Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Catholic priest projected gay porn to ‘horrified’ primary school parents

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Father McVeigh was “visibly shaken and flustered” clearly because what he likes to get up to in his own time has now been made public!

  2. Church has no need of such men.

    1. Man has no need of church.

  3. He had the nerve to return to the room to suggest their children give money to the church?! Maybe he’s looking to upgrade his Squirt account?

  4. I hope the investigation determines whose computer was used to display the powerpoint presentation and who had access to it.

    I guess it depends how pornographic the images were as to whether a criminal offense has occurred, but I would have thought that displaying pornographic images to primary school children would be construed as being outraging public decency. Is there not a similar offense in Northern Ireland? Have PSNI reviewed the images themselves?

    1. Dangermouse 2 Apr 2012, 12:43pm

      If you read the article it was parents the presentation was shown to.

      1. If you read the Irish media, you will see at least one eight year old was present …

    2. He made a silly mistake, but I don’t think it warrants a criminal investigation, so long of course the images were legal.

      It was an accident, it was shown to parents and not the children.

      His denial of the images is incredulous and returning to ask for their children’s money is despicable and shameful. Not criminal though.

      1. There was at least one 8 year old present when the images were displayed.

        1. It was still an obvious accident. Mens rea would never be proven in court.

          I felt sorry imagining him being all flustered because he put the wrong memory stick into the computer. Sympathy went out the window when he returned asking for money. That is the worst thing he did, not the accidental porn thing.

          1. I thought men’s rear was all over his memory stick

          2. Mens rea is not always necessary. I don’t know NI law as well as I do law in England & Wales (but would imagine it is not dissimilar) and some offenses merely require recklessness or are absolute offenses. In a case in England about outraging public decency in 1990, the appeal court held that there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove an intention to outrage or recklessness.

            In terms of media coverage of children being present, I look at this report (and others):
            http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/parents-shocked-as-priest-shows-pornographic-image-16138296.html

          3. A reckless offence would be far fetched in this case, it would require the “what would a reasonable man do” argument. Had he a box of memory cards with pornography and kept the holy communion memory card with them, then yes, reckless could apply. Outraging public decency is not an absolute offence.
            Obviously, without knowing all the facts, I think he made a ‘reasonable man’ mistake.

          4. @DC78

            Obviously neither of us have the full facts, and thats why it warrants full investigation.

            There may be aspects of the case that warrant consideration of various absolute, reckless or mens rea offenses.

            Also in terms of outraging public decency there is no requirement of the prosecution to demonstrate mens rea or recklessness.

    3. The memory stick could have been doctored without the priests knowledge . It could have been part f a deliberate ploy to embrass both him and the Catholic church. However- the fact that he rushed from the room in embarrassment rather than face it out makes me think it WAS his images. BUT- we dont know for sure.

      1. @John

        Indeed it could.

        Thats why it needs to be fully investigated to eith exonerate the priest or determine that he intentionally or recklessly outraged public decency.

      2. If the priest thinks that the laptop or memory card were sabotaged or replaced to undermine him and/or the church, then it is up to him to make a complaint with the police and ask them to investigate. Don’t think that will be happening though.

        1. If he does suspect this, then I agree DC78 – the priest should make a complaint to the police.

          I would hope the police were investigating in any event as part of their child protection duties and considering this as one of the avenues of inquiry.

          1. No Sex Please We're British! 3 Apr 2012, 6:54pm

            Child protection? From what exactly? I can understand the priest’s ‘embarrassment’ and his fellow adult catholics, who hardly have a tolerant approach to natural acts, but surely any child would have been entirely indifferent (perhaps inquisitive) in much the same way as seeing any other animal perform a natural act (as regularly shown on most natural history programmes on BBC or Discovery). We need to get away from the notion that somehow ‘sex’ corrupts. To me that’s the Catholic view. Clearly it was the ‘parents’ who were ‘shocked’. Their Catholic indoctrination no doubt played a part. Whilst it is unclear what exactly was shown, and yes, there are certain things too complex for a young mind to fully comprehend, don’t write anyone off, regardless of age, as not being capable of seeing the world better than a lot of adults do. All this ‘morality’ law is no more than a by-product of Christian interference in what should simply be natural law.

          2. @No Sex Please we’re British

            So, I take it you find it acceptable to display pornographic images (16 of them) in a room where 8 year olds are present?

