20:40 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> he was open and he appeared well liked, that is simply a fact. I said maybe he had something to offer, but that doesn't mean I condone his personal actions. I wish i hadn't said anything as everyone seems intent on trying to twist what I have said. the only difference in our opinion of this man and his crimes is that I can separate the man from the organisation, whereas others can't. That does not make either side wrong. This situation is similar (not idebtical) to watching Eastenders (or the BBC) when Dirty Den was in the cast. leslie grantham was convicted of a vicious Murder, a crime equally heinous. I assume that no-one watches the BBC because they allowed him to appear, and promote the programme despite knowing his crimes. I assume that nobody buys any CD's published by Michael jackson's record company as they still promote his wares, despite his history of chuild abuse. no doubt you separate the men from the organisation -- Irishdaz - LAST POST!, Thu, Sep 20 2007, 19:56:11 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> what a load of rubbish, you can't backtrack now Irishdaz, and as for the Micheal Jackson input he got NOT GUILTY Sean Gavan is GUILTY you should have used Gary Glitter as an example and look where he is, an outcast no one will give him the time of day his career is over thank god -- parent, Thu, Sep 20 2007, 20:11:43 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> So actually getting NOT GUILTY in a court really means that he was completely innocent? Get real...he had the money and the adulation to side step the conviction and it will always be with him....not that he cares, he's still free to do whatever he does behind his 'mask' of innocence! He is a seriously deranged and troubled individual, who I'm ashamed to say I was madly in love with when I was 14!! -- a mum, Thu, Sep 20 2007, 20:29:55 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> sorry you miss by point I agree with you about MJ, but what I am trying to say that Sean Gavan has a conviction so we should be even more all the more concerned that he is working with children. -- parent, Thu, Sep 20 2007, 20:47:46 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Maybe you are just naive, Irishdaz (I hope so, otherwise you'd have to be crooked). "he was open and he appeared well liked" - of course he was, they tend to be. Otherwise children would run away screaming. Do you think paedophiles have big bloody pointed teeth? -- grow up..., Thu, Sep 20 2007, 22:07:10 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> The "well liked" phrase was simply a response to someone who challenged my mentioning it in a previous post. I have never said I like or accept him as a person, but then I don't know him. I am not naive, and be careful of any further accusation you want to make please. I was trying to make the point that it is likely you didn't see those other two examples in the same way, and I chose them as they were very public. Gary Glitter is another case in point, his CD's are still on sale, and his record company or HMV are not boycotted by you because of it. You choose to separate the man from the organisation, but that doesn't mean you accept their crimes. -- the only difference between us, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 9:19:59 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> In fact I do not have any records of those people and I would not buy them as I would not support them in any way. I feel that a person tried at the court and convicted cannot simply carry on as if nothing happened and does not deserve any support nor promotion especially if the promotion may result in another tragedy -- as simple as that, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 10:05:42 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> and I fully respect you for standing by such firm convictions. Whether we agree or not that says a lot -- Irishdaz, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 19:44:22 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> These are not someone's convictions, it's the law. A known paedophile is not allowed near children, period. -- ., Fri, Sep 21 2007, 20:38:27 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It depends where they live...can people NOT understand that concept? While it's a law in this and some countries, it's NOT a law in others! -- WE do not rule other countries anymore, Sat, Sep 22 2007, 1:46:36 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> WIDA -- No name, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 8:51:18 [1]

Having Googled this situation, it appears as if there are two sides to this story. The "child" in question was a disturbed 15 year old boy who often, it seems, made stuff up. SG has always denied the allegation. He was convicted but that does not make him guilty. At the time his class supported him 100% and he has never denied the conviction. Has anyone seen the film "The CHildren's Hour" starring Audrey Hepburn and Shirley Maclaine where a child makes an allegation which later turns out to be unfounded, with tragic consequences. I have no connection with WIDA but yes their organisation does need advertising. It's not all about Commission you know!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> This is not true. Read the detailed article about the trial. -- Link inside, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 13:15:09 [1]

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-97372466.html

ALL SCOTS SLEEP WITH KIDS EXCLUSIVE : US jury rejects bizarre Michael Jackson-style claim

Lorna Hughes

A SCOT teaching American kids to dance has been convicted of sexually abusing one of his young pupils.

But in a bid to escape justice, Sean Gavan claimed it was normal for adults to sleep with children in Scotland.

The 41-year-old, who ran international dance schools in Glasgow and California, claimed it was common for Scots to share a bed with young boys.

His bizarre Michael Jackson-style claims were dismissed by the court.

Gavan, who teaches Irish dancing, was convicted of molesting a 15-year- old boy after enticing him into bed at his luxury home.

California police snared the pervert after secretly taping a telephone call between him and his schoolboy victim.

Gavan faces a lengthy prison sentence and could be deported to Scotland when he is released.

Last night, prosecutors said they were appalled by Gavan's claims.

District Attorney Kelly Hansen said: "He testified to the court that it was not unusual in Scotland for adults to share beds with children not related to them.

"Two of his character witnesses, who are Americans, said the same. They had clearly been influenced by him but to use that as his defence was bizarre."

