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 !!!).

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 “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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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,

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.

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.

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?

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 concerns”

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 “spectrum”, 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’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 concerns”

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 “spectrum”, 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.