            I don’t

            As it is, the PSNI are actively investigating and the priest concerned is co-operating so the child/childrens welfare is being ensured.

            If I was to take your moniker – I would change it to “Lots of sex please, we’re British” but ensure there are no young children about!

    4. Its great to hear that the police are making progress in investigating your offenses Keith – when I spoke to them last week.

      1. Ah, Stu, you can still rattle the cage of that obsessed freak…. I do not know how you do it, but I love seeing this :)

        1. Lol, Will

          Its a joy to see the scumbag rattled. He will be even more rattled when they locate him and come knocking on the door … it will be sweet!

  5. “Fr McVeigh told the Ulster Herald: “I don’t know how it happened but I know what happened. ”

    Eh??

    1. er…yes. What’s the prob with that? He is stating that he knows what went down in the classroom but, since he denies culpability, he doesn’t know how it happened.

      jane x

  6. Neil Allen 2 Apr 2012, 12:32pm

    Catholic summary:

    - priests are gay
    - priests want your money

    The end.

  7. J. Andrews 2 Apr 2012, 12:35pm

    @Stu: it doest matter whose computer was used: the images were on a USB thumb drive. And they weren’t shown to school kids (did you even read the story?) but to a bunch of their parents.

    Personally I found it hilarious how he claimed they weren’t *his* photos, but probably belonged to someone else. Because that’s what innocent people do: run away for 20 minutes to think about it.

    1. @ J Andrews

      Yes I read the story, I have also read about it in the Irish media, before it was published on PN.

      The PN story and most of the Irish media mention that the presentation was on a USB stick, some mention that it had been loaded onto a laptop. Thus, who had access to the specific laptop and the USB stick are relevant.

      A number of Irish media outlets report that more than one 8 year old was present whilst the presentation was being made. Thus an offense of outraging public decency would apply (in my view).

      Its not only innocent people who run away to think, its also those who are ashamed that they have embarrassed themselves.

      There is a history relating to matters involving sexual misconduct (and displaying pornographic images to 1 or more 8 year olds construes sexual misconduct) involving children and the RC church in Ireland. There is also clear evidence of a lack of willingness of both PSNI and the Garda to take decisive action – I hope this is not the case here.

    2. Classic use of the Austin Powers ‘Swedish enlargement pump’ defence – “How did that get in there?”
      Did he follow up with “This sort of thing’s not my bag baby!”

    3. yes…they often do. I’ve posted a link below to something i just wrote up about the Amero case in the Us where something quite similar happened.

      The teacher involved, in the end vindicated as quite innocent in the matter, panicked, i believe initially left the classroom and just didn’t think thru what to do.

      All of which was used as “evidence” against her.

      jane x

      1. @Jane

        I accept innocent people can react in that way, so can guilty people though – and I can provide references to court cases in England where they have done.

        Thats why this matter needs to be investigated thoroughly to protect the children.

  8. In the words of Nelson. HAH-ha!

  9. September Meadows 2 Apr 2012, 1:03pm

    Gay porn, THE HORRORS!! Those parents will be scared for life. WON’T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE PARENTS!!?

    BAHAHAHA!!! :D

    He was probably set up by an alter boy seeking some payback.

    1. Its the eight year old(s) there that I feel concerned about.

      1. Question is, would there be all this debate had pictures of semi clad females been displayed infront of an 8 year old? I doubt it!

        1. @D McCabe

          We do not know how pornographic the images were …

          We know there were a number of them and they depicted gay pornographic scenes. There is a wide range of possibilities from simple male nudes to extreme fetish sex that could fall within that description.

          As I keep saying, we don’t know the facts – thats why there needs to be a full and thorough investigation to ensure children are protected.

  10. Poor Guy, if he is Gay and has been hiding it all these years!
    (1) if the images are his then he has ‘outted’ himself and none of us would want that to happen to us before we made the decision to come out.
    (2) if the images are not his then no one will ever believe him.

    As long as the images are legal and not shown to kids then there is nothing to answer for….I’m sure other teachers use porn so the fact that he is a priest is not really an issue…except to the Church maybe or his parishioners.
    The words witch hunt comes to mind.
    BTW: I live in N.Ireland but am not a fan of organised religions but just trying to look at this with a tad of compassion and common sense

    1. Its the eight year old(s) who saw it I am concerned about.

      1. LOL. Yeah, they’ll be traumatised for years poor loves. I bet they’ll all turn out gay as a result.

        Or more likely they’ve mostly forgotten about it for the moment but will laugh about it in 20 years time with their friends. You know, like normal adjusted human beings do?

