So inquiries were made into the use of something that was no longer being used and because they weren’t used again we should conclude what exactly? Dr. McElwee says the college “said I should not use the materials “in case of sensitivitiesâ€?.” which would seem to be consistent with the Devine report but there again I have only his word on here that this is what the (the college) said. But since what he says and what the report says don’t clash why should we make the leap to the idea the college stated the use of the materials was wrong? Approaches may be taken in all kinds of jobs and they are discontinued or replaced by other approaches, it doesn’t follow that they were wrong or inappropriate.

Because it is clear on the matter in terms of the recommendations made by WIT and actions taken by the HSE when they heard that the slides were being used – this is what’s important more than trying to distract on why concerns were raised. The fact is that they were raised – when WIT did something it resulted in ensuring that the slides were not used again. The HSE didn’t support their use either.

12.8.1. That Waterford Institute of Technology carried out an Internal Inquiry into concerns raised by a member of the academic staff about the teaching materials referred to in 12.2.2 above. That the Inquiry concluded with recommendations that the slides in question be returned to their original owner, an Accident and Emergency Consultant, and that the material should not be used in the future. It is also a matter of fact that the Internal WIT Inquiry was carried out in the absence of knowledge of concerns expressed by the South Eastern Health Board.

12.9.2. …. The second recorded concerns which came to the attention of the then South Eastern Health Board pertaining to child protection issues touching on or concerning Dr. A, were raised informally with officers of the SEHB in late 1998. These informal concerns related to the use of materials by Dr. A for teaching purposes within Waterford Institute of Technology. The materials used included medical slides of injuries to children which are consistent with sexual abuse. The Regional Coordinator Child Care Services wrote to Dr. A on 21 December 1998 and expressed concerns about the reported use of materials and advised that these concerns had been discussed with the Regional Child Care Training Officer and the Director of the Community Child Centre in Waterford Regional Hospital. Dr. A responded by stating that the materials had not been used in two years. On the basis of that response no further inquiries were made by the South Eastern Health Board on this matter.

The case as outlined appears to be that a complaint was made for some reason (that none of us on the outside can be sure of) about content being inappropriate, on a course that the complainant didn’t see, a year after the content had been used and at a time when the complainant’s daughter was up for a post in competition with the person being complained about. And that the complaint of the material being inappropriate wasn’t upheld. These seem to be things that both sides agree on.

If I’m factually wrong in the last paragraph let me know but if it is as I’ve outlined it then I don’t see what this whole incident has to do with anything.

I have repeatedly apologised for the Amsterdam incident, but there is no connection between it and my use of the educational package nearly a decade before – no matter how hard people such as Dr. Finnegan try to link them.

I will return to this entire story i.e. Waterford and thereafter in another fora where there is a level playing pitch at a later date.