Monday, April 27, 2009

CWI: Gaydar Fiasco (1)

We have been inundated with comments and remarks in relation to this posting and one came indeed from the person concerned himself.

The unfortunate thing was that his comment contained multiple errors and therefore has not been yet published.

However, we here in CW wish to clarify beyond any doubt how it was that this story came into our being:

On Saturday evening, whilst composing the articles for publishing on CW, a journalist contacted our colleague in the Dublin area (as alleged person was allegedly based in Dublin) seeking the name of the priest on Gaydar with the profile handle of 'Greyfriariv', but our colleague was not - and would never be - in a position to answer such a question.

As I was uncontactable as Editor at the time, our colleague in Dublin contacted his colleague in Area 2 who decided that he would take over the matter and forward it to myself for consideration.

He went online on Gaydar and took his own snapshot of the profile which tallied with details already provided by aforementioned journalist.

He also got back in touch with the journalist who operated under the profile name on Gaydar as 'govirlfuck' (more about that anon) to seek further information/clarification in relation to whatever information was available.

The journalist gave to my colleague the details and a freeze shot of the profile on Gaydar to vouch for the claims he was making, and the decision was passed to me as to what to do with the article.

It was my belief at the time that it would serve purpose to publish it, and this remains my belief.

However, it would never be my intention to 'out' someone intentionally and that would be a guiding principle on such matters, but as the person themselves had already published the fact that they were a priest certainly totally disarmed that principle on our behalf.

The article shall remain on this site despite the threats issued by the person concerned (most irreligious and unChristian of them) and indeed the false claims and issuing of name therein also indicates the non-factual basis for issuing such threats et al.

In relation to Gaydar themselves, we have worked with them over the weekend and can verify the following in relation to the original source of the story:


* was a journalist working for a red masthead paper;

* had stored pictures of people previously spoken to on Gaydar eg. priests, Gardaí, medical et al;

* used aforementioned pictures when conversing with others but only after deciphering what their job was;

* had accumulated telephone numbers, email addresses and other personal details of many he spoke with and would have been known to use them in a very improper manner;

* had been on Gaydar in an attempt to entrap 3 other priests on the system whom we have now notified notably in Clare, Galway and Antrim;

* has now been removed from Gaydar and we hope will be prevented from using the system somehow;

* had an email address which in effect proved to be the downfall via ISP in tracking back which will now be blocked, and

* we have submitted all the necessary documentary evidence to the relevant authorities in relation to this matter.

We here in CW, and myself as Editor, do apologise to the person concerned for this exposure, but we hold to the fact that as he had 'outed' himself as a priest on the system (now changed) then what we were doing was only bringing it to a greater level of public awareness.

CWI is aware of other clergy on the system (one named by greyfriariv) and we have notified them of our being aware of them with which they seem to have no problem once it remains that way and we are very much amenable to such.

However, of someone declares themselves on the system as a priest thereby outing themselves, then we will take an interest.

Back in July 2007, we were aware of Fr Michael HOGAN in Feakle, County Clare, but again a journalist cruising on Gaydar had the inside scoop on that but had approached CW in an attempt to clarify what we already knew but we felt that we did not have enough evidence to indicate it being a priest.

When the story did break at that time, we stepped back from being intrusive, only carrying what was already in the public domain and already confirmed.

In this particular situation, we managed to get the issue published before the papers did, and despite the calls from certain media outlets Jim, we will not give them your details!!

All that needs to be said at this juncture is that there are over a half dozen people working with CW now, and there is a certain degree of levity in relation to articles, but the buck stops with me!!

I, as Editor take full responsibility for all that goes on here, once it has been verified and in this case, with the involvement of legal advice, Gaydar and others, I stand over what was published.

Collectively, we here in CW have gone beyond our normal responsibilities and duties in resolving this matter, but we will also not publish names of those we KNOW not to have been involved in any way shape or form despite the misinformed beliefs views et al of others.

We publish facts and ensure that they are just that - FACTS!!

Perhaps it is time for deep reflection on part of ALL parties concerned and not just us here in CW!!

No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.

The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.


SV (ED -1,2,3&4)

No comments: