Children's Referendum 10th November

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

There have been countless statements from those work with children and judgments from the courts on a daily basis which explain that the strong recognition of the rights and status of the family combined with a severely lacking acknowledgment of children's rights has resulted in the courts having no recourse (because the Constitution is the most supreme instrument of our law) but to let children continue to reside with their parents, despite levels of abuse and neglect.

No; what has happened is some Yes campaigners have tried to spin that HSE were unable to act in some of the high-profile cases because of the Constitution; this spin is false.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

No impediments to hearing a child's voice in court, but the fact remains that because it is discretionary and is therefore only heard in 40% of cases. Why would you not want that to be 100%?

I've no idea as to the percentage; what I do know is insisting that a 45 year old barrister stands up in Court in every case to say "M'Lud, if this youngster was a 45 year old barrister he'd agree with everything I'm about to say" does not constitute hearing a child's voice in Court.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

Adoption is an irrelevance? Hard to respect someone with an opinion like that. So what if the majority of adoptions are by family members? The point is about the marital status of the biological parents.

The point is about the irrelevance of adoption as a practice in contemporary Ireland. The significance of the overwhelming majority of such adoptions as do take place being by the natural mother and her subsequent husband is it demonstrates the practical irrelevance of this part of the amendment.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

.... it does happen that married people are incapable or unwilling to take care of their children and wish them to have a chance to be adopted and have another chance at a real and stable childhood.

The Constitution allows for the adoption of marital children where parents have failed. Providing for the volunteering of children for adoption by marital parents who haven't failed is just dumb.
In an overall context, lets remember, in which adoption is simply irrelevant as a practice.

Ciaran O Reilly

GCU Flexible Demeanour

The Yes side have been spinning falsehoods? You seem to be confusing personal opinion with fact there.

That is the correct %, as quoted by Guardian at Litems and family solicitors, including on Frontline recently. That's a really ridiculous summation of what hearing a child's view entails, I assume you're joking...

The whole point of the amendment is to allow children in long-term foster care to be adopted by those caring for them. How is that an irrelance?

Your last point ignores the fact that married parents must willingly be labelled under law as having failed their children and that failure must be proven to be most likely conintue until the child is 18 - an extremely difficult criterium.

Again your opinion of things being 'dumb', 'weird' or irrelevant is just that - an opinion. So let's leave it at that, considering that I at least am attempting to support my points with reference to other sources.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

The Yes side have been spinning falsehoods? You seem to be confusing personal opinion with fact there.

No, you are confused if you think a decision by the Supreme Court has something to do with my opinion. It is now a fact, established by the Supreme Court, that the Yes campaign has included a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

The whole point of the amendment is to allow children in long-term foster care to be adopted by those caring for them. How is that an irrelance?

Because adoption is such a rare event; non-marital children in long-term foster care don't get adopted, either. It's a completely false argument.

Ciaran O Reilly

No, you are confused if you think a decision by the Supreme Court has something to do with my opinion. It is now a fact, established by the Supreme Court, that the Yes campaign has included a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

Are you for real? So the Government = the Yes Side?! For the record, the Yes Side refers to all of those organisations publicly and explicitly calling for a Yes vote (trade unions, legal community, parents orgs, childrens orgs, adoption orgs, fostering orgs, rural community groups etc). The decision is about the Government having a biased content in their information materials. And also, a misstatement means a mistake/error not a wilful lie/spun falsehood. And also, given that this was a misstatement by the government, you simply CANNOT accuse the Yes side of lies - all such organisations listed above had nothing to do with government materials.

non-marital children in long-term foster care don't get adopted, either

Oh right, you're an adoption expert now are you? Do they never get adopted because that would be 'weird' or 'dumb'? Yeah, like, totally... like orphans, children of single mothers, children of non-married parents never get adopted... oooh right, ok.

Annasopra

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It is now a fact, established by the Supreme Court, that the Yes campaign has included a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

This is just not true. You are now making things up.

The Supreme Court decision did not comment on the merits one way or the other of the arguments in this referendum.

gizmo555

mango salsa wrote: »

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, you are confused if you think a decision by the Supreme Court has something to do with my opinion. It is now a fact, established by the Supreme Court, that the Yes campaign has included a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum

This is just not true. You are now making things up.

