Totally confused by this.Obviously the inmates had a tough time,to say the least,though an inordinate number of them seem to have smiles on their faces,judging from the grainy black and White footage, from way back when.
However my point is, back in the day,there were several groups treated inhumanely,and denied basic civil and human rights (working class generally,low pay, terrible conditions etc, northern catholics in general etc etc). Where do the investigations begin and end, and is this not creating a dangerous precedent in terms of compensation?
Your abusive friends have been busted. Suck it up.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 26, 2013, 09:47:07 PM
Your abusive friends have been busted. Suck it up.
+1
Unbelievable.
Basically you don't any investigations into any wrongdoing by the Catholic Church in Ireland. Would that be a fair asssessment of your position?
Wow.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2013, 09:32:39 PM
Totally confused by this.Obviously the inmates had a tough time,to say the least,though an inordinate number of them seem to have smiles on their faces,judging from the grainy black and White footage, from way back when.
However my point is, back in the day,there were several groups treated inhumanely,and denied basic civil and human rights (working class generally,low pay, terrible conditions etc, northern catholics in general etc etc). Where do the investigations begin and end, and is this not creating a dangerous precedent in terms of compensation?
I think the first two words of that post would have been quite sufficient.
I'm quoting it here to ensure it's preserved for posterity, before you delete it after having realised what a fool you're making of yourself by defending the indefensible, disgusting, disgraceful, evil acts perpetrated by sinister middle-aged "virgins" under the protection of your beloved church.
I assumed, after I'd read it, that he'd been fraped
I agree wholeheartedly that they should get compensated. One thing that struck me here though is that some of the same people who are on this thread criticising T Fearon for asking:
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2013, 09:32:39 PM
Where do the investigations begin and end.
Are the same people who were using the very same argument themselves on the British State Collusion thread, when complaining about Pat Finucane's family seeking an enquiry...
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 11, 2011, 08:04:38 PM
The Finucane's are one family. Why champion them? The taxpayer has paid enough.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 12, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
....it has been acknowledged that there was collusion and the family has had an apology from the government. That's a hell of a lot more than a lot of families have...Then there's also the fact that it's not just sustainable to have endless inquiries... so where is the line drawn?
How is the compensation decided?
All any group needs to get an inquiry and compensation is a few voices to start with,a film (with inevitable poetic licence), a media gratuitously hostile to the perpetrators and hey presto,you're in business.A wad of dosh and a perverse apology from the government of the day,who had nothing whatsoever to do with the abuse.
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 27, 2013, 12:07:04 AM
I agree wholeheartedly that they should get compensated. One thing that struck me here though is that some of the same people who are on this thread criticising T Fearon for asking:
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2013, 09:32:39 PM
Where do the investigations begin and end.
Are the same people who were using the very same argument themselves on the British State Collusion thread, when complaining about Pat Finucane's family seeking an enquiry...
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 11, 2011, 08:04:38 PM
The Finucane's are one family. Why champion them? The taxpayer has paid enough.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 12, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
....it has been acknowledged that there was collusion and the family has had an apology from the government. That's a hell of a lot more than a lot of families have...Then there's also the fact that it's not just sustainable to have endless inquiries... so where is the line drawn?
Actually my biggest issue with the post - the 'unbelievable' bit - was this part:
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2013, 09:32:39 PM
Obviously the inmates had a tough time,to say the least,though an inordinate number of them seem to have smiles on their faces,judging from the grainy black and White footage, from way back when.
It seems to imply that 'the children were smiling - what's the problem!'. It reads like a pathetic attempt to undermine the victims.
In terms of inquiries, there does indeed have to be a line drawn somewhere, and that applies across the board. If every individual victim (either of state violence in NI or religious institutions anywhere in Ireland) demanded their own full inquiry, it simply wouldn't be affordable/sustainable.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 05:23:54 AM
All any group needs to get an inquiry and compensation is a few voices to start with,a film (with inevitable poetic licence), a media gratuitously hostile to the perpetrators and hey presto,you're in business.A wad of dosh and a perverse apology from the government of the day,who had nothing whatsoever to do with the abuse.
Tony
Was it right for the Germans to pay reparations for the Holocaust? I mean, most of the people were dead and the Nazis were gone.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 05:23:54 AM
All any group needs to get an inquiry and compensation is a few voices to start with,a film (with inevitable poetic licence), a media gratuitously hostile to the perpetrators and hey presto,you're in business.A wad of dosh and a perverse apology from the government of the day,who had nothing whatsoever to do with the abuse.
Turning a blind eye to those you place in positions of authority to carry out these deeds makes you equally culpable in my opinion, but yes the catholic orders and hierarchy who oversaw this and more need hauled before the courts for their part in it, hiding evidence etc, etc should lead to jail time for some of them.
Tony and Stuart Hall would have similar views I'd say
Er I dont recall denying that people were severely mistreated in the Magdalene Laundries, or denying the victims compensation (though God only knows where they would have ended up had there been no Magdalene Laundries, in an era of few if any social services and little or no state aid).
I am merely saying there are countless groups out there who were also mistreated and abused, during the same era, and where will this all end?
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 05:23:54 AM
All any group needs to get an inquiry and compensation is a few voices to start with,a film (with inevitable poetic licence), a media gratuitously hostile to the perpetrators and hey presto,you're in business.A wad of dosh and a perverse apology from the government of the day,who had nothing whatsoever to do with the abuse.
At least you used the term "perpetrators" so (assuming some level of intelligence on your part, a jump I know) you acknowledge this unfortunate women were wronged.
Yes, you need a campaign but unfortunately it seems the state and their agents (quite often the Catholic Church) will not acknowledge or compensate for any wrong without the glare of the public spotlight.
Also the government apologised on behalf of the state, not themselves, a state that absolutely everything to do with the abuse.
In the end a couple of hundred k is small beans for being wrongfully incarcerated (which by any definition most here were), let along the forced labour and abuse that many suffered.
/Jim.
Jim, at primary school I and my classmates were all regularly caned, and I mean whacked across the hands with a stick violently, aged under 11. Should we be entitled to redress from the state, school, and Catholic Church who ran the school?
That's the point I'm getting at, where does it all end?
Should Britain apologise to Northern Nationalists for decades of misrule and failure to guarantee their rights?
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2013, 08:41:04 AM
Tony and Stuart Hall would have similar views I'd say
It's all whataboutery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222
Mr Aylett said his client had been arrested "as a consequence" of the investigations into Jimmy Savile, "who used young girls on a scale that is simply staggering".
He referred to the 1,300 complainants in the Savile case and said: "
Instead, in the dock today is a frightened and bewildered 83-year-old man answering for the touching - no more, no less - of all of 13, not 1,300, victims over a quarter of a century ago."
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 10:16:28 AM
Jim, at primary school I and my classmates were all regularly caned, and I mean whacked across the hands with a stick violently, aged under 11. Should we be entitled to redress from the state, school, and Catholic Church who ran the school?
That's the point I'm getting at, where does it all end?
Should Britain apologise to Northern Nationalists for decades of misrule and failure to guarantee their rights?
In fairness there is a huge difference between being caned and the ingrained institutionalized abuse that was facilitated by the 2 most influential organisations in Ireland.
Not really. Abuse is abuse, regardless of the scale. My late mother often said, and I quote, "we were slaughtered by the nuns at school". Where does all this end?
Also, as I said in a previous post (and I am in no way condoning the treatment meted out in Magdalene Laundries) but if a lot of the young women hadn't gone to the laundries, they might have suffered a fate a hell of a lot worse on the streets, as there was no social service structure at the time.Factor in also that a lot of the nuns running the laundries had probably been abused themselves at school etc, then you've another load of cans containing worms. What about the abuse of servant girls in bog houses in Ireland in the first part of the 20th century?
Last sentence should read "big houses" not Bog Houses!
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 12:42:52 PM
Not really. Abuse is abuse, regardless of the scale. My late mother often said, and I quote, "we were slaughtered by the nuns at school". Where does all this end?
Also, as I said in a previous post (and I am in no way condoning the treatment meted out in Magdalene Laundries) but if a lot of the young women hadn't gone to the laundries, they might have suffered a fate a hell of a lot worse on the streets, as there was no social service structure at the time.Factor in also that a lot of the nuns running the laundries had probably been abused themselves at school etc, then you've another load of cans containing worms. What about the abuse of servant girls in bog houses in Ireland in the first part of the 20th century?
Reading this thread Tony I think you really are jealous of any victim who ends up getting compensation. You show faux sympathy and then belittle their suffering.
Quotethey might have suffered a fate a hell of a lot worse on the streets
Quotewere all regularly caned
QuoteAll any group needs to get an inquiry and compensation is a few voices to start with,a film (with inevitable poetic licence), a media gratuitously hostile to the perpetrators and hey presto,you're in business
Quotean inordinate number of them seem to have smiles on their faces
I have never come across such a person before.
Haunting smiles on their faces much like these people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219304/Haunting-smile-girl-facing-Holocaust-How-Hitlers-PERSONAL-photographer-captured-history-plight-Jews-Nazi-occupied-Poland.html
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2013, 02:26:10 PM
Reading this thread Tony I think you really are jealous of any victim who ends up getting compensation.
I recently stumbled upon a blogger who has written a number of essays on the Hillsborough disaster. One of his pieces was on the type of people online with whom he crossed swords over the years (http://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/hillsborough-discursive-types/) who would deny black was white when it came to Hillsborough. Tony probably fitted into all ten of his categories when it came to his eagerness to defend the poor darlings in South Yorkshire Police against the thieving Scousers. But Category 8 works for Tony in the case of the Magdalene victims as well:
QuoteCategory 8: The 'What-About-The-Money?!?' type, AKA The Hillsborough Time-And-Motion Student.
This type of annoyance is to be found on most current affairs forums and the comments sections of most news websites, not just Hillsborough discussions, and it has to be said that wherever they comment, they seldom appear to be terribly interested in the subject that is under examination, or know a great deal about it beyond the 'bare bones'. The Category can be sub-divided into two types, but both are afflicted with the same cynical shortfall in moral curiosity.
The first sub-group appears to be made up of just general Neo-liberal conservatives. Their sole motivation for interceding in any discussion at all appears to be one born purely of concerns about the greatest crime they can ever picture a Government being guilty of. But what is this crime? you ask. Bombing villages of innocent people off the face of the Middle East? No. Selling arms to corrupt Third World dictators to assist in the suppression of their own populations? Good grief, no. Declaring falsely-based wars in order to steal resources and so quench the Western World's tortuous thirst for oil? No! Worse even than that! The Government activity that they object to most vehemently is this; the spending of... *GASP* ...taxpayers' money.
It doesn't matter the degree of seriousness or the enormity of the issue that is under consideration, a Category 8 will always be able to justify their desire to see the matter put to bed by simply grumbling, "Dear oh dear, I dread to wonder how much all of this is costing..." In the case of Hillsborough, they imagine it's a waste of money looking into it because it was so long ago and because 'everybody already knows what happened'. (It is noticeable that when you ask them to clarify what happened, they either can't answer, or they give a list of the familiar discredited ideas about crowd misbehaviour.)
Corruption, it seems, is only worth combatting when it can be fought against cheaply. Police abuse of authority, and all the oppression that that entails, are a trivial matter when set against the big picture. (The big picture is dominated by the image of heroic Middle Englanders with sword in hand and shield on arm, bravely leaping from Ivory Tower to Ivory Tower of a vast bureaucratic Governmental machine, fighting off the evil soldiers of the state, all in a bid to secure the greatest boon of freedom that the democratic world can ever bestow upon its people i.e. a cut in taxes.) These people are almost exclusively from the Middle Class themselves, as is intimated by their tendency, on the rare occasions that they have any information to offer at all, to link to articles on the Daily Mail or Daily Express websites. They have no interest in football, which is a matter of personal taste and thus not a problem, but also no recognition of the reality that the Hillsborough Disaster is a long, long way from being an exclusively footballing matter. That most certainly is a problem.
