Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam
Options
Comments
-
....which doesn't mean that it was dealt with properly, that it shouldn't be looked at and dealt with now.Why would anyone have a problem with that ? It is just what reasonable people expect.
Look, people can latch onto any arbitrary thing and make whatever they want out of it. I'm simply pointing out where statements being made are wrong. Like the clichéd quote about the society being one where women were arbitrarily blamed if they became pregnant. In fact, before the 1929 Affiliation Bill was passed into law, the rather quaint situation was that a father could sue his daughter's "seducer" for damages.So you are saying that you do not agree with this investigation? Fine, you are entitled to that belief. However vast numbers of people around Ireland, and Irish people around the world, disagree. You are over-ruled. Tough. Live with it, consider it a growing-up experience.
There's lots more stuff to be bothering us than this. If you're next question is why do I then post on this topic at all, it's because I find it interesting that people attach so much importance to this matter. They really want it to be an issue of great importance, even if the objective reasons for an investigation don't seem to stack up.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Look, people can latch onto any arbitrary thing and make whatever they want out of it. I'm simply pointing out where statements being made are wrong. Like the clichéd quote about the society being one where women were arbitrarily blamed if they became pregnant. In fact, before the 1929 Affiliation Bill was passed into law, the rather quaint situation was that a father could sue his daughter's "seducer" for damages.
There's lots more stuff to be bothering us than this. If you're next question is why do I then post on this topic at all, it's because I find it interesting that people attach so much importance to this matter. They really want it to be an issue of great importance, even if the objective reasons for an investigation don't seem to stack up.
It is a issue of great importance and not because people want it so. It is a part of our history that has to be faced. It is just peculiar that you can't see that.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Look, people can latch onto any arbitrary thing and make whatever they want out of it. I'm simply pointing out where statements being made are wrong. Like the clichéd quote about the society being one where women were arbitrarily blamed if they became pregnant. In fact, before the 1929 Affiliation Bill was passed into law, the rather quaint situation was that a father could sue his daughter's "seducer" for damages.
There's lots more stuff to be bothering us than this. If you're next question is why do I then post on this topic at all, it's because I find it interesting that people attach so much importance to this matter. They really want it to be an issue of great importance, even if the objective reasons for an investigation don't seem to stack up.
Hmmmmm. Interesting, the reason you've begun to spend so much time here.0 -
Certainly, it's a question which has been crossing my mind too. All the more so since you seem uninterested in the topic itself, and only in people's reaction to it.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »[...] why do I then post on this topic at all, it's because I find it interesting that people attach so much importance to this matter [...]
In this case, if you're just here to tell people that they're over-reacting for reasons that you can't or won't understand, then I suggest you don't bother posting in this thread. If you do have something useful, entertaining or thought-provoking to add, then please do.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »But, sure, that's simply an assertion.
It would be of great importance if we'd hidden a very high infant mortality rate in the 1930s. But that simply didn't happen.
But then most things start out as an assertion and then we move on to investigation,proof, acceptance or rejection and reconciliation where possible. What could be possibly wrong with that ?
This is an era when terrible things were done to the most vulnerable in society and not just in Ireland , forced sterilisation in the USA, orphans exported from England to the Empire , for example . And we despite our holier than thou attitude down through the decades seem to have been no better.
And not just to identify the victims and perpetrators (if any) but to understand why and how could it happen so soon in a new state that started with such high ideals .
This is a conversation that needs to happen and why would you be so disruptive of such a conversation is beyond me.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »But, sure, that's simply an assertion.
It would be of great importance if we'd hidden a very high infant mortality rate in the 1930s. But that simply didn't happen.
I'm not sure that the information being readily available to those who attended Parliament is a valid reason to be 'done' with this topic.
(Is that your assertion?)
Again, your opinion (/assertion) is yours, that does not mean that anyone else needs to share it, only respect it. You seem to be belittling everyone else's reasoning for asking for more information. That is something that really doesn't sit well with me. That's why I asked if you deemed any of the requests spurious.
Is there a a form of 'statute of limitations' on asking for more information from the State and it's Tenderers that we haven't been made aware of?0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »But, sure, that's simply an assertion.
It would be of great importance if we'd hidden a very high infant mortality rate in the 1930s. But that simply didn't happen.