Dance supremo Gavan consistently denied molesting the vulnerable teenager after getting into bed beside him following a Christmas party.

But he was convicted of lewd conduct after the jury in Corona, Riverside County, heard the taped phone call. In it, Gavan admits fondling the youngster and even apologises for his action.

Parents of some of his other pupils backed him during the trial - even allowing their children into the courtroom to hear the evidence.

His victim, who was in court to hear the verdict, broke down in tears.

Mr Hansen said: "This has been emotionally draining for the young boy.

"His whole world was Irish dance and since he reported the incident he has been banished and ostracised from that community. There has been support for Gavan by the parents and friends of other youngsters he taught.

"But I personally found it disturbing that these people were bringing their children - some as young as six - into the court to hear sexual testimony.

"Many of them refuse to believe, despite the taped call, that Gavan was capable of this crime."

A group of parents and pupils raised his L30,000 bail and have mounted a campaign to clear his name. They have posted poems and notes on his website.

But Mr Hansen said he believed that Gavan's victim had been carefully chosen by the pervert.

He said: "The young boy involved idolised the defendant and was going through emotional difficulties.

"He was a vulnerable teen and the defendant knew that and was able to take advantage of him."

The court heard that Gavan was friendly with many of his pupils and they would often stay overnight at his home.

He had told the boy that he would have to share a bed with him on the night of the incident in December 2000.

Some pupils were staying overnight at the teacher's home to prepare for an early-morning competition.

The 12-strong jury heard the boy told no one about the attack for several months before breaking down in tears one day on his way to school.

Mr Hansen said: "He had told a dance classmate who said that he ought to tell his mother.

"On the way to school he broke down in tears in the car and told her everything. Later he reported it to the authorities."

Police then taped the call between his 15-year-old victim and Gavan.

Since quitting Scotland, Gavan has become one of California's top Irish dance instructors.

His company - which has the Scottish thistle as its logo - owns seven schools in the area and students have won international and state awards.

Gavan has even appeared on TV and sponsors an annual Irish dance festival, "Feis Caledonia!"

He lives with English partner Kevin Cannon in an upmarket Corona townhouse. But he denies he is gay and told the court it was not a sexual affair but a "committed relationship".

Detective Brian Cervantes said: "Sean Gavan told us that there was nothing unusual in him sharing a bed with the boy. But he kept changing his story when he was questioned and as we only had the boy's account of what happened we decided to tape him."

Gavan will be sentenced on March 7 and could get up to three years in jail. Last week millionaire singer Michael Jackson revealed in a TV documentary that he regularly shared his bed with young boys - but denied all abuse claims.

He told interviewer Martin Bashir there was nothing wrong in sharing a bed with young boys. He claimed: "It's not sexual. I tuck them in. It's very charming. It's very sweet."

Prosecutors have decided not to investigate Jackson - who was accused of sex abuse in 1993 by a 13-year-old boy. A spokesman said that under Californian law, merely sleeping with a child without "affirmative, offensive conduct" was not a criminal offence.

HOW EVIL GAVAN WAS NAILED

EVIL Gavan was trapped after police got his 15-year-old victim to phone him. Police taped the conversation and then arrested the dance teacher at his townhouse in California.

Taped calls, under the strict control of a detective, are allowed to be used as evidence in US courts. Corona Police Detective Brian Cervantes, who investigated Gavan, said: "He never once denied it."

In the tape, the boy repeatedly asks Gavan, who lives with airline steward Kevin Cannon, why he attacked him. Gavan, who is on a mobile, says he is taking the call outside.

Boy: "I have a question for you..."

Gavan: "OK."

Boy: "Why did you put your hands down my pants and touch my **********?"

Gavan: (long pause).

Boy: "Sean?"

Gavan: "Mmm."

Boy: "Why did you do that?"

Gavan: "Where are you just now?"

Boy: "At home"

Gavan: (pause) "I apologise. It was a mistake."

Boy: "Did you think I was Kevin?"

Gavan: "That's part of it."

Boy: "What part?"

Gavan: (pause) "I was half asleep."