The other sub-group in this Category is more aggressive, and if anything, even more cynical. It is less that they are irritated by the expense of running inquiries into Hillsborough, more that they are unshakeably convinced of hidden motives that lie behind such inquiries. Quite simply, they are smugly certain that the Hillsborough Family Support Group, The Hillsborough Justice Campaign and Hope For Hillsborough are all run by grasping, opportunistic charlatans who are taking shameful advantage of the deaths of loved ones in order to extort money from hard-working Middle Class British taxpayers. Essentially, this sub-group of Category 8 is obsessed with money, but feels a desperate need for the good of their own self-esteem to believe that everybody else has the same obsession, and so have to project such motives onto any person they witness with a grievance.
In the case of the Hillsborough families of course, this accusation is not just shockingly cruel and insulting. It is also foolish, and shows a stunning ignorance of the decades of pain and frustration the Disaster's bereaved and injured have gone through while battling the stony-hearted British legal machine. Many of the families have in fact been compelled to spend many thousands of pounds of their own personal funds, small fortunes that they will almost certainly never recoup, in pursuit of justice. In spite of being constantly let down by the judicial system, and meeting repeated unnecessary legal brick walls, still they have persevered.
So let's apply a little logic, shall we? When someone whose only interest is money finds that the route he is following over many years repeatedly costs him a small fortune, and never shows the slightest sign of yielding a positive return, would he persist with it for half a lifetime? Don't be ridiculous. He would give up the chase long, long before twenty-four years have elapsed. If the Hillsborough families have not given up after that long a time, money cannot possibly be their motivation, and the fact that Category 8′s think otherwise only serves to prove that cynicism and realism are not the same thing at all.
Category 8′s are a sad symptom of the idiotic right wing cynicism that has gripped a large core of the British chattering classes for the better part of forty years. Their intervention in Hillsborough discussions is another that offers nothing of value, as it will rarely contain any information about the Disaster itself.
My views on Hillsborough remain unchanged, and they are undeniably that bad behaviour from Liverpool "fans" ( ie the same Liverpool "fans" that caused the Hysel carnage 4 years previously) caused the police undue pressure and fatal errors were made. Yes the Police made mistakes, yes they attempted to cover their mistakes (as all humans do) and that is not excusable either, but ultimately the blame, in my opinion, lies with the misbehaving fans. The scenario here is the attempts to blame the RUC and Garda for Omagh, letting the real perpetrators ( i e those who planted the bombs)off the hook.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 04:35:18 PM
My views on Hillsborough remain unchanged, and they are undeniably that bad behaviour from Liverpool "fans" ( ie the same Liverpool "fans" that caused the Hysel carnage 4 years previously) caused the police undue pressure and fatal errors were made. Yes the Police made mistakes, yes they attempted to cover their mistakes (as all humans do) and that is not excusable either, but ultimately the blame, in my opinion, lies with the misbehaving fans. The scenario here is the attempts to blame the RUC and Garda for Omagh, letting the real perpetrators ( i e those who planted the bombs)off the hook.
Take down that post you attention seeking fool.
So are you saying the Police weren't under extreme pressure at Hillsborough having to deal with unruly fans, and consequently made fatal errors?
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
So are you saying the Police weren't under extreme pressure at Hillsborough having to deal with unruly fans, and consequently made fatal errors?
No I am saying take down that post you attention seeking fool.
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2013, 04:52:42 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
So are you saying the Police weren't under extreme pressure at Hillsborough having to deal with unruly fans, and consequently made fatal errors?
No I am saying take down that post you attention seeking fool.
+1
Shameful
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 09:27:09 AM
Er I dont recall denying that people were severely mistreated in the Magdalene Laundries,
Yes you did. You said:
Quotean inordinate number of them seem to have smiles on their faces,judging from the grainy black and White footage, from way back when.
Quite an extrapolation from a few photos, wouldn't you say?
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2013, 04:52:42 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
So are you saying the Police weren't under extreme pressure at Hillsborough having to deal with unruly fans, and consequently made fatal errors?
No I am saying take down that post you attention seeking fool.
It's painful to watch, isn't it?
Quote from: HiMucker on June 27, 2013, 05:33:05 PM
Shameful
Maybe the police were all priests or something. Otherwise it's hard to understand.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 27, 2013, 05:59:22 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 09:27:09 AM
Er I dont recall denying that people were severely mistreated in the Magdalene Laundries,
Yes you did. You said:
Quotean inordinate number of them seem to have smiles on their faces,judging from the grainy black and White footage, from way back when.
Quite an extrapolation from a few photos, wouldn't you say?
I read it as an attempt to undermine the victims and the credibility of their abuse 'claims', which is mind-boggling, given that what happened is pretty much universally accepted. It's like the holocaust deniers.
He's like the Sun newspaper printing a story about the families of victims of the Birmingham pub bombings alongside a story about the Birmingham Six getting compensated after they were released. The implication was clear. The poor victims go on suffering while these good-for-nothing paddies walk about with their pockets stuffed with money.
Contemptible.
I was wondering Tony have you ever had your mental health assessed. I can help, send me a PM and I'll look after you.
Mental health fine,and judgements based invariably on logic and fact.Police under severe duress made fatal mistakes and inexcusably covered these up with lies.However that should not be allowed to distract from who was responsible for putting the police under duress in the first place.
Also have utmost sympathy for the 96 innocent victims of Hillsborough and their families,who I accept were entirely blameless.
You are beneath contempt. Have you even read the reports?
I have read the propaganda.Tell me very simply,why were the police under such duress that they made fatal errors? Who caused this?
Also why has there never been a similar investigation into the murders at Heysel?
That answer sums it up. Pointless discussion. And I blame you deiseach for bringing it up!
That's right,insult when you can't answer my very simple question.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 10:24:34 PM
Mental health fine,and judgements based invariably on logic and fact.
And here's me thinking you're religious!
Tony, I get the gist of the points you are trying to put across and I don't think you have intentionally set out to cause any offence to either the Magdalene or the Hillsborough victims and survivors.
Aside from conventional wisdom there are other legimiate views as represented by your posts.
Thank you.Certainly didn't intend to cause any offence to anyone.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 27, 2013, 10:41:56 PM
That answer sums it up. Pointless discussion. And I blame you deiseach for bringing it up!
It's a fair cop (so to speak).
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 11:08:36 PM
Thank you.Certainly didn't intend to cause any offence to anyone.
Sure aren't they dead anyway and they probably know it was their own fault by now.
Never ever said that.As always in all aspects of life,the innocent pay the price.
Fair play to ya, Tony; from one inveterate bullshitter to another, I know class when I come across it. Sir, you are one class act.
But sometimes I feel that you get tangled up in a web of your own verbosity and maybe, just maybe, you believe what you post on this board. I'm never quite sure that you're quite sure that you are not taking the piss and that you actually believer what you come out with. (I hope you know what I mean.)
Can I really take it that you think the Liverpool fans are solely to blame for the Hillsborough tragedy; that the police who were there to supervise crowd control can't be held responsible for the actions of the fans they were supposed to well, control?
I'd be interested in your take on the following:
I taught in a primary school in Dublin for many years.
When I began working there, class numbers were huge; I started off with 50 eight-year-olds in a rundown prefab. Discipline wasn't much of a problem because there wasn't enough room to swing a cat, never mind a boot.
When a class was going to the yard or to the gate at the finish of a school day, all walked in line under the eye of their teacher. Talk about orderly behaviour! Teachers were crowd control experts and the mass movement of bodies went off like clockwork every time.
However, as years went by, it became harder and harder to keep the little buggers under any sort of control. Eventually, it got to the stage where pupils didn't give a f**k about law and order and I guess the same could be said of the teachers.
Many times, some teachers beat the kids in the mad rush to the gate when the bell rang at three o'clock.
Luckily for all concerned, nobody ever got hurt in the mad scramble but I wonder what would be the case if anyone got trampled on or squashed when the stampede began.
Going by your logic, the kids should be held responsible if any of them got hurt because they weren't conducting themselves in an orderly fashion. It seems you are suggesting that those who were supposed to supervise their behaviour were innocent of any wrongdoing.
What do you think?
Lads, I think Tony has his opinions, which I find disturbing and disappointing, but I accept he has full right to have those opinions. However, due to the nature of that event, and the incredible angst it causes among people who weren't even within as Ass' roar of Hillsborough on that day, can we just not engage on it? Previous threads have almost shut the Non-GAA section down as wind up merchants as well as strongly held genuine opinions collided with the opinions of people who felt equally or more strongly on the other side. They descended into horrible, horrible threads.
So Tony, I apologise for reacting so strongly, but I do find your opinions on this subject pretty hard to stomach. However, for the purposes of shutting the book on this, I accept that you genuinely believe this way. I would just ask that we don't open this can of worms again. I include anyone who feels they need to challenge Tony on that, I think we should just steer clear of this completely.
I think Tom Paulin put it very well when he flew off the handle (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/20/poetry.features) over Germaine Greer attempting to show some emapthy for the Paras over Bloody Sunday ("thugs sent in by public school boys to kill innocent Irish people. They were rotten racist bastards!"):
Quote'I'm sure there must be a term in classical rhetoric for the act of losing your temper because it's the only appropriate response,' he insists. 'In the sort of Puritan tradition I'm coming from, there is the notion of "sacred vehemence", which is akin to Yeats's "passionate intensity". It maintains that if you don't get angry, you've copped out, and if you do get angry, you've copped out.' He ponders this moral impasse. 'Funny, that, eh? And, very, very English.'
Anger is the only appropriate response. But it gets you nowhere. I dragged it up again, and that'll be the last time.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2013, 10:31:49 PM
I have read the propaganda.Tell me very simply,why were the police under such duress that they made fatal errors? Who caused this?
Also why has there never been a similar investigation into the murders at Heysel?
Point 1: Perhaps it had something to do with a stadium set-up and police force that was ill-equipped to handle the large crowd at that end of the ground. Perhaps the game should have been delayed to allow the fans to get in safely (how often do the GAA do it, especially for the Dubs?)
Point 2: Are there claims of whitewash/miscarriage of justice with respect to Heysel?
I thought Liverpool fans got the blame. I thought a dozen or more were convicted of manslaughter. I certainly remember English teams being banned from Europe due to Heysel being the final, appalling, straw after years of escalating hooliganism on the part of English fans in general.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 28, 2013, 12:07:18 PM
Lads, I think Tony has his opinions, which I find disturbing and disappointing, but I accept he has full right to have those opinions. However, due to the nature of that event, and the incredible angst it causes among people who weren't even within as Ass' roar of Hillsborough on that day, can we just not engage on it? Previous threads have almost shut the Non-GAA section down as wind up merchants as well as strongly held genuine opinions collided with the opinions of people who felt equally or more strongly on the other side. They descended into horrible, horrible threads.
So Tony, I apologise for reacting so strongly, but I do find your opinions on this subject pretty hard to stomach. However, for the purposes of shutting the book on this, I accept that you genuinely believe this way. I would just ask that we don't open this can of worms again. I include anyone who feels they need to challenge Tony on that, I think we should just steer clear of this completely.
Tony has a right to his own opinions, not his own facts.
My final word on this subject. I have attended many events, in different countries, as part of a massive crowd.
When the crowd has been well behaved and obeyed instructions laid down by the statutory authorities, there has never been a problem.
It all boils down to moral culpability. Do you blame police incompetence, errors or the people who actually caused the trouble/committed the crime? The same scenario threatened to arise here over the Omagh bomb, when fingers were pointed at so called incompetence on the part of the Garda/RUC to detect the bombers on their journey to Omagh, rather than the bombers themselves.
To blame everything on the police force, and fatal errors made under extreme duress is merely to seek out a scapegoat in my opinion. Those who argue about inadequare crowd control, well FA Cup semi finals had been held at Hillsborough, on an annual basis, for years prior to 1989, without any significant problems.
