Dail Hunger Strike

Ryvita

Originally posted by seamus
In fairness, we don't know that. We didn't even know he was there until last night. You could be damn sure if anyone in Government knew he was there, they would have brought it up straight away instead of leaving him outside with no food or shelter for 3 weeks. "Get real man" as you would say.

The man was sitting there with a sign saying what he was doing and why for 3 weeks. The "government" passed him every day going into the Dail and only when the man was seriously ill and the media were putting the pressure on did they decide to talk to him.

The fact of the matter is, there was widescale abuse in State institutions which was covered up by the church and state. Paedophiles were shipped from one parish to the next. What have these victims seen done about it? Not much. Yes some of them have gotten compensation - which they totally deserve to get - but very few of the people responsible for letting this abuse happen have come out and at least apologised for it.

To have people on this board actually give out about this man hunger striking really shocks me. Do you think he was doing it for a bit of a laugh? for money? for attention?

To have people on this board actually give out about this man hunger striking really shocks me. Do you think he was doing it for a bit of a laugh? for money? for attention?

Wasn't that his intention? to receive attention, otherwise he would have calmly went through the legal process.

I don't know why he went on Hunger Strike. I've heard of his apparent reasons, and the assumptions from posters here. Frankly, I'm still suspicious, and fully expect his just looking for more money than he was offered.

The fact of the matter is, there was widescale abuse in State institutions which was covered up by the church and state. Paedophiles were shipped from one parish to the next. What have these victims seen done about it? Not much. Yes some of them have gotten compensation - which they totally deserve to get - but very few of the people responsible for letting this abuse happen have come out and at least apologised for it.

This is what really annoys me about this. The State and the Church shared responsibility for this. Except its only the State thats being targeted for compensation. If these people weren't looking for money, don't you think they'd be targeting the church also?

seamus

Originally posted by klaz
This is what really annoys me about this. The State and the Church shared responsibility for this. Except its only the State thats being targeted for compensation. If these people weren't looking for money, don't you think they'd be targeting the church also?

Agreed. The State haven't really tried to cover this up (anymore - I know they did long ago). They've wrongly stood in front of the Church and taken all the bullets, but they acknowledge that it happened. We (the State) *know* that it went on, and have made some effort to make reparations.

But the Church hasn't. The church is still sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting "LALALALALALA" so it can't hear the abused.
What's the point in trying to make the State listen? Most of the people you'll be dealing with would have been neither affected or even born when the abuse was taking place. You can tell them, but they won't really care.
This guy wanted people to listen - he should have campaigned against the Church. Banged on the doors of the priests that were present when he was abused. The state have listened to his case, what are they going to do? "Oh, sorry about that, here's some more money." If this man was looking for emotional reparations, I don't see why he was going to the State for it.

As you say Ryvita - "but very few of the people responsible for letting this abuse happen have come out and at least apologised for it"." This is a matter that the Church needs to be forced to address. The State have their hands tied. This is not the same state that allowed the abuse happen. Any politicians or civil servants who covered it up are dead or retired.

Ryvita

Originally posted by seamus
Agreed. The State haven't really tried to cover this up (anymore - I know they did long ago). They've wrongly stood in front of the Church and taken all the bullets, but they acknowledge that it happened. We (the State) *know* that it went on, and have made some effort to make reparations.

The man wanted to be able to address the people who abused him - these could be either people who worked for the church, state or both.

The man wanted to get his voice heard - as loudly as possible - and it seems to be happening for him. I just think it's so sad that he had to go to this length to have that happen. I think his point is that what has been put in place (by the state) for victims of abuse to get compensation (not just money but to get an aplogy and for people to take responsibility) is not at all satisfactory.

seamus

Originally posted by Ryvita
The man wanted to get his voice heard - as loudly as possible - and it seems to be happening for him. I just think it's so sad that he had to go to this length to have that happen. I think his point is that what has been put in place (by the state) for victims of abuse to get compensation (not just money but to get an aplogy and for people to take responsibility) is not at all satisfactory.