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> what a horrible statement to make, this child and his family have gone through hell and you make comments like this. God help us all with people like you to contend with -- shocked, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 18:22:11 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> He ADMITTED to parts of the accusations in court. He had the child stay at his house. Perhaps the child was messed up because that wasn't the first time he was abused? -- ME, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 9:08:14 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> I also disagree with you Irishdaz but as you don't seem to change your mind the only thing to do is to advise people wherever this topic pops up to google the name and draw conclusions for themselves. I doubt they would share your view, I'd say they would RUN. I wonder, would you send your dd to his classes or comps when she was younger, or is it just theorizing on your part? -- :-(, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 12:49:14 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> A sensible question. I would not knowingly send my ds to classes run by a known paedophile. As a sensible parent I attempt to protect my child by checking up as much as is possible. I would however have allowed her to join a school under WIDA, and take part in the competitions as I would be there to keep an eye on her. I would be very grateful to anyone who made a point of warning me about SG. That was my original point. I don't want anyone to stop warning people about him whenever WIDA gets a mention. In fact if it happens enough the rest might drive him out sooner. That is different to removing posts whenever they appear. That way no-one would warn others and some might join without being aware. -- thankyou, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 19:42:19 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> "I don't want anyone to stop warning people about him whenever WIDA gets a mention." But how do we warn people re: the ads on your website? A website ad is different from a board ad in that it cannot be commented. -- ?, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 20:36:38 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> well IrishDaz if you won't remove the advertisement why dont you make a start and put a warning on the WIDA advert on your site explaining who the president is, that way you are helping by letting people know who runs the show, as you have said people already involved with WIDA know his background so this wouldnt do any harm to them would it?? -- parent, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 21:42:36 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> A really sensible solution to this situation, and one that I have already applied. That is probably even better than hoping that someone spots every time WIDA appears on voy, dance net etc. There is now a permanent warning about Sean Gavan, that will soon appear on the Google listings whenever WIDA are searched -- Irishdaz, Sat, Sep 22 2007, 11:29:40 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Very well Irishdaz! -- good move, Sat, Sep 22 2007, 18:39:27 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> your argument about MJ and Dirty Den are somewhat flawed. To make a true comparison, you would have to ask whether we would support an organisation - heavily involved with children - which was headed up by MJ. The answer is no, we wouldn't. Irish Dancing is 80% about children - you can't have a paedophile running an organisation - and you shouldn't support the organisation until they replace their president. Michael Jackson would not be allowed to give workshops on how to take care of children - such an idea would be laughed at. We all know how protective you are of your daughter Irishdaz, you say you would let her dance for a WIDA school because you'd be able to keep an eye on her - what about the other pair of eyes that might be on her?? Thoughts can be disturbing too!! -- me, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 22:01:02 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> I also find it amazing that you've gone on for months about the injustice your daughter suffered (a 6 month ban) - you felt the world should know about one man and his crime, and how awful the WHOLE ORGANISATION was for supporting that man. And yet,, here you are, supporting an organisation run by a man who has made a child suffer to a point that I hope your daughter will never experience. And yet, rather than demand the organisation do something about it (as you have done so forcefully about your own daughter's situation) - you instead proclaim that the man should be separated from the organisation and that there is no harm in promoting his organisation?? This is crazy. By supporting the organisation you are supporting the man. You are extending his access to children. It's a bit like saying 'I completely disagree with how McDonalds is run' and then eating in their restaurant, and advertising their restaurant on your website. Your thoughts on justice seem somewhat inconsistent. -- me again, Fri, Sep 21 2007, 22:23:13 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> My dear friend is a nurse in a prison. In the prison system, pedophiles are the lowest of the low-even murderers treat them with utter contempt. And they're not snowed by their protests of innocence. They loathe them and wouldn't give any of them the time of day nor the benefit of the doubt. Why would YOU? -- ., Sat, Sep 22 2007, 3:45:37 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> To the poster just above who mentioned ID's crusade about one man. Absolutely well blinking well said!!! I could not agree with you more. If ever there was an example of hypocrisy and double standards eh? -- !, Sat, Sep 22 2007, 12:42:45 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> The stories do have similarities. I am against a man that I know mistreated my ds. As her dad I am doing everything so that he, and others, can't do it to someone else. I am not trying to get him banned from AC, or wish any post mentioning him to be deleted, That would be a real loss to the ID world. I have tried to get AC will review its rules to put something in place to protect dancers. I have stood for what I believe is right and have never challenged the right of GM to continue trading, or publicly make his views known. I do not like what he stands for, and want change. I have not deleted the school listing from my site, as I still believe it is right that they should be equally treated. Also I stand by peoples right to post anything and have never removed any post from my site that attacked me as I believe those people have the right to disagree with me. I fail to see how I have been hipocrytical in what I have said, as I think I have remained true to my beliefs. -- Irishdaz, Sat, Sep 22 2007, 13:17:10 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> And I also wanted to add that maybe this gives some insight into what GM had to deal with? Self appointed "authority" figures? -- Quite possibly, Sat, Sep 22 2007, 12:48:19 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> as for Self appointed authority figure, exactly which federation am I in authority with? except my own site of course, which is indeed mine to do whatever I want with. You could do the same if you wanted -- Irishdaz, Sat, Sep 22 2007, 13:18:42 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> What exactly has this got to do with Irish Daz previous issues. I'm not supporting Daz on this I thik it's right that this is made public so us as parents are informed, However I don't see the point in attacking Daz he has expresse his views without being personal, why can't you do the same. -- Parent, Sat, Sep 22 2007, 17:49:11 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Ok point taken. It IS futile to bring up the past issue and I acknowledge this, I apologise. I recognise that there are a lot of vicious gossips out there and I do not want to support them. The thing is IrishDaz, is it really worth your reputation to speak out so loudly about this issue? You are one of a handful who are open about your identitiy on these boards, while the majority remain annonymous. As you said earlier, maybe it's best now that this discussion ended. -- .., Sat, Sep 22 2007, 18:52:05 [1]

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]