At that point I will rest my case and once again express my sympathy for those who lost their lives. On my rare visits to Anfield, I never fail to be moved by the memorial to the victims at the stadium.
Quotewell FA Cup semi finals had been held at Hillsborough, on an annual basis, for years prior to 1989, without any significant problems.
Exactly.
Every year a large boisterous crowd, some of whom had been drinking. No deaths.
1989. A large boisterous crowd, some of whom had been drinking. 96 deaths.
What was different in 1989 compared with other years? Not the crowd, which was similar to football crowds for many other games. But the utter incompetence of the South Yorkshire Police.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 28, 2013, 04:54:39 PM
My final word on this subject. I have attended many events, in different countries, as part of a massive crowd.
When the crowd has been well behaved and obeyed instructions laid down by the statutory authorities, there has never been a problem.
It all boils down to moral culpability. Do you blame police incompetence, errors or the people who actually caused the trouble/committed the crime? The same scenario threatened to arise here over the Omagh bomb, when fingers were pointed at so called incompetence on the part of the Garda/RUC to detect the bombers on their journey to Omagh, rather than the bombers themselves.
To blame everything on the police force, and fatal errors made under extreme duress is merely to seek out a scapegoat in my opinion. Those who argue about inadequare crowd control, well FA Cup semi finals had been held at Hillsborough, on an annual basis, for years prior to 1989, without any significant problems.
At that point I will rest my case and once again express my sympathy for those who lost their lives. On my rare visits to Anfield, I never fail to be moved by the memorial to the victims at the stadium.
Tony, your argument is idiotic.
You absolve the police of wrongdoing, while saying they made 'fatal errors'.
With friends like you............
I'm not absolving the Police from anything.They should not have tried to cover up mistakes.
But who is ultimately responsible? The Police or unruly fans causing extreme duress?
There were European Cup Finals for almost 30 years before Heysel and no one died, but when unruly fans caused problems look what happened.
Little point in continuing this debate.The reams of stuff in the press/media haven't changed my viewpoint,neither has this thread.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 28, 2013, 07:24:11 PM
I'm not absolving the Police from anything.They should not have tried to cover up mistakes.
But who is ultimately responsible? The Police or unruly fans causing extreme duress?
There were European Cup Finals for almost 30 years before Heysel and no one died, but when unruly fans caused problems look what happened.
Little point in continuing this debate.The reams of stuff in the press/media haven't changed my viewpoint,neither has this thread.
So you're equating the behaviour of the fans at Heysel with those at Hillsborough?
It gets better!
I'm not.Just pointing out how ridiculous it is of Muppet to argue there were trouble free FA Cup semis at Hillsborough for years until the Police (as he infers) caused 1989.You could apply the same silly argument to European Cup Finals up until Hysel.
But you're right in ways,Hysel was an insight into what some Liverpool fans were really like and capable of,which undoubtedly fed into the Yorkshire Police's mindset and poor decision making at Hillsborough as a rapidly deteriorating situation developed.
I don't know anything about Hysel but Tony your opinion on the Magdelene laundry is disgusting. You should hang your head in shame.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 28, 2013, 09:33:30 PM
I don't know anything about Hysel but Tony your opinion on the Magdelene laundry is disgusting. You should hang your head in shame.
Just read back through TF's posts - what is the opinion you consider disgusting Myles ?
In my opinion the Govt should by all means give special pensions to the ladies that spent time in these laundries in recognition of the fact that the state did not have the social services back then to properly provide for such people and as a consequence these women were exploited. Big lump sum payments are ridiculous. Would you pay 1950s/1960s emigrants lump sums becuase they could not stay at home and claim the equivalent of today's SW entitlements ?
His opening post says it all in its first paragraph. Tony says the women "looked happy" even though we all know that many of them were terribly used & abused in those hell holes. Maybe Tony should re-familiarise himself with the evidence from countless documentaries and books about just what went on in there. He then tries to play down the abuse by claiming that loads of people had it tough back then. A lot of people weren't effectively slaves though, were they. Having read much of the rubbish Tony posts over the years its clear that not only is he an out and out biggot, he is also a staunch supporter of the catholic church no matter what and can't bear to call a spade a spade for fear it would imply his beloved church wasn't just as righteous as they'd have us believe. The fact the the government has to fork out the money is the bigger shame as some of the gutless orders won't do it just like many of them have reneged on what they promised for child abuse compensation. He might be entitled to his opinion but I am entitled to pull him up for it. You never know he might even send me another abusive PM like he did before.
I've not posted on this as I've no time for TF and his rants/windups/attention seeking.
But I'll just throw this in which highlights the problems of the ground at Hillsborough and the disaster that was waiting to happen, in this case it was avoided cause of actions taken. The same actions where not taken in 1989 cause of failure to learn from past mistakes and the inexperience of the man in charge on the day. I'm surprised he didn't mention this as he normally claims to know all about his spurs.
http://thehillsboroughdisasterdocumentary.com/2011/11/16/hillsborough-1981-disaster-narrowly-avoided/ (http://thehillsboroughdisasterdocumentary.com/2011/11/16/hillsborough-1981-disaster-narrowly-avoided/)
Remember that Spurs semi final well,2 all draw,and Spurs won the replay 3 nil,at Highbury,courtesy of a wonder goal from Ricky Villa, nearly as good as the one he scored in the final replay that year against Man City.I genuinely wasn't aware that there had been problems at Hillsborough that day,and to be fair I slept,ate and drank Spurs at that time,and can only say that this information couldn't have been given any media profile at the time whatsoever.
On the basis of this I may well reconsider my opinions.
Myles you're as anti catholic church every bit as much as you claim I'm supportive of it.I didn't deny the Magdalene Laundry victims were treated harshly, my point is that they were one of a number of groups who were treated harshly,and if they are entitled to compensation,so are a host of others.
So what you're saying Tony is that its correct that the magdelene laundry women should be compensated ? In that case, who should pay the compensation?
Leave other groups out of it,that's just a distraction.
I'm saying if they should be compensated,so should other groupings who suffered,but I'm not in favour of my taxes used to compensate anyone for wrongdoing which happened before my time
Quote from: T Fearon on June 29, 2013, 12:38:22 AM
I'm saying if they should be compensated,so should other groupings who suffered,but I'm not in favour of my taxes used to compensate anyone for wrongdoing which happened before my time
I'd rather the religious institutions paid for it myself.
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 29, 2013, 08:14:39 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 29, 2013, 12:38:22 AM
I'm saying if they should be compensated,so should other groupings who suffered,but I'm not in favour of my taxes used to compensate anyone for wrongdoing which happened before my time
I'd rather the religious institutions paid for it myself.
+1
Sale of land and churches. They could also transfer schools directly to the state. Brothers, priests, nuns etc. could remain in their posts and receive a salary from the government, many are good educators and there is no need to lose their services.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 28, 2013, 08:51:52 PM
I'm not.Just pointing out how ridiculous it is of Muppet to argue there were trouble free FA Cup semis at Hillsborough for years until the Police (as he infers) caused 1989.You could apply the same silly argument to European Cup Finals up until Hysel.
But you're right in ways,Hysel was an insight into what some Liverpool fans were really like and capable of,which undoubtedly fed into the Yorkshire Police's mindset and poor decision making at Hillsborough as a rapidly deteriorating situation developed.
I made no such argument. You did. ::)
QuoteThose who argue about inadequare crowd control, well FA Cup semi finals had been held at Hillsborough, on an annual basis, for years prior to 1989, without any significant problems.
You are now reduced to arguing with yourself, and you are still losing.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on June 29, 2013, 11:58:21 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 29, 2013, 08:14:39 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 29, 2013, 12:38:22 AM
I'm saying if they should be compensated,so should other groupings who suffered,but I'm not in favour of my taxes used to compensate anyone for wrongdoing which happened before my time
I'd rather the religious institutions paid for it myself.
+1
Sale of land and churches. They could also transfer schools directly to the state. Brothers, priests, nuns etc. could remain in their posts and receive a salary from the government, many are good educators and there is no need to lose their services.
The thing is, these women (Slaves) saved the state allot of money. Many of the semi-state and state institutions used their services. There was also money saved on Social Welfare, etc. These savings although not in our time can filter down in education, infrastructure and other savings that we now use or benefited from.
Other reasons include they should get compensation;Their Children being kidnapped from them.
Their Children being sold belonging to them.
Many suffered serious beatings and many died hidden in unmarked graves from such abuse.
The Mental and psychological abuse on these women could not be imagined, many who got out could not form relationships or have a normal sex life.
Many in such a vulnerable place were sexually taken advantage of .
Lack of a decent diet meant that many suffer serious health problems in their later life.
Being held against their own will (in a hard labour prison) despite not breaking the law.
Being held under false pretenses (many had never even pregnant or near a man).
Losing their identity when they entered (losing their name, cropping their hair and loss of civilian clothes).
Being subject to serious working hours (which resulted in vacuous veins, permanent burn marks, premature aging, etc)
Many who got out, found themselves detached from society and unable to fit in.
Being in such an oppressive environment would see a curtailment of personality development.[/li][/list]
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on June 28, 2013, 09:55:31 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 28, 2013, 09:33:30 PM
I don't know anything about Hysel but Tony your opinion on the Magdelene laundry is disgusting. You should hang your head in shame.
Just read back through TF's posts - what is the opinion you consider disgusting Myles ?
In my opinion the Govt should by all means give special pensions to the ladies that spent time in these laundries in recognition of the fact that the state did not have the social services back then to properly provide for such people and as a consequence these women were exploited. Big lump sum payments are ridiculous. Would you pay 1950s/1960s emigrants lump sums becuase they could not stay at home and claim the equivalent of today's SW entitlements ?
What state entitlements?
The state and the church didn't pay a cent towards the running of those institutions. It was up to the holy nuns to make them pay and this they sure did.
Magdalene laundries used slave labour so didn't have ages to pay and were able to undercut every other laundry in the area. Much of the land and property the nuns own today were bought out of the profits made by those laundries. I think it's only fair that they be forced to make restitution.
Government departments and state agencies saved millions by using those laundries and the state cannot renege on its responsibilities and refuse to pay the survivors they money they should have earned for their work.
There were no equivalent SW entitlements for any of the 1950s/60s emigrants. (or 70s/80s ones either)
Those women served life sentences in those slave labour camps unless some family member or someone of good standing in their neighbourhood were prepared to vouch for them.
Those who were "lucky" enough to be let out had no choice but emigrate. The state paid them nothing and their families and neighbours shunned them so they had to go to England in order to survive.
So a girl sent to a Magdalene laundry could never leave again or would be forced to leave the country if someone offered to take her out.
Ireland may have been a Catholic country but it certainly wasn't a Christian one.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on June 29, 2013, 12:57:27 PM
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on June 28, 2013, 09:55:31 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 28, 2013, 09:33:30 PM
I don't know anything about Hysel but Tony your opinion on the Magdelene laundry is disgusting. You should hang your head in shame.
Just read back through TF's posts - what is the opinion you consider disgusting Myles ?
In my opinion the Govt should by all means give special pensions to the ladies that spent time in these laundries in recognition of the fact that the state did not have the social services back then to properly provide for such people and as a consequence these women were exploited. Big lump sum payments are ridiculous. Would you pay 1950s/1960s emigrants lump sums becuase they could not stay at home and claim the equivalent of today's SW entitlements ?
What state entitlements?
The state and the church didn't pay a cent towards the running of those institutions. It was up to the holy nuns to make them pay and this they sure did.
Magdalene laundries used slave labour so didn't have ages to pay and were able to undercut every other laundry in the area. Much of the land and property the nuns own today were bought out of the profits made by those laundries. I think it's only fair that they be forced to make restitution.
Government departments and state agencies saved millions by using those laundries and the state cannot renege on its responsibilities and refuse to pay the survivors they money they should have earned for their work.