The Supreme Court decision did not comment on the merits one way or the other of the arguments in this referendum.

Maybe it's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who's making things up . . .

The Chief Justice said the court was satisfied there were extensive passages in the booklet and on the website that did not conform to the McKenna principles. This material the court ruled contained a misstatement, admitted by the State to be such, as to the effect of the referendum.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1108/breaking32.html

Ciaran O Reilly

gizmo555

They were referring to the claim that the Yes campaigners, not the Government, was found to have lied. Quick, there's still time to delete your post...

Annasopra

gizmo555 wrote: »

Maybe it's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who's making things up . . .

The Chief Justice said the court was satisfied there were extensive passages in the booklet and on the website that did not conform to the McKenna principles. This material the court ruled contained a misstatement, admitted by the State to be such, as to the effect of the referendum.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1108/breaking32.html

Fair enough I apologise for suggesting that GCUFD made something up. The point that Ciaran O'Reilly made still stands

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

So the Government = the Yes Side?!

The Government booklet is representative of the Yes side; it takes a massive degree of doublethink to say otherwise.

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

Oh right, you're an adoption expert now are you? Do they never get adopted because that would be 'weird' or 'dumb'? Yeah, like, totally... like orphans, children of single mothers, children of non-married parents never get adopted... oooh right, ok.

I've explained this many times.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

... adoption of any child, whether a marital or non-marital child, by non-family members is quite a rare event these days. Just taking two recent years as a for instance there were only 190 Irish Adoption Orders in 2009, 148 of which were within families (and 140 of them were by "natural mother and her husband"). There were only 189 Irish Adoption Orders in 2010, of which 154 were within families (151 were by "natural mother and her husband"). To get a sense of context, there were more than 1,000 adoptions every year from 1964 to 1984, with the exception of 1979 when there was still a whopping 988 adoptions.

Adoption belongs back in the Jurassic period, and I don't know why folk aren't aware of its near irrelevance. It's certainly very strange to see the Government using it as a ground for changing the Constitution.

gizmo555

Ciaran O Reilly wrote: »

gizmo555

They were referring to the claim that the Yes campaigners, not the Government, was found to have lied. Quick, there's still time to delete your post...

Who's "they"?

The Supreme Court has found as facts that the government, using public money in breach of the McKenna principles, campaigned for a Yes vote and in the course of its campaign made a misstatement.

The poster I quoted seems to be having trouble with these facts and accused another poster of making them up.

[EDIT - sorry Mango Salsa - my post crossed with yours]

Javan

By all reports today a government represented admitted in court that there was a mis-statement as to the effect of the proposed amendment.

Regardless of how this happened or who paid for it that admission should be repeated in public and in full before the moratorium on reporting starts tomorrow morning. Anything less is doing a huge dis-service to the people.

Ciaran O Reilly

gizmo555

'They' is mango salsa, because I understood you to be disagreeing with he/she. Apologies if I misunderstood.

Ozymandius2011

A particular concern of mine is that the amendment - while allowing the State to take children from their parents if they 'fail in their duties' - does not define those duties. I am concerned this could result in removals based on spurious grounds such as obesity, or (as Marc Coleman mentioned has happened in the UK) the political views of the parents. I am strongly opposed to giving judges too much wriggle-room to fill in the blanks by inserting aspirational and vague terminology into our Constitution.

Bravo to the Supreme Court for the McCrystal Judgement. Taxpayer's money should not be used to favour one side over the other. Predictably we are starting to see dark muttering from figures like Shatter about revisiting the McKenna judgement. I suspect something will be sneaked into whatever the Constitutional Convention comes up with. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance and we need to be watchful.

Hotblack Desiato

The removal of a child from the parental family can be challenged under the law, that will not change.

Please substantiate or withdraw the 'political views of the parents' and 'obesity' as grounds for taking children into care. But, even if true, what relevance does an occurrence in the UK have here - we are not governed by the same laws whether this referendum is passed or not. This is simply scare tactics.

The McKenna judgement has been used by RTE to give representation to fringe nutters who have no electoral or any other mandate, on a similar basis to TDs (who, all except one, support the amendment). How's that for democracy? Even Sinn Fein are on the Yes side, for once. On the other side you have a nutty coalition of Dana, John Waters, Kathy Sinnott, and the Christian Solidarity Party, none of whom have the slightest shred of credibility in relation to child protection as they are cheerleaders for the Catholic Church under all circumstances.

