Labour wants to nationalise Catholic Schools

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

...though if schools are left under the patronage of the Church as suggested by Quinn, that situation may not change.

He has laid it on the line what he wants.

He is treating it as a collective issue when it is not.

Like it or not the reaction will and should be to treat Labour as a political party as a collective hostile to Catholics and not vote for them. Problem solved -if you dont vote for 'em they dont get in.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

He has laid it on the line what he wants..

Yes, though badly, as usual. It differs from what you claim remarkably.

CDfm wrote: »

He is treating it as a collective issue when it is not...

Then why did the Church negotiate as a body with the state, arranging to pay for 50% of the abuse compensation claims?

CDfm wrote: »

Like it or (....)dont get in.

Highly unlikely, as theres nothing particularily anti-catholic there, and most people are capable of reading an article and judging it on its contents.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, though badly, as usual. It differs from what you claim remarkably.



Then why did the Church negotiate as a body with the state, arranging to pay for 50% of the abuse compensation claims?



Highly unlikely, as theres nothing particularily anti-catholic there, and most people are capable of reading an article and judging it on its contents.

Like it or not he has laid it on the line that as a political issue he wants the church schools and this is how he intends to do it.

He may have put it badly and thats how he intends to go about it.

Thats an anti-catholic education policy as it stands and his stated objective is the schools which he intends to coercively obtain using this means. Because that is the policy Catholics should not support Labour.

He has not put it badly he has been very clear and probably more honest than he intended to be.

If the Labour Party want to distance themselves from the comment not only should they retract it but give guarantees that the wont be seeking catholic schools in lieu of compensation.

The Catholic Church is not a Collective and he is talking about certain bodies & legal entities who are party to a settlement.Not the bodies whose schools he wants to acquire.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

Thats an anti-catholic education policy as it stands and his stated objective is the schools which he intends to coercively obtain using this means. Because that is the policy Catholics should not support Labour.

Oh ffs, anti-catholic education policy? You mean it is not a pro-catholic education policy - its hardly anti-catholic.

CDfm wrote: »

The Catholic Church is not a Collective and he is talking about certain bodies who are party to a settlement.

The roman catholic church is a collective.

CDfm wrote: »

A small parish school may be owned by the members of the congregation of that parish and have nothing to do with a diocesan property. So the school will be seperate and the church and church hall may be owned by the diosese.

Schools would benifit from being owned by the government in that any works put into them from the state would be state owned. Who's name is on the deeds of the parish owned schools you speak of?

CDfm wrote: »

To say they are part of one collective fund is wrong and is the mistake which was made originally and which prevented the handover of property as settlement. You cannot hand over that which you do not own.

Well, maybe they could start with those that the church own and work through the rest. They should then reward the schools that do become state owned by investing in their infrastructure and reduce funding for those that refuse.

CDfm wrote: »

The implication being from Ruari Quinn is that he wants to force and coerce the Catholic Church as a "collectively " and that is wrong.

He has every right to make demands from the catholic church after what they have done. The implications on individual schools that are not owned by the church are a matter for each school.

Quinn is just indicating that that is what he would like to see happen and would make moves towards it. Legal matters can be resolved along the way.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

Oh ffs, anti-catholic education policy? You mean it is not a pro-catholic education policy - its hardly anti-catholic.

The roman catholic church is a collective.

Schools would benifit from being owned by the government in that any works put into them from the state would be state owned. Who's name is on the deeds of the parish owned schools you speak of?

Well, maybe they could start with those that the church own and work through the rest. They should then reward the schools that do become state owned by investing in their infrastructure and reduce funding for those that refuse.

He has every right to make demands from the catholic church after what they have done. The implications on individual schools that are not owned by the church are a matter for each school.

Quinn is just indicating that that is what he would like to see happen and would make moves towards it. Legal matters can be resolved along the way.

Axer - I am for Catholic schools and for state schools and in favour of a proper Catholic school system and for the non-catholics to go elsewhere.

Thats what Im in favour of.

So I have no problem with a state system. My problem is his methodology to set up the system.He wants to cherrypick catholic schools etc as a political issue and public policy.

I disagree with the collective rational because it aint so.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

Like it or not he has laid it on the line that as a political issue he wants the church schools .

No, he has not stated that "he wants" the Church schools. He has said that the Church could remain as patrons, even if is idea was to go ahead.

CDfm wrote: »

He has not put it badly he has been very clear and probably more honest than he intended to be..