There were no equivalent SW entitlements for any of the 1950s/60s emigrants. (or 70s/80s ones either)
Those women served life sentences in those slave labour camps unless some family member or someone of good standing in their neighbourhood were prepared to vouch for them.
Those who were "lucky" enough to be let out had no choice but emigrate. The state paid them nothing and their families and neighbours shunned them so they had to go to England in order to survive.
So a girl sent to a Magdalene laundry could never leave again or would be forced to leave the country if someone offered to take her out.
Ireland may have been a Catholic country but it certainly wasn't a Christian one.
+100
Imagine begrudging the Magdalene Laundry victims on one thread while defending Cardinal Brady on another.
I'm not begrudging anybody anything.What about others of the same era,like the wives of drunken husbands etc? Were they not slaves and abused? What about catholic nationalists in the North,denied houses,jobs etc,in this same era? My point is,in Ireland and indeed everywhere else,there was much less scrutiny and emphasis on human and civil rights than there is today,so is it fair that one group should be singled out for compensation,and if not,where is all this going to end?
Quote from: T Fearon on June 29, 2013, 02:17:32 PM
I'm not begrudging anybody anything.What about others of the same era,like the wives of drunken husbands etc? Were they not slaves and abused? What about catholic nationalists in the North,denied houses,jobs etc,in this same era? My point is,in Ireland and indeed everywhere else,there was much less scrutiny and emphasis on human and civil rights than there is today,so is it fair that one group should be singled out for compensation,and if not,where is all this going to end?
You see that's the great thing about compensation. It makes the people who pay the piper more concerned in the future that this will not happen again. If you take compensation out of the equation you leave allot of people vulnerable and the culprits without reprimand.
Look in the scheme of things this is a small group of people getting smaller each year (because they are departing this life from old age) the compensation has a timeline and will cost the state less and less each year. The sad thing for many is this has come too late.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 29, 2013, 02:17:32 PM
I'm not begrudging anybody anything.What about others of the same era,like the wives of drunken husbands etc? Were they not slaves and abused? What about catholic nationalists in the North,denied houses,jobs etc,in this same era? My point is,in Ireland and indeed everywhere else,there was much less scrutiny and emphasis on human and civil rights than there is today,so is it fair that one group should be singled out for compensation,and if not,where is all this going to end?
You are begrudging the Magdalene Laundries victims compensation on the basis of whataboutery.
Classy.
Begrudgery isn't querying why one group is being singled out for compensation,which many others equally derserving aren't getting it! It's just pointing out an anomaly
Quote from: T Fearon on June 29, 2013, 02:17:32 PM
I'm not begrudging anybody anything.What about others of the same era,like the wives of drunken husbands etc? Were they not slaves and abused? What about catholic nationalists in the North,denied houses,jobs etc,in this same era? My point is,in Ireland and indeed everywhere else,there was much less scrutiny and emphasis on human and civil rights than there is today,so is it fair that one group should be singled out for compensation,and if not,where is all this going to end?
Tony, I've no problem agreeing with you that many other groups were victimised as well and, like you, I don't know where it all is going to end. I believe it never will. It could wind up with you suing me if things get out of hand. After all, you are a nationalist in NI and I am a citizen of the republic.
Discrimination and exploitation have been around since the start of humanity and there is chance that there won't be injustice and inhumanity until its end.
But why should this mean that the inmates of Magdalene homes don't deserve any form of redress?
Sure other sections of society were wronged as well but that doesn't mean that Church and State should be absolved of all blame in this matter. They both made millions at the expense of those incarcerated in the Magdalene laundries.
Each case of wrongdoing should be judged on its own merits; independent of all other considerations. In the case of the laundries it is easy to pinpoint the guilty parties but where should battered wives go to look for compensation? The nationalists of NI would need to go after HMG if they want compensation for the discrimination they had to put up with and so on.
But the fact remains that Church and State can be held accountable for the way the laundry victims were treated.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 29, 2013, 05:18:27 PM
Begrudgery isn't querying why one group is being singled out for compensation,which many others equally derserving aren't getting it! It's just pointing out an anomaly
Tony liability for battered wives is determined in the courts and usually falls on the perpetrator.
Liability for the discrimination against Catholics you mention could also be determined in the courts or politically.
Liability for the Magdalene Laundry victims is the outcome of a proper process in the South. I believe it should mainly fall on the Church but the State is also liable as it was responsible for many of the victims entering the Laundries.
The whole tone of you argument and snide comment about the victims smiling in old photos betrays your begrudger.
Well,yes,I am puzzled that the grainy footage does show smiling faces.This is incompatible with the life of misery, deemed to be so bad that it merits compensation.
At the end of the day,the government can be held responsible for everything that happens,as this case proves,so I would say that there will be a lot of aggrieved groups on the back of this now.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 29, 2013, 09:05:13 PM
Well,yes,I am puzzled that the grainy footage does show smiling faces.This is incompatible with the life of misery, deemed to be so bad that it merits compensation.
At the end of the day,the government can be held responsible for everything that happens,as this case proves,so I would say that there will be a lot of aggrieved groups on the back of this now.
Try this, a superior ordered them to 'smile'.
You are now arguing that because someone smiled in a photo it suggested they did not have 'a life of misery, deemed to be so bad that it merits compensation'.
Here is a photo from Jewish children in a compensation camp in WW2. Would you deduce from the smiles that everything was comfortable and 'they did not have a life of misery?'
(http://www.germancross.com/Concentration%20Camp/Concentration%20Camp%20Children.jpg)
Anyone who has ever worked in healthcare, customer service, sales etc. knows they have to smile when they are downright miserable.
Beaten wives/husbands are known to put on a happy face outside the home.
People who lose major sports events, fail exams, lose their jobs, contract life changing or ending conditions put on a brave face.
So why don't you think these people might not smile in a photo, they may be threatened to smile, they may be putting on a brave face or maybe they had the odd day were they were given an icelolly or a piece of cake and were briefly happy. Dictatorships are known to have often beaten people within an inch of their lives and then give them a treat, be it psychological mind games or moments of guilt.
The Nazis threated prisoners wonderfully the days the Red Cross came to visit.
Muppet,that looks like a photo of kids at a Championship game in the 60s.So people were/are ordered to smile? Yes,maybe for a family photo or something,but not for a spontaneous film crew.
Another point.Have any of the contributors to this thread got direct first hand experience of what actually went on in these laundries or like me,are you relying on the allegations of people who were actually in them?
Can somebody take this thread down Please! :-[
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 12:51:03 AM
Muppet,that looks like a photo of kids at a Championship game in the 60s.So people were/are ordered to smile? Yes,maybe for a family photo or something,but not for a spontaneous film crew.
Another point.Have any of the contributors to this thread got direct first hand experience of what actually went on in these laundries or like me,are you relying on the allegations of people who were actually in them?
Holy bejasus, Tony, and here was me just beginning to think that you just might be serious!
If by any chance you were/are, you should go talk to somebody in a white coat right away.
FFS, how many championship grounds used
barbed wire to prevent spectators going anywhere in the 50s/60s or at any other time?
Another thing, to have 'direct first hand experience' of what went on in those laundries, a contributor to this thread would have to be either a very old nun or an equally old inmate.
How many of either sort would you expect to be posting to this or any other thread?
You really should get out and about a bit more.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 12:51:03 AM
Muppet,that looks like a photo of kids at a Championship game in the 60s.So people were/are ordered to smile? Yes,maybe for a family photo or something,but not for a spontaneous film crew.
Another point.Have any of the contributors to this thread got direct first hand experience of what actually went on in these laundries or like me,are you relying on the allegations of people who were actually in them?
Fiona Doyle is familiar with that sort of attitude. Abuse can't happen without it.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/victim-vindicated-by-rapist-s-sentence-1.1071905
"I've waited for this day for over 20 years, since I first brought the first complaint to the gardai and the HSE. They were like everybody else, my school, my teachers, doctors - they let me down. Nobody would believe me," she said.
Tony, seriously you need help. You are clearly not right in the head. Maybe go start another few pointless threads and that might help you calm down a bit.
Magdalene laundries very sadly were of their time.The abuse meted out by nuns who had probably suffered similar abuse themselves in school growing up.Also you have to factor in the more robustly vengeful nature of religion in those days,were the emphasis was far more on punishment for sin (perceived sin) rather than compassion,and this method was perceived to more efficacious in terms of correcting and improving bad behaviour.
That is not of course to condone the abuse,but a simple statement of fact.Anyone of my generation will no doubt testify that behaving badly attracted a belt from parents or a cane from teachers.
Thankfully we have all moved on from those days,as evidenced in West Belfast last week,bad behaviour leads to an appointment with the local non statutory law enforcers,and a bullet in the kneecaps.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 12:51:03 AM
Muppet,that looks like a photo of kids at a Championship game in the 60s.So people were/are ordered to smile? Yes,maybe for a family photo or something,but not for a spontaneous film crew.
Another point.Have any of the contributors to this thread got direct first hand experience of what actually went on in these laundries or like me,are you relying on the allegations of people who were actually in them?
Check the properties of the photo. It is Jewish children in a WW2 concentration camp.
Tony, you are so far off the stage I am beginning to suspect something else is the problem.
Every chance he's just a fully assimilated roman catholic. Either way he needs help
Quote from: T Fearon on June 29, 2013, 09:05:13 PM
Well,yes,I am puzzled that the grainy footage does show smiling faces.This is incompatible with the life of misery, deemed to be so bad that it merits compensation.
Right. Who needs scores of eyewitness accounts and first hand accounts of physical and sexual abuse when all you really need is a few grainy pictures of smiling faces?
::)
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 09:34:26 AM
Magdalene laundries very sadly were of their time.The abuse meted out by nuns who had probably suffered similar abuse themselves in school growing up.Also you have to factor in the more robustly vengeful nature of religion in those days,were the emphasis was far more on punishment for sin (perceived sin) rather than compassion,and this method was perceived to more efficacious in terms of correcting and improving bad behaviour.
That is not of course to condone the abuse,but a simple statement of fact.Anyone of my generation will no doubt testify that behaving badly attracted a belt from parents or a cane from teachers.
Thankfully we have all moved on from those days,as evidenced in West Belfast last week,bad behaviour leads to an appointment with the local non statutory law enforcers,and a bullet in the kneecaps.
Yes it is.
Quote from: muppet on June 30, 2013, 12:34:41 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 12:51:03 AM
Muppet,that looks like a photo of kids at a Championship game in the 60s.So people were/are ordered to smile? Yes,maybe for a family photo or something,but not for a spontaneous film crew.
Another point.Have any of the contributors to this thread got direct first hand experience of what actually went on in these laundries or like me,are you relying on the allegations of people who were actually in them?
Check the properties of the photo. It is Jewish children in a WW2 concentration camp.
Tony, you are so far off the stage I am beginning to suspect something else is the problem.
I think so too.
(http://biosanctuary.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/crazy-cartoon.gif)
I love the way this Board tolerates diversity of opinion,without abuse ::)
Speaking of abuse, would you like me to post up that PM you sent me again?
Different me in those days.Don't let anything or anybody wind me up now.Have learned that everything matters but nothing matters much.Sorry I let you wind me up! :P
I think Tony is actually doing another competition. "Act Like An Eejit Online" and win tickets to kiss the Bishop's ring.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 09:34:26 AM
Magdalene laundries very sadly were of their time.
Didn't the last one close in 1996?
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 07:50:01 PM
Different me in those days.Don't let anything or anybody wind me up now.Have learned that everything matters but nothing matters much.Sorry I let you wind me up! :P
The politician's apology. "I'm sorry you feel offended by what I have said/done".