Agreed, but he went some crazy way about having himself heard. Everyone says "It's shocking that he had to go to these lengths" - but he didn't! At least not yet. He didn't have his voice heard, and instantly went on hunger strike. That's a big and sudden jump from mildly disappointed to suicidally desperate. There's a lot of things between, usually, furious anger and insane frustration.

Did he even try anything else?

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Has the relevant minister not been available at clinics etc?

Cork...is this a rhetorical question, or a genuine one?

If its a genuine one, then how can you possibly comclude that the critisim was a "totally unfair comment."

If its a rhetorical one, then could you supply the relevant information which shows that this guy could easily have had access to the people he wanted to have access to?

jc

Ryvita

Originally posted by seamus
Agreed, but he went some crazy way about having himself heard. Everyone says "It's shocking that he had to go to these lengths" - but he didn't! At least not yet. He didn't have his voice heard, and instantly went on hunger strike. That's a big and sudden jump from mildly disappointed to suicidally desperate. There's a lot of things between, usually, furious anger and insane frustration.

Did he even try anything else?

Did he even try anything else? Sounds like you have already made your mind up on that one?

Here's a link that gives some detail about it

Tom Sweeney

seamus

Originally posted by Ryvita
Did he even try anything else? Sounds like you have already made your mind up on that one?

Here's a link that gives some detail about it

Tom Sweeney

So it is about money!

Shocker. Why didn't he gather together a group of people who feel similarly cheated by the redress board and picket the Dail? Why did he go on a one-man suicidal crusade?

The man wanted to be able to address the people who abused him - these could be either people who worked for the church, state or both.

No. He wants to address the Body's that employed the people that abused him. The people that actually abused him, are not mentioned in his plea. (At least from what i've heard abt this.)

The man wanted to get his voice heard - as loudly as possible - and it seems to be happening for him. I just think it's so sad that he had to go to this length to have that happen. I think his point is that what has been put in place (by the state) for victims of abuse to get compensation (not just money but to get an aplogy and for people to take responsibility) is not at all satisfactory.

Go to what length? He started an unannounced Hunger Strike, sat quietly, and waited patiently for 21 days until someone noticed him?

As for compensation and an apology not being enough? What does he expect? There is nothing else that could be supplied. Best be happy that he was offered something at all. (Since i'm against the State offering compensation at all)

Ryvita

Originally posted by klaz
Go to what length? He started an unannounced Hunger Strike, sat quietly, and waited patiently for 21 days until someone noticed him?

Do you know anything about this at all? Anything?

Unannounced hunger strike? It was clear to everyone who passed him what was happening and has been in the news for weeks.

It's major news now and people are talking about it. These people were in the care of the state and were abused .... it's their responsibility. The man was continuosuly abused for three years. He is entitled to his compensation and not to have it downgraded because he goes to a redress board.

You make him out to be some kind of sponger. I don't think anyone can understand how angry you'd feel about this unless you had been through the same yourself. As I said before have a little bit of compassion for the man. He obviously felt like this was his last option.

Do you know anything about this at all? Anything?

Actually I know some of whats being going on. Strangely enough.

Unannounced hunger strike? It was clear to everyone who passed him what was happening and has been in the news for weeks.

Really? If its been in the news for weeks how come everyone is only talking about it now. He's been there for weeks. It only recently become spotlighted by the media, and a number of politicians.

It's major news now and people are talking about it. These people were in the care of the state and were abused .... it's their responsibility. The man was continuosuly abused for three years. He is entitled to his compensation and not to have it downgraded because he goes to a redress board.

Yes and he was offered compensation. He refused what was offered. It was when the compensation amount decreased that he started his Hunger Strike. Or damn close to when the amount went down.

You make him out to be some kind of sponger. I don't think anyone can understand how angry you'd feel about this unless you had been through the same yourself. As I said before have a little bit of compassion for the man. He obviously felt like this was his last option.

And yet you're advocating what he's doing so completely, when you haven't expierenced what he endured. Lovely that you can support completely and i shouldn't criticise.