The CSO stats acknowledge a high mortality rate, it doesn't answer the question of why it was high. This is why an investigation is needed, it's really straight forward!0 -
What's disruptive in pointing out pertinent facts? Are you saying points that are just plain wrong should be left stand?This is a conversation that needs to happen and why would you be so disruptive of such a conversation is beyond me.
I'm sorry, but having a debate about it in the Oireachtas is about as public as you can get. Plus, bear in mind I'm just illustrating the point using the Oireachtas debates, as it's a contemporary record available online. Debates in the Oireachtas are generally a good barometer for issues that attracted general interest.Deleted User wrote: »I'm not sure that the information being readily available to those who attended Parliament is a valid reason to be 'done' with this topic.
That's quite a strange way of putting it. What I'm doing is providing material that supports a richer understanding of the topic. If that challenge people's pre-conceived notions, isn't that a positive thing?Deleted User wrote: »You seem to be belittling everyone else's reasoning for asking for more information.
Well, yes it does. It categorises the causes of death, which explains the risk factors in play. It has a succinct and pertinent commentary, that says pretty much all that needs to be said.The CSO stats acknowledge a high mortality rate, it doesn't answer the question of why it was high.
By extension, as I think I've said either here or on the AH thread, it also provides some context for why children in institutions would have been included in vaccine trials. Earlier on this thread we'd someone posting a link to a rather over-the-top article where someone was venting about there being no record of how many children were killed or disabled by administration of vaccines. This extract from the Dail Debates from 1945 gives a somewhat different picture, of how things looked when the high infant mortality rate was a real problem that needed a solutionhttp://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0097/D.0097.194505290041.html
Dáil Éireann - Volume 97 - 29 May, 1945
Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Local Government and Public Health.
Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee):
<...>With regard to the increase in the incidence of diphtheria, I should like to refer the House to a statement made in a recent report by the Medical Superintendent of Health for Cork City, who said that after 15 years' experience of immunisation, during which 23,000 children were immunised, there has not been a single death from diphtheria amongst these children. His report stresses the fact that despite the success which has thus been achieved a great many people will not avail of the services placed at their disposal for the protection of their children, until faced with an acute emergency, and even under such circumstances a large proportion will still not take the trouble to have their children safeguarded. My Department continues to urge on local bodies the need for continuance of efforts to induce parents and guardians to avail of the schemes for the free immunisation of their children against the dangers of diphtheria.<...>0 -
The vaccine trials is suspected to have been done without their parent's consent. There's an ongoing case with the pharmaceutical companies over it.
Also we're perfectly aware that mothers and children were treated like **** in these homes. The people in there back it up. So feck yes, we should investigate. I'm not engaging with you any further in this thread tbh. You're condemning calls to investigate something that should clearly be investigated .0 -
Advertisement
-
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »What's disruptive in pointing out pertinent facts? Are you saying points that are just plain wrong should be left stand?I'm sorry, but having a debate about it in the Oireachtas is about as public as you can get. Plus, bear in mind I'm just illustrating the point using the Oireachtas debates, as it's a contemporary record available online. Debates in the Oireachtas are generally a good barometer for issues that attracted general interest.That's quite a strange way of putting it. What I'm doing is providing material that supports a richer understanding of the topic. If that challenge people's pre-conceived notions, isn't that a positive thing?Well, yes it does. It categorises the causes of death, which explains the risk factors in play. It has a succinct and pertinent commentary, that says pretty much all that needs to be said.
By extension, as I think I've said either here or on the AH thread, it also provides some context for why children in institutions would have been included in vaccine trials. Earlier on this thread we'd someone posting a link to a rather over-the-top article where someone was venting about there being no record of how many children were killed or disabled by administration of vaccines. This extract from the Dail Debates from 1945 gives a somewhat different picture, of how things looked when the high infant mortality rate was a real problem that needed a solution
But you are not pointing out pertinent facts , all you are doing is comparing today's information age to the 1930's and 40's . Sure the information existed in some dail report of government department but the trick is knowing it is there and how to retrieve it.
Are you contending the 30k signatures on the petition here already knew all this and are feigning their outrage or what ?
Just because a select few knew all this at the time and managed to avoid any public outrage is part of the problem .