You stated that it was labour policy, but it isn't.

CDfm wrote: »

If the Labour Party want to distance themselves from the comment not only should they retract it but give guarantees that the wont be seeking catholic schools in lieu of compensation...

Its not party policy.

CDfm wrote: »

The Catholic Church is not a Collective and he is talking about certain bodies & legal entities who are party to a settlement.Not the bodies whose schools he wants to acquire.

...in which case why and how could it negotiate a deal with the state over the various clerics from different orders involved in abuse in different institutions?

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

I disagree with the collective rational because it aint so.

Roman Catholicism governed by a strict hierarchy? Madness.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

Axer - I am for Catholic schools and for state schools and in favour of a proper Catholic school system and for the non-catholics to go elsewhere.

Would you be ok with these catholic schools receiving no state funding?

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

Roman Catholicism governed by a strict hierarchy? Madness.

I dont know if you actually understand the way the Catholic Church actually works.

It is not a hierarchy the way you understand it.

CDfm

axer wrote: »

Would you be ok with these catholic schools receiving no state funding?

That is an issue for another thread and there is a thread concerning it.

This thread is about whether or not Catholics should vote for Labour given its hostile stance as demonstrated in Ruari Quinns press release.

And I think we shouldnt.I dont think his proposal is fair or just. Its just a Catholic bashing exercise.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

That is an issue for another thread and there is a thread concerning it.

This thread is about whether or not Catholics should vote for Labour given its hostile stance as demonstrated in Ruari Quinns press release.

And I think we shouldnt.I dont think his proposal is fair or just. Its just a Catholic bashing exercise.

It is part of the same topic and shows how being against what Ruari Quinn suggests and wanting government funding for catholic schools is being hypocrytical.

His intent is neither hostile nor unfair. It would be unfair to assume that the tax payer should cover the cost of the mistakes of the catholic church without having to give something back.

Who's names are normally on school deeds that are owned by the congregation? does the catholic church own many schools?

CDfm

axer wrote: »

It is part of the same topic and shows how being against what Ruari Quinn suggests and wanting government funding for catholic schools is being hypocrytical.

His intent is neither hostile nor unfair. It would be unfair to assume that the tax payer should cover the cost of the mistakes of the catholic church without having to give something back

.

Its Marxist ideology isn't it but the Labour party are not always so hostile. They are now - just you are afraid to acknowledge it.

Who's names are normally on school deeds that are owned by the congregation? does the catholic church own many schools?

I had a cousin who donated land and contributed to building with the stipulation that it got returned if the school got closed which it did. He wasn't wealthy but its how such donations are made. I am also aware of an English Peer who had land "donated" by his Grandfather returned so many such bequests and gifts have strings attached and why not. Its what the donors intended.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

.I had a cousin who donated land and contributed to building with the stipulation that it got returned if the school got closed which it did. He wasn't wealthy but its how such donations are made. I am also aware of an English Peer who had land "donated" by his Grandfather returned so many such bequests and gifts have strings attached and why not. Its what the donors intended.

The land would still be used for the good community purpose of a school. So is the land generally in the churches name or who is actually on the deeds do you know?

CDfm

axer wrote: »

The land would still be used for the good community purpose of a school. So is the land generally in the churches name or who is actually on the deeds do you know?

I don't know generally but in general it may be held subject to a trust independently of the church- so it cant be sold. Believe it or not even good catholics often dont trust.

Education isnt always the only goal -catholic education is.

This policy will actually backfire and its only right that Labour as a political party fesses up to their real beliefs - its only right if it hurds them at the polls.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

.
Its Marxist ideology isn't it .

If it was "marxist ideology" he'd hardly be letting the Church stay on as patrons as he suggested.

CDfm wrote: »

.
- just you are afraid to acknowledge it..

As the only thing in evidence in this thread is a paranoid fear of Ruari Quinn and Labour, I fail to see what it is he's supposed to acknowledge.

CDfm wrote: »

.
Education isnt always the only goal -catholic education is.
..

You've already had pointed out to you where he said that the Church could keep patronage of the schools, at least twice.

CDfm wrote: »

.
This policy ..

For the fifth time, where is this supposed "policy" listed on the Labour website?

vinchick

Should be done 100% I went to a non dom and to a Catholic school and the standard of education was of such a higher quaility in the non dom as time wasnt taken up with religion, communion and confirmation prep, mass et al. We went to Church after school and Sunday school to do religious subjects.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

If it was "marxist ideology" he'd hardly be letting the Church stay on as patrons as he suggested.