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 07:33:02 PM
I love the way this Board tolerates diversity of opinion,without abuse ::)
(http://www.woombie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/crying-baby-1.jpg)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 30, 2013, 08:13:01 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 07:33:02 PM
I love the way this Board tolerates diversity of opinion,without abuse ::)
(http://www.woombie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/crying-baby-1.jpg)
You are in flying form today, Eamonn. Either that or, like Tony, you have far too much time on your hands. ;D
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 30, 2013, 07:52:55 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 30, 2013, 07:50:01 PM
Different me in those days.Don't let anything or anybody wind me up now.Have learned that everything matters but nothing matters much.Sorry I let you wind me up! :P
The politician's apology. "I'm sorry you feel offended by what I have said/done".
...and will do again tomorrow.....
Some of them were abused even after they died.
QuoteIn 1993 the exhumation, transfer and cremation of the remains of 155 former residents of a Magdalene laundry in Dublin by an order of nuns clearing its land for sale sparked public outrage.
http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2013/0626/458949-magdalene/ (http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2013/0626/458949-magdalene/)
I see the Bethany home residents/abused are now moaning looking moolah as well,though you can't blame the catholic church for this one.Exactly my point,where is this all going to end now in terms of compensation claims,and surely if the Magdalene laundries inmates deserve compensation, how can the Bethany inmates be denied?
Should have thought about that when they were dishing out the abuse. Youse have been busted. Suck it up.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2013, 07:52:50 PM
I see the Bethany home residents/abused are now moaning looking moolah as well,though you can't blame the catholic church for this one.Exactly my point,where is this all going to end now in terms of compensation claims,and surely if the Magdalene laundries inmates deserve compensation, how can the Bethany inmates be denied?
Imagine arguing against compensating victims of the appalling Magdalene Laundries.
That is particularly sad but look at your augments which are even sadder:
1. Where is this all going to end?
2. Whatabout other stuff?
Yes,but why is the government compensating Magdalene Laundries and not Bethany? Now their leaving themselves open to charges of discriminating against protestants.
That's what happens when you open a can of worms. Should the current German government not compensate the families of victims of the holocaust?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2013, 10:11:16 PM
Yes,but why is the government compensating Magdalene Laundries and not Bethany? Now their leaving themselves open to charges of discriminating against protestants.
That's what happens when you open a can of worms. Should the current German government not compensate the families of victims of the holocaust?
More whataboutery.
The Magdalene Laundry victims will deservedly be compensated despite the despicable behaviour of the religious orders involved.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2013, 10:11:16 PM
Yes,but why is the government compensating Magdalene Laundries and not Bethany? Now their leaving themselves open to charges of discriminating against protestants.
That's what happens when you open a can of worms. Should the current German government not compensate the families of victims of the holocaust?
What is it to you?
General consensus is usually a good gauge of who deserves what, based on all these things you negate - documentaries, sworn testimonies, legal proceedings, government investigations, torn and ripped up lives.
And yes, you got what you wanted from all of us - a reaction.
Unless it is something that is personal to yourself, stop digging the hole.
Are you taking your cue from controversial sports analysts? This is a lot more serious.
Have a bit of respect for your fellow countrymen (in this case women) and stop rolling out every feckin local and international example to diminish the hurt and injustice they went through.
Very cheap, Tony
I am not diminishing the hurt they went through,I'm just saying that in those less enlightened times everybody experienced hurt,discrimination etc,some a hell of a lot worse then the Magdalene laundries.
So is everyone entitled to compensation? What about the parents etc who condemned their children into the Magdalene laundries in the first place.
Also it seems to me that the Bethany residents suffered similar abuse as Magdalene laundries,yet the government is refusing to compensate them.
Of course after the precedent has been set every chancer will have a go now.What about us all as descendants of the famine victims? Are we all not entitled to compensation? I would like someone to answer my original question.Where will this all end?
Whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout
Quote from: T Fearon on July 25, 2013, 12:18:44 AM
I am not diminishing the hurt they went through,
Yes you are.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2013, 07:52:50 PM
I see the Bethany home residents/abused are now moaning looking moolah as well,though you can't blame the catholic church for this one.Exactly my point,where is this all going to end now in terms of compensation claims,and surely if the Magdalene laundries inmates deserve compensation, how can the Bethany inmates be denied?
They can't.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 24, 2013, 10:11:16 PM
Yes,but why is the government compensating Magdalene Laundries and not Bethany? Now their leaving themselves open to charges of discriminating against protestants.
That's what happens when you open a can of worms. Should the current German government not compensate the families of victims of the holocaust?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22707483
29 May 2013
Germany to pay Holocaust victims new compensation
Germany has agreed to pay an extra 800 million euros (£685 million) to help care for Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust.
It is thought about 56,000 people worldwide will benefit, one third of them in Israel.
The aim is to help ensure elderly Holocaust survivors can live their final years in dignity.
Germany has also agreed to widen the scope of those eligible, to include people who lived in open ghettos.
The Jewish Claims Conference, which represents Jews caught up in the Holocaust and their descendents, welcomed the announcement.
"We are seeing Germany's continued commitment to fulfil its historic obligation to Nazi victims," said Stuart Eizenstat, the Claims Conference's special negotiator, in a statement on the organisation's website.
He said the main beneficiaries would be people whose "early life was filled with indescribable tragedy and trauma".
Stuart Eizenstat, of the Jewish Claims Conference, called the announcement "impressive"
A German finance ministry spokesman confirmed the details of the compensation.
Mr Eizenstat, who is a former US ambassador to the European Union, added that the move was "all the more impressive since it comes at a time of budget austerity in Germany".
The open ghettos referred to were those without walls but where residents "lived in constant fear of deportation by the Nazis", according to the Claims Conference.
The former West German government acknowledged the murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and began, in 1952, to pay compensation to Israel.
Last year, the German finance ministry said it would make one-off payments worth 2,556 euros (£2188) each to Jewish victims of the Holocaust who had still not received any compensation.
Many of them live in the former Soviet Union.
the religious orders should stump up half the cash (not sure if they have it though).
It is interesting to hear the gov asking/demanding/telling the religious order to stump up cash for problems the religious orders created....
I'd have yet to see them do likewise to the banks and get them to pay their 'share' for the issues they caused...
yet the gov doesn't seem to want to be consistent and do this....
hypocrisy - its a national sport here.
People were generally placed in these laundries at the behest of their families, with the connivance of the State to be sure. What contribution are the families going to make?
Simple point. There is a hierarchy of abuse victims (ie those victims of abuse at the hands of rogue catholic church clerics enjoy priority boarding rights on this gravy train), and now that the Government has decided to compensate Magdalene Laundries, the precedent has been set, and victims groups will emerge from every hole in the hedge.
As usual too, it will be the taxpayer that will have to stump up the cash.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 25, 2013, 02:28:25 PM
As usual too, it will be the taxpayer that will have to stump up the cash.
Do you pay tax in Ireland Tony?
Yes, to HMRC.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 25, 2013, 12:18:44 AM
I am not diminishing the hurt they went through,I'm just saying that in those less enlightened times everybody experienced hurt,discrimination etc,some a hell of a lot worse then the Magdalene laundries.
So is everyone entitled to compensation? What about the parents etc who condemned their children into the Magdalene laundries in the first place.
Also it seems to me that the Bethany residents suffered similar abuse as Magdalene laundries,yet the government is refusing to compensate them.
Of course after the precedent has been set every chancer will have a go now.What about us all as descendants of the famine victims? Are we all not entitled to compensation? I would like someone to answer my original question.Where will this all end?
Jaysus, I just saw this now.
Fair play to you, Tony; like good wine you appear to improve with age.
some a hell of a lot worse then the Magdalene laundries.You could be right but can you list any of them for my edification?
So is everyone entitled to compensation? Only those who qualify for it.
What about the parents etc who condemned their children into the Magdalene laundries in the first place.
What about them? That is a completely separate issue and neither adds to or detracts from the case against church and state. If one really wants to follow that line of argument, should all who had their clothes washed in Magdalene laundries be held to account also?
You could also throw in all who sold turf and coal to those institutions.
Great craic and all are strawman fallacies.
The case for redress against the nuns and the state stands on its own merits and is distinct from all other considerations.
Of course after the precedent has been set every chancer will have a goSo what?
In law, anybody can sue anybody else for anything at any time. Taking a case is one thing; proving it is sustainable is another.
What about us all as descendants of the famine victims?Well, what about us?
We weren't victims of the Famine so we are entitled to sweet FA. On the other hand, if you know of any survivors of this famine, get them to lodge a claim straightaway. ;D
Also it seems to me that the Bethany residents suffered similar abuse as Magdalene laundries,yet the government is refusing to compensate them.Dunno how this one is going to pan out as an appeal is going to be lodged but in any event, that is a separate issue. We are talking about Magdalene victims and whether it was right or wrong to award them compensation.
I would like someone to answer my original question.Where will this all end?
I presume it will end when all who are entitled to compensation get it. Nothing will be paid unless a tribunal or court decides that such payments are justified.
All laundries run by the mickey dodgers were highly profitable concerns.
They were able to undercut private laundries because they used slave labour and so didn't have to pay wages. The evil bitches enriched themselves at the expense of the women who worked there against their will. All other considerations aside, the prisoners should be paid the back money they earned the hard way.
Slave labour was prevalent in all institutions in those days. Long hours, pittance wages, sure it even led to a lockout!
If any Magdalene Laundry victim, can identify her abuser and that abuser is still alive, then they should arm themselves with the evidence and take a civil case against the specific abuser(s). That's the long and short of their entitlement as ar as I'm concerned. My real gripe is that modern day governments and institutions having to apologise and compensate for wrongdoings of their predecessors, that were not of their making.
As it stands all Magdalene laundry workers are going to be compensated, presumably equally, though no doubt some suffered far more than others etc.
Fair play to you down there in the land of milk and honey, giving up your taxes for this crap. By the looks of things you'll be doing it for years!
Yes, quite.
What is it about these abusers, peodophiles and rapists that you admire so much?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 25, 2013, 03:06:58 PM
Fair play to you down there in the land of milk and honey, giving up your taxes for this crap. By the looks of things you'll be doing it for years!
You have already stated that you pay your taxes to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, so this really is none of your concern.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 25, 2013, 04:06:30 PM
What is it about these abusers, peodophiles and rapists that you admire so much?
Birds of a feather?
I do not admire them, in fact they're repulsive, that's why I said if they're alive and there is sufficient eveidence, they should be pursued individually through the courts.
Quoteie those victims of abuse at the hands of rogue catholic church clerics enjoy priority boarding rights on this gravy train
A new low.
Slagging off victims of sexual, physical and mental abuse as: 'enjoying priority boarding rights on this gravy train'.
Tony your only agenda is to absolve the Catholic Church from its sins.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 25, 2013, 04:35:14 PM
I do not admire them, in fact they're repulsive, that's why I said if they're alive and there is sufficient eveidence, they should be pursued individually through the courts.
Pursued in civil cases? For compensation? I thought you were against compensation for the victims.
I am opposed to generic compensation schemes for selected victims,and the demonisation of entire institutions.If anyone was victimised by anyone else, cleric or otherwise,they should present the evidence in a civil court against the perpetrator.That way,those responsible are duly punished.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 25, 2013, 08:09:42 PM
I am opposed to generic compensation schemes for selected victims,and the demonisation of entire institutions.If anyone was victimised by anyone else, cleric or otherwise,they should present the evidence in a civil court against the perpetrator.That way,those responsible are duly punished.
Like Sean Brady didn't do?
Was he asked to do this?
Asked? He took deliberate steps to ensure it wouldn't come to court.
No he didn't.He carried out an investigation and reported his findings accurately and honestly to his superiors,in line with the organisational procedures laid down.He didn't attempt to suppress or distort his findings in any way shape or form.
Organizational procedures? Who gives a toss about organizational procedures, or "canon law" as your crowd pretentiously call it? It's the law of the land that counts.
As for "demonization", play me the world's smallest violin. The abuse was systematic, encouraged, and covered up at the highest level. The entire organization is responsible and I have zero sympathy.