        1. @David

          It depends on the nature of pornography, in terms of how traumatising (or not) the event may be. We don’t know how “strong” the pornography was.

          There was a case in West Yorkshire in 2001 of a schoolteacher who showed pornography (apparently inadvertently according to his initial accounts) who when the investigation was developed further it was determined that he had abused 3 children at the school and 2 elsewhere. Everyone suggested the teacher had made an innocent mistake then.

          It may be in this case. Its important that the innocent (or not) of the priest is determined in a full, impartial and balanced investigation. Children could be at risk.

          1. You’re making an unfounded connection that because Mr. McVeigh may or may not be into gay porn he therefore must also be considered a paedophile. That’s a pretty serious accusation to make against anybody without having a lot more evidence than this incident. Quoting one case from 10 years ago and extrapolating that out to apply here does not equate to anything other than hearsay, and could even be verging on libel.

          2. @David

            No I am not.

            I am saying that it is possible that Fr McVeigh deliberately showed porn to one or more eight year olds (certainly some reports of 16 images is concerning). That in itself is wrong.

            Of course he may not have done so deliberately – but neither you nor I have the facts at our disposal to determine that. Which is why there needs to be a full and impartial investigations.

            I am saying there are cases similar to this where more significant concerns about child safety have been uncovered in the past. I am not saying that this is the case here. I am saying learning from the past it would be unwise for those responsible statutorily for protecting children not to enquire further to ensure child safety.

            I have clearly said Fr McVeigh might be innocent and exonerated – an investigation needs to be allowed to reach a conclusion.

          3. Stu, read the article. The presentation was to 26 adults, and only one child was present. Are you suggesting he was out to groom one child in front of 26 adults?

          4. @David

            I am aware there were many adults present. Reading a wider set of sources – the number of eight year olds present ranges from 1 to 4.

            The very last arrest I made when I was a police officer was of a man who groomed children in front of their parents over a period of 3 and a half years.

            I repeat, I am not saying that Fr McVeigh has committed any offense – just that the child or children involved deserve an investigation to ensure they are safe and protected. Fr McVeigh also deserves it to demonstrate his innocence (if he is – I dont have have enough information, nor should I, to make a judgement in this case).

            Every Child Matters.

    2. As much as the article made me chuckle and some of the comments have made belly laugh, I agree. If he’s used his position to deliberately promote homophobia or (highly unlikely as it may be) take sexual advantage of children then I’d call that karma. But if that’s not the case then he’s an innocent victim in all this, if they weren’t his pics then people will forever question his sexuality and if they were, then he deserves sympathy and help, not ridicule.

      What I find annoying isn’t the fact that there was gay porn on his laptop but the parents questions as to why he’s still has pastoral care for their children – would they take such a rigid stance if it were straight porn? Most of the fathers that were in that room probably have their own little collection hidden away on a locked computer folder. I can’t help but wonder if they are equating those pics with paedophilia.

      1. Hmmm. Borderline issue, this. But how about this angle: the man has willingly taken out membership of an institution that regards homosexual people as “intrinsically disordered”, i.e. mentally ill. Never forget this. And this member of such an institution appears to have been exposed as reveling in gay porn. That is out and out hypocrisy and reason for shame.

  11. How did he get through a ‘series’ (as many as 16 being reported by other news outlets) without the gasps and shock alerting him to there being a problem?

    1. Thats where the recklessness or mens rea comes in – the series of images that were shown.

      The outraging public decency (which does not require recklessness or a demonstration of intent from the prosecution) was fulfilled (in my opinion) when an 8 year old was shown a series of pornogrpahic images. Personally, I think that is aggravated that this was done by a person who would be held to be in trust – a religious minister.

      It needs full and thorough investigation.

      The children deserve better.

    2. I wondered that, and who was keeping count? I imagine he was getting flustered and in panic, kept clicking onto the next image.

      1. Its an explanation, DC78

        It needs to be investigated to ascertain the facts.

        Every Child Matters.

        The childs welfare should be the priority.

