Magdalene Laundries payout.

[theskull1]

...oh seriously...thats changed things....so tell us what happened when the police were called at the end of the investigation.... they were called weren't they? Sure do some more research ......

[Tony Baloney]

...oh seriously...thats changed things....so tell us what happened when the police were called at the end of the investigation.... they were called weren't they? Sure do some more research ......

Cruel Dun Lathaí cnut.

[Eamonnca1]

[muppet]

My research informs that the oath of silence was also signed by Brady and Smyth,and was designed to protect the person against whom allegations were made,pending the outcome of an internal investigation,at which stage the oath of silence expires.This seems entirely reasonable to me.

Not true Tony.

http://www.awrsipe.com/Doyle/2008/2008-10-03-Commentary%20on%201922%20and%201962%20documents.pdf

... I do promise, vow and swear that I will maintain inviolate secrecy about each and every thing brought to my knowledge in the performance of my aforesaid function, excepting only what may happen to be lawfully published when this process is concluded and put into effect ... and that I will never directly or indirectly, by gesture, word, writing or in any other way, and under any pretext, even that of a greater good or of a highly urgent and serious reason, do anything against this fidelity to secrecy, unless special permission or dispensation is expressly granted to me by the Supreme Pontiff.

Interviewed for a television programme in 2006, canon lawyer Thomas Doyle described the tight secrecy demanded for the procedure as "an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy, to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by churchmen".[15] However, in the study of the instruction that he revised less than two years later he stated: "According to the 1922 and 1962 documents, accusers and witnesses are bound by the secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the initiation of the process.

[Lar Naparka]

My research informs that the oath of silence was also signed by Brady and Smyth,and was designed to protect the person against whom allegations were made,pending the outcome of an internal investigation,at which stage the oath of silence expires.This seems entirely reasonable to me.

FFS, Tony, why don't you heed hardstation's advice. I'm sure it was given with your best interests at heart.
This is what you just posted:
My research informs that the oath of silence was also signed by Brady and Smyth,and was designed to protect the person against whom allegations were made,pending the outcome of an internal investigation,at which stage the oath of silence expires.This seems entirely reasonable to me.

Could you tell me again who was the person against whom allegations were made?
Oddly enough, Brady is on public record as saying that the object of the exercise was to protect the children's safety.
Maybe you are genuinely satisfied with the result of your "research" but if Brady was released from the obligation to maintain secrecy, why then did he refuse to fess up until the media arrived at his door?
It doesn't take a canon law expert to spot that if the "internal investigation" was never conducted, the terms of the oath didn't apply. In idiot-proof language, if the conditions of the oath weren't observed, the oath didn't take effect.
Even then, he bulllshitted and squirmed and twisted until he had no wriggle room left.

This gets worse....
The text of this oath was kindly posted by muppet for your edification.
Take a look at this little gem:

and that I will never ..... do anything against this fidelity to secrecy, unless special permission or dispensation is expressly granted to me by the Supreme Pontiff.

When you went researching, someone certainly sold you a pup.

[T Fearon]

Unlike you "experts" I don't pretend to know the whys and wherefores of the investigation (could it be that insufficient evidence was found to proceed,or that Smyth cunningly exonerated himself by concocting an excuse).

My opinion is not going to be swayed on this matter by abuse from anti Catholics,so I will rest my case.

[HiMucker]

I am a catholic you are an idiot.  It is sheep like you that would allow the very church you love to destroy itself, which it is doing.

[Lar Naparka]

Unlike you "experts" I don't pretend to know the whys and wherefores of the investigation (could it be that insufficient evidence was found to proceed,or that Smyth cunningly exonerated himself by concocting an excuse).

My opinion is not going to be swayed on this matter by abuse from anti Catholics,so I will rest my case.

You are going to rest your case, Tony?
Well you will on me arse!
You are the one who keeps this crap going. I can never be sure if you are genuine or just waiting to see how many eejits have nothing better to do than keep you amused.
It's obvious that you don't know the whys and wherefores of the investigation although all of them are on the public record and have been for years.
Do you seriously expect anyone to believe the gibberish you've enclosed in brackets.
For the record, I am not anti-Catholic.

I just don't accept that Brady, Desmond Connell and their ilk are fit to lead the church anywhere. They treat the laws of god and man with contempt; they have left the church; not I.
You haven't attempted to address any point I've raised and I expect you never will. (Either way, I don't give a damn. Like you, I love to waffle.)

[T Fearon]

The crux of the matter is that I believe Sean Brady to be a decent humble pious man,whose pastoral service should not be judged in any way by one incident nearly 40 years ago,when he acted within the rules of his Church,when no one knew the extent of the widespread abuse, and in which he had no hand or part.He neither suppressed the allegations (unproven when has made aware of them) or attempted to distort them.

None of us know the full extent of the investigation,as I presume none of us actually participated in it,therefore I'm not going to swallow the spin of a biased and prejudiced media,on this or any other issue.

Also,I do believe there is a substantial anti catholic viewpoint on this board (some sick person rejoiced in the burning of St Mels Cathedral a few years ago) that would not be out of sync with the Orange Order.

[Mayo4Sam]

What do you think of this Tony?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/nuns-say-they-will-not-pay-magdalene-compensation-1.1464737



Nuns say they will not pay Magdalene compensation

Four congregations will not contribute to fund, which could cost State up to €58 million

Harry McGee

First published: Tue, Jul 16, 2013, 01:00

The four religious congregations that ran the Magdalene laundries have told the Government they will not make any financial contribution to the multimillion-euro fund set up to recompense former residents.