You can forget about worrying about the constitutional convention, it's powerless and intentionally so.

Ozymandius2011

ninja900 wrote: »

The removal of a child from the parental family can be challenged under the law, that will not change.

Please substantiate or withdraw the 'political views of the parents' and 'obesity' as grounds for taking children into care. But, even if true, what relevance does an occurrence in the UK have here - we are not governed by the same laws whether this referendum is passed or not. This is simply scare tactics.

The McKenna judgement has been used by RTE to give representation to fringe nutters who have no electoral or any other mandate, on a similar basis to TDs (who, all except one, support the amendment). How's that for democracy? Even Sinn Fein are on the Yes side, for once. On the other side you have a nutty coalition of Dana, John Waters, Kathy Sinnott, and the Christian Solidarity Party, none of whom have the slightest shred of credibility in relation to child protection as they are cheerleaders for the Catholic Church under all circumstances.

You can forget about worrying about the constitutional convention, it's powerless and intentionally so.

This "nutters" term is pejorative and insulting to in some cases great public figures like Kathy Sinnott who courageously fought the State on behalf of her handicapped child and who knows more than most that it cannot be trusted with these new powers.

Hotblack Desiato

She comes out with total rubbish like 'forced vaccination' which has no credibility whatsoever. I don't think she's any sort of hero and she's not doing Irish children any favours with her nonsense.

dsmythy

Must say from talking to people and listening to/reading the general chatter inner city Dublin areas will be close to voting no.

irishgeo

just seen a ad for the referendum on setanta sports 1 just now, is that allowed today the day of the vote

thought a media blackout was in place?

Hotblack Desiato

Not if it's a referendum commission ad encouraging you to vote.

Conmaicne Mara

seamus wrote: »

- The last states that in any court proceedings concerning the child's welfare or custody, the welfare of the child shall be given the most weight and depending on the age of the child, the childs own views will have weight in the courtroom.

The first and last items appear to be the normal practice, enshrined into the constitution.

The last is why I voted Yes yesterday. From experience I will have to disagree with you that it is normal practice to take the childs own views into account within the courtroom.

I'm not going to go into details, but I know that quite a bit depends on the individual judge, and their mood on the day. I've known judges to have to be almost bullied by barristers in the court to actually read the highlighted parts of psychological reports on children, NEVERMIND the entire report.

I've known parental access to be revoked for a period of months and the right to take a child out of the state almost given in the same ongoing case. The facts hadn't changed, the judge had.

The childs views weren't once asked for, and only for the barrister concerned took the brave move of bullying the judge into reading HIGHLIGHTED parts of a child psychologists report that child would have been subject to a terrifying experience.

Why terrifying? Because the child in question doesn't want one thing to do with the individual concerned, and has frequently been subject to psychological abuse from that individual. The child is old enough to voice their opinions, but in an Irish court that simply doesn't matter. A child is only a pawn in a game inside that room.

That's all I have to say about that :mad:

Sponge Bob

I'm afraid that the NO side pulled together ( I use the phrase advisedly) quite a lot of nutters who did rather well.

I voted Yes myself...Meena Cribbins interference leading to the 'Roscommon House of Horrors' abuse carrying on for years reminded me how reprehensively horrible a lot of these 'Family Values' 'No' people are.

As for Waters, pure attention whoring from that lad. I'll never listen to a word he has to say again.

The issue of inconsistent judging has been raised. There is a strong case for the creation of an Advocate General role ( a lawyer who is tasked with summing up and presenting all the issues as well as the for and against lawyers) in these family law cases. Otherwise the dog that barks loudest may win the day.

seamus

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I'm afraid that the NO side pulled together ( I use the phrase advisedly) quite a lot of nutters who did rather well.

In a referendum, a low turnout will always make the "No" side appear stronger because typically people will be more likely to vote if they believe that they're protecting the constitution. People need to be inspired to vote for change to the constitution, so where the outcome appears to be a foregone conclusion in favour, or it's not that major an issue (like this one), people are less likely to make the effort to cast a vote in favour.