        The facts will either exonerate the priest, implicate him or be inconclusive. WIthout a thorough inquiry then the children are not being protected.

        1. I agree it needs to be investigated. I think it’s reassuring that the PSNI have said that based on available evidence, no crime has been committed.
          I don’t think there is any cover up by the police and they have not said that their enquiries have concluded. By saying ‘available’ evidence, even suggests that they have not finished the investigation.

          1. All I am seeing is the Catholic church saying that the PSNI are saying there is no evidence of any crime.

            That sounds to me like the Catholic church have rung someone in PSNI for advice, and the PSNI have said “don’t worry”, rather than the PSNI having an ongoing investigation.

            In terms of the welfare of children there needs to be a thorough PSNI investigation not merely telephone advice.

  12. Measured response called for? Nah: it involves a priest, so i doubt we’ll get one: http://janefae.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/throwing-stones-and-leaping-to-judgment/

    However, given just how vicious press witch hunts can be in respect of almost anyone alleged to have used porn and who sits in a position of SOME responsibility over children, it would be nice if people wouldn’t rush instantly to judgment.

    jane x

    1. Jane

      Do you disagree that allegations of showing a series of pronographic images to eight year old(s) in a public setting by a person holding a position of trust in the community should be investigated thoroughly in order to ensure those children are properly protected in the future?

      If not, why not?

    2. Thanks Jane,
      I have been perhaps over speculating about this article. Although, there are questions that should be asked about a Catholic priest browsing gay porn. A case of do as I say and not as I do? The Catholic church has made it’s position very clear on gay equality. Gay Catholic priests are hypocrites.

  13. Why are you so attracted to this website?

    1. Or perhaps a better analogy, you are a pile of cow manure on that lawn, and we are farmers that walk around it:- crap is good for the grass, but not much else.

      1. Fabulous Will

    2. Hardly, my pet – though evidence suggests you’ve been smoking a little more grass than is good for you over the past years. Indeed, so much so that you seem to be confusing your identities.

    3. Not an acceptable thing to say.

  14. cher4eva! 2 Apr 2012, 1:57pm

    Let’s get real – we might want to vilify the guy for being a hypocrite, but that involves siding with the homophobic prudes who want his blood. The real crime here is the mental abuse and indoctrination that goes on daily in Catholic schools under the guise of ‘community ethos’ (for which read heternormative conformism). It’s taken me years of therapy to get over it.

    1. You’re obsession with gay men as a way of exploring the darker side of human sexuality is really quite stunning…in a pathetic kind of way.

    2. You’re obsession with gay men as a way of exploring the darker side of human sexuality is really quite stunning….and just a bit pathetic.

  15. NorthernPal 2 Apr 2012, 2:03pm

    I don’t get it, i think the memory pen was not his. Who views porn via powerpoint presentation. ? Still its outrageous he returns and asks for money for the church and bolts out the room for 20 minutes.

    1. The holy communion presentation could have been a power point, but the laptop may have been set to show photos when a memory card was inserted. Therefore, instant porn when the card went in. The story is ambiguous, I don’t think the porn was a power point.

  16. Keith,
    There are many historical reasons why gay men were attracted to the priesthood. As late as the early 1970′s, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, a sickness, an abomination, even a disease. (Thank god those days are gone, eh Keithy boy.) To escape these disgusting labels, young gay men could become priests, men who were not attracted to women could become priests, the ideal way to disguise their sexuality. No-one would question a priest for not being married by the age of 35?. As same sex acceptance has increased, accordingly, the number of men applying for ordination to the priesthood has dramatically decreased.

    1. Guglielmo Marinaro 3 Apr 2012, 9:15pm

      “As same sex acceptance has increased, accordingly, the number of men applying for ordination to the priesthood has dramatically decreased.”

      Damn good job too.

  17. It does sound as though he made a mistake and didn’t do it on purpose. I would agree that it is most likely that this was part of his own porn collection, but other explanations aren’t impossible. He obviously handled it badly and it is a very bad thing to expose children to porn (although no worse for them to see gay porn that straight porn). As for what action should be taken, he should make an apology but I can’t see how any legal action would help.

    1. Its possible he made a mistake, but in the interests of the children there must be an investigation to ensure he is either exonerated or not.