Ah cmon- its the policy and thats the ideology.

As the only thing in evidence in this thread is a paranoid fear of Ruari Quinn and Labour, I fail to see what it is he's supposed to acknowledge.

No paranoia in the least - all I'm saying that given the press
release - Catholics should not vote Labour. Thats no big deal.

You've already had pointed out to you where he said that the Church could keep patronage of the schools, at least twice.

But he still wants to take the property belonging to individual catholic communities around the country. Mmm....don't think individual communities and parishes that built their own schools because the state didn't have the money should hand them over. I fail to see why.

Why is patronage so important - if nothing significant is envisaged why does he want to steal our schools.

For the fifth time, where is this supposed "policy" listed on the Labour website?

[/QUOTE]


Its on a Press Release he made. Its what he wants. You make it sound like I'm making it up.

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

So IMHO Catholics should not Vote Labour in Local or National Elections or transfer votes to them.

So will we be canvessing for Libertas this time around CD? A la Run/Hills perhaps
What's the CC's angle on this? I haven't seen any coverage from them. Maybe then they could explain why they haven't paid their share of the redress money? Pushing €820m I believe.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

So will we be canvessing for Libertas this time around CD? A la Run/Hills perhaps
What's the CC's angle on this? I haven't seen any coverage from them. Maybe then they could explain why they haven't paid their share of the redress money? Pushing €820m I believe.

I don't see it like that Studiorat. As Ive posted a close friend eventually killed himself as a result of abuse and feel that paedo's punishments don't go far enough as in life meaning life type sentences(hanging not being a legal option)

Lots of Catholic Communities were reeling from the abuse issue and couldnt understand how it had happened or take it in.I think it doesn't take much to say that the abusers were first class SOB's and werent punished and the regulators government officials who could have stopped them and chose not too have never been named and still get their pensions etc and live in their nice houses etc and have in no way been punished.We have no way of knowing and are not being told whether there were active abusers actually in regulatory positions and who had an interest in allowing it(the abuse) continue

Its these same Catholic communities that the abusers affected so badly that Ruari Quinn wants to go after.Now I can't understand how an atheist can't understand this but Catholics were the ones abused in the community and its a completely different issue to that of institutional use of collusion and it took both individual abusers and the state- it was a joint enterprise. Its a very weird issue but we have faith structures and communities participating in a secular society and you see power structures and we are being asked to pay our own compensation.

(I have posted before how we dont know what lenghts a paedophile will go to to access children but they do go for careers and jobs that allow this- but it was the regulators job to prevent infiltration by paedophiles and protect us).

Its very like giving compensation to someone who was wrongly convicted of a crime and sueing the person for the cost of the prison stay food lodgings and whatever courses they did.Abusers needed the collusion of the state to operate the way they did.

So here we have Ruari Quinn making a proposal to go after the victim communities of this issue on this as the abused were and many are Catholics. Here we have a proposal put out there by the Labour Party to transfer ownership of schools to one of the institutions who were a part of the problem and had the power to stop the abuse and didnt.

Many of us were affected by this in some way & think that individual and former state officals who didnt act need to be punished and are being protected by the state.

Here the proposal is to come after the Catholic Communities the abusers preyed on to pay the victim compensation .

I can't explain it in but its fairly obvious how absolutely horrified I am at the proposal.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

So will we be canvessing for Libertas this time around CD? A la Run/Hills perhaps

Campaign for Libertas - moi ? I didn't know you were part of that set myself -it may give them some credibility.:)

axer

CDfm wrote: »

I don't see it like that Studiorat. As Ive posted a close friend eventually killed himself as a result of abuse and feel that paedo's punishments don't go far enough as in life meaning life type sentences(hanging not being a legal option)

and hanging being against your beliefs.

CDfm wrote: »

Its these same Catholic communities that the abusers affected so badly that Ruari Quinn wants to go after.Now I can't understand how an atheist can't understand this but Catholics were the ones abused in the community and its a completely different issue to that of institutional use of collusion and it took both individual abusers and the state- it was a joint enterprise. Its a very weird issue but we have faith structures and communities participating in a secular society and you see power structures and we are being asked to pay our own compensation.