Conmaicne Mara

seamus wrote: »

In a referendum, a low turnout will always make the "No" side appear stronger because typically people will be more likely to vote if they believe that they're protecting the constitution. People need to be inspired to vote for change to the constitution, so where the outcome appears to be a foregone conclusion in favour, or it's not that major an issue (like this one), people are less likely to make the effort to cast a vote in favour.

You know, I would be of the same line of thinking on turnout vs yes/no weighting as yourself, but I was thinking about it earlier and I wondered was it genuinely because no one could be bothered? Rather than the yes vote being a foregone conclusion. We saw in other referendums that the No vote prevailed. So how do we determine the weighting of the people who stayed at home

I wonder also if our legal system and those who enforce it may have some responsibility? A lot of pretty law abiding people who I know have a genuinely jaundiced view of the Gardai, solicitors, barristers, and judges. That there is a lot of law, and people who profit from it, but very little justice

Reason I wondered about that was your point on protecting the constitution. If people feel their rights in this country are lightweight and count for little, then perhaps there's nothing "in it" for them to protect the constitution?

Just thinking out loud based on various conversations with locals in my area.

Javan

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

The last is why I voted Yes yesterday. From experience I will have to disagree with you that it is normal practice to take the childs own views into account within the courtroom.

Unfortunately I you voted yes in order to get that right to be heard into the constitution you were deceived. What has been written in with this vote is a commitment to create legislation to give children that right in in cases of guardianship, adoption and custody. When that legislation is written it will be a legislative provision. It will not carry the weight of constitutional law, and there is no guarantee that it will be applicable outside a fairly narrow range of cases.

Had the government really wanted to give children that right they could have just transposed the UNCRC wording directly into the constitution, but for some reason they decided to water that down considerably and call it a victory.

Sponge Bob

Javan wrote: »

It will not carry the weight of constitutional law, and there is no guarantee that it will be applicable outside a fairly narrow range of cases.

The other problem is that the exercise of the right will be in camera (if granted at all by the judge) and unreported. Family law will still be highly opaque and secretive. The Advocate General model I suggested could at least allow a pseudo third party to report into the public domain in general terms or else the judge could report but not the Advocate.

Still it was worth voting yes on balance. The new system will be less worse.

Javan

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The other problem is that the exercise of the right will be in camera (if granted at all by the judge) and unreported. Family law will still be highly opaque and secretive. The Advocate General model I suggested could at least allow a pseudo third party to report into the public domain in general terms or else the judge could report but not the Advocate.

Still it was worth voting yes on balance. The new system will be less worse.

What I fear is that with this vote passed the government will now consider this box ticked and will not feel any pressure to implement real improvements.

Hotblack Desiato

Javan wrote: »

Unfortunately I you voted yes in order to get that right to be heard into the constitution you were deceived. What has been written in with this vote is a commitment to create legislation to give children that right in in cases of guardianship, adoption and custody. When that legislation is written it will be a legislative provision. It will not carry the weight of constitutional law, and there is no guarantee that it will be applicable outside a fairly narrow range of cases.

If the legislation does not give proper effect to constitutional rights, then it can be challenged in the Supreme Court and struck down.

You are creating a false distinction between legislation and the constitution.
The purpose of legislation is to give effect to the will of the people, via their elected government, in accordance with the constitution.
The purpose of the constitution is to enumerate rights, in other words things the elected government may not do to you even if the majority of voters agree.

In practice, a constitutional right needs to be legislated for if it is going to be used. It is not just or practical to expect citizens to go to the Supreme Court every time they wish to exercise their rights. We expect the government to legislate in accordance with the constitution. The President's ability to call for legislation to be challenged by the Supreme Court is a safeguard here. Once enacted, a citizen who believes their constitutional rights have been wronged by a law can challenge that law all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately have it struck down.

Had the government really wanted to give children that right they could have just transposed the UNCRC wording directly into the constitution, but for some reason they decided to water that down considerably and call it a victory.

I think we'd have had even more opposition from the usual quarters to that. We had more than enough 'UN/EU agenda' nonsense as it was.

Javan

ninja900 wrote: »

You are creating a false distinction between legislation and the constitution.
The purpose of legislation is to give effect to the will of the people, via their elected government, in accordance with the constitution.
The purpose of the constitution is to enumerate rights, in other words things the elected government may not do to you even if the majority of voters agree.