      1. You need to stop playing on this “Won’t somebody please think of the children??!?!” angle. The authorities will already be looking into this without any prompting from you, even discarding your obvious prejudice in attempting to link paedophilia and homosexuality in many of your posts. A tactic which is pretty old by the way.

        1. I am not linking paedophilia to homosexuality – there is no link.

          I am purely interested in child welfare.

          I do not believe we should take the Catholic church comment of what the PSNI might have said in telephone advice either as Gospel (pun intended) or as a sufficient evidence of investigation.

      2. If you’re referring to the 8 year old who was supposed in the room then fair enough. But if you’re talking about all the children in the school then why? Unless you saying that if he looks at gay porn he is a paedophile?

        1. Paul

          I am referring to the eight year old(s) who were in the room. Different media outlets refer to between 1 and 4 eight year olds being present.

          I am defintiely not saying that looking at gay porn makes someone a paedophile. Some people are trying to twist my words to say that – but cateogrically I am not saying that, nor am I saying there is any link between being gay and paedophilia – THERE IS NO SUCH LINK.

          As a gay man who is highly sexed and proud of to be out and gay, myself and my partner enjoy some good gay porn in the privacy or of our homes.

          However, this man did display gay pornographic images to a child or children. Every Child Matters. Its important we establish why he did this, what the nature of the images were and whether there are grounds for any other concern. That is all I am saying. We should not accept the word of the RC church that the police say there is no crime – there clearly could be, but an investigation is needed to determine that.

          1. And you don’t think that PSNI will or have already seen the photos, taken statements and come to a measured conclusion on the whole thing?

          2. @Paul

            We only have the RC church word that the PSNI are involved. Indeed one Irish media outlet states the PSNI have said that no formal complaint or allegation has been made to them to investigate.

          3. @Paul

            Well it appears the PSNI still have an active investiagtion with Fr MacVeigh as the major focus, so child safety issues will be resolved one way or another.

      3. I am inclined to think that it was an innocent mistake, however to allay any doubts, and because of reports of children being present, there should be an investigation, in that, his computer equipment should be analysed for images and the people present should be questioned about his reaction when the images were shown. This is not assuming guilt, but a reasonable response, when an adult produces pornographic images when a child is present.

        1. Thats exactly what should happen. The parents of any children present should be spoken to by child protection officers to determine their understanding of what happened and the priest should be able to give his account. If the analysis of the data stick and computer and the accounts bring nothing further to light that is of concern, then this matter should be left to the school and the church to take any action they feel appropriate (or none). If however, issues of concerns are established they should be pursued to ensure child safety. Its a huge IF, but until an investigation is complete – there is reason to have concern.

      4. I think most people are clear there is an issue of child protection . . .

        1. It appears not everyone, JohnK

  18. I must ask the question, if the images had been of semi-clad females would there be this debate?

    And how were the pictures indecent? We will never know!

    1. I guess the story would not have appeared on PN if they had been scantily clad (whether soft porn or extreme) females (unless they were lesbian or bisexual images)

      1. Not the point I was attempting to make. More, would it have even appeared on the BBC news or other sites?

  19. Paedophiles get turned on by children. At that age the only real difference between how the two sexes look is how they are dressed by the adults around them. Even so, there’s far more abuse of girls out in society than boys. As to why most abuse in the Church has been from men towards boys it’s pretty obvious when you think about it. How many priests get left alone with young girls on a regular basis? The opportunities to abuse boys are far more numerous, hence far more crimes of that type have been committed.

    Going back to Mr. McVeigh, are you suggesting that even if he is gay it means he’s a paedophile? Pretty baseless accusation to throw around that don’t you think?

    1. David, look at his log-in name. He’s a regular ‘contributor’ on the comments sections of PN called Keith.

      1. Until his comments are deleted by Pink News because they’re unacceptable.

  20. How typical, a priest does something that scares children and then turns around and asks them for money.

  21. Pedophiles are neither heterosexual, nor homosexual. They prey on children which is distinctly different.

    1. Although statistically speaking, gay men are LESS likely to be paedophile!

  22. Jess Hardy 2 Apr 2012, 3:14pm

    Well I think its a freudian slip, and a demonstration of the catholic church’s hypocrisy.

  23. Craig Denney 2 Apr 2012, 3:45pm

    What was it the Police said? “The Police Service of Northern Ireland said there was no immediate evidence a crime had taken place”

    Let’s get real! If a gay teacher had done the same thing they would of been suspended pending a police investigation.