In many cases non-pedophile authoritative figures in the church - bishops etc. did not report the crime which they were aware of. I have heard that the last pope was aware of the problem but did not act. Instead bishops moved priests to cover up and stop the abuse going public. This is the catholic church covering up the abuse.

CDfm wrote: »

(I have posted before how we dont know what lenghts a paedophile will go to to access children but they do go for careers and jobs that allow this- but it was the regulators job to prevent infiltration by paedophiles and protect us).

No that is incorrect, it was/is the churches responsibility to report abuse/crimes which they are aware of. The church in many instances decided against reporting and just moved the offenders which caused more problems. Regulators cannot detect a pedophile until they are caught abusing - covering up this abuse makes it next to impossible to catch the abuser.

CDfm wrote: »

Its very like giving compensation to someone who was wrongly convicted of a crime and sueing the person for the cost of the prison stay food lodgings and whatever courses they did.Abusers needed the collusion of the state to operate the way they did.

The collusion of the state was allowing the church to have too much control in Ireland and trusting them too much i.e. by having a situation where the church controlled the schools etc. By taking over school land the state is making sure it is in control.

CDfm wrote: »

So here we have Ruari Quinn making a proposal to go after the victim communities of this issue on this as the abused were and many are Catholics. Here we have a proposal put out there by the Labour Party to transfer ownership of schools to one of the institutions who were a part of the problem and had the power to stop the abuse and didnt.

You are assuming athiests were not part of catholic communities or that all the victims are still catholics. You are also assuming that the government taking over these schools is a bad thing when in fact it is great because they can now plan infrastructure improvements since they would be in full control.

CDfm wrote: »

Many of us were affected by this in some way & think that individual and former state officals who didnt act need to be punished and are being protected by the state.

and I presume you think the church officials who covered up the abuse to stop the state finding out should be punished also? what do you suggest their punishment to be?

CDfm wrote: »

Here the proposal is to come after the Catholic Communities the abusers preyed on to pay the victim compensation.

Here is a proposal to improve the education system. Here is a proposal to reduce the power the catholic church - this is the same power that helped them get away with abusing innocent children. Here is a proposal to get a return for the millions that the government has put in so that the catholic church has not paid back.

CDfm wrote: »

I can't explain it in but its fairly obvious how absolutely horrified I am at the proposal.

You are acting like the government is taking the land to build apartments when in fact it is more likely that land would remain for school use when owned by the government and it is also more likely that schools would be renovated since the government can then plan mass upgrades since it would own the buildings.

I am not a labour fan at all but this is a great proposal if the legal side can be sorted out. I would love to know who's names are on these school land deeds? I would also like to know how many schools the church actually own directly?

CDfm

axer wrote: »

and hanging being against your beliefs.

Who told you that?

In many cases non-pedophile authoritative figures in the church - bishops etc. did not report the crime which they were aware of. I have heard that the last pope was aware of the problem but did not act. Instead bishops moved priests to cover up and stop the abuse going public. This is the catholic church covering up the abuse.

You are hung up on a collective issue. I believe that not reporting a crime is wrong. So you accept a priest may be bound by the confessional seal.

You also had Doctors and psychiatrists who declared these people fit and did not report.

No that is incorrect, it was/is the churches responsibility to report abuse/crimes which they are aware of. The church in many instances decided against reporting and just moved the offenders which caused more problems. Regulators cannot detect a pedophile until they are caught abusing - covering up this abuse makes it next to impossible to catch the abuser.

I dispute that cases were not notified to the guards and authorities and they did not act.

The collusion of the state was allowing the church to have too much control in Ireland and trusting them too much i.e. by having a situation where the church controlled the schools etc. By taking over school land the state is making sure it is in control.

So there is a land grab then.

You are assuming athiests were not part of catholic communities or that all the victims are still catholics. You are also assuming that the government taking over these schools is a bad thing when in fact it is great because they can now plan infrastructure improvements since they would be in full control.

I think that allowing the state to take over without prosecuting those who did not do their duty is wrong and this should include civil cases or tribunals where a civil servants or public official are held to account.Thats what I want.

and I presume you think the church officials who covered up the abuse to stop the state finding out should be punished also? what do you suggest their punishment to be?

Personally - the same as the civil servants they should be held publically accountable and if they did wrong prosecuted criminally or civilly and if the law has to be changed retrospectivelly as their wrong doing and negligence is that great jail them.