Shame on you for defending these sick, twisted, evil mother****ers.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 25, 2013, 08:09:42 PM
I am opposed to generic compensation schemes for selected victims,and the demonisation of entire institutions.If anyone was victimised by anyone else, cleric or otherwise,they should present the evidence in a civil court against the perpetrator.That way,those responsible are duly punished.
I could agree with the first statement if it meant what it appears to mean. However, there's a neat sidestep of logic involved.
The implication is that "entire institutions" weren't involved in this instance.
That is patently untrue.
The profit made from the operation of those laundries was the main source of income of the four orders involved. All became extremely wealthy as a result.
Those frigging congregations are being demonised because of what went on in their laundries and in their names. What happened in them was official policy – no more and no less.
In an ideal world, individuals could sue other individuals and the law could take its course. But there is nothing ideal in the case of the Magdalene victims taking on the institutions that mistreated them.
Where would a victim find the resources to take a case against one or more of her former oppressors?
Even if she did have the money to pursue her oppressors through the courts, the accused would be backed by her order and would have the best legal defence that money could buy.
Something else is being overlooked here: What if the perpetrator was no longer alive; would the plaintiff then be denied redress?
Look; the bitches, entire congregations, owe the land and properties they own today to the slave labour they employed in their laundries and should be forced to make comprehensive reparations for their crimes.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 25, 2013, 04:06:30 PM
Yes, quite.
What is it about these abusers, peodophiles and rapists that you admire so much?
Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 25, 2013, 10:29:07 PM
No he didn't.He carried out an investigation and reported his findings accurately and honestly to his superiors,in line with the organisational procedures laid down.He didn't attempt to suppress or distort his findings in any way shape or form.
Yes he did. He didn't carry out an investigation. He ran a cover-up, the main component of which was the swearing of children to secrecy, meaning that even their parents, never mind the courts, could ever find out what his henchmen had perpetrated. An investigation is the pursuit of the truth of what happened in a given case. The swearing of children to secrecy, even in relation to their families (pause a moment and contemplate that) is the opposite - the pursuit of an attempt to ensure the truth is never heard.
How is the "truth" never heard when it is recorded in writing by the notary and reported to superiors? Consider also that the notary was recording "allegations" at that stage which were unproven.
Are you serious? The "superiors" were the ones who ordered the suppression of the truth. Talking about what was "reported" to the conspirators themselves seems to indicate that you actually don't understand what we're talking about here.
Quote from: Hardy on July 26, 2013, 07:51:35 AM
Are you serious? The "superiors" were the ones who ordered the suppression of the truth. Talking about what was "reported" to the conspirators themselves seems to indicate that you actually don't understand what we're talking about here.
He understands rightly, but chooses to block out logic, morality and decency when it involves wrong doing involving the Catholic church and Sean Brady.
That's not uncommon when the indoctrination runs deep in any faith or creed.
I am looking at this from Sean Brady's perspective, a young priest in the mid 70s, assigned a horrendous task in a bureacratic organisation, in which failure to obey orders or follow protocol could have catastrophic effects.
He met children, listened to them and reported the "allegations" he heard in writing to his superiors. If there was any failure to act it rests with the superiors, though this is mitigated too in that they didnt have the benefit of hindsight or detailed knowledge of the truly perverse history of the perpetrator at the time. If I was Sean Brady my conscience would be totally clear on this.
Another thing, what did the parents of these children think they were taking their offspring to meet Fr Brady at the time, for? Surely at the very least they must have known it was something out of the ordinary? Should they not have demanded to accompany their children into the meeting?
Is this not a failure on the parents part too?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 26, 2013, 09:21:53 AM
I am looking at this from Sean Brady's perspective, a young priest in the mid 70s, assigned a horrendous task in a bureacratic organisation, in which failure to obey orders or follow protocol could have catastrophic effects.
He met children, listened to them and reported the "allegations" he heard in writing to his superiors. If there was any failure to act it rests with the superiors, though this is mitigated too in that they didnt have the benefit of hindsight or detailed knowledge of the truly perverse history of the perpetrator at the time. If I was Sean Brady my conscience would be totally clear on this.
Another thing, what did the parents of these children think they were taking their offspring to meet Fr Brady at the time, for? Surely at the very least they must have known it was something out of the ordinary? Should they not have demanded to accompany their children into the meeting?
Is this not a failure on the parents part too?
So Sean Brady is a victim in this? I think you've highlighted why yourself and others have a different opinion on this - most people are looking at it from the point of view of the children who were abused and then silenced, whereas you're looking at it from Sean Brady's point of view.
I'd rather have been out of the organisation having highlighted to the proper authorities (with my head held high) rather than silence the children and report the allegations to my superiors and leave it at that (knowing the abuser was still free to carry out further crimes against innocent children - the children who are the real victims).
You are presuming way too much here. Was Fr Brady not entitled to think that his superiors would have acted appropriately? Remember too, this was the mid 70s, when allegations were few and far between and no one was aware of the extent of the problem.
The children concerned were listened to. They were granted a meeting and their allegations were recorded and passed on.
If at work, you, for example, observed a colleague stealing cash, and reported this to your boss, would you not feel that you have met your obligations and cleared your conscience?
I don't think it is a comparable scenario you are making.
Material versus someone being pretty much scarred for life and have demons that will probably run through generations of the family.
If your superior wasn't to deal with it through the law or indeed deal with it then the vast majority of people would speak up.
It's a power thing at the end of the day. These people had power and don't want to lose it. The "fabric" of what they are made up of is tested by whether or not they get the thing dealt with and lose a lot of face because it happened on their watch or they sweep it under their carpet.
Tony you do seem to defend the catholic church to the hilt here and on one hand it is admirable but I wouldn't be convinced that if another organisation you weren't brought up with , religious or not, were to be involved in something like this you would defend them.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 26, 2013, 09:21:53 AM
I am looking at this from Sean Brady's perspective, a young priest in the mid 70s, assigned a horrendous task in a bureacratic organisation, in which failure to obey orders or follow protocol could have catastrophic effects.
He met children, listened to them and reported the "allegations" he heard in writing to his superiors. If there was any failure to act it rests with the superiors, though this is mitigated too in that they didnt have the benefit of hindsight or detailed knowledge of the truly perverse history of the perpetrator at the time. If I was Sean Brady my conscience would be totally clear on this.
Another thing, what did the parents of these children think they were taking their offspring to meet Fr Brady at the time, for? Surely at the very least they must have known it was something out of the ordinary? Should they not have demanded to accompany their children into the meeting?
Is this not a failure on the parents part too?
I can see it from Brady's perspective also.
I am old enough to remember the absolute control the church had over the lives of ordinary people back then.
Trust me, the Taliban are altar boys by comparison.
Brady was a career diplomat- nothing wrong with that, I suppose. He knew damn well that a lifelong curacy in Hackballscross or the likes was waiting for him if he should step out of line.
The bastard had a choice to make.
Should he continue to move up the career ladder or get off it? He chose the former.
He put promotion before principle.
Like I say, I can see things from Brady's perspective but I don't like what I see.
I believe those who accept this individual's right to speak for the Catholic Church in Ireland have a decision to make and there can be no equivocation in this.
Brady claimed he was merely carrying out orders from his superior. It was an act of blind obedience without thought of the consequences for all children at risk from Brendan Smyth.
That's bad enough but the fecker has refused to accept that he did anything wrong. But he's no longer a messenger boy and the good people of Hackballscross can breathe a sigh of relief.
Ergo, he'd still do the same if the situation arose.
I don't think I'd like to have an individual like this coming in contact with any child for any reason.
Now, if he wasn't a fool he had (has?) to be a knave; a ruthless promotion seeker, devoid of any sort of conscience who put his career before his Christian responsibilities and would do the same again.
So, jackass or jackal, who is the real Cardinal Sean Brady?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 26, 2013, 11:00:58 AM
You are presuming way too much here. Was Fr Brady not entitled to think that his superiors would have acted appropriately? Remember too, this was the mid 70s, when allegations were few and far between and no one was aware of the extent of the problem.
The children concerned were listened to. They were granted a meeting and their allegations were recorded and passed on.
If at work, you, for example, observed a colleague stealing cash, and reported this to your boss, would you not feel that you have met your obligations and cleared your conscience?
Fr Brady was entitled to think that alright - it's a real shame they didn't report it to the authorities. However it's also a shame that the future leader didn't act when he realised his superiors
did nothing covered it up and actively allowed it to continue by moving priests to another parish. You never answered my question by the way - do you believe Sean Brady is a victim in this?
Your example of stealing money at work is laughable. I wouldn't report that to the police - there are many crimes I wouldn't report to the police if I found them out at work. However, if management in work found out about them I'm sure the person would be sacked for such offences rather than them being moved on to another department. On the other hand, if I uncovered a more serious crime at work, such as child abuse, then I would be on to the police in a flash with all the evidence I could lay my hands on.
"Last week I seen one of the fellas in our stores department in work abusing one of the trainees in the toilet. I reported it to my boss. I came in on Monday this week and the fella is now working in the accounts department. Ah well I have done all I can"
Catch yourself on Tony. Sean Brady should be brought before the courts for not reporting a serious crime to the police at the very least.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on July 26, 2013, 11:55:08 AM
I can see it from Brady's perspective also.
I am old enough to remember the absolute control the church had over the lives of ordinary people back then.
Trust me, the Taliban are altar boys by comparison.
Brady was a career diplomat- nothing wrong with that, I suppose. He knew damn well that a lifelong curacy in Hackballscross or the likes was waiting for him if he should step out of line.
The b**tard had a choice to make.
Should he continue to move up the career ladder or get off it? He chose the former.
He put promotion before principle.
Like I say, I can see things from Brady's perspective but I don't like what I see.
I believe those who accept this individual's right to speak for the Catholic Church in Ireland have a decision to make and there can be no equivocation in this.
Brady claimed he was merely carrying out orders from his superior. It was an act of blind obedience without thought of the consequences for all children at risk from Brendan Smyth.
That's bad enough but the fecker has refused to accept that he did anything wrong. But he's no longer a messenger boy and the good people of Hackballscross can breathe a sigh of relief.
Ergo, he'd still do the same if the situation arose.
I don't think I'd like to have an individual like this coming in contact with any child for any reason.
Now, if he wasn't a fool he had (has?) to be a knave; a ruthless promotion seeker, devoid of any sort of conscience who put his career before his Christian responsibilities and would do the same again.
So, jackass or jackal, who is the real Cardinal Sean Brady?
This is EXACTLY my take on Sean Brady. He's no dozer
I am not defending the catholic church, like every other organisation on this planet, comprised of humans, it has made serious mistakes, has had and still has its share of despicable members (some of whom wear the cloth), etc.
I think you are all confusing a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now.
For the umpteenth time I will repeat, he interviewed children who made "allegations" (as yet unproven) against a certain priest, and reported thse accurately and speedily to his superiors, following established protocol, right or wrong as it may have been. He was perfectly entitled to a) think that this report would have been acted upon appropriately and b) he was in all probability not privy to the decisions of his superiors on receipt and consideration of his report.
It is very easy to sit and criticise someone for an action nearly 40 years ago, armed with all the knowledge etc in possession now, but to truly understand this case, you have to set aside that and put yourself in the shoes of a young priest back in the mid 70s.
Sean Brady knew the part he had to play to please his masters and he has been well rewarded for his subservience to the upper echelons. He has long since been part of the aristocracy and his record in that regard is just as damning.
Only brainwashed fools see otherwise.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 26, 2013, 02:11:34 PM
I am not defending the catholic church, like every other organisation on this planet, comprised of humans, it has made serious mistakes, has had and still has its share of despicable members (some of whom wear the cloth), etc.
I think you are all confusing a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now.
