this is what i wrote on this blog

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markdevenport/2010/03/church_and_state.html#p93735619

Is the cardinal not guilty of aiding and abetting a paedophile?
is forcing children not to report sexual assault to the police or anyone else not also breaking the law?
Now maybe there is some sort of statute of limitations here but surely this man and an awful lot of others should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I am amazed that his conscience and allows him to keep working in his role as a spiritual leader.
As an english aetheist all I get from this is that the Church in Ireland is a) morally bankrupt and b) above the law.

this is the bbcs terms on defamation…..
What is Defamation?

Defamation is the legal term that covers both slander and libel; slander is defamation by word of mouth, and libel is defamation in written form. It is, therefore, the type of defamation we are concerned with in content posted onto the BBC. A statement about an individual or organisation is deemed to be defamatory if it harms their reputation by:

*

Exposing the individual or organisation to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
*

Causing the individual or organisation to be shunned or avoided;
*

Lowering the individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; or
*

Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade or the organisation's office, profession or trade.

Its certainly inflammatory. I don't think he forced children just encouraged them – so that bit could be defamatory. I don't see how he has broken the law at all – but maybe I missed something.

I'd rewrite it in much more moderate tones and asking questions rather than making statements and then repost. Understated often hits harder anyway

is failure to report an offence criminal ?
(I'd be tempted to draw comparison with the parents of the 4yr old who took 20grand or so from a "friend")

As TJ says, easier to question the church's morality than to label it morally bankrupt (especially as you've labelled yourself an atheist (for no apparent reason – makes you sound like thingy **** dawkins or whatever his name is))

Your intention was to do all the things the BBC uses to define defammatory, wasn't it? I don't see why you're surprised, if in fact you really are. I agree with TJ, a bit of understatement is often more effective than a furious bash at the keyboard. It's certainly got a better chance of staying up there to be read.

I wonder if STW has the same definition of "defamatory"?

I've heard it said that BBC actually stands for "Blatantly Broadcasting Catholicism" (although I've seen it as being "Blatantly Broadcasting Communism")…

To be honest I've seen a lot worse posted on the BBC forums and blogs.

my problem is that i cant see how the catholic church itself doesnt tick all these things to itself

Exposing the individual or organisation to hatred, ridicule or contempt; (the silly hats for a start, but doesnt the bible preach hatred of gays anyway, doesnt that make it defamatory)
*

Causing the individual or organisation to be shunned or avoided;
* (i shun and /or avoid religous people daily as they tend to talk a load of nonsense)

Lowering the individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; or (imho any right-thinking person doesnt believe in fairy tales)
*

Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade or the organisation's office, profession or trade. (the guy i was talking about knew a guy was apaedophile and didnt tell the police hes disparaged his own office)

sorry i just cant stop ranting about this

the biggest paedophile network ever is being exposed yet this organistation is in complete denial

is failure to report an offence criminal ?

The accusation is that the priest persuaded/intimidated/whatever the right word is the victims not to report.

I thought Davenport's original post was only semi-comprehensible. He asks what the legal result of a conflict between state and church law in Ireland in the 1970s as if it were a hypothetical – shouldn't he know if he's been following the story?

OP: they might not have yanked it because it was defamatory. Maybe it was just annoying or tedious or unnecessarily flamey or maybe the mod hit the wrong button. I really don't think a lot of thought goes into it.

kimbers: " … As an english aetheist all I get from this is that the Church in Ireland is a) morally bankrupt and b) above the law."

You are offensive by nature when you used the term … "As an English …", because you are discriminating against/depriving the rights of the Catholic religion.

You should have explained that Oliver Cromwell would not permit such act under his watch.

😈

your rant does seem to match several of the reasons for removing a post. The BBC mods did you a favour by deleting it. Try again with more moderate language. I won't mention your spelling.