You argument seems to be because someone somewhere knew all this at the time then that should be enough. Is that a fair summation ?0 -
Sort of hard to get worked up about it, when it was so effective. Quite a different situation to the article that spoke as if the one-shot Diptheria vaccine administered in the 1930s was responsible for widespread death and injury, isn't it?The vaccine trials is suspected to have been done without their parent's consent.
Well, no, that's not a correct way of saying it. As I just said, the point is that Oireachtas debates tend to reflect the concerns of the time. I'm suggest that, if it gets onto an open Oireachtas agenda, it means the information was widely known, understood and commented on.But you are not pointing out pertinent facts , all you are doing is comparing today's information age to the 1930's and 40's . Sure the information existed in some dail report of government department but the trick is knowing it is there and how to retrieve it.
Of course not. I'm saying there's a difference between the statement "I don't know much about this" and the statement "We need a public inquiry on this".Are you contending the 30k signatures on the petition here already knew all this and are feigning their outrage or what ?
No, that's a hugely distorted and inaccurate way of saying it. A statement like "It was hardly a secret if they were discussing it openly in the national parliament" would much closer to the nub.You argument seems to be because someone somewhere knew all this at the time then that should be enough. Is that a fair summation ?0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Sort of hard to get worked up about it, when it was so effective. Quite a different situation to the article that spoke as if the one-shot Diptheria vaccine administered in the 1930s was responsible for widespread death and injury, isn't it?Well, no, that's not a correct way of saying it. As I just said, the point is that Oireachtas debates tend to reflect the concerns of the time. I'm suggest that, if it gets onto an open Oireachtas agenda, it means the information was widely known, understood and commented on.Of course not. I'm saying there's a difference between the statement "I don't know much about this" and the statement "We need a public inquiry on this".No, that's a hugely distorted and inaccurate way of saying it. A statement like "It was hardly a secret if they were discussing it openly in the national parliament" would much closer to the nub.
I can only assume you were born after 1980 if you think because some thing was discussed in the national parliament in the 1930's and 40's it meant it was widely known and part of the public discussion.
This at a time before rural electricification, secondary education and the heyday of a triumphant church and smug middle class that used expressions like 'the deserving and undeserving poor' and acted in that manner. You don't know the half of it and no Dail minutes will educate you either .
Anyway I am done with you- there is none so blind as those that will not see.0 -
Discussion in the national parliament would have been far more significant in the 1930s and 40s than now. And, absolutely, would reflect the views of people who had a mandate to speak.I can only assume you were born after 1980 if you think because some thing was discussed in the national parliament in the 1930's and 40's it meant it was widely known and part of the public discussion.
With respect, that's not a good way to react to facts that don't suit you.You don't know the half of it and no Dail minutes will educate you either.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Discussion in the national parliament would have been far more significant in the 1930s and 40s than now. And, absolutely, would reflect the views of people who had a mandate to speak.With respect, that's not a good way to react to facts that don't suit you.
When you produce some facts then judge me on how I react to them , but not before, with respect.0 -
GCU seems to believe that because something is discussed in the Dáil it is widely known - even in a bankrupt new State where large swathes of the country had no electricity. Presumable since Dáil discussions were so important lengthy reports were dispatched from Dublin utilising many many carrier pigeons.
The Rural Electrification scheme did not commence until 1946 and by 1965 only 80% of rural homes had electricity - 19 years after the scheme was launched. Very rural areas had to wait until the 1970s. I hope the carrier pigeons travelled faster than the ESB.
This leaves us with urban areas where Dáil reports and Statistics were contemplated over garden fences and pondered by shop girls as they poured out a jug of porter for Mrs English, stone masons and their apprentices paused while inscribing headstones to discuss the high mortality rates as evidenced by the latest statistics. Tram drivers, nurses, hurlers on the ditch all ignored the latest flick from Hollywood, didn't bother with the GAA results - no they poured over Dail reports just like people do now...oh...wait...people don't. Just like they didn't then.
GCU is right that what was happening was known. It was known to those involved. It was known to those in power. Whether is was widely known is a matter of dispute and moot either way.
Moot because even though it was known - it continued. For decades.