For the umpteenth time I will repeat, he interviewed children who made "allegations" (as yet unproven) against a certain priest, and reported thse accurately and speedily to his superiors, following established protocol, right or wrong as it may have been. He was perfectly entitled to a) think that this report would have been acted upon appropriately and b) he was in all probability not privy to the decisions of his superiors on receipt and consideration of his report.
It is very easy to sit and criticise someone for an action nearly 40 years ago, armed with all the knowledge etc in possession now, but to truly understand this case, you have to set aside that and put yourself in the shoes of a young priest back in the mid 70s.
Now, now, Tony, where are you going with your "all?"
This is what I wrote in my last post and it's what I wrote in other topics as well.
I can see it from Brady's perspective also.
I am old enough to remember the absolute control the church had over the lives of ordinary people back then. And or one more time, I say I can understand what he did and why he did it but I despise him for being a Pontius Pilate and washing his hands of the affair.
What he did then was heinous but what he is up to now is many times worse.
"the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady," as you term him, has refused to acknowledge that what he did back then was wrong in any way.
His attitude has not changed in the interim so you are the one who confuses "a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now."
There has been no change; he is still at heart the same Sean Brady who swore those kids to secrecy and then sat on his hands.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on July 26, 2013, 03:01:40 PM
What he did then was heinous but what he is up to now is many times worse.
"the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady," as you term him, has refused to acknowledge that what he did back then was wrong in any way.
His attitude has not changed in the interim so you are the one who confuses "a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now."
Well said. I'm sure that, in his heart, Seán Brady knows he screwed up. A true Christian would admit to his failure to speak out when confronted by evil. To err is human etc. But the Prince of the Church won't offer up any hostages to fortune. By his own standards, he will pay a very heavy price on the Day of Reckoning for his cowardice.
Quote from: deiseach on July 26, 2013, 03:18:36 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on July 26, 2013, 03:01:40 PM
What he did then was heinous but what he is up to now is many times worse.
"the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady," as you term him, has refused to acknowledge that what he did back then was wrong in any way.
His attitude has not changed in the interim so you are the one who confuses "a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now."
Well said. I'm sure that, in his heart, Seán Brady knows he screwed up. A true Christian would admit to his failure to speak out when confronted by evil. To err is human etc. But the Prince of the Church won't offer up any hostages to fortune. By his own standards, he will pay a very heavy price on the Day of Reckoning for his cowardice.
A couple of decades of the rosary and a blessing from an equally accountable colleague and he'll be getting his soul cleansed enough to pass through the pearly gates. These lads are almost angel like don't you know?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 26, 2013, 02:11:34 PM
I am not defending the catholic church, like every other organisation on this planet, comprised of humans, it has made serious mistakes, has had and still has its share of despicable members (some of whom wear the cloth), etc.
I think you are all confusing a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now.
For the umpteenth time I will repeat, he interviewed children who made "allegations" (as yet unproven) against a certain priest, and reported thse accurately and speedily to his superiors, following established protocol, right or wrong as it may have been. He was perfectly entitled to a) think that this report would have been acted upon appropriately and b) he was in all probability not privy to the decisions of his superiors on receipt and consideration of his report.
It is very easy to sit and criticise someone for an action nearly 40 years ago, armed with all the knowledge etc in possession now, but to truly understand this case, you have to set aside that and put yourself in the shoes of a young priest back in the mid 70s.
just to clarify at the time Sean brady was 35 there was nothing young about him.
All relative. Believe me, back then a 35 year old priest was a mere novice. I remember a 35 year old priest was appointed President of our School in 1976, and his age made headlines all over Ireland.
I will rest my case in the fact that any objective person (ie one without any gratuitous axe to grind against the Catholic Church ) recognises Sean Brady's conscience is clear, or as the eminent non catholic Religious correspondent of the Belfast Telegraph recently described him "a thoroughly decent and honest man caught up in a horrendous situation not of his own making".
The acid test is the laack of action taken by the Garda and PSNI, who by not arresting him obviously consider him to be innocent of any charge that would stand up in court.
By 1975 Sean Brady had a degree a post grad and a doctorate. he had lived in Rome for 7 years and had been a secondary school teacher for another 7 years. he was intelligent, educated, traveled and had experience of working with young people.
far from being a novice he was probably the most sophisticated and intelligent priest involved in the cover up. his role was not to be a lackey for the big boys but to be the brains of the operation making sure it all went to plan. which from the Church's point of view it did (for a while).
Quote from: johnneycool on July 26, 2013, 03:22:49 PM
A couple of decades of the rosary and a blessing from an equally accountable colleague and he'll be getting his soul cleansed enough to pass through the pearly gates. These lads are almost angel like don't you know?
You might well be right. And that's the most depressing thing of all.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 26, 2013, 03:40:17 PM
All relative. Believe me, back then a 35 year old priest was a mere novice. I remember a 35 year old priest was appointed President of our School in 1976, and his age made headlines all over Ireland.
I will rest my case in the fact that any objective person (ie one without any gratuitous axe to grind against the Catholic Church ) recognises Sean Brady's conscience is clear, or as the eminent non catholic Religious correspondent of the Belfast Telegraph recently described him "a thoroughly decent and honest man caught up in a horrendous situation not of his own making".
The acid test is the laack of action taken by the Garda and PSNI, who by not arresting him obviously consider him to be innocent of any charge that would stand up in court.
Brendan Smyth went on to abuse over a 100 more children after Sean Brady had the original victims take an oath of silence.
You repeat over and over again the mantra that he reported 'accurately and speedily' to his superiors as if it means something. It doesn't mean anything. Crucially each time, you leave out the key event where Brady had the boys take an oath of silence. Does the current mantra require the faithful to ignore the oath of silence or is it just yourself?
Also Brady himself, last year, admitted that he should have told the parents.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cardinal-sean-brady-says-sorry-but-wont-resign-26851189.html (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cardinal-sean-brady-says-sorry-but-wont-resign-26851189.html)
If, by his own admission, he should have told the parents, then surely he is de facto conceding that the oath of silence was also wrong?
I think our Tony took an oath of silence on admitting the wrongdoings of his beloved cult.
Quote from: guy crouchback on July 26, 2013, 03:53:48 PM
By 1975 Sean Brady had a degree a post grad and a doctorate. he had lived in Rome for 7 years and had been a secondary school teacher for another 7 years. he was intelligent, educated, traveled and had experience of working with young people.
far from being a novice he was probably the most sophisticated and intelligent priest involved in the cover up. his role was not to be a lackey for the big boys but to be the brains of the operation making sure it all went to plan. which from the Church's point of view it did (for a while).
What was his degree, post grad and doctorate in?
I'm sure it was about as credible as this https://www.icr.org/education/ (https://www.icr.org/education/)
I do not know the reason for the oath of silence.It seems like an archaic obligation.Perhaps it was intended for the best possible reasons,in that the Church at the time felt better able to handle controversies in private.In any event the parents could and should have intervened,oath of silence or not.
As I say it is very easy to criticise with the benefit of nearly 40 years hindsight and knowing the full extent of Smyth's crimes and downright depravity.
There is no doubt with the level of hatred displayed against Sean Brady on this thread,that a stranger could be forgiven for thinking that he was Brendan Smyth himself,instead of a relatively young priest,totally unprepared for dealing with a nightmare situation,and at the very worst,mishandled that situation.We've all been there,none of us are perfect,but like the non catholic religious correspondent of the Belfast Telegraph, I firmly believe that Sean Brady is an eminently decent man,who has served both his church and flock well.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 26, 2013, 07:28:47 PM
I do not know the reason for the oath of silence.It seems like an archaic obligation.Perhaps it was intended for the best possible reasons,in that the Church at the time felt better able to handle controversies in private.In any event the parents could and should have intervened,oath of silence or not.
As I say it is very easy to criticise with the benefit of nearly 40 years hindsight and knowing the full extent of Smyth's crimes and downright depravity.
There is no doubt with the level of hatred displayed against Sean Brady on this thread,that a stranger could be forgiven for thinking that he was Brendan Smyth himself,instead of a relatively young priest,totally unprepared for dealing with a nightmare situation,and at the very worst,mishandled that situation.We've all been there,none of us are perfect,but like the non catholic religious correspondent of the Belfast Telegraph, I firmly believe that Sean Brady is an eminently decent man,who has served both his church and flock well.
Funny how you view the parents of the abused as culpable, and Brady as a victim.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 26, 2013, 07:28:47 PM
I do not know the reason for the oath of silence.
I stopped reading right there.
(http://picardfacepalm.com/picard-facepalm-hotlink.jpg)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on July 26, 2013, 08:32:01 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 26, 2013, 07:28:47 PM
I do not know the reason for the oath of silence.
I stopped reading right there.
I actually got as far as this:
QuotePerhaps it was intended for the best possible reasons,in that the Church at the time felt better able to handle controversies in private.
I wish I'd stopped where you did.
Quote from: hardstation on June 30, 2013, 12:54:28 AM
Tony,
In the name of Sweet Suffering Jesus Christ.......................
hardstation
This +100
It's painful to watch, isn't it?
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.
...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 ......
Quote from: theskull1 on July 28, 2013, 12:12:06 AM
...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.
(http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u513/albruckner1/3569f493-9028-4f8f-8670-c3ece5b93e6d_zpsaf7b56f7.jpg)
Quote from: T Fearon on July 27, 2013, 11:36:56 PM
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 (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.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 27, 2013, 11:36:56 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 28, 2013, 10:23:28 AM
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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. "
Quote from: T Fearon on July 29, 2013, 04:01:59 PM
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!
Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on July 30, 2013, 01:35:28 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 29, 2013, 04:01:59 PM
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.
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.
You know many classify Paisley as a "good man"
He's in the House of Lords,while Muslim hate clerics are deported.
To many Christian people he's a good man. Using your form of argumentation that must mean he is and we should not look at any evidence to suggest otherwise. And to call a man of god a bastard..... well!!!!....can you imagine how offensive that is to all that share his deeply held religious beliefs? He's a good man surely .....let's not look for reasons to suggest otherwise.. but sadly i know your sort....you've obviously got it in for prods
Quote from: T Fearon on July 28, 2013, 03:05:19 PM
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.
But....Sean Brady, when first challenged on his role in the whole cover up in 2010, made his argument that he was not responsible for the individuals involved, and stated he would resign if further evidence came to light that his and the church actions at the time had resulted in further abuse.
Last year, 27 cases of abuse were investigated and reported due to the direct actions taken at the time and guess what? He didn't resign. Did he promise this in 2010 to get himself through a rough patch?
So, leaving all responsibility and wrongdoing in the seventies aside, he is not a man of his word, and his integrity is zero.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 30, 2013, 03:49:56 PM
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.
FFS, Tony; here you go again!
I do take due cognisance of what you have to say.
The problem is that what you have to say here is BS!
Listen, employees rights were not high on the agenda back in the 50s and 60s.They certainly weren't but what's that got to do with the topic?
You are comparing "employees" to prisoners.
People generally worked in horrible conditions for a pittance, mills, mines etc,They sure did but, once again, what has that got to do with the plight of those who were incarcerated by the holy nuns?
They weren't working for a pittance. They were working for sweet FA.
many are suffering the consequences now in later life (exposure to asbestos etc).
They are indeed but a legal precedent has been set in the republic.
Anyone who can prove that he/she was suffered any injuries or debilities of a general nature because of negligence on the part of their employers can pursue a case for redress through the courts.
However, the case must be taken against the employers in question and not the state or any other entity/agency.
That doesn't mean that a case may not be brought against the state under any circumstances.
All of this came about as a result of claims made by a large number of ex-soldiers about 12 years ago who claimed that their hearing had been permanently impaired when they were forced to operate artillery in training exercises without the protection of ear muffs.
The Dept. of Defence pleaded innocence in this case claiming that officers in charge were unaware of the potential consequences of such manoeuvres.
The Dept. also tried to peddle the line of bullshit that you are using here: Every worker had a hard time: social conscience wasn't the same back them etc. etc.