    It’s one law for them and another law for us!

    1. @Craig

      No

      The Catholic Church said thats what the PSNI said. I can not find any media outlet giving a direct quote from PSNI, not can I find any mention on the PSNI website news area – regarding what they are or are not doing. I suspect the RC church have merely asked advice of a PSNI officer by telephone and that there is not further action happening.

      If a teacher, police officer, clinician, social worker, prison officer or similar had done this there would be a suspension (neutral whilst facts were determined) pending a police and childrens services investigation.

      Why have the RC church not take similar neutral action?

      1. The Catholic church doesn’t suspend priests who have actively raped children. Child care is not as high on their priorities as getting their hands on the kids’ Holy Communion money, it would seem.

        1. They should

  24. Another Hannah 2 Apr 2012, 3:57pm

    A gay father Ted comes to mind for some reason….

  25. If you’re going to post things like that Keith you should accept any consequences.

    1. Oh and there are going to be consequences, Harry ….

  26. @Keith — when you say “the majority of Priestly abuse is of a homosexual nature” have any credible evidence to back up your assertion ? Or is it just another of your fantasy imaginings ?

    1. Proves how damaged your mind is.

      Keep looking for that door knock …

  27. this is so funny….love it….go father MC Veigh…Go Fr Mc Veigh…..

  28. This is why you LABEL your memory sticks. I know I’ve made a similar mistake. I meant to show someone some pictures, but the pictures on that stick were ones I only meant to show myself late at night. I learned my lesson and I hope he did too.

  29. Miguel Sanchez 2 Apr 2012, 6:14pm

    I kinda fault the priest for not previewing the powerpoint once it had been put on the memory stick. Had he done this, it probably would not have happened.

    I think what he did wasn’t criminal but as I said abouve, he should have checked it.

  30. This man has willingly taken out membership of an institution that regards homosexual people as “intrinsically disordered”, i.e. mentally ill. We must not forget this. And this member, of such an institution, appears to have been exposed as reveling in gay porn. That is out and out hypocrisy and reason for shame.

    1. “… reveling in (online) gay porn”…

      The Internet is an epiphany in more ways than one, eh Eddy.

      ;)

  31. I wonder how many of the male parents were praying don’t let me be in any of those slides

  32. As reported in the Sligo News in the past half hour:

    “The Police Service of Northern Ireland said McVeigh remains under investigation and is said to be cooperating fully. The PSNI are investigating whether any criminal events have occurred and whether there are any other reasons to be concerned. As the matter is under active investigation then it would be inappropriate to speculate further at this time.”

    This indicates to me that the PSNI feel there is sufficient grounds to investigate thoroughly and determine whether or not a crime has been committed.

    I hope that it turns out to be a horrific and embarrassing incident for Fr MacVeigh and that he is exonerated on doing nothing more than making a stupid mistake. I hope that is all it is. We need this investigation to ensure that though.

  33. It seems that not just the clergy are homophobic bigots, but their congregations are too. I am disgusted by the suggestion implicit in the parents’ statement that gay people (or even people who are suspected of being gay) can’t be trusted with children.
    Nice to see that the whole point of the church is revealed by the priest’s statement that children should give their money to the church.

    1. Obvious why he ran away for 20 minutes.

      He went to deleted the porn from his computer before the police took it away.

  34. keith farrell 2 Apr 2012, 10:15pm

    The best part was, after having shown porn to the parents, he sill comented on money their children received as gists, and seemed to almost demant that some of it be given to the church. and they are trying to blame someone else for the porn being on the memory stick. You idiot dont you check things before using, of couse not because you thought your porn would be over writern

  35. Huffington Post are now reporting that the PSNI continue with their investigation (although as yet no crime is said to be disclosed)

    “Although the Police Service of Northern Ireland said there was no immediate evidence a crime had taken place, McVeigh remains under investigation and is said to be cooperating fully. The matter remains under active investigation and no conclusion has been reached about criminal or other matters at this time, said a PSNI source.”

  36. Ouch! I guess another deep closet case cought out…..!

  37. BTW, for those who are linking this to paedophilia; he was addressing the PARENTS which from the article were there without any children present..

  38. Poor man , obviously his computer was sabotaged by some protestant pro-gay activist who wanted to defame him.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all