GCU has spectacularly missed the point that what was going on in the various institutions was known among our political representatives and they thought this was acceptable. A succession of Irish governments believed it was acceptable to imprison women for getting pregnant when unmarried. A succession of Irish governments felt it was acceptable to sell Irish children. A succession of Irish governments made no efforts to determine why Irish children were dying of malnutrition in State funded facilities.
Some of those same political representatives are still there. One leads our government. Kenny was elected in 1975 - there were still Magdalene Laundries in operation in 1975. Women were still being enslaved. Nothing was done.
GCU is also mistaken in thinking it is all in the past. It isn't. It never will be while nothing is being done.0 -
These days, at least people have the option of ignoring government output through the medium of Irish, rather than just ignoring it in English as they used to.Bannasidhe wrote: »they poured over Dail reports just like people do now...oh...wait...people don't. Just like they didn't then.0 -
I think that we should all take some time to stop and think about the base context of this situation. Imagine what we would think if this was reported out of a third world country as opposed to 20th Century Ireland. Personally, every single element of the story adds to the horror of the death of those kids.
As a nation we're punch drunk from the dribble of shock that's being reported from our recent past. This should be investigated to the fullest extent and in a manner that we would expect appropriate for any hidden mass grave of vulnerable people.
If nothing else we must stand up to ensure that there is no corner of our society that will in any way accept or collude in with anything like this ever again.
Dear GCU Flexible Demeanour - Your "nothing to see here attitude" is the type of attitude that allowed this to happen. In the interest of all that is right, I really hope that you are simply playing devil’s advocate and NOT DIRECTLY canvassing that we continue to hide wrong doing!0 -
In fairness, my point is not so much "nothing to see" as "it was seen".Glengormanjay wrote: »Dear GCU Flexible Demeanour - Your "nothing to see here attitude" is the type of attitude that allowed this to happen. In the interest of all that is right, I really hope that you are simply playing devil’s advocate and NOT DIRECTLY canvassing that we continue to hide wrong doing!
Bannasidhe, I notice, is lurching from her posting of an over-the-top article by a Cork historian decrying the introduction of the diphtheria vaccine into similar hyperbole, where she pretends that I'm suggesting people avidly read Oireachtas proceedings.
I suspect, if she's really an historian, she'll understand that Oireachtas members didn't arise from Mars. I suspect she understands perfectly what I mean when I say that the Oireachtas record is a reflection of public debates at the time. I'd expect she also can appreciate that if I can easily find the material linked already from whatever sources happen to be online, we'd find a deeper appreciation of the issues at stake elsewhere.
The idea that this whole issue was hidden until someone got the publically available death certs is bunk.
Now, that's not to draw attention away from other things. It's a fact this State prohibited divorce in the early 1920s. It's a fact it prohibited contraception. It's a fact that we still have a Constitutional prohibition on abortion, even in the case of non-viable pregnancies. The point is to have a clear-eyed and measured analysis, and not just replace one set of overwrought rantings with another.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »In fairness, my point is not so much "nothing to see" as "it was seen".
Okay.
So what?GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »The idea that this whole issue was hidden until someone got the publically available death certs is bunk.
Not one person has said this bar you, it's also not what people are having an issue with.
As I've already pointed out to you last night.Deleted User wrote: »@GCU -
Nobody else at all has used the term hidden except for you. I'm struggling to understand why you keep changing the issues you appear to have with this topic (and its development) as a whole.
..
That the information was available publicly in 1923 (if one was to take a train to Dublin, organise a hotel and check the National Records etc) doesn't really change anything. The internet now means that information can spread near instantaneously, this was not the case 90 years ago.0 -
Advertisement
-
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »In fairness, my point is not so much "nothing to see" as "it was seen".
Bannasidhe, I notice, is lurching from her posting of an over-the-top article by a Cork historian decrying the introduction of the diphtheria vaccine into similar hyperbole, where she pretends that I'm suggesting people avidly read Oireachtas proceedings.
I suspect, if she's really an historian, she'll understand that Oireachtas members didn't arise from Mars. I suspect she understands perfectly what I mean when I say that the Oireachtas record is a reflection of public debates at the time. I'd expect she also can appreciate that if I can easily find the material linked already from whatever sources happen to be online, we'd find a deeper appreciation of the issues at stake elsewhere.