However, it was held that the soldiers' commanding officers refused to hand out the ear muffs because they wanted to save money by not having to buy them.
Ergo, the state was negligent and had to cough up.
So, any of the workers you feel were exploited in some way back in the Magdalene laundry days can seek damages from their employers. (That is, if the employers are still around.)
The (un)holy nuns are still around; the state is still around and the latter has admitted its culpability and coughed up.
The Mickey dodgers may have to be pursued through the courts to prise some of the money they got through immoral and illegal means out of their grasping hands.
They can run but they can't hide.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on July 31, 2013, 11:29:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 30, 2013, 03:49:56 PM
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.
FFS, Tony; here you go again!
I do take due cognisance of what you have to say.
The problem is that what you have to say here is BS!
Listen, employees rights were not high on the agenda back in the 50s and 60s.
They certainly weren't but what's that got to do with the topic?
You are comparing "employees" to prisoners.
People generally worked in horrible conditions for a pittance, mills, mines etc,
They sure did but, once again, what has that got to do with the plight of those who were incarcerated by the holy nuns?
They weren't working for a pittance. They were working for sweet FA.
many are suffering the consequences now in later life (exposure to asbestos etc).
They are indeed but a legal precedent has been set in the republic.
Anyone who can prove that he/she was suffered any injuries or debilities of a general nature because of negligence on the part of their employers can pursue a case for redress through the courts.
However, the case must be taken against the employers in question and not the state or any other entity/agency.
That doesn't mean that a case may not be brought against the state under any circumstances.
All of this came about as a result of claims made by a large number of ex-soldiers about 12 years ago who claimed that their hearing had been permanently impaired when they were forced to operate artillery in training exercises without the protection of ear muffs.
The Dept. of Defence pleaded innocence in this case claiming that officers in charge were unaware of the potential consequences of such manoeuvres.
The Dept. also tried to peddle the line of bullshit that you are using here: Every worker had a hard time: social conscience wasn't the same back them etc. etc.
However, it was held that the soldiers' commanding officers refused to hand out the ear muffs because they wanted to save money by not having to buy them.
Ergo, the state was negligent and had to cough up.
So, any of the workers you feel were exploited in some way back in the Magdalene laundry days can seek damages from their employers. (That is, if the employers are still around.)
The (un)holy nuns are still around; the state is still around and the latter has admitted its culpability and coughed up.
The Mickey dodgers may have to be pursued through the courts to prise some of the money they got through immoral and illegal means out of their grasping hands.
They can run but they can't hide.
Bang on.........
The "Holy" orders have plenty of assets here, maybe there is a case for CAB to get involved, as these assets are the proceeds of a crime..............
An example close to home, Cluain Caitriona in Castlebar, a state of the art nursing home, built by the nuns and now been run by a private company, i wonder who benefits from the profits been made there?
There are i believe 10 nuns been looked after there, the rest private patients.
The gist of Fearon's attitude seems to be the same as Hermann Goering during his trial at Nuremburg. i.e. we were the legitimate government of Germany at the time and don't have to account for our actions to people who murdered in the millions or locked up hundreds of thousands of its own citizens without trial for years. This position does have a certain logic to it, and any attempt to break it down could fall foul of Godwin's Law. The problem with this defence is that the law in Ireland at the time did not permit slavery or indentured servitude. People were given into the care of the Magdalene laundries with the expectation that they'd be given a roof over their head, three square meals a day, have the chance to learn productive skills, and leave as soon as they were ready. Even by the standards of the time the Magdalene laundries were a disgrace, and everyone knew it. My grandmother had great time for a neighbour of hers, and it was only in the last couple of years that I was told the story that was at the heart of this respect. He married a woman who was a widow and who had been left so destitute by the death of her husband that the children had to go into the Good Shepherd (ha!) in Waterford. Straight after the wedding, the neighbour in question went to the Good Shepherd and took the children home where he raised them as his own. It was an act of true charity, and even at the time everyone around them knew that these children had been saved from a ghastly life. God knows how many others were not so lucky, and the least the State that tolerated such atrocities in contravention of its own laws can do is give them some restitution for the horrors visited upon them.
Skull I will call a bastard (ie someone who makes false allegations and causes further unnecessary distress to an old lady who already has had more than her fair share in losing three sons at the hands of gunmen, no doubt whipped up into a frenzy by the same bastard's hate preaching) a bastard, no matter how many people deem him to be "good and holy", if the evidence merits such an appellation.
Deiseach, the point is that it wasn't the present government or taxpayers who were responsible for this treatment, so why should they apologise or current tax payers make restitution. Also there are a lot of other factors prevalent at the time but long since gone, such as atonement for sins through punishment (ie nuns probably were acting in the best interests of the laundry workers, although they were misguided), also what about the parents who put them in these places in the first place, effectively washing their hands of them?
Try this little thought experiment, Tony. Does today's British government have any business apologizing for Bloody Sunday?
Given that the perpetrators are still alive,today 's British Government should go about the business of prosecuting them.
I rest my case
http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-hell-of-bethany-house-one-mans-story-238365.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-hell-of-bethany-house-one-mans-story-238365.html)
The hell of Bethany House: One man's story
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
At 31, Paul Graham found out he was adopted. Years later he found out more. Today he's an angry man, writesDanielle McGrane
By Danielle McGrane
PAUL GRAHAM is angry: "I was born in that home through no fault of my own. I was abused in that State and the State was supposed to be regulating that, and they didn't."
Graham was 31 when he learned he had been adopted, but it was years before he knew the circumstances. was able to put all the pieces of his life's puzzle together. "I used to cry when I saw kids being abused on the TV and I couldn't understand why it affected me so much. My doctor also said my leaking heart valve was a sign I'd had malnutrition as a child, and my yellow teeth were a sign I hadn't been getting the right stuff," he says.
After Paul had emigrated from his native Belfast to Sydney in Australia, he began investigating his past. He had been born to a single mother in Dublin's Bethany House.
"I was told, when I was applying for my passport to come to Australia, that I wasn't a British citizen, just a British 'subject'. It wasn't until I found out I had been born in Bethany House that this made sense," he says.
Graham, 74, is in the early stages of dementia, but recounts lucidly his childhood and the many awakenings he experienced along the way throughout his life. "My long-term memory is fine, I just can't tell you what I had for dinner last night," he says.
Paul's journey of discovery began when he joined Alcoholics Anonymous. He drank to enter a sort of fantasy world, as a form of escape. "I wasn't like other kids. I was always frightened. My adopted mother was a terrible woman. She ran a flower shop and had a car — a big deal in those days — but spent her time drinking. She used to get drunk all the time and she would beat me. At about 12 years old, she would wake me up at 1am to go out and get her whiskey. My father was bedridden, but my mother was about 30 years younger than him."
Like many others who began their life in Bethany House, Paul was sexually abused as a child after he was adopted, Before he joined the Navy, he was sexually abused by an acquaintance of his mother's. "He was a strong Protestant, went to his church every day, but that didn't stop him doing what he did to me."
The man has since died and Paul says it would be unfair to do anything about it now. "It wouldn't be fair on his family. I often thought about it throughout my life. It ruined my life. It was always there. But I just thought 'what do you do with these people?' I haven't spoken about it with my wife and kids. I think it would be hard for them, too," he says.
At the age of 14, Paul sought his escape and joined the navy. His wife, Hilary, was a cigarette packer and they began as penpals, when Paul was 17, eventually marrying when he was 21. "She was the only person who ever loved me," he says. They lived together in Belfast and had three children, but struggled. Drink had taken hold of his life.
"By the time we came out to Australia, with our three kids, I was 31."
Paul worked in a sawdust factory, but spent his free time drinking, to shut out the horrors of his childhood.
"I kept getting picked up by the police and I dried out in the hospital on a fair few occasions. But, on one hospital visit, I met a guy, who got me going to AA," he says.
Paul sobered up, got a well-paid job in a chemical factory and focused on doing work within his community. He was elected to the local council, in Mascot, a suburb of Sydney.
"I got elected as deputy mayor here — and I was the first non-Australian elected to the local council," he says.
While it seemed on the outside that things were going well for Paul, his feelings of emptiness hadn't subsided. "I just kept crying if I saw children being abused on TV. So I went to my doctor and he told me to see a psychologist. The psychologist said to me 'I'm going to tell you now, you were abused as a baby, whether sexually or physically, I don't know'." His doctor backed this up, saying his leaking heart valve was probably a sign he had malnutrition or consumption as a child."
In 1986, Paul hired a lawyer in Sydney who began delving. Through an organisation called PACT, Paul found out about his family. "My mother was 24 and employed in domestic service when she was sent down south to Bethany House to have me. It seemed, at the time, Bethany House was the kind of place where you could just pick up any baby if you wanted to adopt one," he says.
PACT said Paul's then found out, through the agency, that he had an aunt who wanted to meet him, though his birth mother was dead, and that his aunt wanted to meet him. "I travelled to the offices of PACT in Dublin, and they told me I could pick up the phone to my aunt straight away. It was great."
Paul began to find out who he was, and where he came from. "I knew I was born in a place called Bethany House, so when I was researching it on the internet, I came across Derek Leinster, the chairperson of the Bethany Survivors Group, who had also been born there, around the same time as me."
"Derek started to write to me and I started to remember some things about the place — about feeling starving — and I kept having flashbacks. I reckon I spent four years there now, because I can remember, briefly, flashbacks to the long rooms with rows of beds. Something happened in the Bethany Home, which I couldn't remember, but my doctor told me that and my psychologist told me that — it made me understand why I was the way I was. I ended up in a bloody mess — there had to be a reason for it," he says
Paul found out more about Bethany House and the fact that 219 babies born there were found buried in unmarked graves in Mount Jerome cemetery three years ago.
"I want the Government to build a memorial for those kids. We were under the care of the State," he says. "It was supposed to be regulated. This man came out from the Department of Social Services every month and wrote glowing reports, yet 219 kids died. I was born in that home, through no fault of my own. The State was supposed to be regulating that and they didn't."
The government offer of modest funding for a memorial for the victims of Bethany House, and the decision not to introduce a redress scheme for survivors, has incensed Paul. He isn't looking for compensation, but an acknowledgement, and justice for Derek, who has been championing their cause. "I thought the language was absolutely disgusting to say the word 'modest'. It really upset me," he says.
"I really think it's the Protestant/Catholic thing again. It's the Government saying 'We'll do it for the Catholics, but not for the Protestants'. We should probably start a class action against the State and the Church," he says.
"Even if they said 'yes, there were problems there, we will erect a memorial' ... it's just that word 'modest'."
Paul knows he was one of the lucky ones, having survived, but he wants recognition that he was failed by the State and acknowledgement for those who tragically lost their lives. "I thought I was part of the State of Ireland," he says.
"It's very upsetting, and upsetting for Derek, who has worked all these years on this."
© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved
219 kids that we know about dying in state care tells you all you need to know about these places.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 31, 2013, 07:26:22 PM
Given that the perpetrators are still alive,today 's British Government should go about the business of prosecuting them.
The Brits would have given Fermanagh and Tyrone back, if they could have used oaths of secrecy to cover up Bloody Sunday.
There is a big shindig for the Magdalene ladies this weekend
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/our-identities-were-taken-we-were-locked-up-our-hair-was-cut-short-our-names-were-taken-survivors-of-the-magdalene-laundry-36978216.html
Survivors from the UK, USA, Australia, and Ireland, will meet President Michael D Higgins at Áras an Uachtaráin today for a special reception, before going to Dublin's Mansion House for a gala dinner and entertainment, including a performance from Christy Moore, Philomena Begley and Dana. Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan and Lord Mayor of Dublin, Michéal MacDonnchadh, will also attend.
Dragons' Den star and ambassador for Dublin Honours Magdalenes Norah Casey said: "It's been a challenge to get them all to Ireland.
"Some didn't have passports, no email or computers, some had no landlines, or mobile phones."