Compassion? I have some for what he endured. That doesn't conflict with my opinions abt state sponsored compensation for church related crimes.

Ryvita

Originally posted by klaz
Actually I know some of whats being going on. Strangely enough.
Compassion? I have some for what he endured. That doesn't conflict with my opinions abt state sponsored compensation for church related crimes.

How do you know the church was involved? He was in a state-run industrial school.

How do you know the church was involved? He was in a state-run industrial school.

He was abused by the Patrician Brothers in 2 schools as a child, and he took a high court case against the state and they offered him compensation at the 11th hour preventing the case going to trial.

Ryvita

A state run school

I'm not saying the church is not responsible but this man was in the care of the state and was abused.


<Had to edit that - my mind is elsewhere today>

I'm not saying the church is not responsible but this man was in the care of the state and was abused.

So the Church was responsible, but from your viewpoint, they weren't really because the State was also involved? Surely, You must agree that the Church should be responsible for providing Both the Apology, and the Compensation involved?

Villain

Originally posted by Cork
This is totally unfair comment.

Has the relevant minister not been available at clinics etc?

OK sorry I headed out on the piss early last night so been off this thread till now.

Cork and Seamus, I don't think it is totally unfair, the man was outside the DAIL for 22 days, Toms son who was on strike with him stated people had been out to visit he named Pat Rabbite and one other non FF member.

I stand by my statement, that
"It took the government 21 days of hunger strking and a lot of media pressure to get this resolved"

I think its a disgrace that its only when the media start running with things that the government takes notice. It should never have got this far, a bloddy disgrace.

Originally posted by Seamus

In fairness, we don't know that. We didn't even know he was there until last night. You could be damn sure if anyone in Government knew he was there, they would have brought it up straight away instead of leaving him outside with no food or shelter for 3 weeks. "Get real man" as you would say

The Government knew he was there they just decided to ignore him until the media got involved, so as I do say "Get real man"

Ryvita

Originally posted by klaz
So the Church was responsible, but from your viewpoint, they weren't really because the State was also involved? Surely, You must agree that the Church should be responsible for providing Both the Apology, and the Compensation involved?

What I'm saying is that they are both responsible.

I'm also saying that it is up to the State to ensure that these victims cases are heard properly and that the people who did this and the people who covered it up should pay for it.

I think this mans issue is with the way victims are being handled.

Obviously you don't agree so we'll agree to differ.

Gillo

Sounds to me like a bit of compo culture. I agree with the fact that what happened to him and others is inexcuseable and should never of happened. But it looks to me like he's just out for what he can get.

As for getting an appology from the people who did whatever happened to him (sorry but nowhere has actually said what was done to him, was he beaten, buggered or what??), guessing by the age of this guy. the guilty parties are more than likely dead, so how can they appologise.

Villain

Originally posted by gillo
As for getting an appology from the people who did whatever happened to him (sorry but nowhere has actually said what was done to him, was he beaten, buggered or what??), guessing by the age of this guy. the guilty parties are more than likely dead, so how can they appologise.

He was beaten and raped.

I dont think they are all dead, and the head of the order that done this to him should also apologise IMO.

What I'm saying is that they are both responsible.

Wow. I agree.

I'm also saying that it is up to the State to ensure that these victims cases are heard properly and that the people who did this and the people who covered it up should pay for it.

Another agreement. The difference comes as to where the compensation comes from. I think the Church should supply it. You on the other hand seem to think the State should. Thats where we really disagree.

seamus

Originally posted by Ryvita
A state run school

I'm not saying the church is not responsible but this man was in the care of the state and was abused.

And the state opted to compensate him. His gripe is with that level of compensation, and he took an unnecessary step.

Villain

Originally posted by seamus
And the state opted to compensate him. His gripe is with that level of compensation, and he took an unnecessary step.

No it is not, did you hear this man speak??

Never mind what 3rd person statements you have read, did you hear his interview on the Ryan Show???