The idea that this whole issue was hidden until someone got the publically available death certs is bunk.
Now, that's not to draw attention away from other things. It's a fact this State prohibited divorce in the early 1920s. It's a fact it prohibited contraception. It's a fact that we still have a Constitutional prohibition on abortion, even in the case of non-viable pregnancies. The point is to have a clear-eyed and measured analysis, and not just replace one set of overwrought rantings with another.
''Hidden in plain sight''0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »In fairness, my point is not so much "nothing to see" as "it was seen".
Bannasidhe, I notice, is lurching from her posting of an over-the-top article by a Cork historian decrying the introduction of the diphtheria vaccine into similar hyperbole, where she pretends that I'm suggesting people avidly read Oireachtas proceedings.
I suspect, if she's really an historian, she'll understand that Oireachtas members didn't arise from Mars. I suspect she understands perfectly what I mean when I say that the Oireachtas record is a reflection of public debates at the time. I'd expect she also can appreciate that if I can easily find the material linked already from whatever sources happen to be online, we'd find a deeper appreciation of the issues at stake elsewhere.
The idea that this whole issue was hidden until someone got the publically available death certs is bunk.
Now, that's not to draw attention away from other things. It's a fact this State prohibited divorce in the early 1920s. It's a fact it prohibited contraception. It's a fact that we still have a Constitutional prohibition on abortion, even in the case of non-viable pregnancies. The point is to have a clear-eyed and measured analysis, and not just replace one set of overwrought rantings with another.
Oh dear - now we have to revert to commenting on other poster's personal/professional lives by way of showing us fools how insignificant this whole brouhaha is.
Talk about yer overwrought rantings....0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »In fairness, my point is not so much "nothing to see" as "it was seen".
I'd expect she also can appreciate that if I can easily find the material linked already from whatever sources happen to be online, we'd find a deeper appreciation of the issues at stake elsewhere.
.
Oh man - I was wrong, you do want to sweep this under the carpet.
GCU Flexible Demeanour, I'm sorry to tell you but the rest of us are brave enough to live in a World of truth. Reading back over your comments I see that you really struggle to make any personal statement on the issue at hand. But you do continue to dull and blanket the situation. What is most destructive is sentiment like yours exhausts the will of all those with "GOOD" intent. You’re not a closet politician perhaps.
Stop - if there is nothing to hide then there is nothing to hide! Get out of the way of the dignity of those who were found in that concrete tank and let our sense of being Irish (most especially that of our future generations) be positively corrected.0 -
What I've already said.Deleted User wrote: »Okay.
So what?
Yes, they have and newspaper headlines have included words like "hidden" and "secret".Deleted User wrote: »Not one person has said this bar you
And, as I said a few posts back, you'd have to wonder when ''Hidden in plain sight'' is actually "not hidden at all".Flippyfloppy wrote: »''Hidden in plain sight''
Apologies, I was just experimenting with your "talk about the poster in the third person without actually quoting their post" technique to see how it works. It's part of my commitment to seeing the other person's point of view.Bannasidhe wrote: »Oh dear - now we have to revert to commenting on other poster's personal/professional lives by way of showing us fools how insignificant this whole brouhaha is.
Talk about yer overwrought rantings....
That said, you are deliberately misunderstanding the significance of the Dail debates.
No, my point is it's not under the carpet. But if we're reduced to pretending that childhood vaccinations are a thoroughly bad thing, then perhaps some folk might need to take a second look at how they're approaching the issue.Glengormanjay wrote: »Oh man - I was wrong, you do want to sweep this under the carpet.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »But, sure, that's simply an assertion.
It would be of great importance if we'd hidden a very high infant mortality rate in the 1930s. But that simply didn't happen.
Hiding something in plain sight is as easy as not teaching it (or teaching it WRONG) in the Leaving Certificate (you know....the font of all knowledge in Ireland).Bannasidhe wrote: »GCU seems to believe that because something is discussed in the Dáil it is widely known - even in a bankrupt new State where large swathes of the country had no electricity. Presumable since Dáil discussions were so important lengthy reports were dispatched from Dublin utilising many many carrier pigeons.