I think we'd have had even more opposition from the usual quarters to that. We had more than enough 'UN/EU agenda' nonsense as it was.

Sorry ninja, but it is not a false distinction. Have a look at these three videos of lectures in UCC, where the law department and constitutional project there took a look a the amendment in detail (There is a better page for this, but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment).

http://www.ucc.ie/law/video/TalkingAboutChildrensRightsThePromiseAndPotentialoftheChildrensReferendum2012/

The provision for children to be heard in court is being added to the adoption (amendment) bill 2012; the headlines are published online in various places. Since this right is granted by legislation and not in the constitution if and when it is challenged it will take second fiddle to any rights that are actually properly written in the constitution.
In fact that is the whole problem with the adoption law now: the adoption act of 2010 is not being fully implemented because it is seen as conflicting with the rights of the family under the constitution.

Constitutional provisions will always trump legislative provisions; and this right to be heard is being enacted in law, not in the constitution.

mustbejoking

ninja900 wrote: »

The removal of a child from the parental family can be challenged under the law, that will not change.

That will purely depend on the legislation that is written as to what powers the state has.

Now that the yes vote has passed, as I fully expected it to, this gives your lawmakers a blank canvas to write what laws they want and give themselves what power they want.

I fully expect the anti-family agenda of the UK and the US to be implemented in Ireland. I hope I am wrong, but this came out of nowhere and nothing was broken so I was highly suspicious of it.

ninja900 wrote: »

Please substantiate or withdraw the 'political views of the parents' and 'obesity' as grounds for taking children into care. But, even if true, what relevance does an occurrence in the UK have here - we are not governed by the same laws whether this referendum is passed or not.

Right now on 11th of November you are not governed by the same laws as the UK regarding child protection, but soon I expect you will be, as now the state can write what laws it pleases.

Why let a potential wolf in the door at all? I view a yes vote as an extremely poor risk/benefit assessment.

Let's hope none of us will get to be in any similar situation as these people in the future:

http://jimstonefreelance.com/mediahandout.pdf

If they do copy the UK and US version of the CPS child snatching services then they will go for the struggling single mothers first as they are the easy targets who don't have the resources to resist the state in courts (which are hard enough even with the resources).

Indian, Slovakian and later the Italians (with their respective governments) are protesting against the UK CPS (which is more than the Brits are doing). Out of those 400 women protesting, 30 had their children stolen on no grounds whatsoever.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9637487/Indians-join-Slovaks-in-protesting-against-UK-child-snatchers.html

http://victims-unite.net/2012/08/23/the-absurdity-of-social-services-on-slovak-tv-incl-protest-in-nottingham/

http://michellelanthony.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/protest-in-rome-as-italian-parents-accuse-britain-of-forced-adoption/


I mean just look at this **** going on:

http://www.stolenchildrenoftheuk.co.uk/

http://stolenkids-sads.blogspot.ie/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2128987/Children-stolen-state.html

And you want to open the door to this abominable risk?????? (Well you have now, so let's see where the chips fall.)



I know not many of us want to see evil in the world, but now in this day and age of the internet there is no excuse for doing this:

ninja900 wrote: »

The McKenna judgement has been used by RTE to give representation to fringe nutters who have no electoral or any other mandate.

I could call you a nutter for opening the door to the wolf for no good reason, but where would that get us in this debate?

I don't trust the Irish politicians not one single bit, the "yes" voters obviously do, despite all the bull**** over the years.

Now that the door is open, let us see what walks through.

Hotblack Desiato

Javan wrote: »

Sorry ninja, but it is not a false distinction. Have a look at these three videos

Fail. I've got better things to do than look at videos, I believe it's in the charter that discussions should be based upon text.

It IS in the constitution, we just put it in there, 42A.4.2. This argument is getting reminiscent of the Freeman thread. 42A.4.2 provides a right and (even better) obliges the government to legislate for that right. There are rights in the constitution which have never been legislated for, e.g. Seanad votes for non-NUI/TCD graduates, or limited abortion rights in accordance with article 40.3.3.