Here is a proposal to improve the education system. Here is a proposal to reduce the power the catholic church - this is the same power that helped them get away with abusing innocent children. Here is a proposal to get a return for the millions that the government has put in so that the catholic church has not paid back.

that is a completely seperate issue -its up to the communities and not central government what to do with their property. Taking it under the false pretences Labour propose is a con.

You are acting like the government is taking the land to build apartments when in fact it is more likely that land would remain for school use when owned by the government and it is also more likely that schools would be renovated since the government can then plan mass upgrades since it would own the buildings.

I think this sort of issue can only be discussed once you have the mass trials transparency and accountability.

I am not a labour fan at all but this is a great proposal if the legal side can be sorted out. I would love to know who's names are on these school land deeds? I would also like to know how many schools the church actually own directly?

But Axer you are an atheist and can't understand what a faith community is. I would have thought that at the very least you would look for a fair and just conclusion to the abuse compensation issue. That you would want to see those institutions and structures and individuals that colluded brought to justice. Its not without precedent as we had the blood tribunal where public officials are held to account and we have planning tribunals.

Its horrific that the faith communities that were harmed by this should be asked to pay up compensation as these are at the end of the foodchain.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

Ah cmon- its the policy and thats the ideology.

.

It's not the policy and they're about as marxist as the Pope is presbyterian.

CDfm wrote: »

No paranoia in the least - all I'm saying that given the press
release - Catholics should not vote Labour. Thats no big deal..

Given the press release, perhaps catholics should ask why their church has reneged on its half of a deal with the Government. Not exactly the moral thing to do, is it.

CDfm wrote: »

But he still wants to take the property belonging to individual catholic communities around the country. Mmm....don't think individual communities and parishes that built their own schools because the state didn't have the money should hand them over. I fail to see why. ..

Because now the Church owes the state money over its failure to pay its end regarding child abuse. You'll find scant sympathy over that one.

CDfm wrote: »

Why is patronage so important -

If the church is left in that position, any transfer of title wouldn't secularise the schools, thus giving you something else to whinge about.

CDfm wrote: »

Its on a Press Release he made. Its what he wants. You make it sound like I'm making it up.

Its not Labour party policy.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

We have no way of knowing and are not being told whether there were active abusers actually in regulatory positions and who had an interest in allowing it(the abuse) continue
.

Oooo...so it's a conspiracy now?

CDfm wrote: »

Its these same Catholic communities that the abusers affected so badly that Ruari Quinn wants to go after.Now I can't understand how an atheist can't understand this but Catholics were the ones abused in the community and its a completely different issue to that of institutional use of collusion and it took both individual abusers and the state-
.

Was the state the one who shuffled clerical abusers about from post to post?

CDfm wrote: »

- but it was the regulators job to prevent infiltration by paedophiles and protect us).
.

No, it was the churches job to vet its staff. Secondly, after these people were discovered, the church still failed to deal with them.

CDfm wrote: »

.Abusers needed the collusion of the state to operate the way they did.

The Church was in charge of the priests, the church dealt with the accusations, the Church moved them round.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

It's not the policy and they're about as marxist as the Pope is presbyterian.

The spokesman on education makes a statement and its not policy. :rolleyes:

Given the press release, perhaps catholics should ask why their church has reneged on its half of a deal with the Government. Not exactly the moral thing to do, is it.

Then they have recource to the law to collect. Not collect from people not involved.

It seems to me that you have certain institutions and politicians trying to collect from others.

The deal and its operation stink.

Because now the Church owes the state money over its failure to pay its end regarding child abuse. You'll find scant sympathy over that one.

I think you want local communities to hand over property to abuse facilitators.

If the church is left in that position, any transfer of title wouldn't secularise the schools, thus giving you something else to whinge about.

Then why seek the property. There must be a reason?



Its not Labour party policy.[/quote]

Then why is it on the website?

Are you a member of the Labour Party?

Ciaran500

CDfm wrote: »

Then they have recource to the law to collect. Not collect from people not involved.

It seems to me that you have certain institutions and politicians trying to collect from others.

They're collecting from an organisation.

CDfm wrote: »

I think you want local communities to hand over property to abuse facilitators.

What? The property is already owned by an organisation that facilitated child abuse.

CDfm wrote: »

Then why is it on the website?

Cause one of their member proposed it. A long way from being a party policy.

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

Was the state the one who shuffled clerical abusers about from post to post? No, it was the churches job to vet its staff. Secondly, after these people were discovered, the church still failed to deal with them.