So interesting that we still don't know our own history. I've been aware of you saying for YEARS now that once in 3rd level, all our 2nd level history is debunked, but I didn't realise the extent of it. Stuck into Diarmaid Ferritter's "Lovers of Liberty?" at the moment, verifying all I ever suspected about Irish politics from the get go, and seemingly from sometime before hand. Idealists with one cause, and that wasn't exactly championing the underdog, was it?GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Bannasidhe, I notice
I can nearly guarantee that nobody else "notices" that Bann lurches at all, especially not into hyperbole. She is the most interesting, informative and factual poster on A&A IMO.I suspect, if she's really an historian
Totally unnecessary comment. Not everyone infers hidden agendas like you do GCU. In fact, I can't think of anyone else who does. Try to imagine this is a conversation among people you know and like. That's what I usually do, till I have a severe difference of opinion and bite them (but I do that in real life too). Not always strictly necessary.0 -
That could well be an element of the problem, although I think the more fundamental problem is our teaching methods don't help people develop the capacity to think. If they'd that, possession of individual facts would be less important as people would have the ability to respond to facts as they were encouraged.Hiding something in plain sight is as easy as not teaching it (or teaching it WRONG) in the Leaving Certificate (you know....the font of all knowledge in Ireland).
My next comment probably breaks my warning from the Moderator to ensure my posts are interesting, entertaining and informative (although I don't think I have to be all three at once). But that's actually my issue here. We're approaching the issue in a tribal manner, where the nuns are one tribe and there's incomprehension of why anyone would take an approach that wasn't just raking up whatever dirt they could find on them.
There's a structural problem, as I see it. This issue illustrates it, but I don't see it as offering a vehicle to improve anything. It's just tilting at windmills, as all this agenda really represents is the irrelevance of the once-mighty Church.0 -
Just to address the vaccines trial. They were used as guinea pigs to trial a vaccine. There was an already existing vaccine that worked perfectly well but it is assumed that the Bons volunteered the children for experimental trials and received payment for them. So yeah, there's clearly ethical questions over it. But condescending is of much more interest to you.0
-
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »There's a structural problem, as I see it. This issue illustrates it, but I don't see it as offering a vehicle to improve anything. It's just tilting at windmills, as all this agenda really represents is the irrelevance of the once-mighty Church.
Gosh yes. You're so right, I should give up educating myself on the FACTUAL history of our Republic immediately. I'm tilting at windmills so hard, I'm getting vertigo. Understanding our past is clearly unnecessary and totally irrelevant to our future, so I'm with you there GCU. BURN ALL THE BOOKS!!!
But seriously, is there no way at all that you can see this issue as actually tipping the balance in favour of the truth coming out about our recent history? Cynicism is one of the things that stops us being open to possibility y'know.0 -
Personally I think we should be fully aware of the extent of what happened in this country's recent past. Curse my unreasonable expectation!0
-
Advertisement
-
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »What I've already said.
Okay, from this - and please correct my logic as I may have this wrong.
Is this your stance?
" I GCU Flexible Demeanour believe that because the aggregate information regarding mortality rates at Mother and Child Homes was discussed in the Dáil at the time, there should be no outrage at the information revealed through Corless' work. "GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Yes, they have and newspaper headlines have included words like "hidden"
Regarding the Septic Tank, lack of burial site information etc on here, absolutely. I doubt that the graves' locations were read out in the Dáil, but as always am happy to be corrected.
Newspaper headlines are exceptionally 'flaky' things to try to defend/push as an agenda. Just as we discussed how Corless cannot be held responsible for the public debate that has stemmed from her work, I don't think you can fairly appropriate this "hidden" / "not hidden" issue as the crux of your argument, implying that this is what 'everyone' has taken issue with given a couple of headlines.
The issue is not that people "didn't react" when this information was "made available". If you believe that it is, you are simply wrong. Nobody here is bothered debating that with you.
Here are the problems that have come to light as Corless researched her locality.
796 children who were under the care of the State through her Tenderers have no burial records.
There are first hand reports of a septic tank on the site of that same Mother & Child Home in Tuam that has bones in it.
These problems have encouraged people to delve deeper.
Where they have found anomalous mortality rates at the home.
Within those mortality rates are a numerous reasons for death which are concerning.
These, these are issues. Not the availability of information at a point in time.0
Advertisement