The Mercy Sisters, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, the Sisters of Charity and the Good Shepherd Sisters have informed Minister for Justice Alan Shatter in recent days that they will not pay into the fund, which could cost up to €58 million.

SF seeks debate on nuns' refusal to contribute to Magdalene scheme
Offer 'fair' says one survivors' group but another deems it 'a joke'
Magdalene survivors to receive €11,500 to €100,000

The Irish Times takes no responsibility for the content or availability of other websites.

However, it is understood they have said they are willing to assist fully in all other aspects of the package recommended by Mr Justice John Quirke in his recent report, including the assembly of records and looking after former residents who remain in their care.

A spokeswoman for Mr Shatter said he was "disappointed" with the decision of the four orders not to make a financial contribution.

He will brief his ministerial colleagues about the situation at the weekly Cabinet meeting this morning.

No comment
Three of the four orders contacted through a spokesman were not prepared to make any comment at this point in time.

The Government announced the scheme last month after Mr Justice Quirke had conducted an examination of the various options to compensate the women who lived in the laundries, many of whom are now elderly.

The minimum payment was €11,500 for women who spent three months or less in a laundry and the maximum approved was €100,000 for those who were residents for 10 years or more.

Groups representing the women argued that higher awards should have been made available to those who had been long-term residents.

There was no onus on any applicant to show they had suffered hardship, injury or abuse. Some 600 women are reckoned to be eligible. The scheme is expected to cost between €34.5 million and €58 million.

When the scheme was announced, Mr Shatter said taxpayers expected the four religious orders to share the burden and make a contribution to the scheme. He would not be drawn on the amount he expected them to contribute.

State apology
The scheme follows on from a full apology on behalf of the State made to the survivors by Taoiseach Enda Kenny in the Dáil this year, in which he said that nobody should have been subjected to the conditions they endured.

That apology came in the wake an investigation by former senator Martin McAleese into the running and conditions within the laundries which were in operation for the best part of a century.

The report also established that the State had played a significant role in the continued operation of the laundries.

[T Fearon]

Why should they contribute, or indeed why should the state? Let the actual perpetrators foot the bill.My grandmother (dead 30 years ago) lost practically her entire offspring due to discrimination in the North. They had to go to other lands to get work etc. Did she get recompensed? Will I, on her behalf? Should the current homeless not get compensated for the government allowing this to happen?

The residents of Magdalene Laundries got it no tougher or harsher than thousands of others in that generation, and just because a feature film was made about them and a load of high profile lobbyists on baord, should not place them at the top of any hierarchy of victims.

Bad and all as their lives were, in  most cases their lives could have been a hell of a lot worse outside the laundries.

[AZOffaly]

So, inflammatory/insensitive language aside, you believe that these women, or indeed any other abuse victims, should not get compensated from the organisation which oversaw the facilities they were abused in, until such a time as ALL victims of similar abuses get the same compensation. Is that a fair summation of your position?

Or do you feel that these women do not deserve compensation at all, because "Bad and all as their lives were, in  most cases their lives could have been a hell of a lot worse outside the laundries. "

[An Gaeilgoir]

Why should they contribute, or indeed why should the state? Let the actual perpetrators foot the bill.My grandmother (dead 30 years ago) lost practically her entire offspring due to discrimination in the North. They had to go to other lands to get work etc. Did she get recompensed? Will I, on her behalf? Should the current homeless not get compensated for the government allowing this to happen?

The residents of Magdalene Laundries got it no tougher or harsher than thousands of others in that generation, and just because a feature film was made about them and a load of high profile lobbyists on baord, should not place them at the top of any hierarchy of victims.

Bad and all as their lives were, in  most cases their lives could have been a hell of a lot worse outside the laundries.

Just one point, these laundaries were commercial enterprises and these women were slaves, who earned no pay, have on pensions and had no rights...........

In that case compensation for loss of earnings and pension rights are entitled to be paid by the two organisations who used this slave labour, ............

As for the "Holy and pious men" who lead the church today................i despair to think of where the church will end up!

[Lar Naparka]

Why should they contribute, or indeed why should the state? Let the actual perpetrators foot the bill.My grandmother (dead 30 years ago) lost practically her entire offspring due to discrimination in the North. They had to go to other lands to get work etc. Did she get recompensed? Will I, on her behalf? Should the current homeless not get compensated for the government allowing this to happen?

The residents of Magdalene Laundries got it no tougher or harsher than thousands of others in that generation, and just because a feature film was made about them and a load of high profile lobbyists on baord, should not place them at the top of any hierarchy of victims.

Bad and all as their lives were, in  most cases their lives could have been a hell of a lot worse outside the laundries.

Just one point, these laundaries were commercial enterprises and these women were slaves, who earned no pay, have on pensions and had no rights...........

In that case compensation for loss of earnings and pension rights are entitled to be paid by the two organisations who used this slave labour, ............

As for the "Holy and pious men" who lead the church today................i despair to think of where the church will end up!

You are wasting your time; Tony isn't going to answer. I've made the same points to him on a number of occasions and he refused to answer. Probably didn't read what I had to say- just smiling that he had hooked another eejit as he trolls merrily away.

[T Fearon]

I am answering your point, you're just not taking cognisance. Listen, employees rights were not high on the agenda back in the 50s and 60s. People generally worked in horrible conditions for a pittance, mills, mines etc,and many are suffering the consequences now in later life (exposure to asbestos etc).

So using that criteria there are thousands upon thousands of people entitled to compensation every bit as much as the Magdalene laundries employees.