Javan

ninja900 wrote: »

It IS in the constitution, we just put it in there, 42A.4.2. This argument is getting reminiscent of the Freeman thread. 42A.4.2 provides a right and (even better) obliges the government to legislate for that right. There are rights in the constitution which have never been legislated for, e.g. Seanad votes for non-NUI/TCD graduates, or limited abortion rights in accordance with article 40.3.3.

Please, have a look at the videos I posted. The professors of law in UCC can explain it better than I can.

Hotblack Desiato

mustbejoking wrote: »

.

Oh great, another drive-by poster.

That will purely depend on the legislation that is written as to what powers the state has.

Aaaand... the legislation will have to be in accordance with the constitution, which sets out the powers of the state and the rights of citizens.

Now that the yes vote has passed, as I fully expected it to, this gives your lawmakers a blank canvas to write what laws they want and give themselves what power they want.

This is utter nonsense. Legislation must be in accordance with the constitution.

I fully expect the anti-family agenda of the UK and the US to be implemented in Ireland. I hope I am wrong, but this came out of nowhere and nothing was broken so I was highly suspicious of it.

That's NOT what we voted for.

Right now on 11th of November you are not governed by the same laws as the UK regarding child protection, but soon I expect you will be, as now the state can write what laws it pleases.

That is 100% false.

Why let a potential wolf in the door at all? I view a yes vote as an extremely poor risk/benefit assessment.

Let's hope none of us will get to be in any similar situation as these people in the future:

http://jimstonefreelance.com/mediahandout.pdf

If they do copy the UK and US version of the CPS child snatching services then they will go for the struggling single mothers first as they are the easy targets who don't have the resources to resist the state in courts (which are hard enough even with the resources).

'They' cannot do anything which is not in accordance with the Constitution. Your premise is false.

Indian, Slovakian and later the Italians (with their respective governments) are protesting against the UK CPS (which is more than the Brits are doing). Out of those 400 women protesting, 30 had their children stolen on no grounds whatsoever.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9637487/Indians-join-Slovaks-in-protesting-against-UK-child-snatchers.html

http://victims-unite.net/2012/08/23/the-absurdity-of-social-services-on-slovak-tv-incl-protest-in-nottingham/

http://michellelanthony.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/protest-in-rome-as-italian-parents-accuse-britain-of-forced-adoption/

What is the relevance of alleged UK wrongdoing to our jurisdiction?

I mean just look at this **** going on:

http://www.stolenchildrenoftheuk.co.uk/

http://stolenkids-sads.blogspot.ie/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2128987/Children-stolen-state.html

And you want to open the door to this abominable risk?????? (Well you have now, so let's see where the chips fall.)

We didn't. Please set out, in detail, how the amendment does what you claim.

I know not many of us want to see evil in the world, but now in this day and age of the internet there is no excuse for doing this:

This is not After Hours. Humorous pics are not an argument.

I could call you a nutter for opening the door to the wolf for no good reason, but where would that get us in this debate?

If you did so, it may well lead to an infraction or ban (not that you care, I expect)
but if you have a problem with anything I have posted, please click on the red triangle and report it.

I don't trust the Irish politicians not one single bit, the "yes" voters obviously do, despite all the bull**** over the years.

Now that the door is open, let us see what walks through.

This is brainless bollox. WE elect the politicians. If WE don't trust them then WE should elect different ones. WE have just voted to change our Constitution to give children specific rights. This should be a cause for celebration at long last. WE have decided to oblige our government to do more to protect children in future.

Hotblack Desiato

Javan wrote: »

Please, have a look at the videos I posted. The professors of law in UCC can explain it better than I can.

I never look at videos in Politics and I'm not going to start now. Video links should be banned. No worthwhile argument requires them.
'Look at this video' is thread fail as far as I'm concerned.

Javan

ninja900 wrote: »

I never look at videos in Politics and I'm not going to start now. Video links should be banned. No worthwhile argument requires them.
'Look at this video' is thread fail as far as I'm concerned.

Refusing to be educated by relevant information online is also a fail.

Sponge Bob

Javan wrote: »

Refusing to be educated by relevant information online is also a fail.

Think you are supposed to advance your own argument in here, not rely on linking someone shouting and roaring on youtube with no supporting rationale as to why we should read it. For that sort of 'discussion' there is always politics.ie