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? -- 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, 17:41:35 [ 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, 19:20:40
Author: me
Subject: 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?
In reply to: Irishdaz 's message, "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" on Thu, Sep 20 2007, 9:39:59

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

Replies:

[> [> 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 ]