INstitutions such as the approved industrial schools and magdeline laundries were private prisons run by autonomous religious orders and were delegated powers by the State.

The same is true about other Orders such as the Christian Brothers.

The Church was in charge of the priests, the church dealt with the accusations, the Church moved them round.

If there are issues here it is not the fault of individual local schools which are seperate.

I abhor the deal -I believe there should have been criminal prosecutions and civil cases.

CDfm

Ciaran500 wrote: »

They're collecting from an organisation.

Then why not collect from the Public Service Unions too.

What? The property is already owned by an organisation that facilitated child abuse.

AS above.No Civil or Public Servant was harmed or suffered personally or financially in the making of this settlement.

Cause one of their member proposed it. A long way from being a party policy.

A very senior member and the spokesperson on education so there is a huge difference.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

Who told you that?

Moses, thou shall not kill but then again he could have just been a little looney.

CDfm wrote: »

You are hung up on a collective issue.

The catholic church is an orgnaisation and it does own schools.

CDfm wrote: »

So you accept a priest may be bound by the confessional seal.

Nope, just like a doctor etc is not bound when a crime has been committed and definitely not when child abuse is suspected.

CDfm wrote: »

You also had Doctors and psychiatrists who declared these people fit and did not report.

If there was evidence then they should have reported it. It can be hard to follow up when the priest is moved on quickly to another location and because priests and the church had too much power. The less power they have now the less chance they will abuse it and children again. Hence, I would go as far as not having them involved in schools anymore at all but taking over schools is a good first step.

CDfm wrote: »

I dispute that cases were not notified to the guards and authorities and they did not act.

Are you really claiming that there were not many instances where the accusations or suspicisions were not reported?

CDfm wrote: »

So there is a land grab then.

It suits both ways. The catholic church owe money, the state gets schools which it has funded for years.

CDfm wrote: »

I think that allowing the state to take over without prosecuting those who did not do their duty is wrong and this should include civil cases or tribunals where a civil servants or public official are held to account.Thats what I want.

I want all those who were implicit or who refused to act punished for that but it is an extremely difficult and costly process which does not guarentee the result I want.

CDfm wrote: »

Personally - the same as the civil servants they should be held publically accountable and if they did wrong prosecuted criminally or civilly and if the law has to be changed retrospectivelly as their wrong doing and negligence is that great jail them.

I agree but also the bishops and other clergy that knew what was going on but helped cover it up.

CDfm wrote: »

that is a completely seperate issue -its up to the communities and not central government what to do with their property. Taking it under the false pretences Labour propose is a con.

It depends who owns the school i.e. who's names are on the deeds. If the church owns the deeds then it should be taken off of them.

CDfm wrote: »

I think this sort of issue can only be discussed once you have the mass trials transparency and accountability.

mass trials are only for show and do not guarentee prosecution. Abuse is an extemely difficult thing to prove in a court of law. At this stage you only have witnesses and one person's word against another.

CDfm wrote: »

But Axer you are an atheist and can't understand what a faith community is.

I may be an atheist but im not stupid. Of course I understand what a faith community is - i grew up in one.

CDfm wrote: »

I would have thought that at the very least you would look for a fair and just conclusion to the abuse compensation issue. That you would want to see those institutions and structures and individuals that colluded brought to justice. Its not without precedent as we had the blood tribunal where public officials are held to account and we have planning tribunals.

I am also logical and realistic. Ideally I would like those that committed the abuse to have their genitals cut off and to spend the rest of their lives in jail but I realise that it is very hard to a) prove abuse and b) prove the a certain person did not act appropriately to stop it or recognise it, in a court of law.

CDfm wrote: »

Its horrific that the faith communities that were harmed by this should be asked to pay up compensation as these are at the end of the foodchain.

The catholic church is being punished as it will no longer be given children to brainwash (at least i hope so). How will these faith communities suffer if the schools are owned by the government? Are they prepared to fund these schools themselves? or do they want their own way i.e. funding and full ownership?

I still am waiting to hear who's names are on the deeds for these schools since I would imagine each one would be owned similiarly.

Ciaran500

CDfm wrote: »

Then why not collect from the Public Service Unions too.

AS above.No Civil or Public Servant was harmed or suffered personally or financially in the making of this settlement.

What are you on about? Do you understand what and why it is being proposed?

CDfm wrote: »

A very senior member and the spokesperson on education so there is a huge difference.

and its still not a policy.